User talk:Jayron32/Archive24

emcorrectionalfacilitification
Did you miss the third to the last comment on this thread? μηδείς (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, but the moment had passed. -- Jayron  32  13:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't expecting a funny comment, it was an anecdote, not a joke. Just wanted to make sure you'd seen it given your comment in a later thread on your fondness for the word. μηδείς (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah. -- Jayron  32  22:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

RE: Thanks for getting that OTRS ticket
Yeah, no problem. It was a bit tricky this time - too bad there was so much going on at his talk page. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Robert S. Stewart
Back on August 21 you offered me some help in writing the biography of Robert S. Stewart. I am sorry, but after the violent blast from the editor DG, I almost lost all interest in pursuing the effort on WP. I had only submitted the first cut rough draft and asked for advice on how to edit, polish and complete the task. Finding references for businessmen is not easy. He is not a publicity hound who seeks massive public or academic exposure. But DG trashed any idea of offering me genuine help, just pontificated as if he owned WP. I asked for help five times and got abuse hurled back in my face each time. I asked for previous biographies of businessmen after DG said he had written and edited hundreds of them. Not one came back. I sought out dozens of business biographies and very few appeared. Who's Who is far better than WP for sourcing material but that is not a self-styled acaedemic publicity source either. Any sincere help and advice would be appreciated. Regards --Dawlatbaba (talk) 06:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want some good articles about businessmen, here are some that I have found:
 * Steve Jobs
 * Dan Borislow
 * Sir John Brunner, 1st Baronet
 * Tory Burch
 * Charles M. Loring
 * David Meerman Scott
 * John D. Rockefeller
 * Tom Peterson
 * Heather Higgins
 * That's a wide variety of business people from a wide variety of time periods and industries. If you want to see what a decent businessperson article looks like, including the level of references we are looking for, you can find them there.  Being a "publicity hound" is not a requirement for having an article at Wikipedia.  Being written about in reliable sources is.  I'm not sure if I mentioned this last time, but it is very important that we can verify anything written at Wikipedia, and we need a substantial amount of information to put in an article.  If you can't find sources for enough information to make a reasonably complete article, then it likely shouldn't be written at Wikipedia.  If the sources do exist, use them.  If they don't, I'm not quite certain what else to say on that.  -- Jayron  32  13:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 September newsletter


We're over half way through the final, and so it is less than a month until we know for certain our 2012 WikiCup champion. currently leads, followed by, and. However, we have no one resembling a breakaway leader, and so the competition is a long way from over. Next month's newsletter will feature a list of our winners (who are not necessarily only the finalists) and keep your eyes open for an article on the WikiCup in a future edition of The Signpost. The leaders are already on a par with last year's winners, but a long way from the huge scores seen in 2010. That said, a repeat of the competition from 2010 seems unlikely.

It is good to see that three-quarters of our finalists have already scored bonus points this round. This shows that, contrary to criticism that the WikiCup has received in the past, the competition does not merely incentivise the writing of trivial articles; instead, our top competitors are still spending their time contributing to high-importance articles, and bringing them to a high standard. This does a great service to the encyclopedia and its readers. Thank you, and good work!

The planning for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Some straw polls have been opened concerning the scoring, and you can now sign up for next year's competition. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Pointy header
Hi. Yes, my header was pointy, and I make no apology for it. When something isn’t making sense to a long-term regular whose mental capacities have not yet been consigned to the dustbin, and he asks 4 times for an explanation, and nobody is forthcoming with any information, and he takes what he considers to be appropriate action, and he gets no support from anyone when that’s reverted – what else is he supposed to do? --  Jack of Oz   [Talk]  00:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you were wrong in restoring the discussion. I'm sorry if I wasn't involved in that discussion, but in general I have been entirely consistent in my position on closing such discussions.  You were fine in what you did.  Consider my action an "endorsement with a modification".  -- Jayron  32  02:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jayron. --  Jack of Oz   [Talk]  21:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

On a related matter, best of luck with this from 3 days ago. My general experience of asking the editor in question to clarify or explain their posts is to be treated to the stony silence you're now getting a taste of. --  Jack of Oz   [Talk]  02:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Editors named Jethro
Should I make a Wikipedia category "Wikipedia editors named Jethro?" -- Jethro  B  01:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You do what you gotta do. -- Jayron  32  02:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Shaking my head, sent this to the wrong editor. Meant to ask User:I Jethrobot. Sorry. -- Jethro  B  03:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You do what you gotta do. Fer realz.  -- Jayron  32  03:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter - October 2012
Delivered October 3, 2012 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter any longer, please remove your name from this list. → Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page. → Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 05:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Main Page appearance
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of the article Timeline of chemistry know that it will be appearing as the main page featured list on October 15, 2012. You can view the TFL blurb at Today's featured list/October 15, 2012. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured list directors, or , or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  03:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

 

Many events considered central to our modern understanding of chemistry are also considered key discoveries in other scientific and technological fields. Chemistry is therefore often referred to as "the central science", and its history can be traced back to the earliest recorded history. Early ideas that later became incorporated into the modern science of chemistry come from two main sources. Natural philosophers, such as Aristotle and Democritus, used deductive reasoning in an attempt to explain the behavior of the world around them. Alchemists, such as Geber (pictured) and Rhazes, used experimental techniques in an attempt to extend the life or perform material conversions, such as turning base metals into gold. In the 17th century, Robert Boyle's synthesis of the ideas of these two disciplines led to the development of a process of thinking known as the scientific method, whereby the modern science of chemistry was born.


 * Balls to the wall! -- Jayron  32  04:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Carolina Boys
No intended wheel, just failed to check history, please feel free to restore  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't sweat the small stuff. It happens. -- Jayron  32  06:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Picture Problems
Hey,man. I went to Uploading images and Picture tutorial like you suggested and I think I've got it now. Thanks for the help! (I may have more novice questions for you in the near future. Bear with me please, I'm not exactly what you'd call "tech-savvy".) Krueg (talk) 04:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, no problem. I'm glad to help out where I can.  You can ask me here on my talk page, or ask at either Teahouse or Help desk.  Good luck!  -- Jayron  32  04:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

thanks
thanks for your quick response.if you have time can you answer my another question-how can i send message to members or only editing their talk page is the option? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drshreyans1986n (talk • contribs) 14:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. You can send a message in two ways.  First, you can do what you did here, which is to edit someone's "talk page".  This is how most messages should be sent on Wikipedia.  You can also email users who have their email enabled by clicking the "email this user" link in the toolbox on the left.  However, that is usually only used to communicate private or sensitive information; for most normal Wikipedia business leaving a note on a talk page should be fine. -- Jayron  32  16:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

