User talk:Jayron32/Archive26

ITN
In the Scripps ITN you state "One can merely write the same sentence after every single nomination". Please substantiate that with diffs or redact it. That's "the same sentence" and "every single nomination". I need the evidence so I can defend it please. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That is, stating "this is a niche topic" is a meaningless criticism. Anyone can write that after every nomination, but writing it doesn't help anyone determine consensus because that doesn't provide any evidence that whoever closes the nomination to act on it can use in making a decision.  All topics are niche topics, if you mean "not interesting to all people".  Nothing is interesting to all people, but that isn't a criteria for ITN.  If you want to critique a nomination, and leave your critique above reproach, it would be best to find evidence that the topic is not in the news by showing how news sources ignore it.  -- Jayron  32  22:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So no, there's no evidence that I write "the same sentence after every single nomination" then? Please remove this.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've never said that you did. -- Jayron  32  12:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cunning. Very cunning.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh? -- Jayron  32  16:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, will be watching out for you from now on, very clever of you! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Look, I don't understand whatever it is you are trying to say. I speak plainly, and I only really understand when others speak plainly.  If you want be to understand what you are trying to say, please just come out and say it.  I don't play little "nudge nudge wink wink" games, especially where apparently I'm not privy to whatever inside information you believe me to be in on.  -- Jayron  32  17:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, your tag team approach has been well noted, it's fine. Let's move on.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright. I'm fine with being perplexed by your statements in this conversation if you are.  I understand you less and less with each comment you make, but if you are OK with me not understanding you at all, I guess I really don't need to know.  -- Jayron  32  17:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * See you and your colleagues around. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, don't understand. Need clear explanations as to what nefarious things you are accusing me of.  Also, not sure who my colleagues are.  You need to tell me what you are accusing me of because I don't have the first clue.  -- Jayron  32  17:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing at all, of course. Just as you weren't accusing me of " writ[ing] the same sentence after every single nomination".  Got your number!  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't. What I said was that a person could write the same sentence after every nomination, that is the use of the phrase "niche topic" was not, itself, a valid criticism.  Not that you made that criticism every time, but rather that THIS usage of "niche topic" was not itself backed up with any evidence.  Merely asserting something is a niche topic doesn't make it so unless you can show evidence that reliable sources treat it as such.  I never said you always make this assertion.  Rather, what I said was that a person could make such an assertion all the time, because no topic interests all people, and that every single nomination could be considered by some people in their field of interest a niche topic.  That's what my statement meant.  At no point did I state that you thought that every topic was a niche topic, what I said was that the statement that "this is a niche topic" without evidence was the sort of thing that applied to all nominations and as such, doesn't help draw distinctions.  Does that help clarify my statements?  What I was asking for was for a more useful rationale for your opposition; that is to help the closing admin make a decision based on your opposition, it would be helpful if more than "I'm not interested in this topic"; a better opposition would be "The news media is not interested in this topic, and here's how you know (insert sources here)"  It's fine to oppose nominations, I certainly don't expect anyone to agree with my stance on anything, but it would be a shame if your voice were not heard because you've made a poor rationale to back up your vote. I don't argue with people who disagree with me.  I argue with unsound rationales.  We would not have gone down this path had your rationale been different here, in this usage.  Also, I have literally no clue whatsoever what you have given as a rationale or as a vote on any other nomination.  Honestly, don't keep track of what you do.  So, I wasn't accusing you of doing anything on other nominations because I really don't know.  Is there something that I need to explain further, because I really don't wish to be misunderstood further.  I'd also like to understand you more, so these unfortunate miscommunications don't keep going forward.  If you could explain what you meant above, it would really help me as well.  -- Jayron  32  18:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, well next time you and Thaddeus respond to my post within moments together (and yet neither of you pair up against any of the other oppose posts who offered even less of a rationale than I appear to have done), think twice and understand how your "joint" behaviour is concerning and could be considered bullying. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Look, I have no idea who Thaddeus is, I've never interacted with them before. You're tilting at windmills my friend.  I've literally have no idea who they are, and have never worked with them before.  I recognize the name because he's commented at ITN before, as I have, but I really have no idea who he is.  -- Jayron  32  18:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's fine, just checking how you both edit together is enough evidence to suggest otherwise. I'm not pursuing it, but you both appear like magic every time I make a comment, yet ignore most other comments you (both) disagree with.  Simple as that.  Probably just a series of coincidences.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In what ways do we both edit together? Seriously, if you're going to level such accusations, you could, you know, make a case.  I seriously have never met, interacted directly, nor had any conversation with them before, on or off wiki, in my life.  This conversation here with you is orders of magnitude longer in terms of interaction than I have ever had with him or her.  -- Jayron  32  18:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, as I said, probably a coincidence. But it doesn't stop the bullying, you both chasing my comments down but leaving three or four other editors whose rationales (if even present) were expressed equally as poorly as you both found mine. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait, I made one comment on one rationale you made at one nomination, and that amounts to bullying? Look, I'm having a hard time following you through all the turns this conversation is making.  If I've wronged you in some way before this comment, I apologize, but I apologize more for not knowing it.  I have no recollection of ever commenting on something you've said before, but you clearly have.  If you could point out where we've had a bad interaction, or where I've done something wrong before, please help me out so I can properly apologize for it.  I have no desire to be in a conflict here, and if I have done anything before this which has made you feel that I have been consistently singling you out, that is clearly wrong on my part, and I want to make that right.  Please show me where I, in the past, have treated you unfairly because I want to properly make amends.  -- Jayron  32  18:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no need, just be aware that when you and your colleagues chase down other people's opinions in quick succession while ignoring many other similar opinions, it could be misconstrued on more than one level. Just some friendly advice I suppose.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you for your kind words! -- Jayron  32  23:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like credit for not immediately hatting it as spam like i wanted to...but didn't.... μηδείς (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Baby steps Medeis. The path to recovery is made with baby steps.  -- Jayron  32  18:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

scripps
could you edit that post on the countries to separate line item bullet points? it is hard to read or se the impact as is. thanks. μηδείς (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * or could I? μηδείς (talk) 01:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI. WP:RM closes. WP:NAC and admin review of NAC closes
Hi Jayron,

I've responded to your reply at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents by continuing at Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves. Your reply was unexpected, and I am interested in further replies.

