User talk:Jayron32

Days of Our Lives Fan fic IP vandal back

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

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

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

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

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

Cookies? Not today, my friend.

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

I'd just like to announce...

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

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

previously blocked user for NPA making personal attacks.

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

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

Okay...

Take it elsewhere kiddies...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IP removing whois template

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

regarding your unblock of User:Ejnogarb

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

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lucas081094 and the CGI timeline article

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

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

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

ANI

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

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

I don't want to be stalked.

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

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

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

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

Ok, I'll make it more clear.

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

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

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

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

Mohammed Odeh al-Rehaief

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

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

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

User:Cwray

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

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

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

RE: On deleted article Quynh Anh

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

WP:RFA/Law

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

Abusing Power

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

disruptive IP...

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

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

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

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

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

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

JOYEESANG

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

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

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

Independent Financial Centre of the Americas

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

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

AIV

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

LCM4MP

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

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

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

Self-confessed spelling Nazi

RE: User talk:NyteMuse

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

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

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

!!!!

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

I'll be waiting.

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

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

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

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

Tito Ortiz

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

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

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

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

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

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

0RR

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

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

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

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

User talk:Grant.Alpaugh

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

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

Please assume good faith - nobody is being 'vindictive'. I noticed several reverts of your block notice, one of which I reverted myself, and thought I'd send you a courtesy notice. Emphasis on the 'courtesy'...Anyway, glad to see the situation has now improved. Coldmachine^Talk 08:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

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

• I'll bring it up at WP:SPI if I have to, but this is pretty obvious. Grsz¹¹ 03:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it's worth bringing up, but per the old checkusers, this is him too. Grsz¹¹ 04:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned on his talk page, I am washing my hands of this. Let others deal with him. His records on this are public, and others can deal with him from now on. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I see you've unblocked, which I don't necessarily disagree with. However, should the sockpuppet investigation still continue, allowing CheckUser to definitively figure this out. The explanation given is a very thin one. Grsz¹¹ 01:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks from Tracy E. Uhnak

I appreciate your help in re: the article on my mother, Dorothy Uhnak. This was the first time I've ever really used Wikipedia (signed up for it), as opposed to just using it for quick checks. Since my mother had been bluntly, even brutally honest for most of her life, I had thought to remove the ambiguity. I have decided to leave the article alone; it's close enough to the truth. Thanks again TracyElizaabeth (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Do not read this one - The Hunt - Outline of knowledge WikiProject - 04/17/2009

Here's a trivia question for you...

While surveying libraries, their outline-related resources, and our coverage of them, I came across something funny...

What subclass is the Bible in the Library of Congress Classification?

Do you think they'd like this one at WP:DYK?

(Nope. They didn't.)     :)

Libraries

For months, I've been sitting at a terminal in one of the largest libraries in the country, and I haven't even looked around at the available resources.

Until a few days ago.

I'm overwhelmed.

When compared to libraries, Wikipedia is small. (See Digest of Education Statistics 2008, Chapter 7:Libraries and Educational Technology Libraries, and turn to page 617).

But is that a fair comparison?

Yes.

Why?

Because we have growth potential.  :)

And we cover everything, including libraries!

Guess what else I found?

Hunting for outlines

I began to study libraries and librarians, since they are experts in organizing knowledge. And of course I turned to Wikipedia to see what we had on the things I came across...

And while doing so I kept running into outlines on Wikipedia that are not (yet) part of the Outline of knowledge.

When I come across non-OOK outlines, generally I rename them, and reformat them to our standard outline format. But there is the occasional exception.

Here are some outlines I just added:

1. List of energy topics --> Outline of energy (it converted great)
2. List of Dewey Decimal classes --> Outline of Dewey Decimal classes (no conversion)
3. Library of Congress Classification --> ??? (no rename, no conversion)

The last 2 are outlines by their very nature, and so our standard outline subheadings didn't seem to fit. So I left them as is.

I renamed the first 2, but the last one is the name of the outline, that is, the topic itself is an outline, and that outline is presented as the article's content, so I left the name as is. For now. This needs more thought.

Of course, that's not all. Concerning those last 2 outlines above...

Alternate outlines of knowledge

...not only are they outlines, but they are outlines of knowledge! Well, the top few levels, at least.

Uh, so?

