User talk:Jayron32

Days of Our Lives Fan fic IP vandal back

Hello, he/she is back at it. If you would, please protect Austin Reed, Carrie Brady, Tony DiMera, Claire Kiriakis, Nicole Walker, EJ Wells, and Sami Brady. Thank you again for all your help! Rm994 (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

All taken care of. Sami Brady was already protected. If you run across any user accounts you wish to check out, please start an WP:SPI report. Maybe we can get a rangeblock of some sort on this guy... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't be that hard. His/her attack is usually fake baby names. I often wonder if they have even received any of our warnings. I have noticed that when a page is protected, he/she edits the talk page with the edits that they "think" should be included. Thanks again so much for your help. Rm994 (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least he is occasionally using the talk page. Have you responded to his talk page comments to see if he is willing to engage in a dialog? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have. He just deletes my comments from the talk pages. I am going to try again. Thank you. Rm994 (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Cookies? Not today, my friend.

APK has given you a space cake, just for shiz and gigglez. The consumption of cannabis foods somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the relaxing, but sometimes nauseating, WikiLove by giving someone else a space cake, whether it be someone you've had disagreements with in the past or someone in need of a gateway drug. Enjoy!

I'd just like to announce...

...that I love you all. Super srs. GlassCobra 13:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ty, ty... Love ya back! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

previously blocked user for NPA making personal attacks.

please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Koalorka to view why you blocked User:Koalorka for personal attacks. his response to your block was "cool story, bro." his response to other warnings was "cool story." today, he called me a tool for no reason, other than to involve himself in a conversation he was never involved in, just to make a personal attack. i don't believe that's acceptable behavior. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Take it to ANI and ask for a review. Maybe another admin will block. I would recommend you disengage from this editor, involvement between the two of your does not seem to be healthy for the encyclopedia. Yes it was a personal attack, but it was pretty low on the scale. I could block him, but you could also be the bigger person and let it go this time... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay...

Take it elsewhere kiddies...

Okay, you're right: I shouldn't have told him to "get bent" in my comment summary. However, in context I don't think what I wrote is nearly as bad as how the other editor has hounded me for weeks, attacked my character, and consistently used vulgar and obscene words in talk pages and to illustrate his "points". Furthermore, I have to question you on the validity of giving me my last warning when a quick look through the other editor's history demonstrates 30 months worth of flaming and abuse against other editors. Don't believe me? Look at his talk page. Don't care? Then please, with my sincerest thanks for pointing out that I shouldn't sink to his level, stay out of it. Erikeltic (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I would point out that you have followed my edits to no less than four different articles where I have posted, only to post opposition to whatever it is that I had previously posted. Now, before you screw up and claim that you haven't, on all four areas, you have never, ever posted there before, and your first post is to controvert my position. I have warned you to stop following my edits on no less than two occasions, and yet you seem to think that you actually are in the right here by following my edits around. You are wiki-hounding. You are being uncivil. You do not understand our policies and get upset when they are pointed out to you. Forget my history - as you wish people to forget yours of likely meat-puppetry and canvassing. I am asking you - one last time - to make an effort to avoid new editing in articles I am already present in. One more instance, and I will seek your indef block as a stalker. If that sounds unfriendly, consider that you have brought this determination about all by yourself. Please, do yourself the favor, and save me the time, and just stay away. Find other articles to edit. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have posted in Battlestar Galatica in the past, so that argument rolls foul. What are the other three? ANI? I was on ANI because of the complaint I filed against you. What other one? How about your notes about Life on Mars which you've never edited? You have a lot of nerve calling ANYONE a wikihound or a stalker. As for your false accusations of meat puppeting, those allegations have been dismissed. So you should really stop trying to use that to excuse your poor behavior. Anyone that doubts this should just pick ANY two week period at ANY point since you started editing here and they can clearly see how abusive you are to the people you encounter. Erikeltic (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

PS It's hard to ever go to ANI without seeing your name, as you've been the subject of discussion or involved in some sort of flame war 120 times since 10/2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&ns0=1&redirs=0&search=arcayne+prefix%3AWikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard&limit=250&offset=0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikeltic (talk • contribs) 23:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

sorry, but you had not posted in that BSG article before I did, and then, it was to oppose my edit. Second, no I wasn't counting the AN/I; I was referring to the RfA for TreasuryTag (again, you only posted after I did, and again in opposition). Thirdly, your sockpuppetry case was not dismissed, it was deemed not to be sockpuppetry. It was meat-puppetry and canvassing, but not really actionable, thanks to your profuse apologies for it. You acknowledged it there, but thanks for bringing that up. You will also find that pointing to someone else's bad behavior as an excuse for your own isn't going to really work as a defense when you are blocked. as you don't understand any of the context of any of those AN/I complaints (and no, it hasn't been 120 times; I kinda keep track of that sort of thing). Before addressing the splinter in my eye, you might want to address the stick in yours.