The conversation did take an unexpected direction. I have always considered a WP:NAC to be reviewable by any admin, but my unstated point was that in the absence of any admin criticising the NAC, it was not a matter for WP:ANI. Questioning whether an admin may review a NAC of an RM was unexpected and unprepared, but I am fairly sure that it is desirable to have as an option. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Admins are not forbidden from reviewing such an action, but they are not given special privilege because they are an admin. Admins are accorded the same rights as all editors, except that they can also block, protect, and delete.  Reviewing the results of a closure does not require a person to block, protect, or delete anything, and thus is an action open to any other person at Wikipedia.  -- Jayron  32  03:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

European Union
Love your work, however you need to make changes to the Eu page. Croatia just joined the Eu yesterday, so, the changes are yet to be made. When I tried to do so, it seemed I could not, coz u protected the page. So could you plz make the necessary changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by M4pires (talk • contribs) 06:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks as though someone else has already done this. Thanks for the heads up, but with high-profile items like this, there's usually someone who notices.  Often many thousands of people.  -- Jayron  32  16:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

ITN Valeant Pharmaceuticals
Hi Jayron32,

Since you seem to be around, can you take a look at Valeant Pharmaceuticals and either post or close? It's been sitting marked ready for a while --IP98 (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have taken some time to read through the whole thing and made a call based on the comments therin. -- Jayron  32  18:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
{||}

Option 7
Hi -- I think you might have misread option 7 of the RFC. It is proposing to ban any question that has anything whatsoever to do with medicine or the law, not just advice. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Campement
And | here I thought the expression was "baisse mon cul". Bielle (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Lower my ass? (see baiser and baisser :-). ---Sluzzelin talk  02:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My french is sketchy New England/Quebecois French. It's bise in my family.  Confirmed here.  Biser is a North American variant of the Metropolitan Baisser.  Pretty much analogous to the arse/ass thing in English.  -- Jayron  32  02:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, Sluzzelin, how you made me laugh! Sorry about that. If I am going to try to correct someone, I guess I need to be sure I have it right myself, first. I've never seen it written "bise" before, Jayron  32 , though I recognize the pronunciation from my friends who speak Joual. Bielle (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my family is basically working-class New England French. I'm about 4 generations or so removed from Quebec even.  I'm not too up on the lingo, I've forgotten a lot of it, but what little I did learn from my grandmother and neighbors and stuff bounces around in my head a bit.  Biser may very well be a bad transliteration, but it is certainly pronounced that way, and I tend to revert to that when swearing, as it's how the french speakers around me swore when growing up.  Not that there were that many of them, by my generation there aren't many cohesive French-speaking communities left in New England, and my French is more from High School and college courses (i.e. proper Academy French) than what I learned growing up, but a few of the more base things you don't learn in class still stick around.  -- Jayron  32  03:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Deacon Jones, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages George Allen and Bruce Allen (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) 11:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

List of the oldest hospitals in the United States
Hi Jayron, can you help in this list. Solomon7968 (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I have no knowledge or resources in that area... -- Jayron  32  19:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Plainview, New York
Jayron, I am trying to get some assistance with the Plainview, New York article. An unregistered editor, User talk:108.6.204.178, has been updating the article with unsubstantiated claims. I've tried deleting, modifying, his text, etc. I've also tried to engage him/her their talk page as well as the article's talk page, with no success. I'd like to get the page restricted to registered users. Can you let me know how to proceed? ButtonwoodTree (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. In the future, you can make this request at WP:RFPP and any admin can handle it.  -- Jayron  32  13:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Got it on WP:RFPP. Thanks for protecting, however, I now feel stupid.  I didn't want to perpetuate an edit war, so I didn't update the text before I contacted you.  In other words, the page is locked now, but with the offending text.  Actually, I thought I was asking for it be restricted to registered users.  Sorry I'm making this a challenge.   ButtonwoodTree (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * When protecting articles in disputes, admins do not make decisions as to who is "correct", we protect the article wherever it is when we get to it. Get some outside commentary from uninvolved editors to establish a consensus version, and we can unprotect this after a consensus is clear.  Try some of the suggestions at WP:DR.  -- Jayron  32  19:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

then go work on an article then
Brilliant remark, you really cut me off at the knees there. Did you actually read my post, below the header? It attempted to drum up business for a less sexy ANI attempt to protect the integrity of Wikipedia articles by topic-banning a long-running self-promoting sock/meat-puppet. How was that WP:POINTY exactly? Bishonen &#124; talk 21:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC).
 * Then start a thread on explicitly banning such person. That would be useful.  It is much better to speak plainly and explain exactly what you want done, and burying a needed discussion about banning a person that needs to be banned inside of some snide satire is unlikely to attract the attention you want it to.  It is good to ban self-promoting sockpuppets, which is why you should start a thread titled "Banning a self-promoting sockpuppet" and do just that.  Starting yet another "There's too much drama at Wikipedia and ANI is destructive" thread, but doing so in a sarcastic way where you satirically state the opposite thing and THEN burying inside of all of that an idea that we need to ban a self-promoting sockpuppet does not seem a terribly efficient way to go about it.  So my suggestion is to start a new thread, at the bottom of ANI, where you make the case in a clear, unpatronizing tone and make the case that way.  -- Jayron  32  21:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a thread on explicitly banning that person, clearly labelled. It's on ANI, like I said. I started it. It needed to get more interest, for it to be possible to ban, or for that matter clear, that person. I don't understand why you think another thread just like it would be more useful. If you merely want to express that you find me irritating (snide, patronizing, etc), fine. (It was reasonably effective. The ANI thread now has six comments instead of three.) Bishonen &#124; talk 21:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC).
 * I find you none of the above. I was recommending a course of action likely to produce results.  -- Jayron  32  03:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Help Desk SNAFU
Sorry about this, edit conflict issues, again.--ukexpat (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No big whoop. -- Jayron  32  17:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Stu Klitenic for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether if Stu Klitenic should be deleted or not. The conversation will be held at the Articles for deletion/Stu Klitenic until a consensus is held and everyone is welcome to join the conversation. However, do not remove the AfD message on the top of the page. Ashbeckjonathan 03:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting. -- Jayron  32  03:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