De gustibus
Wanted to let you know that I enjoyed the "de gustibus" answer on the Ref Desk. If only it could have been the first word on that subject. And the last word. Ah well. &mdash; Lomn 22:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I'm not sure if someone had stated it first, it would have stopped anything. People like to argue.  -- Jayron  32  22:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No they don't. :)  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  22:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit Conflict
Hey,man. I've hit a snag again. There's been a few times where I was editing an article, and when I tried to save my changes, I recieved an error message that said there was an "Edit Conflict". I read the Help article on this, and it gave me a very good defenition of what an Edit Conflict is, but not a lot of instruction on how to resolve the problem. I'm still not sure what I should do if this happens again, besides just starting over (which is getting real old.) Can you help me out? Krueg (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. What you can do when you get an edit conflict, you will now have two edit windows: the top is the current state of the article, and the bottom is what you tried to add.  If you copy the text from the bottom window you were trying to add, and put it in the top window (don't delete what others have added, just re-add your own text by copying it and pasting it in) then you can quickly correct the problem.  -- Jayron  32  18:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. (Also, I'd like to thank you for not mocking me. You've been way nicer to me than some other people. Thanks again!) Krueg (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't mock anyone, so I think you may have me confused with someone else, or perhaps you've misinterpreted something I have said. -- Jayron  32  18:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

What? I was thanking you for NOT mocking me....(a few others have). Did I misspell something? Krueg (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OH! Sorry, when you said "You've been nicer to me than some other people" I thought you were implying that I am not nice to other people.  What you meant was that other people aren't nice to you!!!  Is that why I was confused?  Cuz when I first read your statement, it sounded like "other people" were the "other people" I was supposed to be mocking.  Instead you meant that "other people" was "other people" that were mocking you?  Did I understand you right now?  -- Jayron  32  18:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes! Sorry if my grammar confused you. I'll try to be clearer next time. Krueg (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Barnstars/Kittens,etc.
Hey,Jay---me again. I was wondering what the heart tab on top of the user pages are for. ("What are Barnstars?" "What are Kittens?",etc.) Also,are there any rules concerning them? (Like, "Would I be breaking a rule by sending them because I'm new?",etc.) (P.S: Sorry for asking a lot of dumb questions. I'm not trying to pester you, and I really do appreciate your help.) Krueg (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Krueg! Not to speak for Jayron, but those things under the heart tab (they're collectively called "Wikilove") are just little things that you can send to other users as a little token of appreciation.  Barnstars are sort of a tradition at Wikipedia; they've been unofficial awards for a (relatively) long time, since 2003.  There aren't any rules about handing them out; do it as much as you please for whatever you please!  That's what they're there for. I wouldn't recommend slinging thousands around at the drop of a hat, but if you want to give 'em out freely, you're more than welcome to do so. :) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 22:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thank you! I was afraid I'd get some critical comments on my talk page for violating a rule. (I'm a newbie,so I'm a little hesitant to just click on things.) Thank you for answering me!Krueg (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! -- Jayron  32  01:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thank you for your quick and helpful response.

SchizophrenicDingo (talk) 04:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC) 
 * Merci beaucoup! -- Jayron  32  04:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Brad Watson is being lenient to us
Brad Watson has kindly cut our sentences "GOD is also telling me to lessen the sentences that I've recently imposed on the administrators and moderators that have been found guilty at forum.Bible.org and Wikipedia." Dougweller (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if GOD says so, maybe we should just relent. -- Jayron  32  16:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, wait. He's saying that he's going to lessen his sentences he's enacted against us because God told him to.  That's infinitely funnier than what I thought he said when he first read it.  Damn.  -- Jayron  32  16:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! -- Jayron  32  04:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Username
Dunno if you noticed, but the user that you addressed in this edit has an improper role account. No reply here needed: to do or not is entirely your call, just FYI. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I responded in good faith to help the person who left the message out. I'd rather not block the same person after I was just friendly to them.  If it is a problem WP:UAA exists for this exact reason.  -- Jayron  32  13:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, like I said, it's your call. I left a warning on their talk page, perhaps they'll change their name. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

WTA Linz
Hello! Where's find me a article "WTA Linz" which going now? Help me, please--Many baks (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Jayron, he asked me this on my talk page as well. I've asked a Russian-speaking editor to give him a hand. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

fyi
Quoted you here: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents Nobody Ent 11:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Civil War veterans' children
Thank you for your answer! I am the grandson of a veteran and couldn't believe that there could be up to 300 living children of Civil War veterans!. Thank you again! and If I knew how, I would give you the Reference desk barnstar. Iowafromiowa (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's all good. Your thanks is more than enough.  -- Jayron  32  23:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles - Participant Clean-up (Second Call)
{||}

AN Close formatting
Your WP:AN close I believe needs some format fixing. Shadowjams (talk) 03:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I fixed it already. Thanks for the heads up.  The "archive bottom" template needs another   or something.  I kludged a fix in, but perhaps we need to get that fixed in the template. -- Jayron  32  03:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just went back and looked at it and I couldn't figure out why it didn't work as you did it the first time... probably something in someone's sig above... let me know if you figure out exactly where it is, it probably should be fixed in either the template (or the person's sig). Shadowjams (talk) 03:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Man, I ain't combing through that discussion again. I just spent the better part of an hour tabulating votes, weighing rationales, and trying to work out community consensus.  If I look at it any longer, my eyes are gonna bug out.  Let's just say that, of the 100+ people who commented the, maybe one has a broken sig.  I'm not in much of a mood to figure out who at this point.  -- Jayron  32  03:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ummm... seriously? Doc   talk  04:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone already took care of it. -- Jayron  32  04:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Box-closing problem is due to...something bad...in one of the transcluded or collapsed chunks in it. DMacks (talk) 04:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Again, I'm not interested in reading all of that again.  -- Jayron  32  04:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I really don't care either:) Banned is banned, closed is closed, etc DMacks (talk) 04:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Weird vibes on this las vegas night.... anyway... I was just trying to figure out which weird formatting was fucking up the templates, and jayron knew exactly what I was talking about, although neither of us have the time to really dig in and figure out what it was (which btw is a real pain in the ass if you aren't running wikimedia on your own server and ready to put in some test pages and then check the logs, etc.). Jayron fixed the underlying problem very quickly which I think deserves a barnstar. Anyway, no real discussion here. Good work all around. Only thing remaining is if anyone knows the underlying reason the template failed, it'd be a good thing to fix. Talkpage me or anyone else (I'm not really good at template stuff, but I'll try), so we can fix it. That's all. Shadowjams (talk) 08:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

This does need to be private
Bielle
 * I have responded via email. -- Jayron  32  03:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and returned. Bielle (talk) 04:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And back to you again. -- Jayron  32  04:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Ace! Bielle (talk) 04:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also suppressed. If it's dox, I wanna know! - A l is o n  ❤ 07:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for following up on that, Alison. I had revdeleted it, just as a stopgap.  -- Jayron  32  21:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

monarch lists
Hello Jayron32,

I noticed you undid that editor (Ilhador)'s edits on the king of France list. He did it to many different lists and it is such a pain. As I do not have the power or ability to, can you revert his similar doings to the List of Portuguese monarchs (which he changed to King of Portugal) and the List of monarchs of Brazil (which he changed to Emperors of Brazil. I have no idea why he did these edits, but i can't revert them. I appreciate any help at all, Cheers, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like he reverted himself on the Brazil list. I've undone the Portugal list.  -- Jayron  32  02:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you a great deal. I invite you to look at the request for intervention I opened. He has done this many times before. Administrator intervention against vandalism (at the very bottom). Once again thank you for reverting. Good editings, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 03:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've commented at WP:AIV. The edits aren't vandalism, and should be discussed as with any dispute.  See WP:BRD.  He did the "B".  I did the "R".  Now you both "D".  -- Jayron  32  03:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter - closing up!
Hey all :).

