User talk:Jake Wartenberg/Archive 5

Clerk on SPI
Hi,I've been looking alot at the SPI pages on Wikipedia lately, and I am wondering if I could train under you to become a clerk. If you have any questions I'll reply as soon as I can, though am a little busy at the moment. Thanks Acather96 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC).

Erika Sifrit deletion
I'm curious about why the page was deleted and why it was marked as an "attack" page. I'm reading a book about the case and when I did an internet search on the subject I saw the wikipedia page had been deleted. I was able to read a cache version of the page and everything on it seemed to measure up factually. It seemed a well-reasoned article. I can't understand why it was considered an "attack" page because good things were said about Sifrit as a person. Rather than attack anybody, to my way of thinking the page seemed to lay out the facts of the case in a balanced, fair manner, in line with public record. It wasn't an unbalanced rant against Sifrit. How can laying out the facts of a crime be construed as an attack? Would stating the facts about the JKK and RFK assassinations be considered an attack on Oswald and Sirhan? I can only presume this page was shut down because somebody just didn't like the truth being displayed. If so, that amounts to censorship. Obviously, not a good thing. If there are legitimate reasons to deny people such information, fair enough. But don't tear it down simply because someone doesn't want me to see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.113.71 (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 January newsletter
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to, our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than and   (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to - his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.

Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

BAG
Your Bot Approvals Group nomination has succeeded, and you are now a member. Congrats! :) -- Pakaran 05:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nicely done Jake. Get to work! – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do! Thanks for your support.  ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  23:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hah! You've got it in the bag!  *wince*  I actually had not thought of the logistics of bot oversight.  Interesting.  Thanks for doing the work.-  Sinneed  16:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

What is your opinion? Share with us!
We are having problems to reach a stable consensus about removal of visa-free sections from the Passport articles. Please share your opinion with us here: Talk:Passport and here: a request for mediation Thanks. --Ozguroot (talk) 15:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

PDBbot
The problem noted at PDBbot's BRFA has been fixed. Regards, Emw (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

raywilliamjohnson
I saw you were involved with the delting of a page for raywillaimjohnson. I dont know wiki's rules for importance but I can tell you this guy has gotten over 1,500,000 for each of his twice weekly youtube satire shows for over four months. He has his movies watched over 136,000,000 times according to youtube. thats a lot and i think sugnificant enough that the dude should get a page difining his show and style of satire 173.54.200.196 (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  02:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

FPC delist
Please see Featured picture candidates/delist/Montana State Capitol. Thanks.  howcheng  {chat} 23:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 February newsletter
Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to, our round one winner (1010 points), and to and , who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points),  claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and  claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.

Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

SPI
I need your help with a WP:SPI regarding a spammer, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam. I'm guessing there's only one person behind all that Wikipedia accounts. I'm not that familiar with the proceedings in such cases, but I think there's a way to find that out, isn't it? --bender235 (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI: User:MER-C filed an SPI, see Sockpuppet investigations/PrimaryFunction. --bender235 (talk) 11:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Community de-adminship
You are receiving this message because you contributed to Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC and have not participated at Community de-adminship/RfC or been directly informed this RfC has opened. Please accept my apologies if you have been informed of and/or participated in the RfC already.

This RfC has opened and your comments are welcome and encouraged. Please visit Community de-adminship/RfC. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Sunday, March 21
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Day NYC, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Lights Camera Wiki, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example User:ScienceApologist will present on "climate change, alternative medicine, UFOs and Transcendental Meditation" (see the November meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back. And if the weather is good, we'll have a star party with the telescopes on the roof of Pupin Hall!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Jake,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Tuskegee airmen 2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 19, 2010. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2010-03-19.  howcheng  {chat} 17:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

well done
Hah! I was just about to block User:WFFighter myself for his phishing attempt! good job. Jon513 (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol.. yeah, you beat me too it. :) -J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for the notes.  ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  19:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 March newsletter
We're half way through round two, and everything is running smoothly. leads overall with 650 points this round, and heads pool B. currently leads pool C, dubbed the "Group of Death", which has a only a single contestant yet to score this round (the fewest of any group), as well five contestants over 100 points (the most). With a month still to go, as well as 16 wildcard places, everything is still to play for. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the drive page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

hi
hello mr wartenberg,

i am mohamad afeez bin abdul aziz. Maybe because you do not know hence you delete my page but i am a local artist in malaysia and i want to have my own wikipedia page because i think i deserve to be included in the wikipedia directory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afeezaziz (talk • contribs) 11:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Protection of Page
Hello Jake,

Can you protect the page of the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Manning

The general elections are about to begin here in Trinidad and Tobago and vandalism is expected to take place.

