User talk:Jayron32/Archive29

.Jaguars Secondary

Who do you think is the worst player out of all the Jaguars secondary:

I think it's Gratz. Who do think is the worst player on the Jags secondary. Their secondary is trash. please reply! --166.172.56.241 (talk) 12:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for telling me how to sign comments! BollyDave (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. If you need any help around here with anything else, feel free to ask! --Jayron 32 15:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

courtesy

Not that you're 'involved', but since you're quoted, be aware of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mrandrewnohome#Unblock_request μηδείς (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Limberbutt

Hi. I saw you undid Anthony Appleyard's redirect of Limberbutt. Would you be kind enough to move Limberbutt to Limberbutt McCubbins over the redirect? The article should really be at the full name. I think Anthnoy saw my move request and that's what prompted him to redirect the article. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Jayron 32 15:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A belated thanks

Re: This ANI

I just wanted to pop in to say "Thanks" to you, Newyorkbrad, Liz, Diannaa, Renamed user 51g7z61hz5af2azs6k6, and KoshVorlon for interjecting reason while I was away. Of course it was an RFC I had forgotten entirely about during one of my (increasingly long and increasingly frequent) absences (precisely because the issues there so disgusted me, so I left), and of course if I had not been in the Caribbean when the old RFC diffs were called to my attention, I would have immediately removed them. It is outlandish that diffs for an RFC were characterized as an "enemy list". That some editors continue to carry grudges for FIVE years (even after Floquenbeam denied the characterization of an RFC prep page as an "attack" page) is what convinced me this time to extend my vacation from WickyWackiness as long as possible. I do appreciate those who spoke up, but one tires of these endless grudges and retaliatory behaviors. I'm sorry I left @FAR coordinators: holding the ball on a large project we had undertaken, but enough is enough. Thanks again, Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine - FAR is moving (albeit slowly but still), enjoy your holiday - you've put in enough work on the project for (substitute some large number) of us, and I see high standards and thoroughness continue at FAC. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Wikipedia in general suffers from a "seeing the forest for the trees". Most people are too focused on staring at the bark of one tree to have any vision of the entire forest, and the sort of silly tangents like we saw there is just one symptom of that. Coupled with the fact that people were pressing urgency on a non-urgent issue while you were away seemed to me that it was best at the time to just shut it down. --Jayron 32 12:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURO bullshit

(As it has been termed.) Hello; you might wish to see and perhaps even comment on this at WP:AN/I. -- Hoary (talk) 02:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Center Line: Summer 2015


Volume 8, Issue 3 • Summer 2015 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features Road to the past: Some tips on researching history sections Getting to know the editors behind the lenses	State and national updates State updates In other project news...
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) delivered on behalf of Imzadi1979 05:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this artical should be unprotected and corrected ,

Jayron32 , i worked in this film from day one aas an production support this man Harinder sikka is big fraud man , please un protect this artical other wise legal notice will be send to you

truly Negi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.147.55.196 (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article will remain protected until all parties can agree on a consensus version. --Jayron 32 19:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Crystal Coast, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cape Lookout. 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) 10:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject message

In lots of article talk pages there is a very large message: This article is part of Wikiproject so and so. I created a few articles recently. I don't know how to add these wikiproject children's literature, wikiproject women writers in the talk pages of the articles. --Action Hero 16:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the main page of each Wikiproject, there should be the template code to add these templates. For example, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Children's literature lists the templates you need under the "Templates" section. --Jayron 32 16:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CENT

Hi Jayron, I reverted your addition to Template:CENT, per WP:CENT which says: Cent is generally used to draw attention to discussions regarding policies, guidelines or other matters that have a wide impact and on which a broad consensus is needed. Announcements, such as for ArbCom elections, etc., are generally done via the Watchlist notice or the Sitenotice. Discussions related to content, including use of infoboxes and templates within a specific topic area, are usually best advertised within the appropriate WikiProjects. It also states, in the "inappropriate" list, Minor matters, housekeeping, article content discussions, or maintenance and Content disputes. Thanks for understanding! Kharkiv07 (T) 03:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for correcting my mistake! --Jayron 32 03:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get the idea...

... that "the concept of the good-natured insult is a uniquely American phenomenon"? Or at least had its origins in the USA?

Shakespeare is full of such things. As were his forebears. And his French, Italian, German and other colleagues. I'd say it's a common human behaviour, LONG predating the US of A. Were you perhaps joking? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read it in a source. I don't actually have original thoughts. I just read sources, paraphrase and link them. --Jayron 32 02:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no you don't just ..., thank goodness :P, but I saw it in the source too, and I admit it surprised me too (though I do know certain cultures, including the one dominating where I live, where it used to be a bit more risky to insult good-naturedly than perhaps in America, depending on company and context). ---Sluzzelin talk 02:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That source said it's "virtually unknown abroad". That would be the most untrue statement I have ever read. Seriously. You're an idiot if you think otherwise. :) See, there, I've just insulted you good-naturedly, and I certainly didn't get that habit from American TV. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I just established that I don't think... wise or otherwise... --Jayron 32 03:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's all too apparent. :) I was just demonstrating that not all sources should be considered reliable sources for our purposes. You being an admin, I presume that circumstance would be of interest to you. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Desklin

I see you answered a question by user Desklin at the humanities. I have removed the section, the consensus here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_118#Return_of_User:Bowei_Huang_2_sock was that desklin is a sock of bowei huang. μηδείς (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus there, if there was any, was that IF it was a sock of Bowei, to take it to SPI to get positive confirmation. After SPI blocks them, we can try remove it. --Jayron 32 16:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trolls eat chaos, not truth.