We're (very shortly) closing down this development cycle for Page Curation. It's genuinely been a pleasure to talk with you all and build software that is so close to my own heart, and also so effective. The current backlog is 9 days, and I've never seen it that low before.

However! Closing up shop does not mean not making any improvements. First-off, this is your last chance to give us a poke about unresolved bugs or report new ones on the talkpage. If something's going wrong, we want to know about it :). Second, we'll hopefully be taking another pass over the software next year. If you've got ideas for features Page Curation doesn't currently have, stick them here.

Again, it's been an honour. Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

License
Hi!, I'm sorry to bother you again, but do you know under what license does a picture lie when it's credited to a Twitter account? I asked this on the Help desk but got no response. Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You got your answer already. And if ... ah, forget it. Doc   talk  15:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, yes, I don't know where I take "longetivity" from. Iowafromiowa (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Mass moves
Hello, user:Kauffner has recently moved a lot of undiscussed and controversial pages, as the Duke of Aquitaine], [[Duke of Albret, Duke of Noailles, Duke of Narbonne, Duke of Chartres, Duke of Lorraine, and made us a favor of locking every one. I tried to revert them but he deleted my request as here. There's a requested move going on in the Jack Bufalo Head (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * At this point, WP:DRN is your best option. I'm not jumping into the middle of every controversial move.  -- Jayron  32  17:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Help with page moves?
Jayron, would you be willing to help (or direct) me? I created a page to record steps for manually archiving the RefDesks, but named it improperly. Initially, I created it here, then moved it here and then here. The redirect trail probably needs deletion once it's in my user space. Sorry to create a mess, but I was well-intentioned, honest! -- Scray (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Always glad to be of service.  -- Jayron  32  23:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You da bomb! -- Scray (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Any way I can move this to here, or does someone with the bit have to do that? -- Scray (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the target for you. You just have fun.  -- Jayron  32  23:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, ec'd with you after figuring out all I had to do was copy from the one into the other, then G7 speedy the first. Thanks again.  In about 20K edits, I'll go to RFA and pay it forward.  Thx. -- Scray (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
SarahStierch (talk) 00:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the quick handling of the problem of the IP address user (vandal) attacking my user talk page. Donner60 (talk) 03:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No problemo! -- Jayron  32  12:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

JEFTA
Hi Jayron32, I've performed an NAC on your RM to move JEFTA into userspace. I broadly agree that redirects to it should be deleted, but looking over what links there, I'm not sure how to proceed. I guess JEFTA previously existed in a different form, and there are extant (but red) links to it. I'm glad to see you're an administrator; I think you can safely take charge of the cleanup then, if that's alright. Since no one else expressed opposition to the move, and even Wnt's opposition wasn't exactly vociferous, I think you should feel sufficiently empowered to do so. Let me know if I can help with anything, but as I'm not an administrator, that probably won't be much. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

French Wikipedia
But my French Wikipedia is blocked. Fête (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Domo arigato. -- Jayron  32  04:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Peer review
Please peer review this for me!--Lucky102 (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Luo Xian Xiang, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Mephistophelian (contact)  18:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.
 * Thanks, but I didn't create it. I just made an inconsequential edit or two.  -- Jayron  32  22:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * When the AFCH script was processing the article, I realised immediately that it had included you erroneously, but decided against reverting myself for an isolated, inexplicable glitch in the programming. If the anomaly recurs, I’ll refer to this instance when notifying those responsible for its maintenance, but otherwise I’m certain that the creator would appreciate further assistance from experienced contributors in improving the article on Luo Xian Xiang. Cheers, Mephistophelian  (contact)  19:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC).
 * It's all good. I'm not really all that knowledgeable in the subject, but I have it watchlisted to keep an eye on it. -- Jayron  32  19:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Happy mole day
Dear Colleague,

Wishing you a warm and happy Mole Day.

-- Jethro  B  05:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If I had Avogadro's Number of avocado's, I'd make you some guacamole... -- Jayron  32  16:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, if you could possess Avogadro's # of avocados, you'd probably have a servant to make me the guacamole! -- Jethro  B  06:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

RD/L
Just wanted to bring your attention to this. Dismas |(talk) 05:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Weirdness. I have seriously no idea how that happened.  Must be a glitch in the matrix or something... -- Jayron  32  06:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Exactly the same sort of weird thing happened to me this morning, Jayron. See User talk:JackofOz.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  06:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hm. Time for a thread at WP:VPT to see if there's a bug or something?  -- Jayron  32  11:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See the "Apparent bug causing massive text loss when saving" section at VPT if you've not already. Nyttend (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your time!
Thank you for your time on answering my question regarding the Electoral College tie on the reference desk. Hisham1987 (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. I find doing stuff like this fun, so it was my pleasure.  -- Jayron  32  16:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Walledro
Because he was violating BLP pretty badly with his edit warring, I think you may want to upgrade him to indef. Up to you. Gigs (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:ROPE. If he does the same thing, he can be indeffed then too.  No need to rush.  Let him have his one chance to reform.  -- Jayron  32  16:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

A convivial beer for you!

 * Mmmm. Gracias por la cerveza!  Es muy delicioso!  -- Jayron  32  15:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Can't find a helpful essay you linked to
Hi. Sorry to bother you, but a little while ago I think you linked from the RefDesk or HelpDesk to a very pertinent essay on the perils of being trigger-happy over WP:LEGAL and the ease with which an outraged article subject can fall foul of rules they don't understand by trying to delete inaccuracies or worse in their article, then threatening legal action when they get reverted. I'm fairly sure the link came from you, but my brain and/or my searching abilities appear to be on strike tonight. If it was you, I'd be grateful for a link to the page in question. Many thanks. - Ka renjc 22:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles - Participant Clean-up (Final Call)
{||}

A beer for you!

 * Sláinte! -- Jayron  32  20:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

New Asymmetric Hydrogenation Wiki for Peer Editing
Hi,

I've recently written up a new page on asymmetric hydrogenation and I'd like to bring it up to Featured Article quality. Since you have some considerable experience with that and the project, I was hoping that you could review the page and help to suggest edits before I bring it to the Good Article/Featured Article crew.

Cheers, Bmalbrecht (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Mmmm. I'm kinda busy IRL right now, perhaps not enough time to dedicate to giving it the review it properly deserves.  -- Jayron  32  01:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 October newsletter
The 2012 WikiCup has come to a close; congratulations to, our 2012 champion! Cwmhiraeth joins our exclusive club of previous winners: (2007),  (2008),  (2009),  (2010) and  (2011). Our final standings were as follows:



Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.