I am curious; are you of the opinion that following my edits around and opposing the points is going to make me more polite and reasonable towards you? Jayron gave you excellent advice. I urge you to follow it, and remember what I said.

That your immediate step, less than two minutes after posting here, was to post in the BSG article and oppose my edit, is n indication that you aren't planning on taking any of the good advice or heeding any of the warnings you have been given. Oh well. You were warned. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have had dealings with TreasuryTag (as you well know) and found him to be a fair editor. I am allowed to post a vote that has nothing to do with you. You skipped over your Life on Mars edits when you had never been in that wiki before. Why is that? Hmm... Erikeltic (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

dispute resolution is thataway... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

IP removing whois template

I need a bit of help, would you be kind enough to tell User talk:76.102.193.102 not to remove the whois template. I tried but he's leaving inapropriate edit summaries and removing the template. According to the edit history, this isn't the first time this has happened. Momusufan (talk) 02:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

regarding your unblock of User:Ejnogarb

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – Editor not editing tendentiously since unblock, making use of talk pages, my talk page is not a forum to discuss behavior

Recently you unblocked Ejnogarb because he promised not to editwar on the Promiscuity issue. I feel i must notify you that he has been bringing the culturewarrior editing style into all of the other articles on the topics of gay sex, men who have sex with men, homosexuality, Proposition 8, same-sex marriage, ex-gay "reparative therapy" pseudoscience, et cetera. These are what i've noticed because some of them are on my watchlist of LGBT portal topics. I have a feeling that if you go through the edit history for the other kinds of culture war articles which are not on my watchlist (e.g., articles about mormon churches, articles about religious topics of importance to Ejnogarb, etc) there might be even more non-neutral viewpoint pushing, i just haven't taken the time to go around challenging every last bit of it with a Neutrality Mop. The aggravation is spreading for days now into at least two unresolved ANI threads. Many editors have politely tried to shepherd the editing into a more neutral style, to no avail. I have presumptuously gone to Ejnogarb's talkpage to suggest he might consider a mentor/ tutor/ admin helper who could give him the benefit of Neutrality expertise. I am not a very experienced wikipedian, i don't think i have much more useful to contribute in his direction, i am afraid my patience is being strained. I'm not the most clever editor when it comes to civility, so i should probably hold back and let more experienced people sort this out, as i want so very much to avoid getting into a snarling argument about conflicting personal values. I appreciate very much your taking the time to lend administrator insight into this situation, i want everybody to always be happier about the editing we can do on wikipedia, i hope you will have a good weekend, thank you kindly ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 20:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Jayron32: If you do look into this, I hope you will take into account that this group is hounding me, bringing up two frivolous ANI threads, accusing me falsely of edit warring, posting lengthy remarks dripping with sarcasm everywhere, and so forth. The two deletions I made were unsourced, inflammatory, anonymous, and looked like vandalism.  EJNOGARB  23:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(see ANI thread) I have left notes for both users - Teledildonix314 to AGF, and Ejnogarb to try and point out things which may need correction in a more collaborative manner. Hopefully everyone can try and get along moving forwards. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Since his unblock, I don't see where he has edited tendentiously since. He's edited a few articles about firearms, and started a discussion on an article on Barak Obama, which is what he should do for any potentially controversial edits. He seems to be making heavy use of talk pages, and does not appear to by pushing any agendas as far as I can see. The problematic edits which existed BEFORE his block seem to have stopped, so I see nothing else to do here. Please take this up with the editor, or in more public forums than my talk page, if he begins to misbehave again. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lucas081094 and the CGI timeline article

I get where you're coming from on calling things "vandalism" - and if this had just started this week, I'd agree with you. However, for almost three years now (here's the first try), every few months some IP editor (almost always from Brazil) or new account comes in an makes this same change, without proper citations or any discussion past "this is what I'm doing". Since the change is clearly in error, has been shown to be in error, and after so many attempts (by people likely associated with the film in question, I suspect) to push their POV on the subject, I can't see further attempts to insert it as good-faith edits. This was just the latest attempt - for what it's worth. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI, after the block was lifted, Lucas081094 went right back to inserting his incorrect information. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Reblocked for two weeks. Lets call this "strike two"... Let me know if he comes back. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

ANI

reading words like this raises my blood pressure. I am hiding these words on doctors orders.

