User talk:Jayron32

User:ChaosMaster16

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

My block of Anonywiki

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

Restoring Honor rally

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

History of American football

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

Template:Edit refs

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

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

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

Unblock request at User talk:Lihenri

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

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

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

inconsistencies in Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. In other words, don't worry so much about being consistent. In this case, if articles need to be deleted, but have not yet, then nominate those articles for deletion. However, don't let the existance of articles which HAVE NOT been deleted, but should have been, worry you when considering the merits of OTHER articles up for deletion. Compare each article against the standard (WP:N, for example) and NOT other articles. If you think a different article, which exists now, is worse than one which people are arguing for deletion, then go ahead and nominate it for deletion. You must be the change you want in the world. If consistency is important to you, it does you no good to just sit around and bitch that the world isn't consistent. Complaining doesn't make the world more consistent. One of my credos is to expect the best of myself, and expect nothing of anyone else. --Jayron32 20:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You may be misunderstanding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you read it carefully, it states clearly that the existence of articles which should be deleted, and may someday be deleted, is no excuse for the retention of other articles which should be deleted. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I assume you = Suomi Finland 2009? Cuz I am pretty sure I have it down well. --Jayron32 01:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Walt Disney rfpp

Hi -- in the time while you were writing your decline, I was semi-protecting the article. My thought was that the level of vandalism seemed quite high to me, so high that even with pending changes protection, the burden on the people who watch the article is unacceptable. But I'm operating in the mode of avoiding conflicts right now, and if you would prefer it, I'll revert the protection back. Sorry for the confusion -- although I don't currently see any way of avoiding this sort of thing. Looie496 (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm operating under the "I don't take this stuff too personally" mode right now (actually, that is my standard mode). If you feel it needs protection, feel free to protect it. It's no skin off my back. --Jayron32 03:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool. It occurs to me that one way to avoid conflicting actions is to respond at RFPP before modifying the article. Is that what people usually do? Looie496 (talk) 03:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I usually protect first and then respond. But I'm not sure it makes much of a difference. --Jayron32 03:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Grundle

Hello. Grundle left loads of rubbish, which you've been cleaning up, but I think this page, or at least some of it, has value for the encyclopedia: User:Grundle2600/Doughnut Days 2009

Do you mind if I undelete it and move it to my user space? Jonathunder (talk) 06:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Be my guest. --Jayron32 06:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Jonathunder (talk) 06:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

PHI101

This turns out to be deep: when does "forever" expire? :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The day after Armageddon. After we're all raptured into Wikipedia heaven, all of the vandals get unblocked and get to have fun screwing around with Wikipedia. --Jayron32 06:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Notification

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Koavf. This request was initiated by Koavf, but as far as his contributions show, he didn't notify any user...so I'm notifying you because you participated in the discussion that led to the community sanction. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

User:98.254.83.35

It seems he was blocked during a clash between 2 IPs. Don't think Jamie every really got deep into what happened. My take at what happened. --iGeMiNix 05:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Izabella Arazova

Thanks for the help! Pkeets (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

De nada. --Jayron32 23:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you please unblock user:Sulmues

This is user: Sulmues. Ok, I understood that I should not be edit warring and I will respect the sanction, and I will not call those who disagree with me "vandals" anymore. In the meantime I have been blocked for a week and WikiProject Albania has not added one single article to its baggage as a result. I lost the password for both the Sulmues account and the email: can you please unblock me? Makaperqafe (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually this is one of the several times of you being blocked and then apologize that you 'regret' on this. Can you please respect your block period at least this time? wikiproject Albania (as you say) has added some dyks while you are blocked so I don't understand why you are claiming that (you still owe an apology about this aggressive edit [[5]] while being blocked).Alexikoua (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Fall 2010 USRD newsletter

Volume 3, Issue 3 • Fall 2010 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup News in brief Portal selected articles and pictures	Features Bot automates graphics creation, saves work Featured Article, eh? Reviews needed at ACR	State and national updates Project reports for Delaware Maryland Michigan Minnesota
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

— JCbot (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Heads up about an RfC

Please note that there's a new discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure in which you may wish to comment. It is expected to close in about a week. You have received this message because you participated in a similar discussion (2009 AC2 RfC) last year.  Roger ^talk 05:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Political candidates: Template usage

I read your statement, and am now more confused than ever. Am I to understand Template: Merge to and Template: Merge from are no longer to be used for these articles? Are they now obsolete for all articles? For months now I've been using them for candidates who might well be notable for only one event/election, and telling other Wikipedians that's the correct way to handle these situations. Are you saying that's wrong and they should all be AfDs? I'm particularly concerned about the lack of requirement or even recommendation to notify those involved with the article in that case - or at least that's been the practice here. Also, the lack of requirement or even recommendation to keep the history easily available to 'ordinary' Wikipedians by doing a redirect to the election article without deleting it first. Please clarify. Flatterworld (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No, what the discussion said was that there isn't going to be a moratorium on AFD's, if they are needed, for some pages. If you don't think a page needs to be deleted, and would rather see them redirected, you are free to make an arguement on the AFD page for them. Furthermore, if you would rather handle these via a merge discussion rather than an AFD discussion, that's fine too. As long as the discussion happens somewhere, it matters little if the AFD discussion decides to merge it, or if you have a merge discussion. --Jayron32 03:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