My company has been assigned the responsibility of managing his web-presence so for further information or to have authorization letters sent to you kindly contact us at info@meetmanning.com

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.59.227.198 (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. There is no "ownership" or "delegated official management" of any article allowed either. Wikipedia is the article anyone can edit, not just an official web presence and extension of public-relations departments. DMacks (talk) 02:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Requesting copy of and possible re-submission of an article
I was suggested to contact an admin concerning the removal of Lighthouse Trails Publishing in order to get a copy of all that I wrote. I'd like that copy please, and if you don't mind walking me through on why it was deleted I'd be interested in getting it to be a better article. I also have found more cited sources on the publisher, which I will list on this pastebin. I think since various stubs on publishers exist on wikipedia, this one could be a nice addition. Let me know either way, thanks for your time. Gaming4JC (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I revived the page content, put at User:Gaming4JC/Lighthouse Trails Publishing for you to work on for a while. It was deleted per WP:CSD, which I agree is a fatal problem with that article in its current form (even a stub needs to be about a WP:NOTABLE subject). See WP:CORP for some good guidelines and standards for an article about a company. DMacks (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I will give it a good look over and see if I can digg up some more notable events and cited sources. Would you mind if I messaged you after I've edited the page on my profile to check if it meets the criteria when/if I get that done according to guidlines? I'd like to do that just to make sure I'm doing it right and not have to worry about a speedy deletion again. Thanks again for your time. Gaming4JC (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. DMacks (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I seem to have gotten a bit lost on your talk page, DMacks. You must be a busy person, lol. Would you mind taking a look over the article again and see if it's worthy of inclusion? It's a lot better than it was, and it's loads better than most other publishing company stubs I've been seeing. Take Banner of Truth Trust for example. Thanks again. Gaming4JC (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Jake,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Jerusalem panorama early twentieth century2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 12, 2010. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2010-05-12.  howcheng  {chat} 18:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Saturday, May 22
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikimedia Chapters Meeting 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wiki-Conference NYC and Wikipedia Cultural Embassy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Information on Ketan Parekh
Hi Jake,

This individual, Ketan Parkh has done one of the biggest scams in Indian Stock market history but the description about him is only of 2 lines.

Please provide more information for this individual.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.170.88 (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

srry
sorry for the changes sir —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.182.4 (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion
Can you delete the articles User:NASCARSprintCup and User talk:NASCARSprintCup. Wayne Olajuwon (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Jake,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Montana state capitol 2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on June 24, 2010. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2010-06-24.  howcheng  {chat} 22:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

pertinent to your interests
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Crime_and_Criminal_Biography&diff=prev&oldid=372129977 Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

VPC
— raeky  T  23:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)
Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

International Society for Education Through Art
Hi. I was wondering if I could get a copy of the deleted text for the International Society for Education Through Art page e-mailed to me? I'd like to put up a new page that addresses those issues, but I don't want to run the risk of having it deleted again. I do not work for the organization. My e-mail address is the same as my user name, but with a (dot) between the j and c, then the number 76 (at) gmail. Thanks. -- JCaesar (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism by 198.169.4.11
Can you block the IP Address 198.169.4.11 because it's a vandalism only-account? Wayne Olajuwon (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Bit late at this point. Report this stuff to AIV in the future for a faster response.  Best, ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  02:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Power Rangers Samurai Strike
I've got fairly steady information about Saban bying back Power Rangers and opening up season 18 with Power Rangers Samurai Strike. I don't have much besides Characters and Actors, but it's something. Please don't delete it Chris JimmyRedMonkey217 (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Jake,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Forces returning 2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on September 5, 2010. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2010-09-05.  howcheng  {chat} 22:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Wouldn't the ubx be better in the template namespace? I took the liberty of making a slightly modified version of your userbox but in the template namespace here: Template:Centijimbo calculator, if you think that this was an inappropriate decision please delete the page by all means. Regards, — Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм •  Champagne?  •  4:02pm  • 06:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia NYC Meetup Sat Oct 16
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference NYC 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Ambassador Program and Wikipedia Academy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Erika Sifrit
Hello Jake,

Can you tell me why the page re: Erika Sifrit was removed or if moved, where I can find it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.52.246 (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * After looking quickly I can tell you that I deleted the page because it consisted solely of unsourced negative information on a living person. The page shouldn't be recreated without showing the individual's notability outside of a single event.  Please let me know if you have any other questions.  Best, ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  22:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Shout out for Volunteers
I noticed you served here, would you be willing to repeat the performance this year?. I ask because there's a call for help at the election talk page, and because you have the tools we need. Cheers, Sven Manguard  Talk  23:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really have the time to serve as a coordinator this year, but I'll swing by the pages once the election gets closer and see if there is anything that needs doing. Best, ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  20:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: Saturday, December 4
Our next Wikipedia NYC Meetup is this weekend on Saturday Dec 4 at Brooklyn Museum during their awesome First Saturdays program, starting at 5 PM.