 * The featured article award goes to, for four featured articles in the final round.
 * The good article award also goes to, for 19 good articles in the second round.
 * The list award goes to, for three featured lists in the final round.
 * The topic award goes to, for three good topics (with around 40 articles) in round 4.
 * The did you know award goes to, for well over 100 DYKs in the final round.
 * The news award goes to, for 10 in the news items in round 3.
 * The picture award goes to, for two featured pictures in round 2.
 * The reviewer award goes to both (14 reviews in round 1) and  (14 reviews in round 3).
 * Finally, for achieving an incredible bonus point total in the final round, and for bringing the top-importance article frog to featured status, a biostar has been awarded to.

Awards will be handed out in the coming days; please bear with us! This year's competition also saw fantastic contributions in all rounds, from newer Wikipedians contributing their first good or featured articles, right up to highly experienced Wikipedians chasing high scores and contributing to topics outside of their usual comfort zones. It would be impossible to name all of the participants who have achieved things to be proud of, but well done to all of you, and thanks! Wikipedia has certainly benefited from the work of this year's WikiCup participants.

Next year's WikiCup will begin in January. Currently, discussions and polls are open, and all contributions are welcome. You can also sign up for next year's competition. There will be no further newsletters this year, although brief notes may be sent out in December to remind everyone about the upcoming competition. It's been a pleasure to work with you all, and we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

New intractable COI draft
I've put up a new draft that removes "must". Let me know what you think. If you do not comment further I'll consider your opposition to remain. Gigs (talk) 13:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The GAN Newsletter (November 2012)
---
 * }
 * Read this newsletter
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 3 November 2012
 * }

Legal advice
So you feel that merely telling someone that they may have a legal difficulty is giving legal advice? That question is largely rhetorical because by even going there, advice or not, I violated my own self-imposed boundaries by answering like I did and, ironically (and, indeed, perhaps hypocritically), did so less than an hour after telling a newcomer lawyer that editing within the legal area isn't a good idea. I get a self-whack! for that. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you single me out; at least 4 editors objected to the question and its answers. In general, it is best to not even come close.  When in doubt, don't answer.  -- Jayron  32  20:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I only approached you because you put the cap on the matter by blanking it and, only then, more to use you as a father confessor for a mea culpa than anything else. You've given me my "go forth and sin no more" and I appreciate it. (I now also understand since I posted my original message, above, that "legal advice" isn't interpreted the way I would as a lawyer, i.e. offering an opinion about a legal matter, but more like the way "legal threat" is interpreted under the no legal threats policy: that once someone moves into that arena that anything that even resembles a threat will be deemed to be one, even if it's not in reality. It would seem that the same is true for legal advice at the RefDesk: anything that resembles legal advice will be deemed so, even if it's not in reality [especially, perhaps, if it comes from someone who self-identifies as a lawyer]. Fair enough and I've got it.) Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Elections
Hopefully the hat note at United States presidential election, 2012 will steer both viewers and editors to the general page, but until that page comes up to snuff it is pointless to take out all of the most important issues. I am going to take out the California death penalty issue if that is still there, though. Apteva (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please leave it all out. At the point of the talk page discussion, there is an overwhelming consensus to keep this about one topic.  Instead, convince everyone at the talk page (not me, but everyone else) that it needs to be in this article.  -- Jayron  32  21:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It was only put there by both feedback and talk page request. It is overwelmingly shown by viewer counts that this page is the US elections page. It is clearly an "I don't want anyone to know" issue of taking it out. Apteva (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, let me restate it again. This needs to be discussed on the article talk page.  I am but one editor, and this user talk page is not the correct venue to request, justify, or discuss changes to any article.  -- Jayron  32  21:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct, but anytime I revert someone I do want to explain to them why it was done. The actual discussion of the revert is occurring on the talk page. Apteva (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * All good. -- Jayron  32  22:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not a newsletter
This is just a tribute.

Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the Article Feedback Tool or Page Curation. This isn't about either of those things, I'm afraid ;p. We've recently started working on yet another project: Echo, a notifications system to augment the watchlist. There's not much information at the moment, because we're still working out the scope and the concepts, but if you're interested in further updates you can sign up here.

In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Ref desk for chemistry
Hey Jayron,

Any help possible, even a little, would be much appreciated here. It's a very tough problem - got it wrong in 1969, and regretabbly getting it wrong again.

