User talk:Jayron32/Archive18

Note

Seeing York's name pop up again on an SPI, seemingly several times this past week, I wonder if some chronic trolls should just be automatically swept every week or so, rather than going through so much mechanical work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Trust me, York is swept every week. He's got a very predictable pattern and many of us know it quite well. It drifts over time, but he never remains hidden long. Per WP:BEANS, I won't broadcast his "tells", but he has them. To be fair, this latest report I wasn't all that confident was him (and it turns out it wasn't), but he's not hard to spot. --Jayron32 02:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

No need to issue any tipoffs. I'm just glad he's (mostly) not on my radar. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Lighten up

Just a little random humor aimed at deflating the typically pompous responses found on the ref desk. There's all kinds of humor posted on those pages by regular contributors all the effing time, so get off your high horse bud. Bite me if you can't take a joke. Textorus (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Chomp. Consider yourself bitten. Do you have a preference for which body part tastes best? --Jayron32 02:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

To elaborate a bit more. Yeah, you're entirely right. I suppose I didn't need to get all snippy. I suppose I shouldn't have left that message at your talk page. My humblest apologies for that. Sometimes I could use a bit of lightening up... --Jayron32 03:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Elementary, my dear

Re: [1] and in all seriousness: I share and applaud your ideal of taking each question at face value, ignoring who asked it, demonstrating patience, and also responding for the edification of whoever else is reading. (btw, it's more intuiting than sleuthing for the most part, from having spent way too much time at the desks and in their colorful company). Sometimes I don't like seeing our stalwart volunteers wasting time on what might be disingenuous experiments in online community behaviour. Happy Holidays! ---Sluzzelin talk 01:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! That's very kind of you! --Jayron32 02:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011

Hello. You are being contacted because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup but have not yet signed up for the 2011 WikiCup, which starts at midnight. It is not too late to sign up! The competition will remain open until at least January 31, and so it is not too late to enter. If you are interested, simply follow the instructions to add your username to the signup page, and a judge will contact you as soon as possible with an explanation of how to participate. The WikiCup is a friendly competition open to all Wikipedians, old and new, experienced and inexperienced, providing a fun and rewarding way to contribute quality content to Wikipedia. If you do not want to receive any further messages about the WikiCup, or you want to start receiving messages about the WikiCup, you may add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the WikiCup talk page or contact the judges directly. J Milburn and The ed17 06:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy, happy

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from the beachfront in warm Cuba) Bzuk (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 5

Likely large typo or busted grammar in Jayron's support comment. Maybe Jayron wish to fix.:) Pedro :  Chat  21:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope it is clearer now. I was trying to be "funny". Failing, apparently. But trying. --Jayron32 21:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Tis much clearer. Just in case big bad 'crat man no understand Jayron's support is better made lucid.

BTW Happy new year good sir, and hope you're well. Very best wishes, as ever. Pedro :  Chat  21:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Back atcha. --Jayron32 21:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Cheers matey. Pedro :  Chat  21:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

hey

Hey, I just wanted to get in touch and apologise again for using you as an example in my rant on the ref desk talk page - it was lazy writing on my part - not you I was talking about, really, but a tendency that might be on the desks, or not, depending on my sense of perspective. You ended up as the unfortunate brunt, and although the smacking down I got was a bit too forceful, I've decided it was deserved. So - sorry, and happy new year and best of wikipediaing to you.