A particular highlight for the wiki crowd will be 'Seductive Subversion: Women Pop Artists, 1958–1968', and the accompanying "WikiPop" project, with specially-created Wikipedia articles on the artists displayed on iPads in the gallery.

This will be a museum touring and partying meetup, so no excuses about being a shy newbie this time. Bring a friend too!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:WOCP
Hello, this is a notice that wp:WOCP is currently revitalizing to conform with new technology standards and there is currently a call out to all older members to come back and help out. You were listed as a member of the project, and thus contacted. If you want to help with the efforts, please make contact on the projects talk page. Regards, Phearson (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

New Pages and New Users
I've recently been doing some thinking (and a great deal of consultation with Philippe and James at the WMF's community department) on how to keep new users around and participating, particularly in light of Sue's March update. One of the things we'd like to test is whether the reception they get when they make their first article is key. In a lot of cases, people don't stay around; their article is deleted and that's that. By the time any contact is made, in other words, it's often too late.

What we're thinking of doing is running a project to gather data on if this occurs, how often it occurs, and so on, and in the mean time try to save as many pages (and new contributors) as possible. Basically, involved users would go through the deletion logs and through Special:NewPages looking for new articles which are at risk of being deleted, but could have something made of them - in other words, non-notable pages that are potentially notable, or spammy pages that could be rewritten in more neutral language. This would be entirely based on the judgment of the user reviewing pages - no finnicky CSD standards. These pages would be incubated instead of deleted, and the creator contacted and shepherded through how to turn the article into something useful. If they respond and it goes well, we have a decent article and maybe a new long-term editor. If they don't respond, the draft can be deleted after a certain period of time.

I know this isn't necessarily your standard fare, but with your and new pages work I thought it might be up your alley. If you're interested, read Wiki Guides/New pages, sign up and get involved; questions can be dropped on the talkpage or directed at me. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of article "Sympitar" fit the rules but not the facts
The stated reason for your deletion: 'There seems to be no case for notoriety for this instrument article. As mentioned on the take page this seems to be just one of hundreds if not thousands of almost unique and insignificant instruments.'

Fred Carlson created the sympitar... it is NOT "just another instrument" and it is definitely something that has established a new instrument type. I submit the following, just a small sample, as my argument that the deletion was perhaps well founded based on the article contents, but not in the facts about the instrument as you claim when you state 'there seems to be no case'. I would appreciate you doing a Google search in the future before submitting my pages for deletion on such grounds.

Featured as a "Great Acoustic" in Acoustic Guitar magazine July 2002: [http://www.acousticguitar.com/issues/ag115/ag115.html GREAT ACOUSTICS Carlson Oracle. By Teja Gerken ]

Featured again (one of the only makers with 2 instruments as Great Acoustics, ever) in Acoustic Guitar magazine Great acoustic in print (in the magazine) as well as online with video

Featured in book "Hand Made, Hand Played" by Robert Shaw: Hand Made, Hand Played by Robert Shaw

Referenced in the "Odd Music" gallery of instruments:Odd Music Gallery - Oracle 24-string Harp Sympitar

Sympitar played by Alex de Grassi (GRAMMY nominated guitarist) on several albums as follows:

39-string harp sympitar on Harp Guitar Dreams Deep at Night; Windham Hill, 1991 Beyond the Night Sky: Lullabies for Guitar; EarthBeat!, 1996 Tatamonk (with Quique Cruz); Tropo Records, 2000

and... Alex playing it with the Demania trio: http://jazztimes.com/articles/18736-demania-demania-trio

Sympitar published mentions:

Guild of American Luthiers Fall 1997 Guild of American Luthiers Summer 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmtitus (talk • contribs) 05:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have restored the article at your request. Be advised that it can still be nominated for deletion.  Best, ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  17:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Sympitar PROD removal
Hi there, I see that you decided not to delete the article Sympitar which I proposed for deletion some time ago. hHat's fair enough. Could you provide me with your rationale for keeping the article? I am interested so as not to repeat the mistake. Phil ip.t.day   talk  17:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact, the article was deleted by SchuminWeb, and remained so for about a month. In the section above this one on my talk page, another user contested the deletion, and so I restored the page.  You did absolutely nothing wrong; it is simply standard practice to restore article's deleted via PROD upon request.  You are welcome to take the article to AFD.  Thanks for your efforts.  ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  19:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You're invited to the New York Wiknic!


This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape ( directions ) in Manhattan's Central Park.