What happens if we linkify them?  :)

That is, what happens if we linkify their classifications to Wikipedia's outlines?  :)   :)   :)

They become alternate top ends to the OOK

Yep.

What can you find?

I challenge you to find some "hidden" outlines.

I dare you to take a look around Wikipedia for hidden outlines (that is, outlines not yet hooked into the OOK), and add your kills to WP:WPOOK#The hunt for hidden outlines.

My trophies are already there.

May the hunt begin!

The Transhumanist    20:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Uganda AIDS Orphan Children Foundation

Hi Jayron32,

Please allow me sufficient time to finish the edits for this page. I am currently gathering my sources for proper linking. I only created the page less than an hour ago.

Thank you. timp111 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timp111 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thread on you at AN/I

Hello, Jayron32. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I didn't start the topic, but it appears the rather illiterate IP that did didn't inform you about it. Matty (talk) 05:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That was the funniest shit I have read in days. Thanks for giving me the heads up. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

This guy is crazy, I mean come on is this the best he can do? BTW, I got his new IP 70.108.88.137 blocked at AIV for block evasion. Also I support a community ban for Lilkunta. Momusufan (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Notice on Jersay

I would like to inform you that User:Jersay has been blocked indefinitely for sock-puppetry. source. You made this comment in my unblock request (which was denied): "Additionally, there does not appear to be any support for your assertion that these edits were made by the sock of a blocked user." Cheers! Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to inform you that I am not particularly interested. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Figured that. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Stephen H. Segal

Good morning. I am unsure why the above-titled article is being considered for deletion. The article is a statement of facts, not opinions. The facts are verifiable, and have been so footnoted. Having compared the content to acceptable similar biographies of Editors I believe the notability criteria is met. I have endeavored to maintain the neutrality p.o.v. throughout the article by documenting only the facts, and including no personal opinions. Your consideration is appreciated.

Stu Segal (talk) 11:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

AND - I just realized that given your "notability" comment I inadvertently omitted an important reference. That is the reference to the 2009 Hugo Award nomination, that appears at the Hugo Award website. Per the notability criteria I believe the nomination for this award causes the subject to rise to the level of notability required. I shall add the footnote to the article immediately. Stu Segal (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for withdrawing your objection; so sorry I didn't include the necessary reference initially. My comments were more directed at the potential "conflict of interest" message posted on the top of the page, which is why I was stressing the factual nature of the submission. Can you give me any guidance on what, if any, steps I should take to assert that my POV is in fact neutral. Thank you.Stu Segal (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

AIV

Would you mind taking a look at the other post on AIV that has been there for about 45 minutes, please? Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • April 18, 2009 @ 22:16

Talkback

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

~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Grant.Alpaugh

I realize that you were the blocking admin, but it would have been nice if your decision to unblock had been preceded by the same amount of discussion/agreement that accompanied the block (particularly given the fact that two other administrators reviewed the available information and declined to unblock). I would not have overruled your decision without consultation. —David Levy 01:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If you believe that it would be best for him to be blocked, you will receive no objection from me. I will not undo your action. You may proceed however you wish. I have reviewed the availible information, and the long discussion at his talk page and I found his reasoning compelling. However, if you disagree you are always free to reblock him. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not interested in wheel-warring. Blocking, unblocking and reblocking a user for a singe offense is hardly an appropriate method of preventing disruption.

My point is that by unblocking, you essentially did undo Hersfold's and my actions. Hersfold and I both reviewed the available information and determined that the block was appropriate. By chance, you were the one who initiated it, but it was backed by no fewer than three other administrators (including Tiptoety, whom you happened to beat to the button) and opposed by none. I would have appreciated if you had consulted Hersfold and me instead of unilaterally overruling our decisions (thereby conveying that our block reviews were meaningless). I would have gladly discussed the situation with you, and we might even have arrived at a mutual determination. —David Levy 01:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

As I stated, I have no interest in offending you in this matter. I understand that you feel that I acted inappropriately in unblocking this user; however if I truly believe that my initial block was in error (which I do), then I don't see why leaving my block in place would be just and right. If you have a clear belief that you have done something wrong, and then you do nothing to correct the situation you screwed up, then what does that say about you?!? I honestly feel that I screwed this up. So I fixed my screw up. If you think I am wrong, I will not wheel war with you over any of this. I have given you permission to reblock this user if you honestly believe they should not be allowed to edit. You may reference this comment if there comes any question of wheel warring, and I will not make any comments that state that I object to your action. I just feel that I was mistaken in my block, and I took what I viewed as the honerable action here, which was to undo a mistake I believe I have made. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