oops
. Misclick whilst trying to close it myself. Apologies, and thanks for ending the thread. Pedro : Chat  22:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No harm, no foul. -- Jayron  32  22:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Since you are raised Roman Catholic...
Since you are raised Roman Catholic, I am just wondering if you know about Old Catholics and Traditionalist Catholics. First of all, did you cancel your membership with the Roman Catholic Church by writing a letter to your bishop or the pope? Did they ask you why you were departing or wonder about your "unsaved soul" due to exiting the church? If you had become affiliated with a non-Christian religion or become completely nonreligious, then, in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church, would you be considered "unsaved"? Do you think Old Catholics and Traditionalist Catholics are genuine Catholics or Protestants? So-called "Protestants" typically refer to the splinter groups of the Protestant Reformation; however, it seems that later splinter groups are just called Catholics? Sneazy (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about either Old Catholics or Traditionalist Catholics, we attended a fairly mainstream Catholic Church. There was no "canceling my membership".  I just stopped going at about 18 years old.  They don't come find you and break your kneecaps if you don't file paperwork or anything.  If you don't want to go, you just kinda, you know, don't go.  As far as what I think about the various groups you name: I don't think.  Salvation is a private matter between God and the individual, and it isn't my position to decide who God will or will not save.  God doesn't need my help making those decisions.  I've got my relationship with God, I do consider it part of my relationship to introduce others to Christ, but beyond that it isn't up to me to tell God who is, or is not, a genuine believer.  He'll figure that out on His own.  -- Jayron  32  00:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought salvation was supposed to be a public matter, between God and humanity, and whether you have faith in this stuff would determine your fate. Sneazy (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not like a club you can resign from, Sneazy. I also turned away from the RCC, and also around the age of 18.  There's no point writing to anyone about it, as the Church would continue to regard you as a member till the day you die.  Baptism is irrevocable, even when done (as is almost always the case) when the baptisee is a tiny baby and had no say in it.  So, you let the church continue to regard you as a member, while you quietly get on with the rest of your life.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  00:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If the church continues to regard you as a member till the day you die, then does that mean you are still obligated to attend Mass every Sunday and expected to raise your children Catholic? Is the religion supposed to take control of your entire life rather than having something philosophical to do on a Sunday? What if you hold unorthodox theology and practice? Do you just fill out that you are Roman Catholic on forms? If you are married, then would you have to put your faith above everything, including your spouse? Are you going to have a Roman Catholic, Southern Baptist, or humanist funeral? Sneazy (talk) 03:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Who is obligating what? What kind of world do you live in where people come to your house and drag you to Sunday Mass. No, look, this is how it works.  You don't want to go to church.  You stop going to church.  Game over.  There are no forms to fill out.  You just go on living your life exactly as before, except you stop going to Mass.  -- Jayron  32  03:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Only in the eyes of the Church. But once you decide you no longer wish to be associated with them, their beliefs and attitudes have no bearing on your life.  They become irrelevant to you.  If you live your life completely independently of the Church, you do what the hell you like with your kids as long as it's within the law.  Whether you enter Roman Catholic or None on forms is entirely a matter for you.  Same with funerals.  Remember, a church is not the government or the law; they may have their rules, just as any organisation does, but if you cease your association with them, nothing they say or think or believe or teach has any relevance to your life, so you simply disregard them.  They are not going to be hunting you down.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  03:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Have a kitten. Today is your lucky day!

Sneazy (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC) 

Church choir
I was wondering about your church choir. Who sings in the choir? Do you encourage everyone in the congregation to participate or only a selected number of individuals with the best singing voices? If the latter, what would happen to those voices who want to participate but are discouraged due to the perceived lack of singing talent in pop music? What if a person is better at singing classical and children's songs rather than upbeat pop music or country music? Sneazy (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Anyone that wants to sing and isn't terrible (i.e. not me) generally gets to sing. The purpose of the choir (during traditional service) and the praise team (during contemporary service) is to lead the rest of the congregation in singing.  The point is to worship God through music, as a corporate congregation, not to put on a show, so the emphasis is on having a choir and/or praise team that leads others in singing.  2) We have two services at the church I attend: a contemporary service where contemporary christian music is played, accompanied by a standard "rock" arrangement (guitar, bass, drums, keyboards) and a traditional service where the traditional hymns are played, accompanied by piano and organ.  People find the service to worship in where they feel the most comfortable.  I don't know what would happen if someone wanted to sing but was so bad as to be a distraction; I don't generally deal with auditioning and that stuff.  I play guitar.  The minister of music handles the administrative aspect of organizing the choirs and bands.  As far as children's music: we also have a children's service which runs at the same time as the contemporary service: people that have the skills or interest in working in children's music lead that service in singing.  Does that help answer your questions?  -- Jayron  32  20:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Sneazy (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

huge penis
Hola. You know I understand the BLP concern--I am the first to hat or delete. Did you think I would post something that wasn't already published in every source in Britain plus a few elsewhere. See the sources I provided at the talk page, and please restore the question. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are in the right, the discussion at WT:RD will bear you out and I will restore. Give this the time to see where consensus will lie.  There's no need to rush.  Until then, please leave the contested material out.  -- Jayron  32  02:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Why did you become a Southern Baptist?
Hi again,

Why did you become a Southern Baptist? What is so attractive about this denomination that makes you want to leave your previous one? Why not stay loyal to the religious denomination of your birth? Has there been anyone in your life who asked you about your choice as a Southern Baptist? Did you baptize your children in the Roman Catholic denomination or the Baptist denomination? If you baptized your children in the Southern Baptist denomination, what did the Roman Catholic priest think of that? If you baptized your children in the Catholic denomination, what did the Baptist pastor think of that? And how would you react if your children reject Christianity altogether and seek another religious denomination, another religion, or become nonreligious?