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

To subscribe to future events, follow the mailing list or add your username to the invitation list. BrownBot (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC Oct 22
You are invited to Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and lectures that will be held on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and here !--Pharos (talk) 04:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

MSU Interview
Dear Jake Wartenberg,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Rui Jorge Faria Azevedo
I have removed the prod tag from Rui Jorge Faria Azevedo, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks!

You're invited! New England Wikimedia General Meeting
Message delivered by Dominic at 09:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Note: You can remove your name from this meetup invite list here.

Appeal by Soofamily


Hello, you blocked this user in 2009. They are now appealing their block on UTRS, and I'm wondering what the context was. They appear to have only inserted interwiki language links, and I'm not sure that those edits classify as vandalism. Can you provide some detail? Thanks, --Chris (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have even the faintest idea. Feel free to reverse at your discretion.  ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  19:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Mpu listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Mpu. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Mpu redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bulwersator (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! ⇌ Jake   Wartenberg  19:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Block User:Dan56, please.
Sorry for interrupt, User:Dan56 change into a fake and unsourced music genres on others such as John Mayer's Heavier Things, Continuum and Battle Studies (actually his albums are blues rock and pop rock, kind of, but suddenly changed to pop music); and P!nk's The Truth About Love (her latest album is actually pop rock, dance-pop and dance-rock, but suddenly changed to pop and pop punk). Block him with no expiry set (unlimited).

P.S. If someone needs unblock him, just don't unblock or just reblock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordofpyrus (talk • contribs) 14:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Why did you delete the page of Durga Prasad Kachroo
It is very unfortunate to know that Wkipedia till stood for the reason of adding up eminent personalities and giving up information about them. Infact wiki has been one place to found the long lost literature scholars too. I found it very dis ambiguous that, my efforts to create page about a long lost scholar who needs world recognition, are failed by deletion of the page created by me, about 'Durga Prasad Kachroo'. Very unfortunate. I need an answer for this, as you are playing with the sentiments of the people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Preetibhagat (talk • contribs) 10:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the speedy and move at Braille Patterns. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 02:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. ⇌ Jake   Wartenberg  02:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Syria page
Please revert DIREKTOR's edit before your change of protection level as to restore the article to status quo. Sopher99 (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, the pre-edit war version is this one, the one as of 14:53, 24 March 2013, and without Israel in the infobox.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It'd be really great if we could generate some discussion before the protection expires.  Could one of you file an RFC? ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  19:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping out! We've tried RfC and DRN with little outcome. The three editors who insist on adding Israel to the infobox have been trying to do this for months. Incidents similar to this one have happened before, but things usually cool down after a few days.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Replied on my page. -- Director  ( talk ) 23:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Concerned
Please be aware that DIREKTOR is not the victim he tries to make himself out to be. The Syrian civil war is a polemical issue - the most polemical international issue right now. He has it in his mind that "mainstream media" (that being reliable news networks In North America, Europe, Austrailia and Japan) are completely biased in their reporting, and whether he realizes it or not, he believes that any user that repeats their reports or expresses any hint of sympathy to the conflict should be regarded as a suspicious user. Now I have gotten into soapbox debates with User:Funkmunk plenty a time, and so after reading these debates DIREKTOR is entirely convinced that my only goal on wikipedia is to push a view, particularly in favor of the opposition/rebel side. However personal views do not influence my input on wikipedia. Fact-checking, sourcing, and determining proper weight does. Sopher99 (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like to draw your attention to this section on DIREKTOR's talk page. I think he may be right, that for a little while today it did seem like some progress was being made through edit warring.  There were several edits you made which did not revert his additions in full.  Do you agree that there is a potential compromise here? ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  00:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * After I made those additions he raised Lebanon and Turkey into the same column section as the SNC. My revision that I first made is the only acceptable solution if we are going to go so ridiculously far as to include Israel. Sopher99 (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * DIREKTOR, you described the revision in question as "not a bad step towards compromise." Would you be willing to accept this until there is a consensus for something else?  ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  00:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I would. I'm just not sure Sopher99 and the others feel like they should compromise like that anymore, now that they had their own version back up and protected. -- Director  ( talk ) 00:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Futuretrillionaire and Sopher99, what do you think? I will immediately lift the protection if you both agree to this.  I'm sure all three of you agree that it would be incredibly gratifying to make some progress on this issue after so long.  ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  00:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

If the infobox looks like this, where all the border clash countries are kept to one section of the box, and explicitly stated border clashes and their respective dates, then yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_civil_war&diff=546779284&oldid=546778964 Sopher99 (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not agree to the unnecessary dates for each individual border clash, I do not like the weird double line divider. I do not like the fact that Israel, Turkey and Lebanon are listed together as allies(!?), and I do not like the fact that Turkey is unnecessarily listed twice in that version of the infobox (once more in the collapsible box). But I would agree that the inclusion of Israel is the primary issue, which makes the version much more acceptable in my view. Like I said, its not a bad step towards compromise. -- Director  ( talk ) 00:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

