Jump to content

User talk:Jayron32

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 94.228.193.11 (talk) at 19:04, 22 September 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Jerk

ITN

In the Scripps ITN you state "One can merely write the same sentence after every single nomination". Please substantiate that with diffs or redact it. That's "the same sentence" and "every single nomination". I need the evidence so I can defend it please. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is, stating "this is a niche topic" is a meaningless criticism. Anyone can write that after every nomination, but writing it doesn't help anyone determine consensus because that doesn't provide any evidence that whoever closes the nomination to act on it can use in making a decision. All topics are niche topics, if you mean "not interesting to all people". Nothing is interesting to all people, but that isn't a criteria for ITN. If you want to critique a nomination, and leave your critique above reproach, it would be best to find evidence that the topic is not in the news by showing how news sources ignore it. --Jayron32 22:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So no, there's no evidence that I write "the same sentence after every single nomination" then? Please remove this. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've never said that you did. --Jayron32 12:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cunning. Very cunning. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? --Jayron32 16:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, will be watching out for you from now on, very clever of you! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I don't understand whatever it is you are trying to say. I speak plainly, and I only really understand when others speak plainly. If you want be to understand what you are trying to say, please just come out and say it. I don't play little "nudge nudge wink wink" games, especially where apparently I'm not privy to whatever inside information you believe me to be in on. --Jayron32 17:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, your tag team approach has been well noted, it's fine. Let's move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I'm fine with being perplexed by your statements in this conversation if you are. I understand you less and less with each comment you make, but if you are OK with me not understanding you at all, I guess I really don't need to know. --Jayron32 17:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See you and your colleagues around. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, don't understand. Need clear explanations as to what nefarious things you are accusing me of. Also, not sure who my colleagues are. You need to tell me what you are accusing me of because I don't have the first clue. --Jayron32 17:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing at all, of course. Just as you weren't accusing me of " writ[ing] the same sentence after every single nomination". Got your number! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't. What I said was that a person could write the same sentence after every nomination, that is the use of the phrase "niche topic" was not, itself, a valid criticism. Not that you made that criticism every time, but rather that THIS usage of "niche topic" was not itself backed up with any evidence. Merely asserting something is a niche topic doesn't make it so unless you can show evidence that reliable sources treat it as such. I never said you always make this assertion. Rather, what I said was that a person could make such an assertion all the time, because no topic interests all people, and that every single nomination could be considered by some people in their field of interest a niche topic. That's what my statement meant. At no point did I state that you thought that every topic was a niche topic, what I said was that the statement that "this is a niche topic" without evidence was the sort of thing that applied to all nominations and as such, doesn't help draw distinctions. Does that help clarify my statements? What I was asking for was for a more useful rationale for your opposition; that is to help the closing admin make a decision based on your opposition, it would be helpful if more than "I'm not interested in this topic"; a better opposition would be "The news media is not interested in this topic, and here's how you know (insert sources here)" It's fine to oppose nominations, I certainly don't expect anyone to agree with my stance on anything, but it would be a shame if your voice were not heard because you've made a poor rationale to back up your vote. I don't argue with people who disagree with me. I argue with unsound rationales. We would not have gone down this path had your rationale been different here, in this usage. Also, I have literally no clue whatsoever what you have given as a rationale or as a vote on any other nomination. Honestly, don't keep track of what you do. So, I wasn't accusing you of doing anything on other nominations because I really don't know. Is there something that I need to explain further, because I really don't wish to be misunderstood further. I'd also like to understand you more, so these unfortunate miscommunications don't keep going forward. If you could explain what you meant above, it would really help me as well. --Jayron32 18:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, well next time you and Thaddeus respond to my post within moments together (and yet neither of you pair up against any of the other oppose posts who offered even less of a rationale than I appear to have done), think twice and understand how your "joint" behaviour is concerning and could be considered bullying. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I have no idea who Thaddeus is, I've never interacted with them before. You're tilting at windmills my friend. I've literally have no idea who they are, and have never worked with them before. I recognize the name because he's commented at ITN before, as I have, but I really have no idea who he is. --Jayron32 18:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, just checking how you both edit together is enough evidence to suggest otherwise. I'm not pursuing it, but you both appear like magic every time I make a comment, yet ignore most other comments you (both) disagree with. Simple as that. Probably just a series of coincidences. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In what ways do we both edit together? Seriously, if you're going to level such accusations, you could, you know, make a case. I seriously have never met, interacted directly, nor had any conversation with them before, on or off wiki, in my life. This conversation here with you is orders of magnitude longer in terms of interaction than I have ever had with him or her. --Jayron32 18:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, as I said, probably a coincidence. But it doesn't stop the bullying, you both chasing my comments down but leaving three or four other editors whose rationales (if even present) were expressed equally as poorly as you both found mine. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, I made one comment on one rationale you made at one nomination, and that amounts to bullying? Look, I'm having a hard time following you through all the turns this conversation is making. If I've wronged you in some way before this comment, I apologize, but I apologize more for not knowing it. I have no recollection of ever commenting on something you've said before, but you clearly have. If you could point out where we've had a bad interaction, or where I've done something wrong before, please help me out so I can properly apologize for it. I have no desire to be in a conflict here, and if I have done anything before this which has made you feel that I have been consistently singling you out, that is clearly wrong on my part, and I want to make that right. Please show me where I, in the past, have treated you unfairly because I want to properly make amends. --Jayron32 18:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need, just be aware that when you and your colleagues chase down other people's opinions in quick succession while ignoring many other similar opinions, it could be misconstrued on more than one level. Just some friendly advice I suppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For your polite, positive and helpful recent reply at the reference desk. When I see a post that's both written in all caps, and appears solely to be looking to obtain money, I often assume it doesn't deserve a helpful reply. You went one step further, which is admirable. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words! --Jayron32 23:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like credit for not immediately hatting it as spam like i wanted to...but didn't.... μηδείς (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Baby steps Medeis. The path to recovery is made with baby steps. --Jayron32 18:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

scripps

could you edit that post on the countries to separate line item bullet points? it is hard to read or se the impact as is. thanks. μηδείς (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

or could I? μηδείς (talk) 01:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI. WP:RM closes. WP:NAC and admin review of NAC closes