Sneazy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's hard to answer why. I had left Catholicism (and Christianity in general) by about 17-18, and I didn't rediscover my faith until I was in my 20s.  At the time, my wife and I were trying out different congregations to find one that "fit", and the one that did happened to be a Southern Baptist congregation.  I think the reason why I am a member of a Baptist church today is because the denomination is so much built from the bottom up; each church is sovereign entity, and there is no higher levels of hierarchy beyond the church which makes decisions for it.  You can literally walk into 5 different Baptist churches and get 5 very different experiences, and so I am a member of a Baptist church because this Baptist church, which is to say the people that make it up, provide me with the sort of community I find helps me grow in my faith.  Since we have been Baptists since before my children were born, they have not been Baptized at all.  My older one is just now the age when children first start making the decision to be Baptized.  Baptists practice believer's baptism, which means that one must chose to be baptized freely, and the decision to be baptized comes after the decision to follow Christ.  When my children are ready, they will choose all on their own when to be Baptized.  It could be next week, next month, or years down the road.  They will get no pressure from me, and certainly not the church we attend, to do so at any time, but will get full support when they choose to do so.  The "personal" nature of the way Baptist churches run, which focus on the one-on-one relationship with Christ, is a key feature of them, and part of that personal nature is the ability to use one's free will, without coercion of any sort, to choose to follow Christ.  If my Children reject the Christian faith altogether, I will of course be disappointed, but I will still love them the same.  It is their own free will, and while I wish them to freely choose Christianity, if they don't, they don't deserve my love and support any less.  -- Jayron  32  01:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have conversed with an Anglican, who has given me an explanation and reasoning of his infant baptism and the infant baptism of his child. Infant baptism may not sound like such a bad idea. Typically, people raise their children in their own faith or belief system, so it would make sense that an infant baptism is the promise that the parents are obligated to raise the child in his/her own faith until the child comes to age, attends formal schooling, and becomes confirmed in his/her teenage years. The confirmation of a child coming from a Roman Catholic/Lutheran/Presbyterian/Anglican/Episcopalian household would be comparable to the willful consent of baptism for a child coming from a Baptist household. Regardless of where a person comes from, he or she will always be influenced by his or her upbringing. I am not sure if he was trying to be apologetic about his faith or something, but his argument for infant baptism was so darn convincing. In any case, I suspect whether one finds whatever method of baptism as attractive option largely depends on one's underlying values. I wish I may attend church someday, even though churchgoers in my residential neighborhood do not fit my age category 18-25 years. I attend university, but I live off-campus with my parents. Sneazy (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We have a similar ceremony in a Baptist church, absent the baptism part, called a "Child dedication". It is at that ceremony that the parents commit to raising the Child in the Christian faith, and that the church body commits to supporting the family to that end, so that serves that purpose.  In the Baptist church, there is no equivalent of "Confirmation" as found in Catholicism/Anglicanism/Methodism and other faiths.  Baptism is seen as the point where a person is supposed to take control of their own faith journey (albeit, with as much support as needed, especially in the case of young children).  -- Jayron  32  02:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Does it matter if beliefs are important? What if a person attends a Baptist church but wishes to baptize his/her child? Can that person really ask the Baptist pastor to do that? Sneazy (talk) 02:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If a person believed that, they wouldn't be attending a Baptist church. The Methodists down the street will happily oblige, however.  -- Jayron  32  02:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So, does that mean that sectarian beliefs really do matter? What if, by location, the Southern Baptist Church, is the closest church in a person's neighborhood and so a person attends that one? Then that person thinks independently and wishes to baptize the child in the church that he/she has membership to. Can the Southern Baptists do that out of ecumenism? Sneazy (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It simply isn't done at all in a Baptist church. I really can't imagine a person who wanted to baptize their infant child would be insistent upon doing so in a church that simply didn't do that.  Your line of thinking here makes no sense.  If there was one church for 1000 miles, and that church was a Baptist church, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't do it, because that's not what Baptists churches do.  It's a core belief of Baptist churches.  They just don't do infant baptisms.  A person would not have become a member of a Baptist church if they didn't agree with the concept of Believer's Baptism, anymore than a person who became a Sunni Muslim would insist that they didn't believe in praying at set times of the day, or that a person who became a Catholic refused to go to confession.  -- Jayron  32  02:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Bad question. It seems that choosing a church boils down to one's beliefs about doctrines. As with much of life, any choice would have benefits and drawbacks. The benefit would probably be being part of a community of like-minded believers. The drawback would probably be that the community will probably expect that you would attend church every Sunday for the rest of your life, encouraging full and active participation, after knowing that you already have made a lifetime commitment to Christ. Then, there is the thought of just being inspired from the Bible and other religious literature without ever becoming affiliated with an organized religion. The benefit is that a person can believe in what he/she wants and claims no loyalty to any particular set of doctrines, but rather an amalgamation of many workable belief systems. The drawback would probably be that person, if he/she is unbaptized, will probably not be recognized as Christian by any Christian organization. Baptism is said to only be performed in front of the congregation, and if a person has no loyalty to a specific congregation, it's not going to work. Maybe a person may just choose a random church (the Roman Catholic Church due to its large size and mainstream status), arbitrarily agrees with the church's beliefs, and but really borrows belief systems from many workable belief systems (Taoism, Confucianism, Judaism, etc.) rather than adhering to one set of doctrines (on a private level). Sneazy (talk) 03:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah you're on your own there. Good luck with all that.  Vaya con dios.  -- Jayron  32  03:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do you add capitalize or lowercase certain words? Spanish speakers actually do capitalize "Dios" or "Biblia", because those words mean "God" or "Bible" respectively. What's with lowercasing them? And why do you capitalize "baptize" and "child"? What is so important about "child"? Eh? Sneazy (talk) 04:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm lazy and bad at writing. -- Jayron  32  04:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for peer review
Hi Jayron32,

I saw your name listed as a volunteer for peer review - particularly for articles related to sports. We are working on expanding the article on Swedish footballer Emilia Appelqvist to ensure it is not deleted and also to improve the article to a higher assessment class. Would you be willing to take a look at the article and provide feedback? Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

AN
I have provided the information you requested at the AN discussion Administrators%27_noticeboard. Regards Taroaldo    ✉   05:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Sola Scriptura and other issues
I think I have a problem with Sola Scriptura. The truth is, it is not easy making a judgment without knowledge on how the document comes to be. I am no expert on the Bible or ancient Semitic cultures. For instance, in Genesis 2:17, God tells the first man (Adam) and the first woman (Eve) that if they eat from the fruit, they would surely die -- but they don't! What is going on here? Sola Scriptura will probably not work for me, because what's the use of making up my own interpretations? Instead of making up my own interpretations, I think I should just try to see how many different people interpret the case. It's probably impossible to sample everybody, so whatever answer I get, the answer will always be biased. But hey, at least it's still an answer!

Another concern is that I do not understand how the Bible can possibly be treated as one book, and make a coherent theology out of it without biasing or favoring one part of the Bible over another. First of all, why treat the Bible as one book in the first place when really the Bible comes from many different and separate sources that are compiled together in narratives? Second of all, why base a theology on the "whole Bible" when the structure of the canon varies and the sources come from different places? Maybe favoring one passage to support a particular doctrine is not so bad as religious people think (i.e. the fact that Roman Catholics use a verse from John and not Matthew to support the doctrine of Transubstantiation), because I am not sure how the Bible can be read as a coherent work.