To clarify even more; There is to be no special treatment. You can use the mergeto and mergefrom templates whenever you feel, in good faith, it is appropriate to do so. Another editor can nominate an article for deletion, in good faith, whenever they feel it is appropriate to do so. --Jayron32 03:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Mike Godwin

Hey, unless I am misinformed, Mike Godwin is no longer the WP counsel as of Oct. 22. The Eskimo (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback: ANI

Hello, Jayron32. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— SpikeToronto 18:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 October newsletter

The 2010 WikiCup is over! It has been a long journey, but what has been achieved is impressive: combined, participants have produced over seventy featured articles, over five hundred good articles, over fifty featured lists, over one thousand one hundred "did you know" entries, in addition to various other pieces of recognised content. A full list (which has yet to be updated to reflect the scores in the final round) can be found here. Perhaps more importantly, we have our winner! The 2010 WikiCup champion is Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), with an unbelievable 4220 points in the final round. Second place goes to TonyTheTiger (submissions), with 2260, and third to Casliber (submissions), with 560. Congratulations to our other four finalists – White Shadows (submissions), William S. Saturn (submissions), Staxringold (submissions) and ThinkBlue (submissions). Also, congratulations to Sasata (submissions), who withdrew from the competition with an impressive 2685 points earlier in this round.

Prizes will also be going to those who claimed the most points for different types of content in a single round. It was decided that the prizes would be awarded for those with the highest in a round, rather than overall, so that the finalists did not have an unfair advantage. Winning the featured article prize is Casliber (submissions), for five featured articles in round 4. Winning the good article prize is Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), for eighty-one good articles in round 5. Winning the featured list prize is Staxringold (submissions), for six featured lists in round 1. Winning the picture and sound award is Jujutacular (submissions), for four featured pictures in round 3. Winning the topic award is Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), for forty-seven articles in various good topics in round 5. Winning the "did you know" award is TonyTheTiger (submissions), for over one hundred did you knows is round 5. Finally, winning the in the news award is Candlewicke (submissions), for nineteen articles in the news in round three.

The WikiCup has faced criticism in the last month – hopefully, we will take something positive from it and create a better contest for next year. Like Wikipedia itself, the Cup is a work in progress, and ideas for how it should work are more than welcome on the WikiCup talk page and on the scoring talk page. Also, people are more than welcome to sign up for next year's competition on the signup page. Well done and thank you to everyone involved – the Cup has been a pleasure to run, and we, as judges, have been proud to be a part of it. We hope that next year, however the Cup is working, and whoever is running it, it will be back, stronger and more popular than ever. Until then, goodbye and happy editing! 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, Fox and The ed17 03:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I also do birthday parties.

Provided I get my own cake. One with real icing not that cheap-out whipped cream crap. HalfShadow 03:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you jump out of the cake, wearing a smile and a nice shade of red lipstick? --Jayron32 03:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I did that once. The kids needed therapy and I got arrested. Do you want to be responsible for that again? HalfShadow 03:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 Ribbon of Participation

		The WikiCup 2010 Ribbon of Participation
		Awarded to Jayron32, for participation in the 2010 WikiCup. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 08:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoo hoo! --Jayron32 01:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you^_^

Thank you for your answer. It was very helpful. I didnt know about magic words before:) --DSUmanskiy (talk) 11:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem! --Jayron32 01:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Queen (band)

Hi - I just noticed that you reverted my edit, saying that it should be discussed on the talk page. It *was* mooted on the talk page, and met no opposition. The point I made there is that "glam rock" is a very lazy description of Queen, based more on how they looked than how they sound. You'll note that the reference cited is NOT primarily about Queen. Anyway, shall we take this to the "Genre" section of the Queen talk page? I'm keen to hear your thoughts. 213.107.110.183 (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Chris

Looks good. Next time use "edit summaries" which point to the talk page discussion, so that we can avoid this embarassment in the future. When you make changes and don't leave edit summaries, it is hard to know your intent. I have put your version back, it looks like a good change based on the talk page comments. --Jayron32 21:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks - I think you can probably tell I'm pretty new to all this! 213.107.110.183 (talk) 21:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Chris

No problem at all. If you need ANY help, please feel free to ask me. I am always glad to help new users learn the ropes. --Jayron32 21:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for taking admin action regarding the sock. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidYork71. Please also see category, which should be deleted, per WP:BAN. -- Cirt (talk) 00:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

How dare you call Audit2clear a duck!