Adambrowne666 (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, don't sweat it. I didn't take it too personally; it was good, constructive criticism, given in the best of faith, and I accepted it. I have taken it to heart, and I am trying to avoid "running off at the mouth", both in trying to avoid answering questions I really don't know much about, and in being less "sarcastic" in my responses to others. Regardless of what others have said about the issue, I took it in the best of all possible strides, and used it for what it was: an opportunity for self-betterment. I should thank you for your candor and honesty; sometimes we need that, I know that I did. And a happy new year to you too! --Jayron32 00:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked User:Iaincormack

is back again. Created Portree Youth League as User:Rangersiain - not very original, is he? Same rubbish about this so-called Friends Football Club, who are now to be playing in a league. A league with two teams in it. I've not tagged it - I'll leave the action to you. Peridon (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

•  Done. --Jayron32 02:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

self admitted sock

Is there sufficient reason [2] to open an investigation for sleeper socks? Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh sure. But I'm not a checkuser. Feel free to ask for one. Grundle is basically an attention seeker, which is why I didn't raise a huge issue. Checkuser may find some sleepers, but it's pointless. Grundle always shows up to scream from the mountaintops that it is him. He wants you to know it is him. He isn't trying to sneak information into Wikipedia anymore, he's just interested in tweaking our noses and that sort of stuff. --Jayron32 21:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Will just let sleeping dogs sleep. Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Another RabidMelon Sock?

Hi Jayron,

Thanks for your help with the problems on Harry M. Rubin. You may recall that there was an abusive sock named RabidMelon, who also went by SotaMayor and RubinAttorney, the latter of whom made legal threats. In any event, the page was protected for a while, which was helpful. However, an editor, ChileanMiner, has now started to edit. ChileanMiner appears to be a new editor and is only making edits to the Harry M. Rubin page. Based upon his edits, I believe he's very likely to be another sock for RabidMelon. I have not made corrective edits because I'm certain what will happen. Any thoughts on how to proceed? Can we protect again? ButtonwoodTree (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support. Much appreciated. ButtonwoodTree (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Jayron, sorry to bother you again with this, but, I hate Socks for Christmas (I mean, a nice tie would be one thing, but, geez, Socks?), anyway, he's back, this time not signed in, just as IP address as 74.101.84.25. What do you think? ButtonwoodTree (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Changes made to Megleno-Romanians by MacedonianBoy

Hello from Boston! I saw your warning note at User_talk:Makedonovlah on the Balkan conflicts and such on, and I am wondering if you can give an opinion to the changes done by User:MacedonianBoy to Megleno-Romanians at this talk page. Thanks!--Codrin.B (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have any opinions. Like ever. On anything, especially in this area. I will address behavior if it becomes a problem. But I refuse to hold any content opinions over what is going on in this situation. --Jayron32 20:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I don't blame you ;-) --Codrin.B (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

BLP lists

Re your comment on WP:AN I'm deeply saddened to see that List of people who snore and List of people who sleep on the left side of the bed are still red links. Not posting this there, because of WP:BEANS. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

:)

At the hugest danger of being labelled a chauvinist, and disregarding the edit summary you left, I have to accept that this was too hilarious :) Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 16:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes, you just have to recognize when everything that needs to be said just has been. --Jayron32 18:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Ref desk buffer question

I've clarified my reference desk buffer question. You seem to understand this subject. If you have any further input, I'd appreciate it. ike9898 (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of EpiSurveyor.org from the list of open-source public health software

Hi. I had posted the question below back in December. Now it's in your archives, but I did not receive any response. Can you help me by explaining why EpiSurveyor was removed from the open-source software page?

Thanks,

Jselanikio (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I did answer your question, on YOUR talk page. Check again, and if you have any questions, please feel free to ask me. --Jayron32 20:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Entrypark

Hi Jayron32, I was just about to create a page for Entrypark and found out you had deleted it earlier. I was thinking of creating a page on this since when I searched for this I could not find it in wikipedia, which is usually my first reference. Let me know your thoughts. (BTW, I don't work for Entrypark, so I won't try market them ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Udsab (talk • contribs) 23:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Winter 2010 USRD newsletter

Volume 4, Issue 1 • Winter 2011 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features The Year in Review Royal Award Conferred USRD busy at work at FAC	State and national updates Project reports for CA MI MN NE NJ UT WA
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—