We can scratch out the dates, and we can put Border clashes and incidents: Sopher99 (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, disagree to another pointless heading - "border clashes" is in the note next to necessary faction entries, and that's a standard format that's perfectly fine with me. I generally disagree to lumping Tukey, Israel and Lebanon together based only on the extent of their involvement. These factions are not associated. -- Director  ( talk ) 01:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Cross-border incidents, or we put a line between each of them, but thats just getting awkward, but I can accept it. Sopher99 (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, disagree to your adding another heading - its just another means of somehow "distancing" Israel from the SNC that's beyond how the template is generally used. And again, I disagree to lumping them together at all as they are not mutually associated. The reason its awkward is because its unnecessary. -- Director  ( talk ) 01:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No I mean not lumping them together (putting lines between them) is awkward. But if you want to put lines between them, then okay. Sopher99 (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That corrects one issue, but creates another - the awkwardness of such a setup. What is your objection to moving Turkey up below the SNC? They have been their loudest, strongest and most generous supporter, and have engaged the Syrian government with their own military numerous times. If I'm not mistaken - the SNC is actually in Turkey. That move would also eliminate the need for a double listing of Turkey. -- Director  ( talk ) 01:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Has to explicitly say border incidents. Lebanon can't go there as the official government has no direct support to them. Sopher99 (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's agreed. There's no question that Turkey's listing requires a (border incidents) note. As for the Lebanon.. perhaps they can be moved just below the Mujahideen, separated by their line? I'm not married to that, though.
 * While we're at it I'd like to thank Jake for allowing us to use his talk for this :) -- Director  ( talk ) 01:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  01:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Lebanon hasn't responded to bombing of its territory, so the country isn't involved at the state level. It has an official policy of dissociation. That non-state actors from that country have joined the fight doesn't change that. FunkMonk (talk) 05:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The only thing I care about is whether the military of the country took part in the conflict (that is to say, engaged in some kind of combat with one or more of the factions). Is that the case? NPOV is simply writing that infobox as all others on this project are written. -- Director  ( talk ) 05:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There have been a few clashes between the Lebanese army and insurgents who crossed the border. FunkMonk (talk) 05:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hm. That would mean it should go to the left-hand column rather than the right. Frankly, I'm not familiar with Lebanon's role in the war.. it seems like a topic for thorough discussion, can we take it one at a time? -- Director  ( talk ) 05:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, I just chimed in when I saw the countries being thrown around. FunkMonk (talk) 06:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Futuretrillionaire, do you have anything to add? -- Director  ( talk ) 11:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Syrian army shelling has killed lebanese civilians multiple times  To which Michael Suleiman condemned the shelling, and threatened to take it up with the UN, meaning Lebanon is against it. Sopher99 (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but to list the Lebanon as a state among the combatants we'd have to have some kind of involvement on the part of its military (and a source like the ones for Israel would be nice as well, but I won't insist). Either way, let's not get into that here on JW's talk. -- Director  ( talk ) 12:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I have lifted the protection. You are all expected to adhere to 1RR, with no exceptions. ⇌ Jake   Wartenberg  15:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I see only 3 users involved in the designing of the "compromise" proposal here. What's the rush? Please wait for the other editors (including me, Baboon, Jeancey, Sayerslle, and Darkness Shines) to respond to the proposal before implementing it. Until everyone has responded and there is a consensus to the proposal, the pre-edit war version needs to be restored, and I recommend the article to be locked until then.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you didn't have the opportunity to comment before I lifted the protection, but if you are addressing me, I didn't implement anything, the other involved editors did. The original protection was only for 24 hours, so it would have expired by now, had I not lifted it.  I would not feel comfortable leaving the article indefinitely protected until a formal consensus is reached, considering that this is something has proven to be nigh impossible to achieve in the past.  I think the best course of action is for you to voice your concerns at the article talk page.  I encourage you to temper your expectations, as the other users have shown a willingness to compromise that is quite commendable.  If your request is something other than "remove Israel from the infobox" you may find them quite amenable to it.  Hopefully you all can find a middle ground that leaves everyone equally dissatisfied. ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  21:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Soffice.exe
Soffice.exe wasn't an article, it was a disambig. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I guess I was going too fast.  ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  03:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion?
After days of intense discussion, debate, and compromise a version of the infobox has been produced that seemed to be in accordance with the position of most involved users. It has been written according to a set standard (military involvement warrants mention), and in accordance with the numerous listed sources.