Since I assume you are a practicing Christian, how do you manage to reconcile all of this? Or have you ever thought of this issue before? Do you just take for granted that the Bible can be understood by scripture alone and without consultation from many different scholars from various denominations and sects? Sneazy (talk) 03:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sola Scriptura doesn't really say "make up your own interpretations". Instead it says "let the Holy Spirit guide your interpretations".  Since every Christian has received the Holy Spirit, each is capable of understanding Scripture through the Holy Spirit; that is man-made exegesis is not divinely inspired, ONLY the Bible is, so only the Bible is capable of presenting the Word of God.  Humans, being fallible, cannot properly comprehend the Word of God alone, and so must let the Holy Spirit guide their understanding through prayer and study.  I use the work of other Christians to help me work through the Bible, I participate in Bible Studies, I talk through my understanding with other Christians, and I listen to other and read what others have written.  The deal is, I also understand that none of that, by itself, is enough.  It's not that I don't take in what others say, it's just that the understanding is that the Bible itself is alone the Word of God, and not what others think it means.  -- Jayron  32  03:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't "let the Holy Spirit guide your interpretations" be completely meaningless to an atheist or agnostic, or at least mean the same thing as "make up your own interpretations" to the atheist or agnostic? Still, two persons may both claim that they are being "guided" by the "Holy Spirit" and come up with two different conclusions! Now what? Maybe it's just a sign from God that the passage should be left alone or not be taken so seriously? Sneazy (talk) 03:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course its meaningless to an agnostic or an athiest. Lots of religious thinking is meaningless to an outsider.  -- Jayron  32  03:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Neutral admin
I noticed that you help to settle contentious issues in various discussions, so I was hoping you could look at this thread I started on Toddst1's talk page and provide your input. I'm just worried he might threaten me with a block. So I was hoping you could be a neutral admin to help settle the matter, so that it doesn't unnecessarily turn into a major battle over a minor issue (again). This admin and I butted heads in May, but have had no contact since then. Until he came to my talk page today regarding this matter. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, this is rich. How did this guy not get on my radar? Doc   talk  08:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Mr IP, I'm a bit worried as to why you are here. Everywhere I look and see you, it is usually nothing but wikilawyering.  I'm not saying you are wrong on every single point, but your main contribution to Wikipedia seems to be drama. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  12:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The last time I checked, this talk page says Jayron32, not Dennis Brown. I'm pretty sure that Jayron doesn't need a bodyguard or anyone trying to poison the well. And I'm sorry that my asking him to be a neutral participant to settle a minor dispute bothers you so much, but I suggest you keep your passive-aggressive (and inaccurate) insults to yourself. I have thousands of edits and have contributed to many articles and article discussions. It's sad that you actually thought posting that comment would be productive in any way. I would suggest you ask yourself one question before you post a comment like that again to someone: "Do I really need to say this or am I just getting involved in something that I shouldn't be?" --76.189.109.155 (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

76. has now raised this issue on User:Toddst1's talk page and on mine.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Triple B, of course I raised it on Todd's talk page; that's the entire reason I came here... to tell Jayron about it. Hello? See the link in my opening comment? But what do you mean "has now" raised it on Todd's talk page. I wrote Todd over six hours earlier, so why do you make it sound like I just did it? But now he removed the thread because he saw you added back the template instead of allowing us to discuss it. And you are the one who initiated your involvement in this matter; I only "raised" it on your talk page after you did that. To ask you why. And you failed to mention that you and I have been wikifriends for several weeks. Are you drinking, B? --76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 June newsletter
We are down to our final 16: the 2013 semi-finals are upon us. A score of 321 was required to survive round 3, further cementing this as the most competitive WikiCup yet; round 3 was survived in 2012 with 243 points, in 2011 with 76 points and in 2010 with 250 points. The change may in part be to do with the fact that more articles are now awarded bonus points, in addition to more competitive play. Reaching the final has, in the past, required 573 points (2012, a 135% increase on the score needed to reach round 4), 150 points (2011, a 97% increase) and 417 points (2010, a 72% increase). This round has seen over a third of participants claiming points for featured articles (with seven users claiming for multiple featured articles) and most users have also gained bonus points. However, the majority of points continue to come from good articles, followed by did you know articles. In this round, every content type was utilised by at least one user, proving that the WikiCup brings together content contributors from all corners of the project.

Round 3 saw a number of contributions of note. claimed the first featured topic points in this year's competition for her excellent work on topics related to Maya Angelou, the noted American author and poet. We have also continued to see high-importance articles improved as part of the competition: was awarded a thoroughly well-earned 560 points for her featured article Middle Ages and 102 points for her good article Battle of Hastings. Good articles James Chadwick and Stanislaw Ulam netted 102 and 72 points respectively, while 72 points were awarded to  for each of Władysław Sikorski and Emilia Plater, both recently promoted to good article status. Collaborative efforts between WikiCup participants have continued, with, for example, and  being awarded 180 points each for their featured article on Boletus luridus.

A rules reminder: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on the 29/30 June, which may be claimed in this round. 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. We are currently seeing concern about the amount of time people have to wait for reviews, especially at GAC- if you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! 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) 09:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Awwww
You closed it before I could brag about my psychic powers.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that train wreck could be seen coming from miles away. -- Jayron  32  04:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks so very much for your links to the Trans.Cont.RR maps. Found just what I needed. Patarmom
 * Glad to be of service! -- Jayron  32  01:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Congrats... You have joined a team of awesome helpers!

 * Thank you kindly! -- Jayron  32  02:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Publishers Clearing House
Hi Jayron. I was wondering if you would help us out over here, where I've contested a lot of controversial material that is sourced primarily to press releases from the plaintiff (I have a COI). You came to mind because of your lifting of the author's block here. I would like to both prevent my COI from doing any harm to Wikipedia, while hopefully facilitating a better understanding of our verification policies.