Hi Jayron,

I've responded to your reply at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Non-admin_closures_of_controversial_RM_discussions_-_appropriate.3F by continuing at Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#Continued. Your reply was unexpected, and I am interested in further replies.

The conversation did take an unexpected direction. I have always considered a WP:NAC to be reviewable by any admin, but my unstated point was that in the absence of any admin criticising the NAC, it was not a matter for WP:ANI. Questioning whether an admin may review a NAC of an RM was unexpected and unprepared, but I am fairly sure that it is desirable to have as an option. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are not forbidden from reviewing such an action, but they are not given special privilege because they are an admin. Admins are accorded the same rights as all editors, except that they can also block, protect, and delete. Reviewing the results of a closure does not require a person to block, protect, or delete anything, and thus is an action open to any other person at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 03:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

European Union

Love your work, however you need to make changes to the Eu page. Croatia just joined the Eu yesterday, so, the changes are yet to be made. When I tried to do so, it seemed I could not, coz u protected the page. So could you plz make the necessary changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by M4pires (talk • contribs) 06:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as though someone else has already done this. Thanks for the heads up, but with high-profile items like this, there's usually someone who notices. Often many thousands of people. --Jayron32 16:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ITN Valeant Pharmaceuticals

Hi Jayron32,

Since you seem to be around, can you take a look at Valeant Pharmaceuticals and either post or close? It's been sitting marked ready for a while --IP98 (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I have taken some time to read through the whole thing and made a call based on the comments therin. --Jayron32 18:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:
  • Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with, the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available".
  • Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497).
  • Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along.

A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk)

This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Option 7

Hi -- I think you might have misread option 7 of the RFC. It is proposing to ban any question that has anything whatsoever to do with medicine or the law, not just advice. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Campement

And here I thought the expression was "baisse mon cul". Bielle (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lower my ass? (see baiser and baisser :-). ---Sluzzelin talk 02:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My french is sketchy New England/Quebecois French. It's bise in my family. Confirmed here. Biser is a North American variant of the Metropolitan Baisser. Pretty much analogous to the arse/ass thing in English. --Jayron32 02:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Sluzzelin, how you made me laugh! Sorry about that. If I am going to try to correct someone, I guess I need to be sure I have it right myself, first. I've never seen it written "bise" before, Jayron32, though I recognize the pronunciation from my friends who speak Joual. Bielle (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, my family is basically working-class New England French. I'm about 4 generations or so removed from Quebec even. I'm not too up on the lingo, I've forgotten a lot of it, but what little I did learn from my grandmother and neighbors and stuff bounces around in my head a bit. Biser may very well be a bad transliteration, but it is certainly pronounced that way, and I tend to revert to that when swearing, as it's how the french speakers around me swore when growing up. Not that there were that many of them, by my generation there aren't many cohesive French-speaking communities left in New England, and my French is more from High School and college courses (i.e. proper Academy French) than what I learned growing up, but a few of the more base things you don't learn in class still stick around. --Jayron32 03:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Deacon Jones, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages George Allen and Bruce Allen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of the oldest hospitals in the United States

Hi Jayron, can you help in this list. Solomon7968 (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have no knowledge or resources in that area... --Jayron32 19:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plainview, New York

Jayron, I am trying to get some assistance with the Plainview, New York article. An unregistered editor, User talk:108.6.204.178, has been updating the article with unsubstantiated claims. I've tried deleting, modifying, his text, etc. I've also tried to engage him/her their talk page as well as the article's talk page, with no success. I'd like to get the page restricted to registered users. Can you let me know how to proceed? ButtonwoodTree (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. In the future, you can make this request at WP:RFPP and any admin can handle it. --Jayron32 13:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Got it on WP:RFPP. Thanks for protecting, however, I now feel stupid. I didn't want to perpetuate an edit war, so I didn't update the text before I contacted you. In other words, the page is locked now, but with the offending text. Actually, I thought I was asking for it be restricted to registered users. Sorry I'm making this a challenge. ButtonwoodTree (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When protecting articles in disputes, admins do not make decisions as to who is "correct", we protect the article wherever it is when we get to it. Get some outside commentary from uninvolved editors to establish a consensus version, and we can unprotect this after a consensus is clear. Try some of the suggestions at WP:DR. --Jayron32 19:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Jayron32. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors.
Message added 19:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