JCbot (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

List of National Basketball Association top individual scoring season averages

Hey Jayron. I was just reviewing the list of articles that are indefinitely fully protected in case some remain protected that way inadvertently. I came across List of National Basketball Association top individual scoring season averages. I've only looked into this for the past 5-10 minutes so forgive me if I get any facts wrong. Looks like there's an ongoing content dispute regarding number of games required to determine average. Although I know it's troublesome to keep reverting the pages, given that it's likely the same user, perhaps taking it to SPI might be more appropriate? Don't mean to be stepping on any toes, but it does seem that the vandalism is rather infrequent, and would hate to chase away a new editor that stumbles upon this full protect. Entirely your call, since I'm sure you'll spot the vandal before I do. Just thought I'd propose it. Hope you're doing well!--Gnowor^T_C 07:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It's probably been long enough. Feel free to unprotect it; I have it watchlisted, and if the same sock starts showing up again, I'll file an SPI. --Jayron32 13:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually not an admin, so if you could do the unprotect, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks so much!--Gnowor^T_C 16:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done. In the future, you can also file requests for unprotection at WP:RFPP. --Jayron32 17:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much Jayron. I had taken action on some of these pages at WP:RFPP and was planning on going there if you didn't respond promptly (based even on your first response). Still, since some admins have pointed me to the original admin in the past. Thanks again for your prompt follow-up. Hope you're having a great day!--Gnowor^T_C 17:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. And another request

Thank you for deleting the User:Abstract8585 page that I unsuccessfully tried to nominate for MfD. However, there is still some remnants of my mess online: [[3]]. Can you please close or delete that, too? Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done. --Jayron32 13:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Not to overwork you, but there is also another page left hanging that could use deletion: [4]. I am sorry for making a mess of things with this. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Glad to help anytime! --Jayron32 15:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Today's featured article question

You said at Village Pump policy "The entire process of selecting which articles will display on the main page is managed by a single Wikipedian, User:Raul654, and has been for almost 6 years now. He takes input from the community, and sometimes even listens to it, and also IIRC has an occasional assistant who helps out, like when he's on vacation or something. But it's pretty much a one-person show. --Jayron32 10:10 pm, 5 January 2011, last Wednesday (7 days ago) (UTC−7)"

I asked for an explanation of this at the Pump, although I will also run through the TFA pages to see if there is an answer there.[5] --Kleopatra (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry about the deletion. I'm still not sure how the edit conflict thing works all the time, and that was my first attempt at just going with it. --Kleopatra (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I answered your question at The Pump. --Jayron32 15:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Unilateral unblocking of Binksternet

Please see the discussion here. User:Gwen Gale has unilaterally unblocked Binksternet, despite a clear consensus on AN/I that the block, given for Binksternet's harassment of me, was appropriate. [6] This was Binksternet's 6th block in 6th month, last time he was blocked, he also promised to "stick to 1RR" only to engage in further disruption right after he was unblocked. So he has been basically let off hook, I suspect off-wiki lobbying by another admin to have played a role in this unilateral, out of the blue, action. Kurdo777 (talk) 07:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Colonel Warden

I have just read your closing statement on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden, and I would like to congratulate you on a very good summary. My own view is that there is a serious problem, as my contribution to the discussion indicates, and (although I have not counted) my guess is that the majority of contributors think so too. However, you are right in concluding that there is no clear consensus in favour of that view, and I think you did a good job of very briefly summarising the essential points of a long, complex, and sometimes acrimonious discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. When I close an RFC, I always try to keep in mind that it is not an opportunity to sanction an editor; that it really is just a "request for comment", that is the chance to gather information only. I hope that my summaries of RFCs, when I close them, do a decent job of capturing all of the prevailing viewpoints on an editor. I am glad that you found my summary well represented the overall RFC. --Jayron32 19:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm late coming to this, but I would also like to thank you for concluding a contentious RfC in an even-handed manner. I think you made an adequate summary, showing again that what matters here is consensus--even at the risk of failing to appease those who don't agree with the consensus, which is probably a lot of folks. Well done. Drmies (talk) 07:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• The latest incident below reminds me to thank you for your summary too. I naturally read it with interest and it seemed a reasonably fair distillation of what was said. I did have a final response of my own half-done in draft but I don't suppose it will be missed. Going forward, we may hope to see by results that this resolution was satisfactory. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

block purgatory: User talk:Schock.cc

Unblock was placed on hold two months ago. An up or down answer seems in order. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The user never responded to Orangemike's requests for clarification (he was the blocking admin), seen below the "block on hold" notice. Feel free to decline the hold request based on that. --Jayron32 05:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