If he's known, he's known and if trolls are banned, they're banned. Fair enough. But trolls don't want the sort of crumbs I throw. Too simple. Some Jews are for it, for aren't, case closed. Trolls eat anger, confusion, conflict, disruption, that sort of junk. Some eat goats. Most will take a revert war, if they can't get a enraged response. Feed a troll some brief knowledge, they'll either get wiser or bored. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:54, September 24, 2015 (UTC)

Whatever. --Jayron 32 01:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you completely delete my question

Why did you completely erase my question? Huh? Because I wasn't being politically correct? STOP THE LEFT CENSORSHIP!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.159.50 (talk) 15:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi there. Could I kindly request you not to close AN/I discussions that discuss matters you are involved in? The problems with your doing this should be obvious, so I won't spell it out for you. Thanks a lot for your understanding. --John (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

? --Jayron 32 17:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DriveByWire

As I suspected, our editor concerned with apostrophes is back, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&diff=682626483&oldid=682626119 The IP who made the edit is just back from being blocked for a year for being a cuddlyable3 sock. Presumably the registered editor who showed up asking if we could edit people's apostrophes is the same. I am off to watch the game, so don't have time to file an SPI, but am letting you know. If you look at the IP's block log you'll see what I am talking about. μηδείς (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know if you were not automatically notified that you were mentioned as a prior witness here. If not, I will send a heads-up to the other parties who have dealts with this in the past. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 00:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I got the notice, but don't really have anything else to add. I agree that the IP is definitely C3, but the second probably not. I think the interest in grammar from the account is a coincidence, his communication patterns don't freaky match C3. Jayron 32 02:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were mentioned

I mentioned you at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sloopcaptain. Just FYI. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Piktard

Hello. My first instinct was that this person was engaging in block evasion too based on their mention of a block. However when I saw the response by User:Yunshui [1] I am now thinking this all took place on another wiki. If the block was on another wiki then they are not really engaging in block evasion, rather they are just looking in the wrong place.

I can't even figure out what language https://hy.wikipedia.org is. You may know something I don't, but I wanted to make sure you knew all the details. I will leave this in your capable hands. HighInBC ^{(was Chillum)} 19:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I've misread the situation, please feel free to unblock. --Jayron 32 19:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no desired outcome, I just wanted to make sure you were in possession of the facts. HighInBC ^{(was Chillum)} 19:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not overly convinced of Yunshui's conclusions. If the user in questions wishes to explain themselves, they have the unblock template, and if I'm wrong on my reading, I'll unblock myself, or anyone can, for that matter. --Jayron 32 19:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"hy" is Armenian, and indeed GeoO and Piktard are both editors there, GeoO is an admin there, and Piktard is blocked there. As a result, I'm pretty confident Yunshui has it right, it's the only thing that really makes sense. I don't think unblocking the en.wiki account will necessarily lead to a useful outcome - I doubt they want to edit here - but there's a possibility that not unblocking could lead to a worse outcome, if that makes any sense. I'll interpret your offer to HiBC as applying to me too, so I'll unblock with an explanation not to import disagreements from other Wikipedias, and will keep an eye on them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! Thanks for fully investigating the situation, and fixing my mess! --Jayron 32 19:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a "mess", it was indeed confusing. Anyway, no problem, sorted I think. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Center Line: September 2015

Volume 8, Issue S1 • September 2015 • About the Newsletter

Happy 10th Anniversary!

Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 (talk) on 23:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Homo naledi

Hello. You placed the article Homo naledi under full protection on September 25th. While the RfC was closed as stale, the discussion (of which I am a participant) remains on Talk:Homo naledi. 3rd party eyes are needed and welcome. Please feel free to weigh in on whether arbitration may needed, or if a lower level of page protection is warranted. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can assure me that the edit war will not occur, and if ONLY talk page discussion will occur over the issue at hand, I will remove the protection. As soon as the first person edits the article, in either direction, to restart the edit war, I will restore the protection. --Jayron 32 04:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the edit warring was has resumed, on other issues.CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User Here to sway is a chronic disturbance. He is still reverting content only he supports. Has done about a dozen reverts this morning! I wish someone with the knowledge takes him through the process to be banned from this topic, if not from Wikipedia. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was away for a few days. Looks like the problematic user has been blocked. If they return under a new name, use WP:SPI or WP:ANI for help with that, if I'm not around. If edit warring is a problem again, WP:ANEW or WP:RFPP is the place to go. Looks like it's settled down for now. --Jayron 32 13:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition?

You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AN

Howdy. Would you place my final post into the now closed discussion on March 3 or 4? I hadn't noticed your closure, until after I posted. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Jayron 32 23:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anheuser-Busch InBev – SABMiller

discussions about the evilness and/or ignorance of Americans can go on elsewhere

– Jay, the discussion was not about evilness or ignorance, it was a reasoned debate about making the blurb readily understandable to our global English-speaking audience. You've read something into it that wasn't there at all as far as I was concerned, and your phrasing sounds like a put-down. Sca (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: This also was gratuitous sarcasm that did not contribute positively to the discussion:

"But MOM, Jimmy gets to stay up late tonight! Why don't I get to stay up late!" doesn't really apply here as an argument type for posting.