then go work on an article then

Brilliant remark, you really cut me off at the knees there. Did you actually read my post, below the header? It attempted to drum up business for a less sexy ANI attempt to protect the integrity of Wikipedia articles by topic-banning a long-running self-promoting sock/meat-puppet. How was that WP:POINTY exactly? Bishonen | talk 21:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Then start a thread on explicitly banning such person. That would be useful. It is much better to speak plainly and explain exactly what you want done, and burying a needed discussion about banning a person that needs to be banned inside of some snide satire is unlikely to attract the attention you want it to. It is good to ban self-promoting sockpuppets, which is why you should start a thread titled "Banning a self-promoting sockpuppet" and do just that. Starting yet another "There's too much drama at Wikipedia and ANI is destructive" thread, but doing so in a sarcastic way where you satirically state the opposite thing and THEN burying inside of all of that an idea that we need to ban a self-promoting sockpuppet does not seem a terribly efficient way to go about it. So my suggestion is to start a new thread, at the bottom of ANI, where you make the case in a clear, unpatronizing tone and make the case that way. --Jayron32 21:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a thread on explicitly banning that person, clearly labelled. It's on ANI, like I said. I started it. It needed to get more interest, for it to be possible to ban, or for that matter clear, that person. I don't understand why you think another thread just like it would be more useful. If you merely want to express that you find me irritating (snide, patronizing, etc), fine. (It was reasonably effective. The ANI thread now has six comments instead of three.) Bishonen | talk 21:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I find you none of the above. I was recommending a course of action likely to produce results. --Jayron32 03:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help Desk SNAFU

Sorry about this, edit conflict issues, again.--ukexpat (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No big whoop. --Jayron32 17:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Stu Klitenic for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether if Stu Klitenic should be deleted or not. The conversation will be held at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stu Klitenic until a consensus is held and everyone is welcome to join the conversation. However, do not remove the AfD message on the top of the page. Ashbeckjonathan 03:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. --Jayron32 03:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-a-thon Invitation (in person and remote participants welcome)

CHF small logo
 Please join the Chemical Heritage Foundation Edit-a-Thon, June 20, 2013.
Build content relating to women in science, chemistry and the history of science.
Use the hashtag #GlamCHF and write your favorite scientist or chemist into Wikipedian history!

Given your interest in Chemistry, I hope you'll check out the Edit-a-thon. We're inviting on-line and in-person participants. Thanks for all your hard work in this area! Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

oops

[1]. Misclick whilst trying to close it myself. Apologies, and thanks for ending the thread. Pedro :  Chat  22:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No harm, no foul. --Jayron32 22:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are raised Roman Catholic...

Since you are raised Roman Catholic, I am just wondering if you know about Old Catholics and Traditionalist Catholics. First of all, did you cancel your membership with the Roman Catholic Church by writing a letter to your bishop or the pope? Did they ask you why you were departing or wonder about your "unsaved soul" due to exiting the church? If you had become affiliated with a non-Christian religion or become completely nonreligious, then, in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church, would you be considered "unsaved"? Do you think Old Catholics and Traditionalist Catholics are genuine Catholics or Protestants? So-called "Protestants" typically refer to the splinter groups of the Protestant Reformation; however, it seems that later splinter groups are just called Catholics? Sneazy (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about either Old Catholics or Traditionalist Catholics, we attended a fairly mainstream Catholic Church. There was no "canceling my membership". I just stopped going at about 18 years old. They don't come find you and break your kneecaps if you don't file paperwork or anything. If you don't want to go, you just kinda, you know, don't go. As far as what I think about the various groups you name: I don't think. Salvation is a private matter between God and the individual, and it isn't my position to decide who God will or will not save. God doesn't need my help making those decisions. I've got my relationship with God, I do consider it part of my relationship to introduce others to Christ, but beyond that it isn't up to me to tell God who is, or is not, a genuine believer. He'll figure that out on His own. --Jayron32 00:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought salvation was supposed to be a public matter, between God and humanity, and whether you have faith in this stuff would determine your fate. Sneazy (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not like a club you can resign from, Sneazy. I also turned away from the RCC, and also around the age of 18. There's no point writing to anyone about it, as the Church would continue to regard you as a member till the day you die. Baptism is irrevocable, even when done (as is almost always the case) when the baptisee is a tiny baby and had no say in it. So, you let the church continue to regard you as a member, while you quietly get on with the rest of your life. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 00:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the church continues to regard you as a member till the day you die, then does that mean you are still obligated to attend Mass every Sunday and expected to raise your children Catholic? Is the religion supposed to take control of your entire life rather than having something philosophical to do on a Sunday? What if you hold unorthodox theology and practice? Do you just fill out that you are Roman Catholic on forms? If you are married, then would you have to put your faith above everything, including your spouse? Are you going to have a Roman Catholic, Southern Baptist, or humanist funeral? Sneazy (talk) 03:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who is obligating what? What kind of world do you live in where people come to your house and drag you to Sunday Mass. No, look, this is how it works. You don't want to go to church. You stop going to church. Game over. There are no forms to fill out. You just go on living your life exactly as before, except you stop going to Mass. --Jayron32 03:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Only in the eyes of the Church. But once you decide you no longer wish to be associated with them, their beliefs and attitudes have no bearing on your life. They become irrelevant to you. If you live your life completely independently of the Church, you do what the hell you like with your kids as long as it's within the law. Whether you enter Roman Catholic or None on forms is entirely a matter for you. Same with funerals. Remember, a church is not the government or the law; they may have their rules, just as any organisation does, but if you cease your association with them, nothing they say or think or believe or teach has any relevance to your life, so you simply disregard them. They are not going to be hunting you down. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 03:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Have a kitten. Today is your lucky day!