February 2011 Wikification Drive

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wikiproject Wikify at 00:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC).

Reality on the Science Desk

I thoroughly enjoyed explanation of reality at the Science Desk. I just wanted to commend you for your spot-on observations. (...Or, what I perceived as your observations). Nimur (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! People sometimes don't want to get bogged down in philosophy, but sometimes philosophy is quite illuminatory when it comes to issues such as this. --Jayron32 20:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Vacuum energy

Bullshit, I said. Bullshit
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Vacuum cannot be proper vacuum. There must be a medium to hold the dark energy and there exists an isometric medium consisting of photons which are holding the dark energy as photons are the smallest elementary particle in term of energy as well as mass. If we cannot create a perfect vacuum, then we cannot conclude that an electro magnetic radiation can propagate without a medium. A photon cannot be mass less. Its rest mass is assumed to be zero as it is so small that it cannot be weighed. Its momentum can be observed as it is not so negligible. A photon cannot travel from the source of an electro magnetic radiation to another to carry out the energy. Photons only transfer the energy from one point to another as per the basic rule of the transverse wave as an electro magnetic wave is a special kind of transverse wave. Vibration is the only way to transfer energy from one point to another. Different mode of vibration produces different kind of energy. So if we try to construct the T.O.E. equation, then we have to find out the equation of different mode of vibrations. A string is hypothetical as we cannot explain that by which matter it is made of. What there exists in any elementary particle to produce the mass, charge etc. is a medium of high dense photons. The photons absorb energy from different rays of different frequencies. As there exists a magnetic moment in every elementary particle, the photons cannot escape from the particles. The continuous energy state change (as it absorbs energy from a ray having a definite frequency or of its multiple integral) of the photons produces a definite mode of vibration. As a result the mass and charges (in some cases) of the particles are produced. A black hole is continuously expanding and the proper vacuum only exists in the active gravitational field of it because the gravity of a black hole is so intense that it attracts even the particles of negligible masses, like photons. The Big Bang is a cyclic process and it could occur from any black hole irrespective of its size or energy. The time period can be different but any black hole can end up with a Big Bang. I, Soumya Roy, to whom you've answered before, am definite to prove all those things stated above. But I cannot do it alone without your help because of insufficient equipments and proper laboratory. I'm definite if we prove all those things no one can stop us from winning the Nobel. These things cannot be proved yet because no one has ever think these in this point of view. Please try to help me. Contact me in this number : +919800706005. Please contact me as early as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.162.85 (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC) Pseudoscientific bullshit isn't my area of expertise. You'll have to take your crazy somewhere else, we're all stocked up here. --Jayron32 16:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC) Don't give such a comment in the field in which you are totally in dark. Try to improve your language because before discovering something,that seems "bullshit" to all over confident public as they know nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.161.233 (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify's Coordinator Election

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 22:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC).

Return of the Sock?

Remember that SPI you raised for me? I think he's back, Radioman4747 (talk · contribs). What should we do? --Redrose64 (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I blocked him, and salted the article. In the future, you can bring these to me, and we will do WP:RBI. --Jayron32 15:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Col Warden

FYI, since you closed the RFCU. User has started again - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Authenticity in art. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Take this to WP:AN if you wish to discuss the matter further. I have no opinion on this issue. --Jayron32 13:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

take a look, Jayron, at what Uncle G and (to a much lesser extent) I have found and said at the AfD. . Perhaps indeed you can do something about BK and Hrafn in their persecution of a good editor who added an excellent and demonstrably relevant reference. . DGG ( talk ) 14:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

DGG: Take it to WP:AN. What part of "I have no opinion on this issue" is hard to understand. --Jayron32 14:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

re: IP talk page edit war

Re: WP:ANI#IP talk page edit war ...