I demand you immediately reverse this fowl insult, you turkey, or I'll involve my lawyer. He's been grousing for an excuse for a lawsuit, so you'd better apologize or your goose is cooked.

Or are you too much of a chicken? HalfShadow 00:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Buck buck buck bucAWK. --Jayron32 01:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

User:MicheleWingnut

Hey Jayron. I see you came up with a reason to block this editor. I saw your AIV note, which left me a bit flummoxed. I was entering a follow-up that read like this:

The templates that have been left very clearly indicate that the material being added is unsourced negative or controversial biographical material. With the greatest of respect, there is really no need for a personal message since I could not possibly be more clear than that. I am not that articulate. Also, the fact that all the edits have been of the same nature to the article, the subject of which resembles the editor’s userid, strongly suggests that this editor has a single purpose and that is to vandalize that page: MicheleWingnut ==> Michele Bachmann.

But then, I got the edit conflict notice, etc., and discovered that you had changed your mind! What a relief. Thanks. If it matters at all, I think it was a good decision. — SpikeToronto 06:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I only make good decisions ;) --Jayron32 06:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course! :) — SpikeToronto 07:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for unblocking me

Dear Jayron32 thank you for unblocking my account. I can only assert you that I never did any vandalism agaist Wiki and I am very happy that my account works again. DidiWeidmann (talk) 09:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Sock case requires admin action

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cmmmm

Technical evidence is stale. Can you please take action regarding the block evasion, with respect to the obvious behavioral evidence? The disruption and POV-pushing by the account violating block evasion, is now ongoing across multiple pages both in article mainspace, and in portal space. Thank you for your time. -- Cirt (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Is football ambiguous,should we used a hot-note?

Hi,

I was wondering if you could be so kind as to have a look at Talk:Football#RFC:_Association_football as more input is required and your as listed as being interested in sport and/or football at peer review. Gnevin (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Pie For You!

		Have a Pie!
		You are hereby awarded ONE PIE for your personable instruction of an astray new user, rather than template-bombing them off the project, as happens all too often!

Arakunem^Talk 17:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Mmmm. I love pie. Seriously, when I die I expect heaven to be wrapped in a pastry crust and topped with french vanilla ice cream. --Jayron32 02:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

thx

thx. I'm not into bickering. FWIW, I chimed in... I agree there's some issue with the title, but I suspect (as with all "ethnicity" articles), there'll always be someone complaining... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for coming to my defense in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. You seem like a pretty nice guy after all. Your right, I am trying to improve the article. After looking at several articles outside wikipedia today, I noticed they title them Franco-American (French American) Seems fair! Nobody loses, nobody wins, and it seems to please everyone. What do you think? I had not thought of that previously. Cheers!--Chnou (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the important thing is to not rush this and to get it right. If it takes a few weeks to generate a vigorous discussion among enough people to establish consensus, then so be it. I don't think we need to make a decision today. --Jayron32 05:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Refactoring your RefDesk entry

Hey Jayron, I was criticized for refactoring a response you gave at the Ref Desk. This was my edit; clearly Scray didn't think it was funny. I hope my edit summary convinces you that it was intended in the best of spirits, but I am fully aware that I shouldn't have. My apologies if it rubbed you the wrong way also. Best, Drmies (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? Someone else got upset about THAT? Next time, tell them to wait for ME to get upset. I never would have, but the point is it is NOT Scray's responsibility to protect my answer. I am much more offended by his intereference than I ever would be by your correction. --Jayron32 02:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I certainly did not mean to upset you Jayron, but I also wasn't defending your answer. I did not revert Drmies edit, I simply expressed my concern in a civil manner on Drmies Talk page. In fact, I don't understand why you would be offended. All the best, -- Scray (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Jayron. I had been watching that question to see if anyone answered it, and there you were, with a pretty authoritative sounding answer--I couldn't resist a few raunchy remarks. Also, I was watching to see how serious the folks at the RefDesk were, and I have to hand it to you all, you guys are good--straight-faced, nothing but the facts. But admit it, doing push-ups will never be the same again! Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, you ready to watch some football? Peyton is going to LIGHT you all up. I'll bring beer, you get the wings (my wife won't let me fry them...) Drmies (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

So, how'd that go for your Colts? Oh yeah, I remember now. They lost. Pats rule, Colts drool. You owe me a six pack of beer. Yeungling sounds good. I'll still provide the wings. --Jayron32 20:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for quick help on help desk

It wasn't a very serious issue, but nevertheless thank you for your help and the quick reply.Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 04:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem! --Jayron32 14:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to participate

User:Wuhwuzdat has made a very WP:Pointy deletion nomination of List of management consulting firms after two of his wholesale deletions of article content were reverted and explained here. Since you participated in the 1st AfD, I am notifying you of the 2nd AfD in the event you wish to participate. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Because you commented at AN/I

You wrote here So please see here. I would really like to get this resolved. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)