I saw your comments. I saw something about President Obama in ANI and looked at the talk page. Boy is there fighting. And some very nasty people. Even some stalking.

I don't want to be stalked.

My comments were just suggestions to keep the peace. No suggestions to say that we should write this or not have that.

Please leave me alone. If you suspect someone is saying lets have such and such an edit and another user is agreeing, then you have a point. If someone just tries to make peace and doesn't want to be stalked, then you are doing harm.

In fact, I'll listen to you. I'll just leave now and not do that good editing that I had in mind for another article.

What you should do with your time is to make peace, not pick on the peacemaker. Peacemakertoday (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll make it more clear.

The Obama article is so toxic. People there are so agressive and stalk you. I made a peacemaking suggestion but I don't want to be stalked.

However, it's like real life in Iraq. You make a peacemaking suggestion in Iraq and some guy on some side will kill you and your family.

Some appreciation you have. You attack me even though I only made peaceful and neutral suggestions on the talk page. I am not for or against any edit.

Why don't you make a suggestion for orderly behavior on that page instead of attacking me? You may not be stalked because you are an administrator. Give it a try. Peacemakertoday (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Mohammed Odeh al-Rehaief

Look up this man on Wikipedia. Why didn't he just come out in the open? It's because he didn't want to die.

Obama's talk page is so toxic that even peacemaking leads to personal attacks. Since it was on ANI, why don't you try to make peace there rather than attack the peacemakers.

Ok, just block me. I don't want to help in that Obama talk page anymore thanks to you. Peacemakertoday (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Cwray

Hi, and thanks for enquiring re User:Cwray and the autoblock on their IP. I've reviewed their cotnributions and they appear to be a good faith editor, so I've removed the autoblock on the account per the unblock request. The original IP-block is not in fact mine - it's Dominic's, and my sole contribution was to briefly vary it to lock the IP talk page from template abuse. There are relevant comments on this here and here. Other than Cwray, I have no view either way on unblock requests for accounts through this IP. Having regard for Dominic's comments in the links above, if anyone feels an unblock or IPexempt is warranted I'm happy not to be asked first. Euryalus (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback, could you also help clarify what I should do with a deleted article?

Thank you for the notification of the block that was lifted a month ago. My current question, however, is in regard to an article that I created, "Quynh Anh," that was deleted by an administrator one month ago. I have contacted this administrator and am happy to revise the deleted article, but have not heard back. I am not sure what to do and do not want to make any mistakes. Can you help guide me in what I should do? Thank you for your help and consideration. Yohlanduh (talk) 06:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: On deleted article Quynh Anh

I will probably create a subpage, as you mentioned, and will certainly ask for your help. Thanks so much for the quick and thorough explanation; I haven't come across anyone as considerately helpful. Thank you again. Yohlanduh (talk) 06:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFA/Law

Per this comment, I would like to inform you that Law's RFA has been transcluded and is officially live. :) GlassCobra 13:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Abusing Power

How can you give last warnings when there hasn't been a first? That info is incorrect about Fiserv and will mislead other users. You and Adolf need to get over yourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.50.173.206 (talk) 01:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

disruptive IP...

RE: this... this IP (and 66.50.173.207), are obvious socks of 12.108.255.76 (the page he/she is editing), based on editing style, and wording in their insults towards me... 12.108.255.76 was originally blocked for 3RR and incivility... and seems to have just changed IPs to come back for more... any way you could do something about this? - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry. Rope has been given to him. I expect he is tieing his own noose as we speak. I am fully aware of the history. He will not be long for Wikipedia if he continues. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That was easy... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

What are the odds on 12.108.255.76 now coming back to start blanking the other two talk pages? LOL - Adolphus79 (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, since the 66.50.173.XXX seems to be editing under a fairly tight range, I suspect a rangeblock could shut the whole enterprise down. I have suspicisons that the 12.108 address is entirely unrelated, and he's just interested in being a pain. This is likely one of our regular IP-blanking customers... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The IP range is 66.50.173.0/24, I agree, maybe a rangeblock should be considered. Momusufan (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

JOYEESANG

Regarding your action on this AIV report... did you look more closely at the user's edits? They are most certainly not well-intentioned, this is at least the third time he has made up stuff about himself in articles (the name Patrick Tran that he keeps adding, in edits like [1][2][3], is apparently his own name), and he has gotten numerous warnings (he blanked them from his talk page). I gave him his final warning after this egregious BLP violation, and he has continued to add nonsense about himself to articles. His last edit, [4], might look constructive at the top, but once you scroll down it's just more nonsense about himself.