For most users, I agree with the justification. Let me clarify my statement - when I said "there's a strong argument for requiring block notices to remain", I was thinking specifically about IP accounts, especially dynamic IP accounts. If an IP user blanks the block notice, then the IP is re-assigned before the block expires, the new user of the IP has no notice on their talk page explaining why they are blocked.

Although, I've never tried ... if a blocked user attempts to edit, do they receive only the reason given in the block, or do they get an explaination more like that seen in a block notice template such as {{uw-ablock}}? --- Barek (talk) - 21:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The Wikifier, WikiProject Wikify's First Newsletter (January 2011)

The Wikifier Your Wikification Newsletter – Volume I, Issue I, January 2011 From the editor • General news Membership • December drive results To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Welcome to WikiProject Wikify's first newsletter! This newsletter will be published every two months, right before the start of the upcoming drive. February's Drive is projected to be a huge success, with announcements posted at The Signpost and Community Portal. Participants will be rewarded with barnstars. Sign up if you have not already! Project Coordinator elections are still open until February 1, 2011. Happy Wikifying, The coordinators of The Wikifier: Mono (talk) and Sumsum2010·T·C·Review me!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 02:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC).

advocacy noticeboard

Was it you who determined that the result was to delete, or another admin? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It was me. Did I not sign my closure? Lemme check... No, I signed it. --Jayron32 00:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I am confused - I often get timestamps wrong and all - but the way I read it, you registered a negative view of the matter very early on. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No, if you check the only time I commented at the MFD is in the closing statement. I made no other comment on it. I was entirely uninvolved in the matter. See the page history. I only edited the MFD twice: Once to add the "Closing" template so that I could read over the discussion and determine the consensus, and once to add the closing statement itself. There was a bit of a gap between those two edits, of about 45 minutes, as it was a long discussion which generated a lot of text to work through to develop a sense of the consensus, and to write an adequate closing statement based on that. --Jayron32 21:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you are confusing me with another user? There are other users with similar names to mine. Rd232 has a name that ends in 32, and he commented at the MFD early on. --Jayron32 21:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I am sure I am confused - as i said I often get lost in these discussions. Thanks for clarifying. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal of question on Ref Desk/ Science

I have taken this discussion to the Ref Desk talk page. It would have been polite to have let me know what you had done on my talk page. Bielle (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Ted Williams

Sorry about that, I'm new here and I saw his interview on The Today Show where he stated he was Christian, so I thought I should add the category. My bad. Applez2Applez (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 January newsletter

We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. Signups are now closed, and we have 129 listed competitors, 64 of whom will make it to round two. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions), who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by Hurricanehink (submissions), with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to Yellow Evan (submissions), who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1, Miyagawa (submissions), who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and Jarry1250 (submissions) who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, 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 receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 22:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Humanities desk

Sorry again! I've done that before, but it only ever happens with you. With everyone else I get an edit conflict. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive has begun!

Get going! The February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive has begun. Please get started, as the drive aims to wikify over 2,000 articles this month. We're going to need all the firepower we can get, so please remind your friends to join up as well. In case you didn't know, wikification is fairly simple: just add wiki markup, links, and similar formatting. Thanks for joining; we're looking forward to an exciting time this month! Regards, Guoguo12 (talk · contribs), Mono (talk · contribs), Nolelover (talk · contribs), and Sumsum2010 (talk · contribs).