Sneazy (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Church choir

I was wondering about your church choir. Who sings in the choir? Do you encourage everyone in the congregation to participate or only a selected number of individuals with the best singing voices? If the latter, what would happen to those voices who want to participate but are discouraged due to the perceived lack of singing talent in pop music? What if a person is better at singing classical and children's songs rather than upbeat pop music or country music? Sneazy (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) Anyone that wants to sing and isn't terrible (i.e. not me) generally gets to sing. The purpose of the choir (during traditional service) and the praise team (during contemporary service) is to lead the rest of the congregation in singing. The point is to worship God through music, as a corporate congregation, not to put on a show, so the emphasis is on having a choir and/or praise team that leads others in singing. 2) We have two services at the church I attend: a contemporary service where contemporary christian music is played, accompanied by a standard "rock" arrangement (guitar, bass, drums, keyboards) and a traditional service where the traditional hymns are played, accompanied by piano and organ. People find the service to worship in where they feel the most comfortable. I don't know what would happen if someone wanted to sing but was so bad as to be a distraction; I don't generally deal with auditioning and that stuff. I play guitar. The minister of music handles the administrative aspect of organizing the choirs and bands. As far as children's music: we also have a children's service which runs at the same time as the contemporary service: people that have the skills or interest in working in children's music lead that service in singing. Does that help answer your questions? --Jayron32 20:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Sneazy (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

huge penis

Hola. You know I understand the BLP concern--I am the first to hat or delete. Did you think I would post something that wasn't already published in every source in Britain plus a few elsewhere. See the sources I provided at the talk page, and please restore the question. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are in the right, the discussion at WT:RD will bear you out and I will restore. Give this the time to see where consensus will lie. There's no need to rush. Until then, please leave the contested material out. --Jayron32 02:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you become a Southern Baptist?

Hi again,

Why did you become a Southern Baptist? What is so attractive about this denomination that makes you want to leave your previous one? Why not stay loyal to the religious denomination of your birth? Has there been anyone in your life who asked you about your choice as a Southern Baptist? Did you baptize your children in the Roman Catholic denomination or the Baptist denomination? If you baptized your children in the Southern Baptist denomination, what did the Roman Catholic priest think of that? If you baptized your children in the Catholic denomination, what did the Baptist pastor think of that? And how would you react if your children reject Christianity altogether and seek another religious denomination, another religion, or become nonreligious?

Sneazy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to answer why. I had left Catholicism (and Christianity in general) by about 17-18, and I didn't rediscover my faith until I was in my 20s. At the time, my wife and I were trying out different congregations to find one that "fit", and the one that did happened to be a Southern Baptist congregation. I think the reason why I am a member of a Baptist church today is because the denomination is so much built from the bottom up; each church is sovereign entity, and there is no higher levels of hierarchy beyond the church which makes decisions for it. You can literally walk into 5 different Baptist churches and get 5 very different experiences, and so I am a member of a Baptist church because this Baptist church, which is to say the people that make it up, provide me with the sort of community I find helps me grow in my faith. Since we have been Baptists since before my children were born, they have not been Baptized at all. My older one is just now the age when children first start making the decision to be Baptized. Baptists practice believer's baptism, which means that one must chose to be baptized freely, and the decision to be baptized comes after the decision to follow Christ. When my children are ready, they will choose all on their own when to be Baptized. It could be next week, next month, or years down the road. They will get no pressure from me, and certainly not the church we attend, to do so at any time, but will get full support when they choose to do so. The "personal" nature of the way Baptist churches run, which focus on the one-on-one relationship with Christ, is a key feature of them, and part of that personal nature is the ability to use one's free will, without coercion of any sort, to choose to follow Christ. If my Children reject the Christian faith altogether, I will of course be disappointed, but I will still love them the same. It is their own free will, and while I wish them to freely choose Christianity, if they don't, they don't deserve my love and support any less. --Jayron32 01:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have conversed with an Anglican, who has given me an explanation and reasoning of his infant baptism and the infant baptism of his child. Infant baptism may not sound like such a bad idea. Typically, people raise their children in their own faith or belief system, so it would make sense that an infant baptism is the promise that the parents are obligated to raise the child in his/her own faith until the child comes to age, attends formal schooling, and becomes confirmed in his/her teenage years. The confirmation of a child coming from a Roman Catholic/Lutheran/Presbyterian/Anglican/Episcopalian household would be comparable to the willful consent of baptism for a child coming from a Baptist household. Regardless of where a person comes from, he or she will always be influenced by his or her upbringing. I am not sure if he was trying to be apologetic about his faith or something, but his argument for infant baptism was so darn convincing. In any case, I suspect whether one finds whatever method of baptism as attractive option largely depends on one's underlying values. I wish I may attend church someday, even though churchgoers in my residential neighborhood do not fit my age category 18-25 years. I attend university, but I live off-campus with my parents. Sneazy (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have a similar ceremony in a Baptist church, absent the baptism part, called a "Child dedication". It is at that ceremony that the parents commit to raising the Child in the Christian faith, and that the church body commits to supporting the family to that end, so that serves that purpose. In the Baptist church, there is no equivalent of "Confirmation" as found in Catholicism/Anglicanism/Methodism and other faiths. Baptism is seen as the point where a person is supposed to take control of their own faith journey (albeit, with as much support as needed, especially in the case of young children). --Jayron32 02:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does it matter if beliefs are important? What if a person attends a Baptist church but wishes to baptize his/her child? Can that person really ask the Baptist pastor to do that? Sneazy (talk) 02:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If a person believed that, they wouldn't be attending a Baptist church. The Methodists down the street will happily oblige, however. --Jayron32 02:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, does that mean that sectarian beliefs really do matter? What if, by location, the Southern Baptist Church, is the closest church in a person's neighborhood and so a person attends that one? Then that person thinks independently and wishes to baptize the child in the church that he/she has membership to. Can the Southern Baptists do that out of ecumenism? Sneazy (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It simply isn't done at all in a Baptist church. I really can't imagine a person who wanted to baptize their infant child would be insistent upon doing so in a church that simply didn't do that. Your line of thinking here makes no sense. If there was one church for 1000 miles, and that church was a Baptist church, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't do it, because that's not what Baptists churches do. It's a core belief of Baptist churches. They just don't do infant baptisms. A person would not have become a member of a Baptist church if they didn't agree with the concept of Believer's Baptism, anymore than a person who became a Sunni Muslim would insist that they didn't believe in praying at set times of the day, or that a person who became a Catholic refused to go to confession. --Jayron32 02:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bad question. It seems that choosing a church boils down to one's beliefs about doctrines. As with much of life, any choice would have benefits and drawbacks. The benefit would probably be being part of a community of like-minded believers. The drawback would probably be that the community will probably expect that you would attend church every Sunday for the rest of your life, encouraging full and active participation, after knowing that you already have made a lifetime commitment to Christ. Then, there is the thought of just being inspired from the Bible and other religious literature without ever becoming affiliated with an organized religion. The benefit is that a person can believe in what he/she wants and claims no loyalty to any particular set of doctrines, but rather an amalgamation of many workable belief systems. The drawback would probably be that person, if he/she is unbaptized, will probably not be recognized as Christian by any Christian organization. Baptism is said to only be performed in front of the congregation, and if a person has no loyalty to a specific congregation, it's not going to work. Maybe a person may just choose a random church (the Roman Catholic Church due to its large size and mainstream status), arbitrarily agrees with the church's beliefs, and but really borrows belief systems from many workable belief systems (Taoism, Confucianism, Judaism, etc.) rather than adhering to one set of doctrines (on a private level). Sneazy (talk) 03:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah you're on your own there. Good luck with all that. Vaya con dios. --Jayron32 03:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you add capitalize or lowercase certain words? Spanish speakers actually do capitalize "Dios" or "Biblia", because those words mean "God" or "Bible" respectively. What's with lowercasing them? And why do you capitalize "baptize" and "child"? What is so important about "child"? Eh? Sneazy (talk) 04:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm lazy and bad at writing. --Jayron32 04:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for peer review