In the middle of an amicable effort to further perfect the infobox through study of available sources (this thread), User:Mikrobølgeovn indiscriminately rolled back all changes to the version you initially protected. To me it appears as though the user was clearly misinformed, and apparently had not even bothered to glance at the talkpage and review the massive efforts therein ("please address the discussion page before making such edits"?!).

Jumping at the chance, Futuretrillionaire immediately moved in to yet again WP:GAME revert restrictions to have his way (just as when he tried to have me blocked back then). The user restored the erroneous revert, and in "one fell swoop" made nothing of the immense efforts at compromise and standardization over the past several days. I am frankly appalled and thoroughly disgusted at what I perceive is deliberate and malicious disruption. I suppose I too should probably have reverted to some ancient version clamming there's "no consensus" for any of the changes between.

That's my view anyway. Oh and both Futuretrillionaire and myself technically breached 1RR with this. I myself completely forgot about the previous tiny revert, but I probably would not have been able to stop myself anyway from reverting Mikrobølgeovn's terrible misinformed rollback. Either way I'm not prepared to just let this vandalism go. As an admin previously involved in this would you be interested to intervene in some way? *ties blindfold, lights cigarette* <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- Director  ( talk ) 02:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am also dismayed that edit warring has started up on that page again. I don't really see what I can do to intervene at the moment, though.  I will continue to watch the article&mdash;I'm afraid that's the best I can do.  ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  23:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at the Administrators Noticeboard
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Humblesnore (talk) 08:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Casio watches
Can you please provide the rationale for deleting the "List of Guantanamo Bay detainees accused of possessing Casio watches"? Is it because of consensus based on heads counting, or is there something appliable in their arguments that is based on policy? Diego (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are asking me to do here. We've both read the discussion, so I really don't think it's necessary for me to summarize all of the arguments that were presented.  I did find the nomination, which cited BLP concerns, to be particularly convincing.  I think that some of this content could be reincorporated into the Casio F91W article.  If you would like, I would be happy to userfy the page for you. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 16:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I was asking which arguments you thought were supported by policy. The concerns about BLP were because the article when nominated had a large amount of primary sources, but all those had been removed from the final version so they shouldn't be a concern anymore; in particular not because of WP:BLPPRIMARY, the only policy mentioned by Nick-D. Everything in the list was referenced to reliable sources, and the "attempt by Fladrif to address BLP concerns in 2011" was again reinstated and included. Given that all the concerns from the nominator have been addressed, what's exactly the problem with BLP that lead you to delete the list? Diego (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that the sourcing had been fixed, although I should have. I've asked Nick-D for his input.  ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 04:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Jake, I expressed several concerns when starting the AfD, of which the BLP problems were only one (if I thought this was fixable by reverting to Fladrif's version I would have fixed it) so Diego's suggestion that all my concerns had been addressed is not correct - if this had been the case I would have withdrawn the nomination. Most of the editors who voted to delete the article did so after Fladrif re-removed the material sourced only to primary sources, so there seems to be no reason to disregard their votes, especially as many of the votes were clearly motivated by concerns over the notability of this concept which was one of the issues I raised in the nomination statement (none of the references linked these people together on the basis of the watch type) as well as concerns over this being a WP:COATRACK. Moreover, no-one actually voted to keep the article - Diego was the sole editor who didn't think it should be deleted, and he wanted to merge its content into another article (a position which attracted no other support). As such, your closure of the discussion as 'delete' was sound, and there was no other policy-based option available here given the clear consensus was to delete the article. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A merge is a !vote to keep content, and it was the only one based on policy in the whole discussion. I suggested the merge precisely to avoid the concerns of it being a coatrack, even if WP:COATRACK is not policy; and my concerns that a deletion would go directly against WP:PRESERVE were ignored; closing admins are supposed to assess the strength of arguments, not the number of votes; if the multiple similar opinions didn't include arguments, the discussion should be closed as no consensus - specially if the "per Fladrif" and "per nominator" were based on the PRIMARY argument, when the primary links had been corrected. In particular I cared about the summaries of the arguments given by the numerous newspapers included in the right column of the table; those would have been a nifty addition to the Denbeaux article and didn't have any BLP problem, but are inaccessible now that the content has been deleted. This is why deletion is considered a last resort and articles should instead be fixed by editing whenever possible. Diego (talk) 12:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Come on, Diego, lets get real here. There were 10 deletes and one merge. Many policies and guidelines were referenced in the discussion, so it's not just a headcount. Just because you don't agree with the other side doesn't mean you can just dismiss them. The only reasonable way of interpreting the consensus was "Delete". Let it go. (My apologies to Jake, for hi-jacking your talk page.) Sergecross73   msg me   14:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd still would like anyone to explain how the final version of the page had problems concerning BLP, since nobody has provided an answer to that question; and why we can't reuse the well-sourced elements from the newspapers. Diego (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the fact that the sourcing issue had been corrected is in dispute anymore. I did miss that initially.  ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 21:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And yet, the deletion decision was based on that? Is there a way to recover the well-sourced content and merge it somewhere else with proper attribution? Diego (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you still thinking of merging it with Seton Hall reports? Was there any information about the watches in the reports that article covers?  Otherwise, I can't see how that would be appropriate. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 21:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the "Detainees' profile" section covers Denbeaux's mention the Casio watch and olive-drab clothing cited as evidence of enemy combatants. The descriptions by newspapers of instances of those mentions would be a contextually relevant expansion. Diego (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I've userfied the article per my original offer. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 00:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for your time. Diego (talk) 12:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion: Embassy of Honduras, Ottawa
Hi. You closed an Articles for deletion/Embassy of Honduras, Ottawa, but there were more articles in there. I asked MBisanz about it, maybe you'd like to follow and/or comment (probably better there, to keep things in one place) Thanks - Nabla (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