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 01:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

Peer review, if you are interested

I was looking for a peer review of 1907 Tiflis bank robbery to get it prepared for a featured article run. I saw that you were listed as a volunteer on the peer review page for history articles. So if you would be willing to take a look at this article, I would greatly appreciate any thoughts you have on how I can improve it. Best regards, Remember (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

3RR

Do you want to look at my WP:AN3 report, or do you feel too involved? CTJF83 22:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

User:PM800

Hi Jayron - your comment on AN3 suggested that we wait to see how the user responds before doing anything. He won't respond - in case you haven't interacted with this user before, he just ignores all prompts for discussion. Plus, he's been editing quite a bit since the AN3 and ANI discussions started, but hasn't come along and explained himself. Arctic Night 03:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No, we're not waiting for him to answer on his talk page. We're waiting for him to commit more violations of Wikipedia policy. If he read the last warning and stops misbehaving, there is no need to block him. If he continues to violate policies and guidelines after his last warning, then I will block him. But until he does, there is no need, especially since he is, right now, writing good content and spefically NOT violating any policies. --Jayron32 03:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

This edit was made after the user's 'final warning' by Fences and windows. No reason given, and no discussion entered into when approached about it. The issue with this user is not just his edit warring but also his disregard for other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It's clear - the user removed content from a page, which is a clear violation of the 'no page blanking' rule. Anyhow, no matter what the outcome, I'll be scouring this user's contribs with a fine tooth comb over the next few days. Arctic Night 03:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

And I would have made the same revert, in that case, that PM800 made. When numbers are changed without sources, and without any edit summary, it is impossible to tell if it is a good edit. I don't see where that one edit counts as a violation. Look, I highly recommend you back down a bit. This is becoming an unhealthy obsession for you. Yes, he has been a problematic editor in the past. Yes, you were correct to raise the issue to a wider audience so people can keep him under scrutiny. But you are becoming so single-minded on the demands to "block him NOW" that its becoming a problem. Please just chill for a while and let it go for a bit. I'm not asking you to ignore what he has done or to not keep an eye open in the future, but at this point the issue is beyond the dead horse stage... Take a little time to gain some perspective and let yourself cool off a bit. Edit some articles or something. --Jayron32 03:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

72 DYK nominations, countless more that could potentially have been created... I hope his dickery was worth it. Arctic Night 03:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive a week away

WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of March. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 50. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, we hope we can see you in March. MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 00:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive Needs Your Help!

Please help! The February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive is almost complete. Please help, as the backlog is still very large. Still exceeding 20,000 articles! The goal is 18,000 or less. Lets see if we can do it! We're going to need all the firepower we can get, so please remind your friends to help as well.Thank you for all your help thus far! Regards, Guoguo12 (talk · contribs), Mono (talk · contribs), Nolelover (talk · contribs), Sumsum2010 (talk · contribs), and WikiCopter (talk · contribs).

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 04:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC).

File:David M. Nelson.jpg

Jayron32, I see you that you disputed the non-free use for File:David M. Nelson.jpg, which I uploaded. There are a myriad of copyrighted images or images with unknown copyright of deceased persons used here on Wikipedia in exactly the same way. I don't see how you can make the a case that the image is being used in "purely decorative fashion". If that were so, the same would be true for just about every image of a biography subject on Wikipedia. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Jayron32, you are quite right about the whole X other wrongs don't make a right argument. I get that. I'm just concerned because I and many of other users, particular many others working on WikiProject College football, have seen images used exactly in this fashion without contest for years and have been under the belief that a safe precedent was established, upon which a great deal of work has been based. As far as I can discern, the only item at Wikipedia:NFCC under which the David Nelson image comes into question is #8, contextual significance. The tag in use says "Use of historic images from press agencies must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy)." Doesn't the "transformative nature" element only apply to images expressly sourced back to a press agency? What about an image like this that appears to be the property of a museum? Along those lines, what is your thought about the license rationale for File:Mickeymantle.png. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 February newsletter

So begins round two of the WikiCup! We now have eight pools, each with eight random contestants. This round will continue until the end of April, when the top two of each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers of those remaining, will make it to round three. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions) (first, with 487 points) and Hurricanehink (submissions) (second, with 459), who stormed the first round. Casliber (submissions) finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to Jarry1250 (submissions) for dealing with all bot work. This year's bot, as well as running smoothly, is doing some very helpful things that last year's did not. Also, thanks to Stone (submissions) for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.