Hi Jayron32,

I saw your name listed as a volunteer for peer review - particularly for articles related to sports. We are working on expanding the article on Swedish footballer Emilia Appelqvist to ensure it is not deleted and also to improve the article to a higher assessment class. Would you be willing to take a look at the article and provide feedback? Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AN

I have provided the information you requested at the AN discussion Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Is_it_this_easy.... Regards Taroaldo ✉ 05:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sola Scriptura and other issues

I think I have a problem with Sola Scriptura. The truth is, it is not easy making a judgment without knowledge on how the document comes to be. I am no expert on the Bible or ancient Semitic cultures. For instance, in Genesis 2:17, God tells the first man (Adam) and the first woman (Eve) that if they eat from the fruit, they would surely die -- but they don't! What is going on here? Sola Scriptura will probably not work for me, because what's the use of making up my own interpretations? Instead of making up my own interpretations, I think I should just try to see how many different people interpret the case. It's probably impossible to sample everybody, so whatever answer I get, the answer will always be biased. But hey, at least it's still an answer!

Another concern is that I do not understand how the Bible can possibly be treated as one book, and make a coherent theology out of it without biasing or favoring one part of the Bible over another. First of all, why treat the Bible as one book in the first place when really the Bible comes from many different and separate sources that are compiled together in narratives? Second of all, why base a theology on the "whole Bible" when the structure of the canon varies and the sources come from different places? Maybe favoring one passage to support a particular doctrine is not so bad as religious people think (i.e. the fact that Roman Catholics use a verse from John and not Matthew to support the doctrine of Transubstantiation), because I am not sure how the Bible can be read as a coherent work.

Since I assume you are a practicing Christian, how do you manage to reconcile all of this? Or have you ever thought of this issue before? Do you just take for granted that the Bible can be understood by scripture alone and without consultation from many different scholars from various denominations and sects? Sneazy (talk) 03:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sola Scriptura doesn't really say "make up your own interpretations". Instead it says "let the Holy Spirit guide your interpretations". Since every Christian has received the Holy Spirit, each is capable of understanding Scripture through the Holy Spirit; that is man-made exegesis is not divinely inspired, ONLY the Bible is, so only the Bible is capable of presenting the Word of God. Humans, being fallible, cannot properly comprehend the Word of God alone, and so must let the Holy Spirit guide their understanding through prayer and study. I use the work of other Christians to help me work through the Bible, I participate in Bible Studies, I talk through my understanding with other Christians, and I listen to other and read what others have written. The deal is, I also understand that none of that, by itself, is enough. It's not that I don't take in what others say, it's just that the understanding is that the Bible itself is alone the Word of God, and not what others think it means. --Jayron32 03:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't "let the Holy Spirit guide your interpretations" be completely meaningless to an atheist or agnostic, or at least mean the same thing as "make up your own interpretations" to the atheist or agnostic? Still, two persons may both claim that they are being "guided" by the "Holy Spirit" and come up with two different conclusions! Now what? Maybe it's just a sign from God that the passage should be left alone or not be taken so seriously? Sneazy (talk) 03:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course its meaningless to an agnostic or an athiest. Lots of religious thinking is meaningless to an outsider. --Jayron32 03:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral admin

