User talk:Jayron32

This is Jayron32's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives

/Archive for Sept-Dec 2006
/Archive2 for Jan-Apr 2007
/Archive3 for May-Aug 2007
/Archive4 for Sept-Dec 2007
/Archive5 for Jan-Feb 2008
/Archive6 for Mar-Apr 2008
/Archive7 for May-July 2008
/Archive8 for Aug-Nov 2008
/Archive9 for Nov 2008-Jan 2009
/Archive 10 for Feb-Apr 2009
/Archive11 for May-Jul 2009
/Archive12 for Aug 2009-Sept 2009
/Archive13 for October 2009-January 17, 2010
/Archive14 for January 18, 2010 - April 7, 2010
/Archive15 for April 8, 2010-June 19, 2010
/Archive16 for June 20, 2010-Sept 30, 2010

User:ChaosMaster16

I just thought I'd let you know that ChaosMaster16 has restored the content on his talk page that you deleted yesterday.[1] I warned him,[2] and deleted it again,[3] but he's restored it yet again.[4] Clearly, he doesn't want to play nicely any more. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My block of Anonywiki

I saw your comment here and am inclined to agree with you. I commented further at my talk. Best wishes, and thanks for the feedback. --John (talk) 05:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring Honor rally

Hello. This message is to let you know that you didn't fully-protect the Restoring Honor rally, rather semi-protect. Letting you know so you can correct the problem. Thanks. Akerans (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of American football

I just made the in-line citations to for all of my recent additions. Thanks. --Pennsylvania Penguin (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Edit refs

Hey Jayron. I just created a new help desk template, {{Edit refs}} since I see the question it addresses come up fairly often. I wanted to let you know that I grabbed your text from the help desk from earlier today as a starting point in creating it, and so I mentioned you in the edit summary of the template's creation both because I like to give credit where credit is due, and because it was necessary for compliance with the GFDL. Of course, if it bothers you to have been mentioned in this way, I can delete and recreate. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good man. Nice job on the new template, and feel free to steal anything I write. If I cared about that, I wouldn't be working on Wikipedia, now would I? Thanks for the credit, I am glad that something I said made sense enough to be stolen for this purpose. --Jayron32 01:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it and yes, it had some good language:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request at User talk:Lihenri

I am much inclined to unblock this user, but since you asked a question on the user's talk page, I thought it better to consult you first. The evidence of sockpuppetry is not strong, because if the statement inserted into the article is true then it is perfectly plausible that more than one editor would come up with it, in somewhat different wording, which is what happened. Since a version of the statement has now remained in the article unchallenged (as far as I can see) for two years, I suspect that the statement is true. I agree that accepting the block for well over two years and then requesting an unblock is surprising, but not in itself an offense, and there are many user accounts which are used as sporadically as this. (We tend not to notice them, because obviously we rarely have reason to look at an an account that is not being used, but they do exist.) It also seems to me that, even if the user was using more than one account, they did not do anything seriously abusive with them, and it was a long time ago. Normally in these circumstances I would consult the blocking administrator before making a decision, but in this case the blocking admin is not currently active on Wikipedia. My opinion is that considering that, as I have said, the evidence of sockpuppetry is weak, and that no harm was done by it anyway, we should unblock. Any comment on that? JamesBWatson (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free. Even if there was some shenanigans, WP:SO has more than been met, as far as I can tell. I was considering unblocking him just on time served. --Jayron32 02:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and unblocked per your statements above. Cheers.--Chaser (talk) 03:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

inconsistencies in Wikipedia

I know very little about Grundle and am not his representative or lawyer.

Wikipedia has a lot of inconsistencies. On one hand you mention the standard offer. Yet, Fram seems to dispute this.

There is a consistency problem in Wikipedia. Some articles get deleted (or kept) yet the knee jerk reaction is "other crap exists", which is sometimes used as an excuse for inconsistency.

If you have any ideas for consistency Wikipedia-wide and not just one issue, let me know! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consistency problem. Grundle was a consistent disruption, and he is now consistently banned. His ban is in his own hands, as it always has been. He could choose (and indeed, most importantly, could have chosen) to behave in a less disruptive manner. That he did not, and does not, only deepens the community mistrust of him, and lessens the chance of his being able to return in good standing. As far as consistency Wikipedia-wide, I don't fret myself with such things. Every issue is to be dealt with on its own merits because no two situations are identical. My suggestion is to stop looking for consistency, because all human-created institutions must be inconsistent in order to be practical and responsive. This is not an issue with Wikipedia any more than any other human endeavour. Instead of trying to find perfect sameness of response, which would require perfect sameness of situation, which does not exit, instead try to look for appropriateness of response, regardless of what responses have happened to any other situation. In other words, try to do the right thing in each situation, not the consistent thing. --Jayron32 15:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I like it when I see the right thing and the consistent thing. AFDs are sometimes an example. There are easy AFD decisions, those are not the question. But there are some that seem inconsistent and wrong. I feel bad for those who slaved to write something, only to see it wiped out. Yet some crap exists. Yet if one were to fight, one could spend 24 hours a day fighting. This is not me.

If truly the right thing was done, it would be consistent. One example is Amanda Knox. I can see why some people think she is a delete...I am not stupid. Yet other killers who are less famous are kept. Makes no sense. Other crap exists should be changed to "other crap may exist but crap should be compared to determine the worst crap and that deleted." Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]