Sca (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you felt that the discussion was going to result in positive changes towards Wikipedia in any way, please restore the discussion and have fun. --Jayron 32 21:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It could have, but no – as I said, nuff said. Sca (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request here and on your own talk page and on David Levy's talk page, I have restored the discussion so that you may continue to contribute to it. --Jayron 32 01:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I've misinterpreted Sca's 21:58 response, there was no such request. There definitely wasn't one from me. I merely agreed that your edit summary appeared to reflect a mistaken perception of hostility. I didn't object to the discussion's removal. (For the record, if someone does want to retain it for the time being, I don't object to that either.) —David Levy 01:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per clear indication, I did something wrong. I know this because two of you have now told me I did something wrong. I have returned all situations to status quo ante bellum to remove what I have done wrong. If there are other actions you wish me to take, please tell me so that I can further correct any problems my actions may have caused. --Jayron 32 01:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was to eliminate an apparent misunderstanding, not to complain that you did something wrong or request any action on your part. Please consider the matter resolved (from my perspective, at least). —David Levy 02:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It saddens me, then, that you find comments like "Why on Earth should we mention US dollars? That idea makes no sense. Might as well mention yens. Or dinars. Or baths. This is not the US wiki, it's the English language wiki." and "Perhaps it's a good opportunity for our US readers to read about things that exist outside the US, like the pound." to be productive and useful towards improving the encyclopedia. When people make comments like those, it is usually time to end the conversation, because the "US people are stupid, and we need to minimize mentions of the U.S. at Wikipedia because of this" is rarely a productive way to improve Wikipedia's content. Those were among the last two comments made by editors when I removed the thread. If you think comments like "Perhaps it's a good opportunity for our US readers to read about things that exist outside the US, like the pound." are helpful towards building an encyclopedia which is inclusive of multiple cultures, I really don't know what to do for you. I'm not sure how to understand those comments except as another subtle dig against an ethnicity and nationality, of the sort which we should not tolerate. --Jayron 32 02:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The comments' wording may have been a bit indelicate, but I interpreted neither to mean that "U.S. people are stupid, and we need to minimize mentions of the U.S. at Wikipedia because of this" or anything comparable (and I'm especially perplexed as to how "ethnicity" enters the picture).

Respectfully, I'm not asking you to do anything for me. I'm simply stating that I wasn't offended. I'm sorry that you were, but I'm not saddened by an honest difference of opinion. Reasonable people can disagree. —David Levy 03:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, you're correct. I was rash and rude. I need to hold my tongue a bit more. I apologize for that. I have no reason to defend myself, and in retrospect, you and SCA were correct to raise issue with me. I fully admit wrongdoing, and apologize without equivocation for doing so. --Jayron 32 03:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My, my! In any case, I have no interest in resuming the dollar-pound discussion in relation to this story. It was apparent ystdy that my view was unlikely to prevail against convention – thus, "Nuff said." Anyway the story is old news at this pt. Have a groovy weekend, guys. Sca (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hijodetenerife

Hi. You have been mentioned in relation to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Timothyhere#16_October_2015. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you pinged me. Last time I took care of a problem of this nature, you got pissed. I think your evidence is solid, but I'm not saying so publicly, because as soon as I comment on the SPI, he's going to be blocked on behavioral evidence and no checkuser will be run. That's how SPI works. I'm sure you want an Checkuser run, because the last time it wasn't it pissed you off something fierce. If you need me to add my evidence and opinion, or if you want me to just block the sock, I'm comfortable doing either, but I fear that either would have the consequence of working counter to your purpose here. I'd advise that we do that anyways, because a CU isn't going to turn up anything, because the last confirmed Timothyhere sock is 2 years old, FAR too stale for CU to be used to make a connection. So, all we have is behavioral evidence, and you've given me enough to block. Honestly, I'm going to let the checkuser request get declined or turn up nothing based on the staleness of the prior confirmed sock, so you can see that I know what I'm talking about, and then I'll just go ahead and block as I should now. On the very slim chance that CU gets run and turns up something useful, you get to say "I told you so", and I'll buy you a beer sometime. --Jayron 32 03:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted you to be aware since you had responded to Hijo's question, and you had a valid objection about the SPI filed against Donmust. I don't want you to do anything. This is simply me trying to be balanced and objective and to give a head's up. I'll be happy to leave the SPI play itself cut. If they say it's stale I can reping you, but I am hoping this will be clear cut μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's because Donmust obviously wasn't Timothyhere. I had been interacting with Donmust for years before he registered a name, I knew him well enough to be certain of that. I rather think that Hijo is Timothyhere, however. I had suspected privately he was someone, but have a terrible memory for these things. I'm impressed you remembered a troll from two years ago to tie him to, and remembered enough about Timothyhere's MO to connect the dots. I forget my kids names when I'm out of town for a week, so I'm terrible for this kind of thing. However, I agree with your evidence, and based on it, could do some digging and present more to help the case. But, I'm also happy to let the SPI play out. He'll be blocked soon enough, regardless... --Jayron 32 03:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hehehe, it was the island stuff that started reminding me, then I found an old remark on my talk page that gave it away, although I would eventually have found him from the "why does small island country X support Israel?" questions in the archives. I think a comment from you at the SPI request in support but without blocking him would be great. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consider yourself repung, as a CU has declined based on staleness. I would wonder whether staleness applies over time no matter what for the same location? In any case Timothyhere is banned, and if you concur I'll expunge him tomorrow afternoon. μηδείς (talk) 04:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with "staleness" is that foundation policy does not allow Checkuser to be used to make connections between accounts/IPs when one or the other is over a certain age. It would be technically possible to do; I believe that the software may have governors built in to prevent the data from being accessed over a certain age to keep it in line with policy; though I don't know, perhaps Checkusers themselves technically can see the information but are not allowed by Foundation policy from revealing it. In any event, I'll take care of it. Hate to say I told you so... --Jayron 32 11:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have a problem with any of this, it is just that the process is not very transparent to an outsider. I appreciate your help. μηδείς (talk) 03:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality disputes

I sometimes see "The Neutrality of this Article is Disputed" tag on articles. How does one dispute an article's neutrality? Does it take at least two editors "disputing" to create a dispute? Does an Administrator have to tag the article? I've run across some articles that seem to have a lot of bias and I wonder how this is done. Thanks. Foreignshore (talk) 04:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check the article talk page. If someone adds the tag to the article, it is required of them to explain on the talk page why they added it, and what their concerns are. Assume the person who added the tag had legitimate concerns about the quality of the article, but check the talk page to see if an explanation has been left. If one has not been left, you have a few options 1) If you can understand why the tag was left anyways, you can leave your own comments on the talk page, or even better yet, just fix the problems with the article. 2) If you don't know why the tag is there, AND no explanation has been left as to why the tag was place (that is, there is no thread on the talk page explaining the problems with the article), AND you can't find any problems yourself, go ahead and remove the tag. It is useless unless it guides people to fix the article, and without any accompanying discussion on the article talk page, these tags are often not helpful. --Jayron 32 12:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

how can you know that timotyhere is hijodetenerife?