I noticed that you help to settle contentious issues in various discussions, so I was hoping you could look at this thread I started on Toddst1's talk page and provide your input. I'm just worried he might threaten me with a block. So I was hoping you could be a neutral admin to help settle the matter, so that it doesn't unnecessarily turn into a major battle over a minor issue (again). This admin and I butted heads in May, but have had no contact since then. Until he came to my talk page today regarding this matter. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this is rich. How did this guy not get on my radar? Doc talk 08:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mr IP, I'm a bit worried as to why you are here. Everywhere I look and see you, it is usually nothing but wikilawyering. I'm not saying you are wrong on every single point, but your main contribution to Wikipedia seems to be drama. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The last time I checked, this talk page says Jayron32, not Dennis Brown. I'm pretty sure that Jayron doesn't need a bodyguard or anyone trying to poison the well. And I'm sorry that my asking him to be a neutral participant to settle a minor dispute bothers you so much, but I suggest you keep your passive-aggressive (and inaccurate) insults to yourself. I have thousands of edits and have contributed to many articles and article discussions. It's sad that you actually thought posting that comment would be productive in any way. I would suggest you ask yourself one question before you post a comment like that again to someone: "Do I really need to say this or am I just getting involved in something that I shouldn't be?" --76.189.109.155 (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

76. has now raised this issue on User:Toddst1's talk page and on mine.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Triple B, of course I raised it on Todd's talk page; that's the entire reason I came here... to tell Jayron about it. Hello? See the link in my opening comment? But what do you mean "has now" raised it on Todd's talk page. I wrote Todd over six hours earlier, so why do you make it sound like I just did it? But now he removed the thread because he saw you added back the template instead of allowing us to discuss it. And you are the one who initiated your involvement in this matter; I only "raised" it on your talk page after you did that. To ask you why. And you failed to mention that you and I have been wikifriends for several weeks. Are you drinking, B? --76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2013 June newsletter

We are down to our final 16: the 2013 semi-finals are upon us. A score of 321 was required to survive round 3, further cementing this as the most competitive WikiCup yet; round 3 was survived in 2012 with 243 points, in 2011 with 76 points and in 2010 with 250 points. The change may in part be to do with the fact that more articles are now awarded bonus points, in addition to more competitive play. Reaching the final has, in the past, required 573 points (2012, a 135% increase on the score needed to reach round 4), 150 points (2011, a 97% increase) and 417 points (2010, a 72% increase). This round has seen over a third of participants claiming points for featured articles (with seven users claiming for multiple featured articles) and most users have also gained bonus points. However, the majority of points continue to come from good articles, followed by did you know articles. In this round, every content type was utilised by at least one user, proving that the WikiCup brings together content contributors from all corners of the project.

Round 3 saw a number of contributions of note. Idaho Figureskatingfan (submissions) claimed the first featured topic points in this year's competition for her excellent work on topics related to Maya Angelou, the noted American author and poet. We have also continued to see high-importance articles improved as part of the competition: Wyoming Ealdgyth (submissions) was awarded a thoroughly well-earned 560 points for her featured article Middle Ages and 102 points for her good article Battle of Hastings. Good articles James Chadwick and Stanislaw Ulam netted Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions) 102 and 72 points respectively, while 72 points were awarded to Poland Piotrus (submissions) for each of Władysław Sikorski and Emilia Plater, both recently promoted to good article status. Collaborative efforts between WikiCup participants have continued, with, for example, New South Wales Casliber (submissions) and Canada Sasata (submissions) being awarded 180 points each for their featured article on Boletus luridus.

A rules reminder: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on the 29/30 June, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. We are currently seeing concern about the amount of time people have to wait for reviews, especially at GAC- if you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 09:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awwww

You closed it before I could brag about my psychic powers.—Kww(talk) 04:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that train wreck could be seen coming from miles away. --Jayron32 04:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Amusement Park Quarter 3, 2013 Newsletter

WikiProject Amusement Parks Newsletter

Quarter 3, 2013

463 124 5.13 50 30% »
Full edition
Unassessed Articles Coordinates Needed WikiWork Load Project Members B&M articles are GA or FA

23:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks so very much for your links to the Trans.Cont.RR maps. Found just what I needed. Patarmom

Glad to be of service! --Jayron32 01:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats... You have joined a team of awesome helpers!

Teahouse Host Badge Teahouse Host Badge
Awarded to hosts at the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Experienced editors with this badge have committed to welcoming guests, helping new editors, and upholding the standards of the Teahouse by giving friendly and patient guidance—at least for a time.

Hosts illuminate the path for new Wikipedians, like Tōrō in a Teahouse garden.

Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
I noticed that you, a frequent contributor to the Teahouse, had not been given any badges. You deserve this one and others I am sure! Thanks for all you do!


Thank you kindly! --Jayron32 02:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Publishers Clearing House

Hi Jayron. I was wondering if you would help us out over here, where I've contested a lot of controversial material that is sourced primarily to press releases from the plaintiff (I have a COI). You came to mind because of your lifting of the author's block here. I would like to both prevent my COI from doing any harm to Wikipedia, while hopefully facilitating a better understanding of our verification policies.