I do understand that there is a substantial amount of stuff to write about that is genuinely neutral and properly sourced, but feel currently it is written primarily based on press releases from the plaintiff and from the plaintiff's POV. What's the best way to proceed? I've marked the press releases with "better source needed" templates. CorporateM (Talk) 00:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You should not be sourcing based on press releases and court documents at all. Instead, find genuine reliable accounts from newspaper, magazines, etc.  -- Jayron  32  01:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Exactly. It might help if you explained that on the Talk page. I would like to remove the press releases and the bias content that is sourced to them and replace it with proper secondary sources. CorporateM (Talk) 01:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've posted on RSN here. CorporateM (Talk) 04:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a good place to get help. People who patrol that page are more adept at working out problems like yours than I am.  -- Jayron  32  04:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)



IRC office hours for wiki-mentors and Snuggle users
Hi. We're organizing an office hours session with the Teahouse to bring in mentors from across the wiki to and discuss it's potential to support mentorship broadly. The Snuggle team would appreciate it if you would come and participate in the discussion. We'll be having it in on '''Wed. July 17th @ 1600 UTC'''. See the agenda for more info. -- EpochFail (talk &bull; work), Technical 13 (talk), TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

This week's articles for improvement - 22 July 2013 to 28 July 2013
posted by Northamerica1000(talk) 13:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added an opt-in section for those interested in receiving TAFI notifications on the project's main page, located here. Those that don't opt-in won't receive this message again. Also, a revised notification template has been created, located at Template:TAFI weekly selections notice. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 July newsletter
We're halfway through this year's penultimate round, and the competition is moving along well. Pool A's currently leads overall, while Pool B's  is second. Both leaders are WikiCup veterans, and both have already scored over 600 points this month. If the round were to end today,, with 274 points, would be the lowest-scoring participant to make it through. This indicates that participants will need a score comparable to last year's (573, the highest ever) to qualify for the final. The high scores this year are a testament both to the quality of participants and to the increased focus on significant content (eligible for bonus points) in this year's competition. So far this round, both Sasata and have made up over half of their score through bonus points, with, for example, high importance FA koala earning Sasata a total of 440 points (from a multiplier of 4.4) and high-importance GA sea earning Cwmhiraeth a total of 216 points (from a multiplier of 7.2). Other articles on important topics submitted this round include a featured article on the Norman conquest of England by, and good articles on Nobel laureate in literature Henryk Sienkiewicz, Nobel laureate in physics Hans Bethe, and the noted Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū. These articles are by, and Sturmvogel_66 respectively.

Other than that, there is not much to report! 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. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! 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) 23:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK RfC

 * As a listed GA participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should be eligible to appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. Gilderien Chat&#124;Contributions 02:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Nice catch on that timing detail - it really was a crucial element, and I won't forget to look for that in future. You're a very constructive admin. -- Scray (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you as well for your kind words! -- Jayron  32  01:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The Center Line: Summer 2013

 * —EdwardsBot (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Cloudy with a 100% chance of shitstorm
Gutsy. --  tariq abjotu  00:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you see consensus developing? -- Jayron  32  00:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't care too much about my opinion about what consensus was; I commented in the discussion. However, if you're going to settle on "no consensus"... see my third point below. --  tariq abjotu  00:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, now that I got my title in... I agree that allowing this play out over seven days is probably too much. However,


 * offered to close the discussion. I think leaving the decision to one individual is a bit too much, so I have no problem in you at least coordinating with him. But I hope you at least discussed with him.
 * Given the extensive and lengthy nature of the conversation, it would be nice to have some sort of explanation for your decision.
 * A "no consensus" verdict is not so straightforward. Because the article is originally at Bradley Manning and moved without discussion, a no consensus verdict should actually default to that title.


 * Anyway, good luck, uh, fielding the comments. Pack your raincoat (or shitcoat?). --  tariq abjotu  00:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Chelsea Manning
Why closing it? --George Ho (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * See above. -- Jayron  32  00:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You weren't exactly specific about "no consensus". Did you see my latest request in WP:AN/RFC, or something? --George Ho (talk) 00:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Since you undid the closure, can you at least improve consensus by voting to make up a premature closure? --George Ho (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd have to care one way or the other first. -- Jayron  32  11:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Manning
Hi Jayron, please revert your close of the RM. BD2412 and two other admins have already agreed to oversee and close it; see the post directly below yours. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You have fun with that... -- Jayron  32  00:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reopening it. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note that when I volunteered to close this discussion, I accepted a suggestion that it be closed by an admin committee; I contacted two uninvolved admins who were suggested to me for this purpose, User:BOZ and User:Kww, and they agreed to assist in closing this discussion. Whether or not keeping the discussion open for the full seven days yields a clear consensus, there can be no doubt that an early close would lead to a large number of complaints that the discussion was closed out of process. Whatever else comes of it, I would rather that not be a point of contention. Cheers! bd2412  T 01:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me
Why this? --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  11:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Because I clicked the wrong link unknowingly. So corrected.-- Jayron  32  11:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Phew!  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  11:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Peer review
Greetings! I wondered if you would be willing to help with a peer review of Jefferson Davis. I recently got it up to Good Article status, and want to keep going, and I saw your name on the volunteers list. Any input you could provide would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Omnedon (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 August newsletter
This year's final is upon us. Our final eight, in order of last round's score, are:
 * , a WikiCup newcomer who has contributed on topics of military history and physics, including a number of high-importance topics. Good articles have made up the bulk of his points, but he has also scored a great deal of bonus points. He has the second highest score overall so far, with more than 3000 points accumulated.
 * , another WikiCup veteran who reached the finals in 2012, 2011 and 2010. He writes on a variety of topics including botany, mycology and astronomy, and has claimed the highest or joint highest number of featured articles every round so far this year. He has the third highest score overall, with just under 3000 points accumulated.
 * , 2012 WikiCup champion, who writes mostly on marine biology. She has also contributed to high-importance topics, seeing huge numbers of bonus points for high-importance featured and good articles. Previous rounds have seen her scoring the most bonus points, with scoring spread across did you knows, good articles and featured articles.
 * , a WikiCup veteran who finished in second place in 2012, and competed as early as 2009. He writes articles on biology, especially mycology, and has scored highly for a number of collaborations at featured article candidates.
 * , the winner of the 2010 competition. His contributions mostly concern Naval history, and he has scored a very large number of points for good articles and good article reviews in every round. He is the highest scorer overall this year, with over 3500 points in total.
 * , who is competing in the WikiCup for the second time, though this will be her first time in the final. A regular at FAC, she is mostly interested in British medieval history, and has scored very highly for some top-importance featured articles on the topic.
 * , a finalist in 2012 and 2011. He writes on a broad variety of topics, with many of this year's points coming from good articles about Star Trek. Good articles make up the bulk of his points, and he had the most good articles back in round 2; he was also the highest scorer for DYK in rounds 1 and 2.
 * 1) has previously been involved with the WikiCup, but hasn't participated for a number of years. He scores mostly from restoration work leading to featured picture credits, but has also done some article writing and reviewing.