Only because someone has a spanish Name he gets banned? --Poker chip (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By his behavior. The person who operated the Timothyhere account, and many other accounts, had a clearly identifiable behavioral pattern. Hijodetenerife had identifiably the same behavioral patterns. --Jayron 32 15:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world and winter coming, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day!

This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Weill

Hi, sorry to both you, but can you take a look at the Sanford I. Weill page. It's obviously an opinion, but I believe another editor is editing in bad faith. Ultimately, I believe he/she has an ulterior motive in objecting to use of the word "philanthropist" for the subject. It started with an tedious argument over the definition of the word itself and spiraled from there. I believe the editor is a student or otherwise connect to the failed donation to Paul Smith's college. Suffice it to say, when I've added both 1) high quality sources which characterize the man as a philanthropist and 2) there are descriptions and sources which describe his actual philanthropic activities, it's hard to imagine a legitimate basis to deny calling him a philanthropist. The editor seems to have a personal interest in the article. Any assistance would be appreciated. ButtonwoodTree (talk) 00:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use WP:ANEW to report someone who is edit warring, and WP:ANI to discuss complex behavior problems. --Jayron 32 12:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Appreciate the help. ButtonwoodTree (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Era of Good Feelings, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Stockton. 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, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1992 United States men's Olympic basketball team protection

I see that you removed the pending changes protection for 1992 United States men's Olympic basketball team. I'm all for keeping WP as open as possible. AFAICS, the vast majority of edits from editors that are not autoconfirmed have been reverted on this article. This seems consistent with the purpose of "pending changes" protection, which leaves the article open for editing to all (as opposed to semi-protection), but requires that the infrequent edits by non-autoconfirmed editors be reviewed before they are made available for general public viewing. I'd be interested in your perspective on this. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Damn skippy.

Done. --Jayron 32 16:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2000s in fashion request for protection

This page was given semi-protection in 2011 due to heavy vandalism and unsourced claims. Can you please revert your edit, and extend similar protection to 2010s in fashion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osama57 (talk • contribs)

@Osama57: No. The article has not been vandalized since protection was lifted. If vandalism returns, let me know, and well look into what to do to it. Also, I do not see widespread vandalism at the 2010s in fashion either. We do not protect articles preemptively, we only do so as a last resort. --Jayron 32 18:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My Bowei's Back...

No need to take action, just an FYI of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bowei_Huang_2#Bowei_Huang_2. ") μηδείς (talk) 03:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got my eye on it. Concur with you're conclusions. --Jayron 32 03:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block of 199.7.159.0/25

I see that you blocked the range 199.7.159.0/25. Is there aany reason the block wasn't set to anon only? A user on this range, Quadibloc, is asking to be allowed to edit from this range. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've granted them IP Exemption. They're not who the block was intended to catch. This is a troll that edits both anonymously and using IP addresses. Notably, the rangeblock is working, the day I enacted it, they disappeared and haven't returned since. Feel free to grant IP Exemption to anyone else caught by the collateral damage. I checked the range for anon editing from it, and couldn't find much who WASN'T the troll it was intended to stop, but as with any range, there's always a chance for collateral damage. Again, feel free to grant the exemption to anyone who needs it from this range, or ping me to review, and I'll take care of it. --Jayron 32 22:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Jaffee closure

Regarding your closure of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive903#Harry Jaffee's illness, you did notice there were veiled legal threats? Both I and the other editor mentioned this. I believe the level of threat was clearly, obviously, definitely below actual admin action, but it is the sort of thing that tilts towards ANI, does it not? Choor monster (talk) 13:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a TL;DR issue when you carry a back-and-forth debate to ANI, continue to debate with each other, and don't even let any admins contribute to the discussion. If you have direct evidence of a legal threat, start a new thread, and post the diff of the direct legal threat, being as concise and direct as possible. --Jayron 32 14:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that makes sense. It may have had 10% admin content, but it turned into an invisible 1% pretty fast. Thanks for your explanation. Choor monster (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Jaguars

Who do you think will play the Jaguars in London next year in the NFL International Series? --74.130.133.1 (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. --Jayron 32 01:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi from MurielMary

Hi Jayron, Due to the time difference between North America and where I am, I missed the entire latter part of the discussion of my IP on the main page re gender bias. Just wanted to acknowledge your role in stepping in and closing down a conversation which, I agree, was getting nowhere. Cheers, MurielMary (talk) 07:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)MurielMary[reply]

Thanks for links to Wikipedia stats

Thanks for answering my question on Village Pump about where to find information about Wikipedia statistics and new article submissions. You've helped me immensely! Evoapps (talk) 23:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5 million

We've reached five million!!

The English Wikipedia now has over 5,000,000 articles! Woo-hoo!

Feel free to pass this message on! You can never celebrate too much.