Thank you. -- Jethro  B  03:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Chem barnstar
-- Jethro  B  05:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Grassy ass! -- Jayron  32  05:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Romney's vote percentage at United States presidential election, 2012
Hi Jayron. Can you please explain to User:Binksternet that Romney's vote percentage of 47.65 from the results chart gets rounded up to 47.7 in the infobox? He has repeatedly changed it by incorrectly rounding it down to 47.6 in the infobox and even had the nerve to send me a bogus warning on my talk page describing me putting the correct figure as vandalism. Other editors have also put the correct 47.7 figure. It's been clearly explained in the edit comments that 47.65 gets rounded up (as in all election articles, which use standard rounding), and that if Romney's number gets down to 47.64 then it can be rounded down to 47.6. Also, you can look at the talk page discussion. Interesting, because apparently has never been an issue before. It's simply about standard rounding. Thanks. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 07:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Here are some of the most recent edit comments explaining about rounding up or down, which are being ignored by Binksternet and some other editors: --76.189.101.221 (talk) 07:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I hold no magical powers to be able to force editors unilaterally in this way. You need to bring this up on the talk page or use WP:DR.  -- Jayron  32  13:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I heard you were such a great admin BECAUSE OF your magical powers. :p Anyway, I was actually just hoping for your calm reason in explaining how rounding works in the election articles, and that the process is consistent in ALL election articles, as established by a large group of experienced editors. In any case, the numbers for Romney have changed since last night and his infobox percentage is now, correctly and coincidentally, 47.6. After all that. So it's not an issue any more. That is, until the next time this rounding misunderstanding happens. In any case, I was still hoping you could please say something to Binksternet for posting that inappropriate "vandalism" warning on my talk page, when clearly this issue has absolutely nothing to do with vandalism. As well, if you look at the talk page discussion, you will see that User:AndyTheGrump also threatened me today. He's been banned from editing a lot for similar behavior towards others (personal attacks/harassment, etc.). Can you please warn him against this type of behavior, and tell him to focus on content? I'd really appreciate it. Thanks, Jayron. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My advice: Ignore it and move on. You're mad at Binksternet and Andy for giving you unwarranted warnings, and now you're asking me to give them warnings?  See Irony... Seriously, I'm not in the business of giving warnings. Wikipedia needs less warnings and more civil discourse.  No thanks, again.  Don't warn people.  Engage them in discussion, and let it go when you are demonstrably wrong or when the situation is moot.  -- Jayron  32  20:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Warnings are fine when they're warranted. Telling an editor that they're vandalising an article, when in fact it has nothing to do with vandalism, is improper. And an editor - with a very long history of being banned from editing - threatening another editor should be addressed. In fact, AndyTheGrump just did it again in the talk page discussion. I was not asking for you to take any action, but rather to simply let them know what they're doing is inappropriate. Thanks. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Again with these supposed magical powers that I have. Why does my telling them what they are doing is inappropriate change anything or make anything better?  -- Jayron  32  20:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Because you are an administrator. When you were applying to be an admin, if they asked you how you would handle a situation like this when an editor came to you for help, is THIS how you would've told them you'd handle it? I hope you'll think about that. I'm sorry to have bothered you with this. Take care. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand what an administrator is. From Administrators, and I quote "Administrators, commonly known as admins or sysops (system operators), are Wikipedia editors who have been granted the technical ability to perform certain special actions on English Wikipedia, including the ability to block and unblock user accounts and IP addresses from editing, protect and unprotect pages from editing, delete and undelete pages, rename pages without restriction, and use certain other tools.".  Admins are not given extra warning powers that cause conflicts to stop happening when they give warnings.  If, when I applied to be an admin, I declared that I would throw around formal warnings whenever it was requested of me, I would have been deemed inappropriate to wield the admin tools.  Admins don't have special powers to warn editors.  You are woefully misinformed about what it means to be an administrator.  -- Jayron  32  20:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, I hope you will be honest with yourself and think about what I asked you regarding your admin interview. I would also suggest reading the WP:UNINVOLVED section of the Administrators page, which alludes to helping editors who request help. It addresses "Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches". You were an uninvolved administrator and I asked for your help in this regard. All the best to you. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC) 21:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but not because I am an administrator. I am allowed to give warnings.  But all editors are allowed to give warnings.  Warnings by an administrator are not granted special weight.  I also don't believe that giving warnings in the manner you have requested helps de-escalate conflict: it only escalates it.  So we have two problems with your request 1) It presumes a falsehood; that warnings by an administrator carry additional weight.  They do not.  2) It presumes that a warning is useful in this situation.  I do not believe that it is; when warnings are given in the midst of a heated discussion, they act to escalate the aggression by all sides (after all, a warning during a discussion is itself an act of aggression, something you yourself raised objection to in receiving warnings yourself).  So, should admins give warnings?  Sometimes, when they are warranted, just like any editor should.  Are admin warnings granted special status at Wikipedia? Not officially, nor should they be.  Would issuing a warning in the midst of this discussion act to lower the tensions of said discussion or help resolve the conflict?  Not in my opinion; issuing a formalistic warning would only act to put the warned editor on the defensive, cause them to act more obstinate, and would act to increase, rather than reduce, the tensions in that discussion.  Now, those are all of the reasons why I will not warn.  Do I believe that people on all sides of that discussion have behaved poorly.  Yes I do.  Do I believe that warnings will fix any problems here, delivered by me or anyone else?  No I do not.  So, since I think that warning those other editors will make the conflict worse, I will not be doing it today.  Does that all make sense? -- Jayron  32  21:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

apes
Agreed, other stuff exists. (And more other stuff will exist, if we need to write two articles on mammals to both include and exclude humans, etc..) My question remains, what worthwhile content is there that belongs in an article on "apes (excluding humans)" and which would not be appropriate in an article on "apes (including humans)"?

I'll also point out: Hh appears to be writing an article on terminology. That may in fact be justified, but it isn't an article deserving of the plain title "apes" rather than of e.g. "ape/hominoid (terminology)". As per cited policy. Which still leaves the page "ape"/"apes" probably as a redirect to the existing article (which will probably be moved to "hominoidae"). Since this seems not to be Hh's goal, I asked my question. Cesiumfrog (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My talk page is not the appropriate place to carry on a conversation about article content. Make this exact same post at Talk:Ape and then we'll talk about it there.  -- Jayron  32  14:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

A pie for you!

 * Mmmm. Pie. -- Jayron  32  15:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Wüstenfuchs
It appears continues to edit war over ethnic matters in spite of your warning. -- ◅ PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 15:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:ANEW is the correct place to raise your concerns. Please present evidence there in the form of diffs to show the nature of the problem.  -- Jayron  32  00:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of England, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry VII (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons images on the main page
Hello! Please remember to upload Commons images locally before transcluding them on the main page. Our cascading protection doesn't extend to Commons, and KrinkleBot's protection sometimes takes several hours. Thanks! —David Levy 18:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oops. Sorry about that.  I forgot!  -- Jayron  32  23:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Grey Cup
Hello again! Upon finishing my reply to your most message, I discovered that the discussion had been closed. So here it is:


 * I don't know why you keep making those extreme statements. No one has opined that you're a bad person or that your admin bit should be revoked.  This is a minor issue, and I have absolutely no doubt that you posted the item in good faith, with only Wikipedia's best interests at heart.
 * I was correct in my belief that your explanation would be helpful. I'd have guessed (and been wrong in suspecting) that you simply overlooked the requisite update's absence.
 * The idea of posting items for articles lacking substantial updates (as a means of spurring development via the added exposure) has been proposed and rejected on multiple occasions. It may have merit, but it doesn't have consensus.  For sporting events, a brief summary is considered the bare minimum.  Until that changes, I ask that you please respect it.  —David Levy 04:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Look, I'm not sure what you want me to do about the Grey Cup item right now. I am thoroughly confused by what action you expect me to take.  -- Jayron  32  04:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't realize that this remained unclear. I'm not requesting any action regarding the Grey Cup item.  That matter was rectified when the game summary was added and sourced.
 * I'm merely asking you to please apply the consensus-backed inclusion criteria in the future. —David Levy 04:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I always do. -- Jayron  32  04:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The Grey Cup article didn't meet ITN's normal standards when you posted the item. Unless I've misunderstood, you just explained that you did so on the basis that the added exposure would spur development.  As noted above, this rationale — for which you invoked WP:IAR — has been rejected by the community on multiple occasions.  —David Levy 05:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I read this the last time you wrote it. Did I write something to make you think that I didn't?  -- Jayron  32  05:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes (or that some sort of misunderstanding occurred): "I always do." —David Levy 05:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Look, we're agreed that the Grey Cup item is, right now, in a fine state. I am not apologizing for anything.  If I had to do it over, I'd have posted it (perhaps without the snarky comment.  That was inappropriate.)  But the article doesn't deserve to be pulled off the main page, quite frankly, I don't have a record of "bad postings", and if you think that I do, you should gather the diffs and show it to me.  Because I really don't.  But if you think that my behavior is so over the top as to mandate the current admonishments you've been giving me, I think I really need to see that.  I will continue to act as I have always acted, and I intend to change nothing as a result of this.  You should start gathering those diffs from today forward if you think I cannot be trusted.  It's your call.  -- Jayron  32  05:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to get the item pulled or asking you to apologize for anything. I don't assert that you're untrustworthy or have a bad record.  I have no desire to build a case against you or seek sanctions of any kind.
 * I'm simply noting that this particular posting was inconsistent with the community's standards and requesting that you adhere to them in the future. I'm unable to reconcile your explanation that you based your decision on a community-rejected inclusion rationale with your statement that you "always" apply the consensus-backed inclusion criteria.  This leads me to suspect that one of us has misunderstood the other (and I fully accept the possibility that said misunderstanding is mine).  —David Levy 05:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Look, if there is any misunderstanding here, it is this: I always follow the rules and respect consensus, except when I don't, and your advice here has been read.  I intend to keep following the rules and respecting consensus, except for those times when I don't.  When I don't (or even when I do), and it goes bad, I will clean up my mess.  I always do that.  In this case, there is no mess to clean up.  But rest assured that if there had been a mess to clean up, I would have taken care of it.  And in the future, if anything I do causes actual problems for the encyclopedia, you can expect it to be cleaned up by me before you have the time to write your admonishment of me.  But really, it's OK.  You can trust me going forward to always do the right thing, and if I don't, to make it right.  Does that allay any fears you have about my future actions here or elsewhere?  -- Jayron  32  05:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * At no point have I doubted that you can be trusted to do what you feel is best for the encyclopedia. My only concern is that your idea of what's best appears to contradict that of the community (in one area, at least).
 * You wrote above that you "always" apply the consensus-backed inclusion criteria. You've apparently amended this to "I always follow the rules and respect consensus, except when I don't".  To be perfectly honest, this doesn't make me feel particularly comfortable.  Rules have exceptions, but adminship isn't a license to disregard consensus, irrespective of whether one intends to clean up resultant messes.
 * Since this discussion began (on the ITN candidates page), I've gone from thinking that you overlooked the update's absence to thinking that you applied a community-rejected rationale without realizing to understanding that you did realize and decided to override longstanding consensus. I find this disconcerting and hope that you'll reconsider your approach.  (But if you don't, you still aren't a "bad person".)  —David Levy 06:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * To clarify, I had no knowledge of such a consensus having existed. Had I known of it explicitly, I would not have posted.  No where at ITN is such a consensus indicated; I had not participated in any of those discussions and had absolutely no knowledge of such an expressed consensus.  To be clear: if the exact consensus you indicate really had been explained explicitly at ITN, I would have not posted.  Instead, I went with "The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable."  The update was 3 sentences when I posted, well between the "more than sufficient" and "highly questionable" edges, and thus I thought was within reason.  If you want people to know of established consensus, you need to write that stuff down somewhere.  As I stated before, I always follow the rules, and the rules were followed here.  If they weren't, you need to show me where should have read them to follow.  -- Jayron  32  06:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Copied from User talk:David Levy:
 * I think I found the source of our misunderstanding, and why we seemed to have been talking past one another. I hadn't noticed it at first, but it finally sunk in; I've left a last note on my talk page for your perusal, but to clarify a bit more; it seems you were working under the assumption that I had flagrantly disregarded an established consensus intentionally; I had not done so.  As I explained, I really had never heard of such a consensus, and since it doesn't appear to be written in any of the guidelines on the ITN pages, I'm really not sure how I would have known about it.  To clarify again: I would have never violated an explicitly written guideline which clearly advocated against posting an item in the manner I did.  I knew nothing of such a clear consensus before you brought it up.  In the future, I will be more careful not to violate such a consensus, but in the meantime, you would need to update the guidelines to indicate that such a consensus exists, with diffs/links to the relevent discussions, because those of us that didn't participate in the discussions wouldn't know about it.  I hope this clears things up between us; looking back I know see where the misunderstanding comes from, and I apologize for give you the impression that I was being just being obtuse or obstinant.  Had I realized what your main objection was, I think I would have responded differently to the discussion than I did.  I thought you were primarily concerned about the fact that I didn't post after exactly 5 sentences had been updated (which is a guideline itself that is rather fuzzily worded) not that I was deliberately ignoring a known consensus.  Let me assure you, it was not my intent to do so, and had I been aware of that ruling, (like, if it were written out as such at WP:ITN) I would have never posted in the first place.  -- Jayron  32  07:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for clarifying. Indeed, the above exchange led to a misunderstanding on my part.  My apologies.
 * When the discussion began, I was unsure of your posting rationale, but I suspected that you simply overlooked the fact that the article wasn't updated to the extent that the community expects of those about sporting events.
 * When you explained that you based the decision on the concept that the article's added exposure would spur development, I assumed that you were unaware of past discussions in which this practice was proposed and rejected. (I now know that this is so.)
 * But your response that you "always follow the rules and respect consensus, except when [you] don't" led me to believe that you were aware of the idea's rejection and decided not to respect consensus. (I now know that this isn't so.)  Likewise, I took this to mean that you were aware of the "game summary" expectation and overrode that too.
 * I'm unclear on why you worded the statement that way (and don't want to risk further misinterpretation by speculating), but I would hope that you always respect consensus. (Of course, local consensus might conflict with broader consensus or even laws, so it shouldn't always be acted on.)
 * I lack the time to search for the aforementioned proposals. They don't matter much (in terms of documentation), as they failed to establish consensus to change the longstanding approach (posting items after substantial updates occur).  In the news covers the criteria that exist, not those that don't.
 * It probably should contain more details about particular subject areas, including the "competition summary" expectation for sporting events (noting that this doesn't apply when the item focuses on something else, such as a deadly riot that broke out in the stadium). For this, further discussion probably is in order.
 * Thanks again for clarifying. —David Levy 15:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify: November Newsletter and December Drive

 * Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Wikify, 22:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Soccermeko
I've blocked as our old friend Soccermeko. Please take a quick peek and see if you think I've been too hasty.&mdash;Kww(talk) 05:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. There's a blast from the past.  I had to brush up on the old accounts because it's been a very long time.  The "posting unreleased Nicole Wray albums" MO is a dead ringer for Soccermeko, so I'd say it looks pretty good to me, but my memory is pretty rusty.  Let's just say I've perused the article history of Nicole Wray going back 4 years, and never once in the past has anyone except Soccermeko done that.  But it's your call.  -- Jayron  32  05:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Made me feel all nostalgic.&mdash;Kww(talk) 06:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

ITN
Can you link to Sixty-seventh session of the United Nations General Assembly saying it was during the 66th session (with that being the linked word/s0?) Also you could use the image of the president for the ITN image bit..(Lihaas (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)).
 * No, I kinda like how it is right now. -- Jayron  32  01:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Itds 1 word on display adds context(Lihaas (talk) 09:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)).