We say goodbye to eight great participants who did not qualify for the final:, , , , , , ,. Having made it to this stage is still an excellent achievement, and you can leave with your heads held high. We hope to see you all again next year. Signups are now open for the 2014 WikiCup, which will begin on 1 January. All Wikipedians, whatever their interest or level of experience, are warmly invited to participate in next year's competition.

This last month has seen some incredible contributions; for instance, Cwmhiraeth's Starfish and Ealdgyth's Battle of Hastings—two highly important, highly viewed pages—made it to featured article status. It would be all too easy to focus solely on these stunning achievements at the expense of those participants working in lower-scoring areas, when in fact all WikiCup participants are doing excellent work. A mention of everything done is impossible, but here are a few: Last round saw the completion of several good topics (on the 1958, 1959 and 1962 Atlantic hurricane seasons) to which 12george1 had contributed. Calvin999 saw "S&M" (song), on which he has been working for several years, through to featured article status on its tenth try. Figureskatingfan continued towards her goal of a broad featured/good topic on Maya Angelou, with two featured and four good articles. ThaddeusB contributed significantly to over 20 articles which appeared on the main page's "in the news" section. Adam Cuerden continued to restore a large number of historical images, resulting in over a dozen FP credits this round alone. The WikiCup is not just about top-importance featured articles, and the work of all of these users is worthy of commendation.

Finally, the usual notices: 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. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! 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) 05:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Paris Metropolitan Area
Hello. I have suggested to move Paris aire urbaine to Paris Metropolitan Area. Feel free to give your opinion. You can see the discussion here: Talk:Paris_aire_urbaine. Der Statistiker (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Concerning the above, would you support a move to 'Paris urban area'? That's what most references do (including the creators of the aire urbaine themselves), and I would support that as well. If you do agree, perhaps a word to that end would help the admin closing the discussion. Thanks. THE PROMENADER  14:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Bad case of the dubby-dups
I presume this is intended to be ironic:
 * It is of considerable consequence to you, so we'll have to just wait to see how other people feel about it to see where consensus lies on the issue. Your passion on the issue is already clear from the two posts you have made already, and your opinion does not gain greater weight in the overall discussion when you state it yet another time. There will be other opinions to come besides yours, mine, and others that have already weighed in. When the discussion is done,we'll see where consensus lies, and if your stance holds the day, so be it. But until then, it does little to add to the discussion to just repeat ourselves. 

ROTFL! Amandajm (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not have a sense of humor, that I am aware. -- Jayron  32  18:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you need me to explain why it's funny....? Amandajm (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really. Unless you really feel the need to.  -- Jayron  32  19:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * .....in order that you may share the joke....
 * Every part of this post concerning my repeating myself is repeated in either the same or different words.
 * I presumed you had composed it as a piece of literary genius. Now I'm disappointed! Amandajm (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And now you presume I didn't. What changed your mind?  -- Jayron  32  19:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ....it takes a sense of humour. Have a cuddly kitten instead... Amandajm (talk) 06:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
...compensation....

Amandajm (talk) 06:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC) 

Change target of Armin_Tamzarian
Can you please redirect the Simpsons character Armin_Tamzarian to the Principal_Skinner article? Seymour is Armin and they are the same fictions character so I think linking the 2 articles makes sense. Venustar84 (talk) 05:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Why me? You don't need me to do this!  -- Jayron  32  10:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hiroshi Yamauchi
Letting you know that rather than respond to it, I templated your personal remark on the Hiroshi Yamauchi thread at ITN. μηδείς (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Thanks for highlighting my salient point.  It will be sure to draw additional attention to it.  -- Jayron  32  18:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ker-ching! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

ITN
same date and Gaelic came later, no? Should be top(Lihaas (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)).
 * Meh. Same date, it's of small consequence which is first.  -- Jayron  32  18:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

 * Well, thank you for your kind words! -- Jayron  32  23:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi !
Hi,I am facing a six month topic ban.There are one and half left while the ban will be lifted.This punishment is enough for me and I request you to kindly uplift this ban.Msoamu (talk) 09:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Go to WP:AN and ask for the ban to be discussed. Present the community with evidence that your behavior has changed for the better, and explain why it would be a good idea to lift the ban.  I have no say in the matter.  -- Jayron  32  13:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank You dear.Please help me understand these points, Is there any wiki policy which restricts editing Wikipedia Articles with a malafide intention? Is there any wiki Policy which punish editors from editing destructively? Means If I am editing with a motive and posses a hidden bad intention but hide my editing under the cover of wiki policies then I can be exposed ? Also tell if many times I am opposed by various other editors then Can I be punished if found guilty? Much obliged.Msoamu (talk) 05:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Look, I am not responsible for your ban. The community at large is.  My only role was in closing the community discussion and informing you of the results.  I was a messenger, not an enforcer, of the ban.  If you have anything about your ban to discuss, start a discussion at WP:AN and invite the people who discussed your ban the first time to give input.  The people who discussed your ban last time are here.  Start a discussion at WP:AN and let those people who discussed it last time that you want it re-evaluated.  -- Jayron  32  05:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013 Wikification Drive
This message was delivered on behalf of WikiProject Wikify. To stop receiving messages from WikiProject Wikify, remove your name from the recipients page. -- EdwardsBot (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 September newsletter
In 30 days, we will know the identity of our 2013 WikiCup champion. currently leads; if that lead is held, she will become the first person to have won the WikiCup twice. , —who has never participated in the competition before—and follow. The majority of points in this round have come from a mix of good articles and bonus points. This final round is seeing contributions to a number of highly important topics; recent submissions include Phoenix (constellation) (FA by Casliber), Ernest Lawrence (GA by Hawkeye7), Pinniped, and red fox (both GAs by Sasata).

The did you know (DYK) eligibility criteria have recently changed, meaning that newly passed good articles are accepted as "new" for did you know purposes. However, in the interests of not changing the WikiCup rules mid-competition, please note that only articles eligible for DYK under the old system (that is, newly created articles or 5x expansions) will be eligible for points in this year's WikiCup. We do, however, have time to discuss how this new system will work for next year's competition; a discussion will be opened in due course. On that note, thoughts are welcome on changes you'd like to see for next year. What worked? What didn't work? What would you like to see more of? What would you like to see less of? All Wikipedians, new or old, are also warmly invited to sign up for the 2014 WikiCup.