Eman235/talk 18:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

211.30.17.74 has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

Thanks for helping me find some good science websites for kids. 211.30.17.74 (talk) 06:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never retire

You can take a vacation but you are never allowed to retire from WP. Thanks 64.170.21.194 (talk) 02:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, this place is my heroin. I'd go through the DTs if I ever left for more than a week or two. --Jayron 32 02:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing debate on American football talk page

Hi Jayron32, I just wanted to alert you to the ongoing debates on Talk:American football and would appreciate any intervention which you can add to end this debate in a civil and reseasonable manner. The main debate concerns the usage of the word "football" in the article and whether there should be a preference for full names or abbreviated names. Some other editors seem to have objections to some of my other fhanges, but I have to get any specifics concerning this. Thank you for any help which you can lend. ParkH.Davis (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reassesment of History of American football's FA status

I have nominated History of American football for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cronic sock master

I wonder if WMF should look into dealing with that fellow who keeps disrupting WP:ANI? -- GoodDay (talk) 12:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's possibly nothing to be done beyond WP:RBI. Depending on what a user's particular ISP situation is, there's limited things that can be done to stop a determined person from making themselves trouble, while still preserving the ability of good faith editors to access Wikipedia. Ultimately, we depend on the fact that these people sometimes get a girlfriend, and thus get better things to do with their lives. If they don't, we're back at WP:RBI Other than that, not much else to say. --Jayron 32 12:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Manchester, New Hampshire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Queen City. 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) 10:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My gang friend!

I must say that I'm very pleased to be considered your gang friend. I've reported the user to AIV, but I thought you might find the incident amusing. Tevildo (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

different "wiki-gang" , this time WP:ELVIS

You are listed at that wikiproject; I'm working with a beginning editor who is trying to get through WP:AFC, and has been since May or so. They are getting frustrated, so I'm pinging some of the people on the Elvis list, to see if I can find a subject-matter-wikipedian to help out with the article in question. Topic is one Larry Geller, who was the hair-dresser-slash-religious-advisor from 1964 to 1967ish and then again during the 1970s. There are probably enough refs to justify a dedicated article, or if not, certainly enough to justify a subsection of an extant Elvis article, I believe. Please see User_talk:Keshakoko1, if you have time and inclination to lend a hand with this. Thanks, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 11:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Please read this FYI note. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perplexed about knighthoods

Hi, Jayron

You seem perplexed ("I don't understand the objection to my statement that the UK grants knighthoods as a form of honor on a person").

Well, that statement is uncontentious, but it is not what you said. What you said was:

• That is, after the fall of the HRE, the term "Geheimrat" came to be an honorary title in Germany, not unlike "Honorary Knighthood" as it is applied today in the UK (that is, one is Knighted not because one will be a military officer in service to the King, as was the original meaning).

That's what I questioned. The term "Honorary knighthood" is indeed used in the UK, but it does NOT mean a knight from outside the military. That is NOT how the term "is applied today in the UK". I've explained what it does mean, that it applies to people who are not UK or Commonwealth citizens, and has nothing whatsoever to do with their military associations or lack thereof.

Examples: Sir Ian McKellen is a substantive knight and can call himself Sir Ian, because he's a UK citizen. Bill Gates is an honorary knight, and can refer to himself as "Bill Gates KBE", but he cannot call himself "Sir Bill Gates". Neither of these people is a member of the military, but it would make absolutely no difference if either or both were.

I’m happy to explain this further if you're still unclear.

This has nothing to do with you being wrong or anyone wanting to make you wrong. It's about achieving a common understanding of the situation. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining the situation. I apologize for blowing it out of proportion, the op didn't deserve that, which is why I closed it. That was mostly my doing. I was unaware that the word "honorary" in this case had a specific contextual meaning, though I probably should have rather than over reacting. I was using it just to mean "to honor someone", rather than the contextual meaning of which I was unaware. Regardless, I apologize again to you, you deserved better, and the op absolutely deserved better. --Jayron 32 01:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're a very gracious man. Thank you. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New User

Did this user create any auto biographical page which was deleted. Check his first edit. --Galaxy Kid (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not on that account. --Jayron 32 15:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restore oldest blurb(s): Sinjar and/or Russian suspension?

Right now there are four blurbs, and the Main Page is off-balanced. --George Ho (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, the right column is longer than the left already. If I added ANOTHER blurb, it would be more out-of-whack. If and when the left column becomes significantly longer than the right, we'll fix that problem. --Jayron 32 19:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My monitor doesn't do that; the left outbalances the right on my screen. I don't know how your monitor works there. --George Ho (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, it's probably close enough so as to make no difference. --Jayron 32 19:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question

What record do you believe Green Bay will finish with? --74.131.36.145 (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most cheese? --Jayron 32 04:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to records like 12-4? How will the Pack finish? --166.172.59.76 (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably by playing a football game. --Jayron 32 18:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since Green Bay beated the Vikings 30-13 yesterday, will Green Bay clinch the 2nd or 3rd seed? --166.172.59.76 (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown

I moved your addition to the avove page. Just crediting you here for the additions.Lihaas (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uou dintpost the talk page notice that it was featured on the min page. Imdoing it now.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for your recent help with my issue with the Danbury, Connecticut article. I think the article will be improved as a result, instead of axed, and it feels reassuring to me that disputes of this kind can be worked out under the guidelines of Wikipedia. Much appreciation. SageRad (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, though I would also take the advice others have left you regarding the use of the word "vandalism". I would avoid using it for situations like this. --Jayron 32 20:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP crisis!?!?

see this The page claims this has happened before. Do you have any info about such past incidents/crises? Just curious is all. 199.19.248.60 (talk) 04:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no direct memory, but I'm sure it's happened. Wikipedia has millions of users. --Jayron 32 04:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Center Line: November 2015

Volume 8, Issue 4 • November 2015 • About the Newsletter

Departments

Features

State and national updates

• State updates
• In other project news...

Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 (talk) on 22:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Life/biology

Per your recent post in the Reference desk Why is this not a concrete definition of life? "Life is a characteristic that distinguishes things that have signaling and self sustaining processes from those that do not either because such functions have ceased (ie death) or such functions were never inherent to begin with and are therefore labeled as inanimate". That seems to be a great definition. In regards to prions and viruses, if they meet 99~ percent of the requirements to be constituted as life then viruses and prions are organisms right? Is this a consequence of pedants bickering over the 1% difference? 199.19.248.76 (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the ref desk is not the place to evaluate these issues. Whether or not I agree with you is irrelevant. Reliable sources have trouble agreeing on what makes a living thing. --Jayron 32 00:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again!

That's awesome you're still around and making edits over at the ref-desk. Back in 2008 or 2009 I raised a good point and had an interesting question about fluid pressure as I was studying (self-teaching) fluid dynamics from an introductory physics textbook. Well you gave an amazing answer that I will do doubt remember the rest of my life about how I could think of "springs" between water molecules and that the pressure on the bottom water molecules have the "spring force" of the water molecule directly above it and all the spring forces of the "pillar" of water atoms directly above it. Although there aren't actual springs between molecules nor do they stay perfectly stacked in a solid lattice -- it was still one of the greatest explanations about how to think of understanding pressure! From what I've learned about the actual process of learning -- I guess you consider yourself a "visual learner" too when it comes to understanding concepts? (high spatial intelligence also means you can bag groceries very efficiently -- pack items into a car trunk exceptionally well -- and be good at games such as chess & baduk/go) Do you still remember that particular fluids question by any chance? Adwctam (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words! Sorry, I don't remember that question, seven years is a long time. It does sound like my kind of answer though. I'm glad it was so memorable. I'm an educator by trade, so coming up with good explanations of complex phenomena that people can connect to is sort of my stock-and-trade. I'm glad I was able to help you out, and thanks again for your kind words! --Jayron 32 12:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Others'

Jay, don't see any correction of the San Bernadino ITN item at my end.

See:

Done. Thanks for the correction. --Jayron 32 20:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undone by User:Stephen. Mamyles (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sca (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Island

For what it's worth, the actual southernmost point of Canada is Middle Island in Lake Erie. It's far enough south and east of Detroit/Windsor that either one, or some point in between, might be relevant to the question in RD/H. --76.69.45.64 (talk) 04:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Romantic nationalism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Balance of power. 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) 10:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: edit summary on ITN

I couldn't come up with "newsworthy deaths" like you. I was too preoccupied by massive instruction changes. --George Ho (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that OK? Is there some other phrasing you prefer over "newsworthy deaths?" Also, these are not changes to anything; they are documenting what already exists. --Jayron 32 00:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and changed the phrasing to reflect reality more. --George Ho (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to Reply

Hello Jayron32

I'm new to the reference desk. Someone answered my question in the entertainment section (Rhapsody In Blue) and I'd like to respond with thanks. How do I do that? I also noted that you showed me several article about Rhapsody And Gershin - a lot to read there. Thank you.

Rcrmartin (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2015 e(UTC)

@Rcrmartin: Just use the edit link next to the section title, and you can reply that way.--Jayron 32 23:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the ping re DRV, that was very straight up of you. Lot's of people don't bother, and I appreciate your taking the time. Guy (Help!) 19:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference desk

Per THIS why is this allowed to go on? Why are there no enforcers for the rules? 199.19.248.76 (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dick Shawn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Counter culture. 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) 09:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editor

So how do you become a Wikipedia editor? By the way, I will donate to Wikipedia when it stops being politically correct.T A Francis (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) you become a Wikipedia editor by editing a Wikipedia article. There's no other requirements beyond a pulse and a keyboard. 2) Wikipedia is only concerned with being correct. See WP:V for more information. --Jayron 32 20:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Starship9000 sock

Damarious Randall, please intercept Andrewman327 is an admitted sock of Starship9000, whose cross-wiki abuse led to a global lock. Could we please have this sock locked as well, as all the others have? Thanks, GAB^Hello! 20:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both the sock and its master are currently blocked. I have no idea what else you want done.--Jayron 32 21:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Hello, I'm Eteethan. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The reverted edit can be found here. Eteethan(talk)🎄 14:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC) Sorry. Eteethan(talk)🎄 20:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Care to explain? --Jayron 32 14:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note 2

WickWack has said they have no interest in returning. This has moved past the point of usefulness. --Jayron 32 03:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Ya think wickwack is testing a new way to troll? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. --Jayron 32 16:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was there an actual registered user named wickwack, or was that just what he called himself when signing an IP? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was just an IP user who signed their posts with a variety of different names to give the illusion of different people. --Jayron 32 17:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roger. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Jayron, this is the real Wickwack. It should be quite obvious that the person who posted on the Ref Desk talk page yesterday is not me. He's a troll. DO NOT FEED TROLLS. If you genuinely belived that twerp was me, you should have followed your ban and deleted the post. If you actually thought it was someone else, it could only be a troll up to some mischief. DO NOT FEED TROLLS. IGNORE THEM. I have no objection to the ban against me, because I have no incentive to contribute to Wikipedia. Until yesterday, I haven't posted since the ban was enacted, that's 2 or 3 years ago now.

Incidenatlly, my understanding is that the ban is effectively permanent. Others have made it clear that even if I registerd and used only one ID, they would still execute the ban or have it reinstated. Wickwack 60.228.206.185 (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ban goes away when you agree to the terms laid out in the original ban discussion and ask the community to over turn it. You decide when you are ready to do that. Just let me know, and I'll make the proposal to overturn the ban. All you have to do is ask and agree to maintain one identity. There is nothing else to do.--Jayron 32 03:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron, with respect, you haven't listened. It isn't a question of me agreeing to terms. Not even remotely. Certain folk (Medeis, Steve Baker, etc) would need to be convinced to accept me. I don't see that happening. Wikipedia is a place of anarchy. Admins could "officially" repeal a ban, but indviduals can continue to execute it, or have it reinstated. There has, unfortunately, a culture arisen some time ago in Wikipedia where various person, when they see a post they don't like, call it a Wickwack post. In otherwords "Wickwack" has become a bogeyman to which anything unwanted is ascribed to. This is unfortunate and certainly something I never wanted of anticipated. Something that cancelling a ban won't fix. The best thing, for everybody, is just to wait until "Wickwack" the bogeyman is long forgotten about, and the 4 or so people who drove the ban have moved on. It looks like that will take years. Perhaps many many years. So be it. Nothing I can do about it. If you see any post signed of as "Wick", Wickywack" and similar, it ain't me. It's a troll.