AFD close
Could you undo your close at Articles for deletion/Embassy of Honduras, Ottawa? That article was already covered by Articles for deletion/Embassy of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ottawa, but my close didn't apply to the discussion you closed.  MBisanz  talk 22:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've reverted my closure and left a note asking the closing admin to extend the AfD. Sorry all.  ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 23:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Lifting the 1 revert rule
Can you please lift the 1 revert rule from the Syrian civil war page. The conflict about the infobox is long over. And as the Syrian civil war page becomes a more popular destination in recent days, other editors who are editing the page for the first time and don't know what there doing are making many mistakes that are difficult to deal with the 1 revert restriction. Sopher99 (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand your frustration, but this is not actually something that I have the power to do. All articles that relate to Israel-Palestine, broadly construed, fall under these restrictions.  Perhaps keeping track of problems with the article on the talk page would be helpful in the short term.  Otherwise, your best bet is to ask ArbCom.  ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 14:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. You put the 1 revert rule in the first place without no request to do so. Also this article has nothing to do with Israel-Palestine. Sopher99 (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the article clearly falls under the sanctions. People have been arguing for months over Israel's role in the conflict, as you are well aware.  Note that other articles that might seem only tangentially related such as Arab Spring fall under the same restrictions.  ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 00:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Syria Infobox dispute escalating to censorship, edit wars and such.
I'm sorry to inform you but you should check out the history of Talk:Syria and recent events. A user known as Eliastoma is attempting to silence my complaint about editors attacking my users pages and such. I don't think this can go on. Can you please escalate the infobox dis[pute to arbitration if possible. Thanks but I am in a hurry, sorry if it looks rushed. --Marianian(talk) 22:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the account. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 00:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

PAK SHAHEEN CRICKET CLUB
Hi Jake. You deleted my new page 'PAK SHAHEEN CRICKET CLUB'. This was my attempt to establish some history for this club which lasted for over 20 years and which was an important part of the lives of those that were members and resulted in the sporting interests of the parents of two higly respected and important sports of the current generstion; namely Amir Khan (Boxer) and Sajjad Mahmeed (Cricketer). Both of their wikipedia pages were linked to this new page. Please reinstate the page and it will be expanded by the various interested members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaqoob (talk • contribs) 19:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Replied on talk page. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jake. Thanks for your reply. Reliable sources are the following websites:

The original article listed some club members and the following are linked to the external websites which have been on the net for years:

Mohammed Arshad and Mohammed Yaqoob - www.khukh.net

Sahid Mahmood (father of Sajid Mahmood, England Cricketer - www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/player/17944.html

Sajjid (Shah) Khan (father of Amir Khan, Boxer) - www.amirkhanworld.com

Hope the above will enable you to reinstate the original article. You can add the external libnks or I can do so.