An indef-block isn't necessary because it's note quite a vandalism-only account. But his edits are far from being "well-intentioned," given that he knows perfectly well (from the multiple warnings he's gotten) that what he's doing is against policy. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

So noted. Thanks for elaborating. Blocked him for 1 week. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Independent Financial Centre of the Americas

I placed a tag for Deletion on the subject article as it is clear an advertisement to the company and to Gaetan Bucher who his only notability is being president of the conmpany. I read that wikipedia is not for promoting company or individuals Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING#ADVERTISING. If you read the links of that company it a project that has not been fully executed. Please review it again . --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 03:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for yur reply. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 03:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

AIV

Hey there, thanks for realising that I wasn't actually checking on AIV, my laptop underwent a bit of a fail, only just got it back up! Thanks :) --GedUK  18:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

LCM4MP

This was a new article, nominated for deletion here. In reviewing the AfD I realised it was misnamed; once this was realised it was established that there were references etc to support keeping the article and it survived. I renamed the article but I could see no value in keeping the wrong title as a redirect so I tagged it for speedy deletion (after all, the wrong title had almost caused it to be deleted). You denied this with "deny speedy. "What links here" shows that this spelling is used as well around Wikipedia, and is a valid redirect". It appears to me the various directs to the page are all in relation to the new article creation and/or the AfD, there is no indication that the term itself would likely be used mistakenly when searching for the article. I42 (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the explanation. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) I42 (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Self-confessed spelling Nazi

RE: User talk:NyteMuse

you're --> your :P —Travis^talk 21:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

don't give --> a shit.  ;) --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

—Travis^talk 03:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

!!!!

Hi i'm Kikkid851, you know, the person who you blocked and haven't even set an expiring date for it yet. I hope you have enough heart and spine to unblock me any time soon.

I'll be waiting.

90.241.33.23 (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Its my un-signed-in profile because I cant send you an e-mail

                                           Yeah  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.241.33.23 (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 

Hello, Jayron32. You have new messages at McJeff's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tito Ortiz

Hi, should this revision be deleted seeing as it's also in the edit summary? Thanks --aktsu ^(t / c) 18:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

working on it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done--Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Should such edit-summary vandalism be reported for removal, and if so what are the most appropriate place? AN/ANI? Dunno if it's even a big deal or not but I figured better safe than sorry... You were the first active admin I saw on my watchlist, though it turned out I timed it pretty badly :) --aktsu ^(t / c) 00:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

ANI would be fine to report it. If its a mega-emergency, you can also request oversight at WP:RFO. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Both seems kinda overkill, but I guess it's not actually that common (which surprises me, only place I've really seen it is at ANI itself. Seems like a good way to give admins a lot of work...) --aktsu ^(t / c) 00:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

0RR

So, the simple act of reversion will get me blocked? Congratulations, you've driven away a productive editor. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want to be a productive editor, do so. Mindless reverting the work of others is not productive. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not doing it mindlessly. The articles in question are members of a huge body of articles that have standards and previous practices. I'm trying to keep things consistent between MLS season articles. I'm trying to tamp down the sense of exceptionalism in the users at the Seattle Sounders FC season articles. They are just as obligated to develop consensus for their edits as well. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are. You are 100% right. But, that requirement does not give you the right to continue to revert the articles. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Grant.Alpaugh

Jayron32, you may want to protect the user talk page while the block is in place since I think the block notice is going to keep getting removed by this editor. Coldmachine^Talk 20:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

At this point, he seems to be constructively contesting his block. I'll let the current conditions stand. No need to get vindictive here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry to crash, but this guy's been giving the 2009 Women's Professional Soccer season page and its editors on Talk holy hell. Lots of deletions/reverts and refuses to 'bend' on anything. But yet, he doesn't seem to want to contribute anything. If that makes sense. Anyway, I'm glad to see he's in a time out of sorts, because one of the primary editors has put in a ton of work on this page and he's quickly becoming discouraged. Sorry if I've broken any Wiki-etiquette but please know his 'work' goes across many different pages. I would very much like to see him settle down. Ragnhild16 (talk) 06:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)