On the other hand, the ban is actually ineffective. It seems that many Wikipedians (including perhaps some admins) don't understand DynamicIP. There is absolutely no point in blocking an IP address of an ISP using DynamicIP (which is almost all of them)becasue tomorrow the person blocked will have a different IP address. It is automatically allocated by teh ISP when the users's computer is turned on/booted up and his network interface initialises. The IP I have today will be someone else's tomorrow.

To summarise:

1. Let the Wickwack ban stay in place. I don't much care. It doesn't affect me, because I stopped posting. Even if I did post, the ban would be ineffective - all I need do is choose another identity. I will not but I could.

2. I only ever used two identities anyway. If an admin had simply asked me not to, I would have. All those others, regardless of what name they used, are not me.

3. The ban is not there because I used multiple identities or multiple IP addresses, though there are those who think the changing IP adresses are some sort of evil plot. It isn't - we have no control over the DynamicIP allocation. The ban is about getting rid of me because I showed certain people their posts were wrong, and they took offence.

4. If you see a post on Ref Desk signed as "Wickwack" & similar, it is a troll. It's not me. It will never be me. Treat it as appropriate for a troll.

Wickwack60.228.187.72 (talk) 04:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck them. You don't need their validation, they're two people (who, as I noted before, didn't even want you banned). Regarding #3: You keep throwing around imagined accusations. You've provided no evidence of it, and yet, I've provided evidence it simply isn't true. --Jayron 32 13:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do return, Wickwack. I miss your contributions, and it troubles me that any intelligent WP:RDS IP post from Perth is subject to deletion because it is identified as yours. -- ToE 04:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to happen. But thanks for your thoughts. Its not especially sad that I am blocked, because it doesn't cost me anything. Nor OP's. It IS indeed sad that because idiots refuse to understand that IP addresses are not under our control, and because certain peanuts took offence, that anybody with a certain IP address is viewed with suspicion. Incidentally I am not resindent in Perth - that is another bit the peanuts rfuse to understand. My ISP allocates IP addresses according to region. Western region seems to cover half of Australia. And sometimes, if no Westetn Regions IP addresses are available, they allocate an Eastern Region IP address. Which is why this whole thing is just plain silly. But when I explain this, they think I'm trying some evil plot. Wickwack60.228.187.72 (talk) 04:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may have noticed that the troll has been playing pingpong with himself on the talk page. In your opinion, should that section stay or go? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should be obvious that that it is not the case of one troll ping-ponging himself. I use Australian IP adresses, and have a particular style of writing. The "other one" has a Bulgarian IP address and writes quite differently. But look at it logically. If it is on single troll ping-ponging, its a troll thread, best thing now is delete the whole thread. If it is two trolls ping ponging each other, then, its a troll thread, and definitely the best thing is to delete the whole thread.

So it matters not - the best thing is to delete the whole thread - though it is probably too late now. The troll that started it with his fake appology has got his kicks now, and the other potential trolls out there have had plenty of time to discover it and be inspired to try their own variation.

I suppose, thinking logically from your point of view, there is a third possibility. It could be a ping-ponging troll that wants it deleted for some weird troll purpose, or two trolls, one of which wants it deleted for some weird troll purpose. But what could that purpose be? Trolls feed on exposure, not by invisibility. If other trolls don't see the thread, or see it promptly removed, they loose their inspiration.

So, please, delete the damm thread. Can't do any harm. Either way makes no difference to me personally.

Wickwack (the real one)121.221.83.24 (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might not literally be the same guy that's behind Light current, but your attitude is virtually identical. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive the TPTing, Jayron, I'll assume that was a rhetorical invitation for me to be fucked, assuming I have rightly read I was an object of the suggestion. I have no problem with whomever wickwack "is" and no desire to see him banned, which happened either before I was at RD or at least before I ever heard of him. I do delete and will continue to delete obvious trolling regardless of IP, as can be see by the numerous discussions on my talk page documenting people whom I was accused of attacking unjustly who were immediately thereafter indeffed. This consistent "it's medeis" who's the problem nonsense is nonsense. If it isn't, take me to ANI. But please don't suggest, as an admin, that I be fucked. It's below my level of respect for you. μηδείς (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AN:I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.193.104 (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any guess on which logged out user this might be Jayron? HighInBC 17:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Considering there was a major issue involving Wick Wock, that question is fairly obvious.189.212.115.234 (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's so many to choose from. It isn't one of the refdesk regulars. From the writing style, I have some ideas; but it isn't useful to speculate. --Jayron 32 19:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trout

Re:

"This is not an administrator issue. Please don't use this desk merely to attract attention to discussions, such as an ongoing AFD. That's an improper form of canvasing..."

Yep, you have one coming for that... A little common sense, please. Carrite (talk) 03:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. --Jayron 32 03:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!'

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)'[reply]

Thanks!--Jayron 32 04:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Ho Ho

MarnetteD|Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.

Make sure to click on both pictures to see them full size Jayron32 as they will give you a chuckle. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times. MarnetteD|Talk 04:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and back at you!--Jayron 32 04:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Interstate 85, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Metrolina. 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) 09:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing you all the best . . .