Some news for those who are interested- March will see a GAN backlog elimination drive, which you are still free to join. Organised by WikiProject Good articles, the drive aims to minimise the GAN backlog and offers prizes to those who help out. Of course, you may well be able to claim WikiCup points for the articles you review as part of the drive. Also ongoing is the Great Backlog Drive, looking to work on clearing all of the backlogs on Wikipedia; again, incentives are offered, and the spirit of friendly competition is alive, while helping the encyclopedia is the ultimate aim. Though unrelated to the WikiCup, these may well be of interest to some of you.

Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, 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 receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Transmission electron microscopy DNA sequencing

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify's March Mini Drive

WikiProject Wikify's March Mini! Hello, I thought you would be interested in the March Mini, a coordinated effort by WikiProject Wikify members to eliminate the 2008 backlog of articles tagged with {{wikify}} and/or {{dead end}}. Come join in the fun! There are only three prizes to be won, including a special barnstar created just for this drive! Regards, WikiProject Wikify

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 04:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC).

BLP, ethnicity, gender

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Include "ethnicity, gender," to match all other guidelines

Wikilawyers have been trying to drive through a wording loophole in WP:BLP, saying ethnicity and gender of WP:EGRS don't apply to living persons, simply because the two words aren't in the policy. (Apparently, they think it should only apply to dead people.) I see that you have participated on this topic at the Village Pump.

They also are trying to remove the notability, relevance, and self-identification criteria at WT:EGRS, but that's another fight for another day, I'm simply too busy to watch two fronts at the same time.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

kidda entry

Hi Jayron,

A default entry has just gone up on the Kidda entry I entered yesterday. I'm a freelance music writer with no direct connection to Kidda or his label/management, apart from writing his press biog recently. As I'd recently met him, they asked me to create a Wiki entry for him, which I tried to do in a completely objective manner.

Can you tell me which parts are not objective?

Thanks,

CL

Carlloben (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

kidda

Hi again Jayron,

Because Kidda is a fairly new artist with not much written about him, there isn't that much stuff out there about him. He's had just one album out, and from what I gather it had favourable reviews pretty much everywhere.

Doubtless he has had some negative moments in his life, but these haven't been documented in the media. Perhaps his biggest mishap was having most of the money from his 'Under The Sun' track that was used in a Bacardi ad being taken by EMI, but I thought this was presented in a neutral way (in the interview I did with him, he called them c**ts and so on).

Other Wiki entries on electronic music artists have seemed similar in tone - for instance, the Plump DJs and IDC - and constructed by somebody with some connection to them. I'm unclear as to how somebody with no contact to an artist would be able to know so much about them?

Doubtless I can try to find some negative reviews of his album or unearth titbits about negative moments in his life - is this what you think I should do?

Carl Loben

Carlloben (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

kidda again

Hi Jayron,

If you could ask for an outside review of the article, that'd be great. As I said before, I'm not employed by or related to this artist - I just tried to do my best by them for a Wikipedia entry.

Best,

CL

Carlloben (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:Help Desk

I and Almost participate in ko:w:위키백과토론:외국어의 한글 표기 개정안 ko.wikipedians are not confuse the difference between research and original research. but there is just one insistence. That`s it. not all.

But The user ko:user:Sz1161 said, the using reailable source also, is original reserch too. because, there seem so many many same or commonly name (although that is reailable source) but it can just show there is so many same name then it cannot conclude that is COMMON NAME. How think you about this insistence? See also WP:Help Desk my question. Thx--Altostratus (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

New messages

Hello, Jayron32. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wikify/Drives/2011/April.
Message added 13:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Guoguo12--Talk--  13:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)