1. As I stated, I don't feel that reblocking Grant would be an appropriate means of preventing disruption.

2. I realize that you sought only to correct what you perceived as an error on your part. My point is that while you were the sysop who happened to push the button, the block was not yours alone. By endorsing/upholding it, Tiptoety, Hersfold and I effectively joined you in blocking this user. (In other words, if you hadn't pushed the button, one of us would have.) The fact that your name (and not our names) appears in the block log is a technical detail. However, your opinion certainly matters, and I wouldn't have unblocked Grant without first consulting you. Had you extended this courtesy to Tiptoety, Hersfold and me, it's possible that we might have led you to reconsider your decision.

I say this not to guilt you or otherwise stir trouble, but because I hope that you'll keep it in mind if a similar situation arises in the future. —David Levy 02:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand your point in the matter. I can see how, by endorsing my initial block, it was as though you became party to that action, and so should have been consulted upon undoing that action. I apologize for not considering that perspective when I unilaterally unblocked the user. My concern was mainly over my own guilt for having misapplied a block. I was not really thinking about the feelings of those admins who had later endorsed my block, and for that I feel bad. I still feel as though I have done the right thing here in the end; ultimately I could not "live with myself" had I allowed to stand a block that I issued which I truly believed I had done wrongly. I will concede your point that I have now also mishandled the unblock by doing so without discussing the matter first with the other unblocked admins. However, having said that, part of me also feels that this was not going to be a situation where I would be able to please everyone on this. Ultimately it comes down to whether or not it was more appropriate to step on the toes of a few admins in unblocking him, or to undo my own past wrongs. Such, I believe, is the consequence of doing something wrong. By screwing up in the first place, I likely created a situation where someone was going to be treated in an unfair manner. In this case, it surely was you and Tiptoety and Hersfold, and for that I apologize whole heartedly. I did not intend to invalidate your actions in this matter, and now that I realize that I have, I wish I had handled this differently. Please accept my apology for this. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I unreservedly accept your apology and sincerely thank you for giving this matter your consideration. I appreciate the dilemma that you faced and regret contributing to any unpleasant feelings that you've experienced.

I absolutely agree that it's better "to step on the toes of a few admins" than to unfairly block an innocent user. My advice for the future is to make every reasonable effort to avoid both, and if you still find yourself between a rock and a hard place, do what you believe is right. That's all that can be asked of anyone.

Thanks again for your thoughtfulness. —David Levy 04:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I have passed this off to WP:AN for a further review. I am no longer holding any opinion on whether or not the user should or should not be blocked. When I blocked him, I felt I was doing the right thing. When I unblocked him, I felt I was doing the right thing. Now I don't know what to feel. If possible, please ignore my actions to this point, and try to consider the evidence as though I were entirely uninvolved; perhaps then the right thing (whatever that may be) can be done. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I left a note at WP:AN.  :-) —David Levy 04:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm thanks for seeing to my request.... it seems i was blocked before i put that but not since 86.149.6.136 (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Blacklans

Hello,

We spoke at [[5]]. I'm having difficulty asserting that consensus is achieved, and feel my trigger finger teatering on the block button for this gentleman (having been reverted again). Can you advise? I'm confident this user is a sockpuppet trying to goad me. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Please consider all the exchanges here. I have to say it - this is another example of bullying. I've asked Jza84 to put reasoned arguments on the Talk pages but he ignores me. You will note that the issues are still being genuinely debated. Thanks. Blacklans (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you issue the same "warning" to Jza84? He may have a support for his views on city status etc, but the issue of "the" is being debated and he had no general support on that matter.Blacklans (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I see you have done. Blacklans (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned on your talk page... It is still none of your business even if I did. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Fuck you, but most of all, fuck Jza84. You deserve each other. I'm out of here. Blacklans (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Saw your post on the noticeboard

		The Original Barnstar
		For honesty and grace. GTBacchus(talk) 22:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey. We all make mistakes. Kudos to you for bringing it to AN the way you did. No joke; a lot of people never do that. We want more like you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)