Merry Christmas, Jayron, and may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016

	Happy New Year 2016!
	Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC) –[reply]

Packers

I have some questions related to the Packers so can you answer these questions:

Will the Packers beat the Vikings?
Do you think the Packers have a good secondary?
Who do you think the Packers will host? The Seahawks or the Vikings?

thanks and please answer neatly! Regards, --166.172.56.200 (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

maybe

better than some

depends on how this week goes.

--Jayron 32 04:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bad decision

Valid concerns on both sides. Needs a change of venue. --Jayron 32 16:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Sorry, but this [2] was a bad move. We've seen over the last three months that short-term protection simply doesn't work there. Not surprisingly, the trolls were back in less than an hour. I've stated my position here: [3]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine by me. It was an experiment. Sadly, you're right. I was hoping it wouldn't come to that. C'est la vie. --Jayron 32 14:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If you agree, would you mind reinstating the protection then? Given the context, if I were to do it myself, it would likely be regarded as wheelwarring by some. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wheelwarring by whom? Who's going to "tattle" on you? --Jayron 32 21:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The way some people have been going on at the refdesk talkpage, you'd think protecting the refdesk is about as bad as deleting all pokemon articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting the ref desks is a serious issue, as (like the Help Desk, etc.) it is a place where people may come looking for help without being registered. Saying that for 3 months that 6 billion people can't ask good faith questions where we could help them because one tool comes and screws around a few minutes each day is a reasonable objection when weighing the pros and cons of longterm protection. If you feel like we need to reprotect the desk with cause, I won't stop you from doing so, but I also won't say its an optimal response to the issue we have. --Jayron 32 21:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

6 billion people? Shall we have a count how many actual, legitimate IP contributors we've had on those two pages over the last months? At least 95% of all IP postings there are either from that one long-time regular anon (who is legitimate in principle, but has known for years that he ought to register an account if he wants to escape protection, and has stubbornly refused to do so, so if he can't edit he only has himself to blame), or it's from one of those three or so banned creeps (Wickwack, Vote X and the antisemitic troll). The number of genuine IP contributions has always been low, and the number of such contributions that were actually useful to the encyclopedia is negligible. I still completely fail to understand how protecting the refdesks is in any way more detrimental to our mission than protecting any of those high-profile articles in mainspace, where those 6 billion potential anons could be making actual contributions to the encyclopedia but longterm semi is universally taken to be uncontroversial and unavoidable. And as for "a few minutes a day", it just isn't; it's effectively all the time, without interruption, just look at today's page history (11:09, 11:42, 11:48, 11:49, 11:52, 13:29, 14:58, 16:19, 20:28, 20:42). And we know it will continue like that for as many days or weeks or months we allow it to happen, i.e. until sooner or later somebody will protect again. Short-term protections just don't help at all. Also, every single such spat over the last months has had side-effects of related disruption on other pages, much of which has consisted of direct insults and defamation against myself and some others. I am sorry but I do more and more feel personally harassed here and can't help seeing continued refusal to shut this channel of harassment off as a personal affront against myself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. You do what you gotta do. Like I said. I won't raise any objections to any action you take. If people ask the opinion, my opinion is they shouldn't be protected long term. But I will not interfere with you doing so. --Jayron 32 20:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just stumbled on this tread accidentally. @Future Perfect at Sunrise:, I think you are completely mischaracterizing the contributions of IP users on the ref desks, both as askers and responders. Sure, there are some trolls and vandals, but the seriously offensive posts don't usually last more than a few minutes. Even though I have disagreed on whether a certain case is trolling or not, I am still happy to remove blatant hate speech and other offensive material as part of the cost of having an open reference desk. Just look at the current ref desk talk page, where we have many reasonable people asking to have good content posted. And that's just the ones that know such service is available, and want to help and participate so much that they are willing to jump through hoops to do so. If you insist on keeping the protection up, will you at least help out with the chore of helping to repost content from our IP users whose access you are denying? SemanticMantis (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't have "many reasonable people" making such requests. There are exactly two such people; they are always the same ones and between them account for about 80% of all legitimate IP traffic on the boards; they are regular long-term editors who could easily have gotten themselves accounts years ago but refuse to do so. (My bad for thinking it was only one until just now, but it really doesn't make a difference.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise Ah, well remember that we have no requirement to register, and it surely sounds to me like you are not respecting WP:HUMAN. I'm not sure why you have such a vested interest, since I rarely see you participating at the ref desks. You do realize that we have tons of IPs asking questions on the non protected desks, right? Oh well, maybe I'm the weird one, but I thought part of the mission of the ref desk was to help the general public with library-like reference services. Sorry to Jayron, his page isn't really the place for this. Maybe I'll start yet another thread on lifting the protection on the talk page :) SemanticMantis (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with people not registering when they don't have to; it's their choice, of course. What I'm saying is just that when long-term users deliberately make that choice, in the full knowledge that the pages they are interested in are periodically subject to vandal disruption, it's their own responsibility and theirs alone if they find themselves unable to edit, and their situation need not concern us in an estimation of the "collateral damage". Their presence is simply causing you to vastly overestimate the actual amount of bona fide collateral damage. And I keep repeating, because nobody has ever given me any satisfactory answer to it: all of Wikipedia is supposed to be open to the general public. There is no reason to think the refdesks, of all things, have a more urgent need for that openness than other pages. The collateral damage from longterm semiprotections is infinitely larger on high-profile mainspace articles, where we're missing not just questions but actual contributions to the encyclopedia. Yet, I've never seen a mainspace article not protected if it was hit by a level of long-term vandalism comparable to what we're seeing on the desks. I'll say it again until somebody finally explains this to me: why is collateral damage less tolerable on the refdesk than elsewhere? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haunting hour

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of English monarchs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles II. 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) 10:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]