I do understand that there is a substantial amount of stuff to write about that is genuinely neutral and properly sourced, but feel currently it is written primarily based on press releases from the plaintiff and from the plaintiff's POV. What's the best way to proceed? I've marked the press releases with "better source needed" templates. CorporateM (Talk) 00:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be sourcing based on press releases and court documents at all. Instead, find genuine reliable accounts from newspaper, magazines, etc. --Jayron32 01:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. It might help if you explained that on the Talk page. I would like to remove the press releases and the bias content that is sourced to them and replace it with proper secondary sources. CorporateM (Talk) 01:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted on RSN here. CorporateM (Talk) 04:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good place to get help. People who patrol that page are more adept at working out problems like yours than I am. --Jayron32 04:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Start Snuggle

IRC office hours for wiki-mentors and Snuggle users

Hi. We're organizing an office hours session with the Teahouse to bring in mentors from across the wiki to try out Snuggle and discuss it's potential to support mentorship broadly. The Snuggle team would appreciate it if you would come and participate in the discussion. We'll be having it in #wikimedia-office connect on Wed. July 17th @ 1600 UTC. See the agenda for more info. --EpochFail(talk • work), Technical 13 (talk), TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This week's articles for improvement - 22 July 2013 to 28 July 2013

This week's article for improvement is
Keygen
Please be bold and help improve it!

posted by Northamerica1000(talk) 13:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an opt-in section for those interested in receiving TAFI notifications on the project's main page, located here. Those that don't opt-in won't receive this message again. Also, a revised notification template has been created, located at Template:TAFI weekly selections notice. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2013 July newsletter

We're halfway through this year's penultimate round, and the competition is moving along well. Pool A's Canada Sasata (submissions) currently leads overall, while Pool B's Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) is second. Both leaders are WikiCup veterans, and both have already scored over 600 points this month. If the round were to end today, London Miyagawa (submissions), with 274 points, would be the lowest-scoring participant to make it through. This indicates that participants will need a score comparable to last year's (573, the highest ever) to qualify for the final. The high scores this year are a testament both to the quality of participants and to the increased focus on significant content (eligible for bonus points) in this year's competition. So far this round, both Sasata and Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) have made up over half of their score through bonus points, with, for example, high importance FA koala earning Sasata a total of 440 points (from a multiplier of 4.4) and high-importance GA sea earning Cwmhiraeth a total of 216 points (from a multiplier of 7.2). Other articles on important topics submitted this round include a featured article on the Norman conquest of England by Wyoming Ealdgyth (submissions), and good articles on Nobel laureate in literature Henryk Sienkiewicz, Nobel laureate in physics Hans Bethe, and the noted Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū. These articles are by Poland Piotrus (submissions), Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions) and Sturmvogel_66 respectively.

Other than that, there is not much to report! If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK RfC

Thanks

Nice catch on that timing detail - it really was a crucial element, and I won't forget to look for that in future. You're a very constructive admin. -- Scray (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you as well for your kind words! --Jayron32 01:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Center Line: Summer 2013

Volume 6, Issue 3 • Summer 2013 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
—EdwardsBot (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudy with a 100% chance of shitstorm

Gutsy. -- tariqabjotu 00:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see consensus developing? --Jayron32 00:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't care too much about my opinion about what consensus was; I commented in the discussion. However, if you're going to settle on "no consensus"... see my third point below. -- tariqabjotu 00:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Ok, now that I got my title in... I agree that allowing this play out over seven days is probably too much. However,
  • BD2412 (talk · contribs) offered to close the discussion. I think leaving the decision to one individual is a bit too much, so I have no problem in you at least coordinating with him. But I hope you at least discussed with him.
  • Given the extensive and lengthy nature of the conversation, it would be nice to have some sort of explanation for your decision.
  • A "no consensus" verdict is not so straightforward. Because the article is originally at Bradley Manning and moved without discussion, a no consensus verdict should actually default to that title.
Anyway, good luck, uh, fielding the comments. Pack your raincoat (or shitcoat?). -- tariqabjotu 00:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Chelsea Manning#Requested move

Why closing it? --George Ho (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See above. --Jayron32 00:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You weren't exactly specific about "no consensus". Did you see my latest request in WP:AN/RFC, or something? --George Ho (talk) 00:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you undid the closure, can you at least improve consensus by voting to make up a premature closure? --George Ho (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to care one way or the other first. --Jayron32 11:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manning

Hi Jayron, please revert your close of the RM. BD2412 and two other admins have already agreed to oversee and close it; see the post directly below yours. [2] SlimVirgin (talk) 00:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have fun with that... --Jayron32 00:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reopening it. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that when I volunteered to close this discussion, I accepted a suggestion that it be closed by an admin committee; I contacted two uninvolved admins who were suggested to me for this purpose, User:BOZ and User:Kww, and they agreed to assist in closing this discussion. Whether or not keeping the discussion open for the full seven days yields a clear consensus, there can be no doubt that an early close would lead to a large number of complaints that the discussion was closed out of process. Whatever else comes of it, I would rather that not be a point of contention. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me

Why this? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 11:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because I clicked the wrong link unknowingly. So corrected.--Jayron32 11:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Phew! -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 11:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

Greetings! I wondered if you would be willing to help with a peer review of Jefferson Davis. I recently got it up to Good Article status, and want to keep going, and I saw your name on the volunteers list. Any input you could provide would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Omnedon (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2013 August newsletter

This year's final is upon us. Our final eight, in order of last round's score, are:

  1. Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer who has contributed on topics of military history and physics, including a number of high-importance topics. Good articles have made up the bulk of his points, but he has also scored a great deal of bonus points. He has the second highest score overall so far, with more than 3000 points accumulated.
  2. New South Wales Casliber (submissions), another WikiCup veteran who reached the finals in 2012, 2011 and 2010. He writes on a variety of topics including botany, mycology and astronomy, and has claimed the highest or joint highest number of featured articles every round so far this year. He has the third highest score overall, with just under 3000 points accumulated.
  3. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 WikiCup champion, who writes mostly on marine biology. She has also contributed to high-importance topics, seeing huge numbers of bonus points for high-importance featured and good articles. Previous rounds have seen her scoring the most bonus points, with scoring spread across did you knows, good articles and featured articles.
  4. Canada Sasata (submissions), a WikiCup veteran who finished in second place in 2012, and competed as early as 2009. He writes articles on biology, especially mycology, and has scored highly for a number of collaborations at featured article candidates.
  5. Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), the winner of the 2010 competition. His contributions mostly concern Naval history, and he has scored a very large number of points for good articles and good article reviews in every round. He is the highest scorer overall this year, with over 3500 points in total.
  6. Wyoming Ealdgyth (submissions), who is competing in the WikiCup for the second time, though this will be her first time in the final. A regular at FAC, she is mostly interested in British medieval history, and has scored very highly for some top-importance featured articles on the topic.
  7. London Miyagawa (submissions), a finalist in 2012 and 2011. He writes on a broad variety of topics, with many of this year's points coming from good articles about Star Trek. Good articles make up the bulk of his points, and he had the most good articles back in round 2; he was also the highest scorer for DYK in rounds 1 and 2.
  8. Scotland Adam Cuerden (submissions) has previously been involved with the WikiCup, but hasn't participated for a number of years. He scores mostly from restoration work leading to featured picture credits, but has also done some article writing and reviewing.

We say goodbye to eight great participants who did not qualify for the final: Poland Piotrus (submissions), Idaho Figureskatingfan (submissions), Ohio ThaddeusB (submissions), Michigan Dana boomer (submissions), Prince Edward Island Status (submissions), United States Ed! (submissions), Florida 12george1 (submissions), England Calvin999 (submissions). Having made it to this stage is still an excellent achievement, and you can leave with your heads held high. We hope to see you all again next year. Signups are now open for the 2014 WikiCup, which will begin on 1 January. All Wikipedians, whatever their interest or level of experience, are warmly invited to participate in next year's competition.

This last month has seen some incredible contributions; for instance, Cwmhiraeth's Starfish and Ealdgyth's Battle of Hastings—two highly important, highly viewed pages—made it to featured article status. It would be all too easy to focus solely on these stunning achievements at the expense of those participants working in lower-scoring areas, when in fact all WikiCup participants are doing excellent work. A mention of everything done is impossible, but here are a few: Last round saw the completion of several good topics (on the 1958, 1959 and 1962 Atlantic hurricane seasons) to which 12george1 had contributed. Calvin999 saw "S&M" (song), on which he has been working for several years, through to featured article status on its tenth try. Figureskatingfan continued towards her goal of a broad featured/good topic on Maya Angelou, with two featured and four good articles. ThaddeusB contributed significantly to over 20 articles which appeared on the main page's "in the news" section. Adam Cuerden continued to restore a large number of historical images, resulting in over a dozen FP credits this round alone. The WikiCup is not just about top-importance featured articles, and the work of all of these users is worthy of commendation.

Finally, the usual notices: If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 05:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Metropolitan Area

Hello. I have suggested to move Paris aire urbaine to Paris Metropolitan Area. Feel free to give your opinion. You can see the discussion here: Talk:Paris_aire_urbaine#Requested_move. Der Statistiker (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the above, would you support a move to 'Paris urban area'? That's what most references do (including the creators of the aire urbaine themselves), and I would support that as well. If you do agree, perhaps a word to that end would help the admin closing the discussion. Thanks. THEPROMENADER 14:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bad case of the dubby-dups

I presume this is intended to be ironic:

It is of considerable consequence to you, so we'll have to just wait to see how other people feel about it to see where consensus lies on the issue. Your passion on the issue is already clear from the two posts you have made already, and your opinion does not gain greater weight in the overall discussion when you state it yet another time. There will be other opinions to come besides yours, mine, and others that have already weighed in. When the discussion is done,we'll see where consensus lies, and if your stance holds the day, so be it. But until then, it does little to add to the discussion to just repeat ourselves.

ROTFL! Amandajm (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a sense of humor, that I am aware. --Jayron32 18:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you need me to explain why it's funny....? Amandajm (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Unless you really feel the need to. --Jayron32 19:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
.....in order that you may share the joke....
Every part of this post concerning my repeating myself is repeated in either the same or different words.
I presumed you had composed it as a piece of literary genius. Now I'm disappointed! Amandajm (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And now you presume I didn't. What changed your mind? --Jayron32 19:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
....it takes a sense of humour. Have a cuddly kitten instead... Amandajm (talk) 06:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

...compensation....

Amandajm (talk) 06:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change target of Armin_Tamzarian

Can you please redirect the Simpsons character Armin_Tamzarian to the Principal_Skinner article? Seymour is Armin and they are the same fictions character so I think linking the 2 articles makes sense. Venustar84 (talk) 05:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why me? You don't need me to do this! --Jayron32 10:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroshi Yamauchi

Letting you know that rather than respond to it, I templated your personal remark on the Hiroshi Yamauchi thread at ITN. μηδείς (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Thanks for highlighting my salient point. It will be sure to draw additional attention to it. --Jayron32 18:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ker-ching! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jayron32&oldid=574079738"