Hector Camacho
Please consider restoring Hector Camacho to the ticker. See my comments on the ITN Candidates talk page. Camacho's still drawing more hits at check view than any of the current listings have gotten on their highest day, it's hardly stale or out of reader interest, and consensus when this was discussed originally was that 7 days was good. Rex Hunt was restored upon that consensus. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 04:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

A new sport peer review
Here. Tnx. ;-) --Kasper2006 (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

User:LittleBenW editwarring against diacritics again
Please see my comment after your close at WP:ANI -- PBS (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Responded at ANI. -- Jayron  32  02:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ditto. -- PBS (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

ITN
Hi Jayron32. Could you please take a little bit care of the user μηδείς and his offensive comments against me on ITN/C? There is really no reason to tolerate comment in which someone calls me "invalid" claiming something that is even not true. If this is the way how the editors should talk to each other on the English Wikipedia, then it would be better to live it and find a more prominent place to do something. Thanks. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think Medeis was talking about you. It's pretty clear she was talking about the nomination, not the nominator.  Please see WP:AGF for how you should handle this in the future.  Good luck.  -- Jayron  32  01:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The WikiProject: Good Articles Newsletter (December 2012)
---
 * }
 * Read this newsletter
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 3 December 2012
 * }

Commons images
Hello! As a reminder, if it's inconvenient for you to download/upload a Commons image at its full resolution, please preview a 100x100px transclusion and use the resultant thumbnail. That way, the transfers will be even faster for you, and there will be no extra generation loss (because the exact 100x100px file will appear on the main page, with no further scaling). Also, when using the c-uploaded template, if the local upload's name differs from that of the Commons file (as it obviously should in such a circumstance), please include the Commons name (without "File:" appended) as a parameter (e.g. ).  Otherwise, the Commons link will be broken. Thank you! —David Levy 21:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops. Sorry!  -- Jayron  32  23:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize. You performed the local upload, which is far more important than any of the above.  Just some friendly advice.  :)  —David Levy 23:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Diacritics topic ban: I was passing, and...
Hi, Jayron, thanks, belatedly, for closing the ANI discussion. I made the ANI link here more specific. Please check that the table looks and works all right for you. (I hate that table, it's not my friend) Bishonen &#124; talk 19:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC).
 * Looks good, Bishonen. Sorry I forgot to add it to that page.  Thanks for cleaning up my messes.  -- Jayron  32  02:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

News headline
Hi Jayron -- do you suppose you could change the headline for the Bopha item to the following?:


 * Typhoon Bopha passes over the island of Mindanao in the Philippines, causing widespread destruction and more than 500 fatalities.

The existing headline is quite a bit out of date, and this is still the top news item.

Regards, Looie496 (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like it got done by someone else already. -- Jayron  32  17:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for Commentary
Hey Jayron,

Sorry to bother you, but would you mind commenting on this topic/section of the Humanities Reference Desk--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Tennessee_Williams_Cause_of_Death. I apologize if this topic is depressive, but this topic didn't get any comments so far and considering how knowledgeable you are about various things I wonder if you'd be able to comment on it. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 09:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Looked it over. No idea how he died.  -- Jayron  32  01:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

203.217.29.182 WP:USPLACE issue
I'm not sure if there's anything you can do, but 203 is ignoring the guidance you gave them on their talk page last week about not adding United States or USA after place names in the U.S. They have done it many times since you contacted them. Not only are they inappropriately adding the United States content, they are amazingly also separating the city from the state in all the articles, so if the lede says "in Chicago, Illinois", 203 will change it to "in Chicago, in the U.S. state of Illinois". I reverted all the ones I could find and warned 203 on their talk page, but I don't know if they're going to stop. Thanks. --76.189.107.195 (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Will monitor. After your final warning, if he does it again, let me or another admin know.  -- Jayron  32  01:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. --76.189.107.195 (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Note
What do you make of a posting like this? I think he's posted it at least twice, both times reverted by others. Obviously a sock, but of who, I have no clue. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've got some ideas. SPI has been started.  -- Jayron  32  02:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Close okay
The thread was hijacked for other reasons, it seems, so closing is okay. The social networking was more important than the science.

However, I did take it up at WP:Errors and at DYK. This time and the last half dozen times about a year ago, with the same result: the article spent hours on the main page, the error report was ignored, the DYK comments were ignored. I corrected a few of the articles, but it takes too long to explain a single sentence to a wikipedia writer who doesn't seem to have the ability to read geology articles (the orthogneiss is just a dictionary definition), so that will go nowhere, except the same place as your current articles about geology that are wrong, the main page.

TThere is no venue for correcting scientific errors in Wikipedia. It was a mistake, so your closure seems to be saying, to think that administrators would be concerned about errors. No one else is, so why should administrators care, I guess. Oh well, I only wasted a few hours of time. --68.107.131.23 (talk) 06:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. -- Jayron  32  06:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

ITN credit
Hi Jayron32. Thank you for posting the article I nominated and updated. Could I trouble you to give the other two users and I an ITN credit? I'm specially requesting it this time because this is my first successful ITN article. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Jayron! —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * De nada. -- Jayron  32  12:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

ANI archives
Good faith or not, is it appropriate for an editor to be modifying the ANI archives this way? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly interested one way or the other. Big meh from me.  If it concerns you, bring it up in a public forum, or approach him directly.  I just don't really care.  -- Jayron  32  18:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nah. I wouldn't even have seen it except that one archive was on my watch list for reasons unknown. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

203.217.29.182 adding United States again to ledes
Jayron, User:203.217.29.182 is at it again. After their second warning about WP:USPLACE, they changed the lede of Prairie State College from "in Chicago Heights, Illinois" to "in Chicago Heights, in the U.S. state of Illinois", with the the identical edit comment they always use: "Intro omits country of location, as per WP:CONTEXTLINK — "..location should include a link to the broader geographical area". I reverted it, but did not post another warning on their talk page. I'd rather let you deal with it since you're an administrator. The editor apparently is never going to stop doing it. Thanks. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks like we have two anonymous users here who each have their own misinterpretation of different policies. WP:USPLACE mainly applies to titles of articles, and while it does have bearing on the use of placenames within articles, it doesn't necessarily preclude adding additional links to regions as per WP:CONTEXTLINK, and thus not all the reverts by 76.189.123.142 were justified. That said, 203.217.29.182 has been misapplying WP:CONTEXTLINK, which only calls for articles about places to include "[...] a link to the broader geographical area of which it is a part" (and not necessarily the nation in which they're located), which was already at least minimally satisfied in every case in which the user added links. Although the edits in question did add links in the spirit of WP:CONTEXTLINK, it was only to augment existing context links, not to add them where there previously were none. I personally don't like the original edits, as they're redundant and in some cases heavy-handed. But I'm not satisfied that WP:USPLACE fully justifies all the reverts. Ibadibam (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone else took care of it. -- Jayron  32  02:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Haha, yep. Thanks, Jayron. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 03:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ibadibam, you're misunderstanding the circumstances of my involvement. I actually had no interpretation of WP:USPLACE. I was educated on it by Jayron via his warning to 203 and all the reverts he (Jayron) did himself. Since Jayron is a very experienced editor and administrator, I accepted his guidance on the matter. In any case, 203 was warned twice. So even if they were correct, instead of simply discussing the matter they chose to ignore the warnings and continue making the same edit, which they've now done in literally hundreds of articles. Once they are unblocked, do you think it would be acceptable for them to just go back to making this same edit in hundreds more articles? Or do you think they should discuss the matter and get consensus, as Jayron suggested? I hope you're in favor of the latter because the former will only perpetuate the problem. Thanks. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * To clarify: the problem is not the use of "USA" per se, it is that the IP in question ignored several requests to stop and discuss their edits. That's the real problem, it isn't in using "USA" inappropriately, its doing so in the face of multiple requests to stop and discuss.  Refusal to discuss is the real problem.  -- Jayron  32  04:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * An additional quick note... regardless of the guideline, to change "in Chicago, Illinois" to "in Chicago, in the U.S. state of Illinois" (or whatever city and state is in the lede) is complete nonsense. That is precisely what 203 has done in hundreds of articles. The city and state should never be split apart like that. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 05:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Please expand~
R.E. my edit on Soledad O'Brien, I believe was completely factual and proven as such in the listed references. I received a warning from you to stop making edits that were "poorly referenced". Can you please point out which statement was not properly referenced? There were only a few: 1) date and time of interview 2) parties involved 3) Soledad's own statement in which she said the Pollak's definition of Critical Race Theory was a "complete misreading" 4) Soledad's own summary, whereby she described Critical Race Theory, to include the term "intersection between race and law" is right out of Wikipedia-which was referenced in my edit. 5) That Critical Race Theory does in fact maintain, as its principle component, the belief of white supremacy: which is also supported from the same Wikipedia page-as well as numerous other articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matrixman48