Given a few weeks I am sure members will add further info to justify retention of the article for the future.
 * Unfortunately, none of these qualify, as they either primary sources or do not directly cover the subject of your article. Please see or policies on notability and reliable sources.  ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 01:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Family Ties seasons AfD
Hi. You closed WP:Articles for deletion/Family Ties (season 4) as redirect (no deletion) two weeks ago. I commented about the WP:Copying within Wikipedia problems at WP:Articles for deletion/All in the Family (season 1), and I think that these articles have the same problems. User:StewieBaby05 also created these, and spot-checks find identical episode blurbs. Would you consider revising your close to delete or delete and redirect? Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've deleted all the revisions except for the ones which contain the redirects. Hope this helps.  ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 04:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That does. Thanks for your quick response. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Zac Poonen
Could you unprotect Zac Poonen so I can move Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zac Poonen there please?-- Laun  chba  ller  13:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 17:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The Zac Poonen article has been through three or four Afd reviews and has failed each time, only to be reinstated with similar content. The Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zac Poonen page is also not supported - it is almost an exact replica of the three-times deleted article. The article page was protected to prevent exactly this. Any chance of having the protection reinstated to prevent yet another tedious Afd process? Wikipeterproject (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Wikipeterproject, for providing that context. I usually air on the side of granting requests if I don't have the time to look into them. I have restored the protection.  Launchballer, you would need to go through DRV for this.  If you choose that route, please advise me.  ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Having had RHaworth very kindly eMail me the content, that is certainly not similar content to what was eMailed to me; my article is much better, with 10 external links (of which six are inline citations). But as per your suggestion, ✅.-- Laun  chba  ller  12:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The submission for the article's creation has already been declined on the basis of lack of notability. The citations in the proposed page are either primary sources or blogs. Although the actual content of the proposed article might be different, the basis for multiple deletions has not been resolved therein. Wikipeterproject (talk) 10:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

1rr?
i thought the syrian civil war article was set to 1rr? sopher has made 2 reverts in one day. Baboon43 (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Which diffs are you talking about? It looks to me like he made two reverts, the first of which he self-reverted.  Although this is still technically a violation, I don't see much reason to impose a block.  ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Syria Infobox issue
I need to inform you that there is an issue where editors have been arguing over the positioning and presentation of the Syrian infobox despite my attempts to promote a middle ground (neutral lead infobox with competing governments in the Politics and Government section, similar to Libya in 2011) in wake of dramatic changes to the state of politics in Syria. I refrained from making any more moves until an administrator can advise me on what to do next to resolve the dispute. Dear sir, can you please advise on how we can solve the Syrian infobox issue before it gets worse? Thank you. --Marianian(talk) 12:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have made the editors working on that page aware that they are under a 1RR restriction, and that seems to have stopped the edit warring for the moment. Other than that I guess I would suggest expressing your opinion at the current RfC on the talk page.  ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  19:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That RFC was about Israel's involvement, so I had to start a fresh one (and consolidate all separate discussions about that). Sorry. --Marianian(talk) 06:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to apologize; I thought you were talking about a different article. I hope the RfC is successful. ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  23:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

1RR issue
@Jake, i understand that in order to prevent constant edit-warring you decided to put 1RR restriction on the Syrian civil war page (March 24 enforcement ). However, there might be a serious flaw in using the "Arab-Israeli arbitration enforcement" tool on Syrian conflict: first of all Israeli involvement is so far very limited in that conflict and hence it is not present in the infobox yet; secondly, even if considering Israeli involvement, it is not a part of the Arab-Israeli conflict (conflict between Israel and Arab League), but actually part of the Israel-Iran proxy conflict (Iran is not an Arab country and of course is not part of the Arab League). Considering that Syria is suspended from the Arab League (see ), thus the "Arab-Israeli arbitration enforcement" on Syrian conflict is completely irrelevant. I suggest creating a new arbitration tool named "Syrian conflict arbitration enforcement" for 1RR enforcing on related articles to resolve this issue.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. Most of the editors on the talk page agree that Israel is not a party in this conflict.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * All I can do is apply the criteria for these sanctions, which is set by Arbcom, to the best of my ability; I cannot suspend or alter sanctions. You should direct requests of this nature to Arbcom. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 00:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I will clarify myself - you are not requested by us to do anything retroactively regarding the sanctions already imposed. The question is whether you can remove the ARBPIA tag from "Syrian civil war" article now and the editor community will ask to create "Syrian conflict arbitration" 1RR rule (i can start it), or you keep the ARBPIA tag on "syrian civil war" article (which me and many others think is not justified as the case of Iran-Iraq War) until the editor community decides to create a similar "Syrian conflict arbitration" enforcement rule - specifically designated for Syrian civil war articles.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Since i noticed you are gone for a long time vacation - i shall follow your suggestion and turn to Arbcom. Greyshark09 (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on Arbcom
A request for Arbcom regarding creation of specific Syrian civil war 1RR arbitration tool is issued and if accepted will affect Syrian civil war and other related pages. The issue was previously discussed and recommended by yourself for Arbcom solution on the issue above. As an administrator involved in previous discussion, your opinion is requested, thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Motion proposed regarding the Syrian civil war clarification and amendment request
This is a courtesy notice to inform you that an Arbitrator has proposed a motion regarding a clarification and amendment request in which you were named as a party. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Syrian civil war articles
This is a courtesy notice to inform you that the Arbitration Committee has passed a with respect to a, in which you were named as a party, regarding articles related to the Syrian civil war. Please see the link above for the full text of the motion. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)