Jayron32:

I am new to this, and this was my first attempt at editing. I felt quite strong and certain that my edit was factual and supported as such. As you see, it appeared in the "critique" section of the page. I did not say anything defaming, that I am aware of. Is there is a dispute to what I posted, please tell me what exactly you found inaccurate. I hope you take another look at what I stated. If nothing negative can be allowed to be posted in a person's "critique" section-then what's the point?

Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matrixman48 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Over the line?
Recalling our discussion a couple of weeks ago about User:LittleBenW and his preoccupation with diacritics, I wonder what you make of |this diff? And indeed, that entire section seems to be a handbook for how to edit-war over names like Facundo Argüello and Lech Wałęsa. I haven't been able to tease out who inserted the phrase "The search results suggest that, in major English sources, the preferred way of spelling the name is to omit the diacritics" into this section so much. But the whole thing stinks, IMHO. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (Ah, it appears from |this diff that LittleBen put that entire section in shortly before being banned.) AlexTiefling (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if the section offends you, remove it, or at the least, start a discussion to remove it. Just don't edit war over it.  And if he's editing in defiance of his ban, show a diff that shows that.  Since this was technically before the ban, there will be no sanctions as yet.  If he does violate his ban, drop an note at WP:ANI with some diffs, so that it can be acted upon. -- Jayron  32  15:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm. For some reason the first link above is not showing the diff I intended to link to: . This was definitely after his ban. However, rather than hound him through ANI yet again, I've opened a discussion on the talk page for WP:GOOGLE. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Hohoho!!!


Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Disambiguation link notification for December 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Twistin' the Night Away, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Ewing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U for Apteva: move to close
I am notifying all participants in Requests for comment/Apteva that Dicklyon has moved to close the RFC/U, with a summary on the talkpage. Editors may now support or oppose the motion, or add comments:


 * Link to the move to close

Please consider adding your signature, so that the matter can be resolved.

Best wishes,

N oetica Tea? 04:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Cheers images
In case you haven't noticed, I put File:Sam Diane I Do Adieu Wedding.jpg and File:Sam Diane Cheers finale.jpg for review. You can comment on use of them in WP:NFR. --George Ho (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

ITN / Jack Klugman
Hi Jayron,

The ITN timer hasn't been reset. I don't know if it's normally done after an RD post.

Thanks --IP98 (talk) 23:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've only been changing it after a regular article update. Dont' know if its ever been established one way or the other, but I've only been doing it after a blurb, not an RD update. -- Jayron  32  23:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

About Ellis McCarthy
Hi Jayron32.

I can see from the his stats that McCarthy has played games for his college. Following WP:NGRIDIRON, this would not be enough to establish notability. But... To sum up: I am confused. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I do notice that the article asserts that he was a "USA Today All-American" in 2011. Does that mean he was a 2011 USA Today All-USA high school football team member?
 * There also appear to be other parallel High school "All-American" awards, but I can't see refs for him in that cohort.
 * Be unconfused with the following information. To establish notability, show where other people have written about a subject extensively.  If the writing doesn't exist, the Wikipedia article shouldn't.  Don't let yourself be confused by the clarifying guidelines.  If they confuse you, ignore them, and return to the core principle, explained at WP:GNG.  -- Jayron  32  14:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for taking on the block of Buck Winston. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Requesting a block or community discussion
I believe that it's high time for a WP:NPA block for Doncram, based on the following recent comments, as well as responses that have been given at places where I've linked sections rather than diffs: I decided to go to a user talk page in hopes of avoiding the ANI drama (e.g. Archive778, which trailed off to nowhere because of unrelated issues), and I came to you because you levied Doncram's most recent WP:NPA block. If you'd rather not do anything without discussion, feel free to copy this post wholesale to ANI, but please let me know so that I can notify Doncram appropriately. Using my alternate account because Doncram has recently admitted to following me around. Nyttend backup (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive243 — Accusation of bad faith in starting an AFD: the nominator "fully knows this is a valid Wikipedia list-article topic"
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive776 — someone else "has several times expressed hatred against me and fanned flames of contention involving other editors"
 * I'm an idiotic non-person, and I'm "dedicated to disruption and hatred and so on".
 * Accusations that someone else "has long expressed hatred and has harassed me for years. It is long term harassment, bullying, evil" and "urging on bully assistants"
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive778 — Various bits in this massive section of which that's a part. For example, I'm "extreme and unreasonable".  Another editor and I have been behaving in ways that are "unduly aggressive and bullying in nature", and the other editor has written "truly horrible things...that are not forgiveable" that have "seemed calculated to dehumanize me, to treat me as a non-person".
 * Elsewhere, someone else is "assert[ing that] others are stupid or fools or naive or not-tough-enough-to-deal-with-tough-persons-like-yourself, or whatever".
 * Just today: Deletion review/Log/2012 December 29, where my deletion of some recently-created implausible redirects is stated as being in bad faith: "The deleting editor is fully aware of the fact that the deletions performed did not conform to any speedy deletion criteria". I warned him on his talk page after this.  If it weren't for this bit, I wouldn't have taken issue; there's nothing objectionable about the idea of someone filing a DRV about one of my deletions.
 * In response to my warning, I'm told that I'm speaking "nonsense", and I'm told that I gave the warning "intentionally in bad faith"
 * No me interesa en lo más mínimo. -- Jayron  32  03:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 starting soon
Hi there; you're receiving this message because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup. This is just to remind you that the 2013 WikiCup will be starting on 1 January, and that signups will remain open throughout January. Old and new Wikipedians and WikiCup participants are warmly invited to take part in this year's competition. (Though, as a note to the more experienced participants, there have been a few small rules changes in the last few months.) If you have already signed up, let this be a reminder; you will receive a message with your submissions' page soon. Please direct any questions to the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn 19:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)