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. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! 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) 22:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Today's capitol shooting, ITN
I'm writing an essay right now, so I don't have time to write an article or make a nomination. Do you think the car chase/woman killed by police outside the capitol building story is big enough for ITN? It was certainly treated as a serious threat and she had previously attempted to pass a barricade near the white house. It might be a bit too early though to determine if this is worthy of an article. Ryan Vesey 21:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll ping User:The Rambling Man as well. Ryan Vesey 21:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I look forward to the essay. It's important to recognise that every time this kind of gun crime occurs, "you" (i.e. the readers who are used to legalised gun possession) will suffer the indignation of a dozen or more countries' editors who simply can't believe it.  The "same day, different shooting" maxim is becoming more and more real.  Sure, the US has six/seven times the population of the UK, but gun crime/murder rate is about a hundred times higher.  And NRA/Republicans are saying "more guns" is the solution.  That's mental.  Specifically, the way in which the US responded to crime in Washington has resulted in hysteria over this particular event.  It won't amount to anything, but it's just another day, just another shooting I'm afraid.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you gentlemen have mistaken me for someone who cares. -- Jayron  32  01:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:4-2-5 green.PNG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 19:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Another one of your uploads, File:Ace redskin green.PNG, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Another one of your uploads, File:Ace spread green.PNG, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Another one of your uploads, File:Ace green.PNG, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Esperanza
I've been digging around in the Wikipedia archives, learning about Esperanza, what it tried to be, going back into its page histories to see what it was before the pages were blanked and redirected, reading over the MfDs and I came across your essay User:Jayron32/Orthodoxy and heresy at Wikipedia which was linked to from an old Overhaul page. Of course, I had to come and see if you were still active on WP and I'm pleased to see you are, 7 years later.

I'm not sure what happened in 2005 to generate so many community-oriented projects (and few since then) but then I'm just learning about Wikipedia's history. It's clear the groups meant quite a lot to the people who participated in them and I'm glad that not everyone left when they were shut down.

Anyway, I just wanted to let you know I read your essay, liked it and thought I'd tell you so! Happy editing! Liz Read! Talk! 23:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Wow.  That essay itself is 7 years old.  I hadn't even looked at it probably in almost that long.  Thanks for bringing back the memories.  Suffice it to say that Wikipedia is a very different place today.  Not better or worse, but definitely different.  -- Jayron  32  01:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

peer review
Hi Jay. Please review and fix "Fluorine". If it's too long, a section would still help.-TCO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.137.171 (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 October newsletter
The WikiCup is over for another year! Our champion, for the second year running, is. Our final nine were as follows:

All those who reached the final win prizes, and prizes will also be going to the following participants:


 * wins the FA prize, for four featured articles in round 4, worth 400 points.
 * wins the GA prize, for 20 good articles in round 3, worth 600 points.
 * wins the FL prize, for four featured lists in round 2, worth 180 points.
 * wins the FP prize, for 23 featured pictures in round 5, worth 805 point.
 * wins the FPo prize, for 2 featured portals in round 3, worth 70 points.
 * wins the topic prize, for a 23-article featured topic in round 5, worth 230 points.
 * wins the DYK prize, for 79 did you know articles in round 5, worth 570 points.
 * wins the ITN prize, for 23 in the news articles in round 4, worth 270 points.
 * wins the GAR prize, for 24 good article reviews in round 1, worth 96 points.
 * The judges are awarding the Oddball Barnstar to, for some curious contributions in earlier rounds.
 * Finally, the judges are awarding the Geography Barnstar for her work on sea, now a featured article. This top-importance article was the highest-scoring this year; when it was promoted to FA status, Cwmhiraeth could claim 720 points.

Prizes will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition. While it has been an excellent year, errors have opened up the judges' eyes to the need for a third judge, and it is with pleasure that we announce that experienced WikiCup participant Miyagawa will be acting as a judge from now on. We hope you will all join us in welcoming him to the team.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. Brainstorming and discussion remains open for how next year's competition will work, and straw polls will be opened by the judges soon. Those interested in friendly competition may also like to keep an eye on the stub contest, being organised by Casliber. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! 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) 00:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Changing protection
Any objections to me removing the semi-protection on Harry M. Rubin? It's been almost three years. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 22:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You do what you gotta do... -- Jayron  32  01:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool. I'll keep an eye on it. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 17:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The Center Line: Fall 2013

 * —EdwardsBot (talk) 03:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Meetup?
Would you be interested in a small, focused meetup? I'm interested in putting some energy into closing a series of RfCs on issues that have been annoying both the community and the WMF for some time now, and I'd appreciate some feedback. Also, it's just sad that I haven't made more of an effort to get some face time with NC Wikipedians. - Dank (push to talk) 18:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure if I have the time. My outside-of-Wikipedia life has gotten VERY busy.  Keep me informed of any plans, and I will see what I can do, but I make no promises...-- Jayron  32  12:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, and if anything comes up in your city (not sure if you disclose on-wiki), I'll let you know. - Dank (push to talk) 14:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify: November Newsletter and December Drive
Delivered on behalf of WikiProject Wikify. To unsubscribe remove your username from this list. EdwardsBot (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

GAN December 2013 Backlog Drive
{| |}

I'll be sure not to open a pub in Yemen
Thank you. It was helpful. And if it's not too earlier, may I add, a merry Christmas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.240.77.215 (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Please revdel...
...this gratuitous, insulting and pointless comment from a user who should know better. Or, tell me where the right page is to make such a request. Thank you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * True enough, but good god Bugs. I only say this because we've known each other for years, and I consider you a friend: Grow a pair.  If that makes you run to the admin asking for a revdelete, seriously man.  Maybe it's the beer I've had tonight, but seriously, let it go.  Yes, it was insulting and uncalled for.  But really?  You're older than I am.  Let it go, my man.  If you really need to, WP:ANI is the place to go.  Or you could just do nothing and leave it as evidence of Shadowjam's own immaturity.  When people do this, it only reflects badly on them.  If you've done nothing to deserve it (and you haven't) then you have nothing to fear from leaving it out there.  -- Jayron  32  03:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

United States
Since you seem to be opposed to the addition of excessive details and unnecessary info to the United States article per your contribution to the Talk page, it would be really helpful if you could also indicate your opposition in the surveys on the three proposed additions to the article. Those issues had already been settled weeks ago when people accepted leaving them out, but one person is stirring the pot again and trying to have their way. If you indicated your opposition it would be helpful in bringing clearer consensus so these issues can finally be settled and would be greatly appreciated. Thank you :) Cadiomals (talk) 04:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Obama
Hi Jayron. You might have missed it because it got transcluded, but I asked you a question here Regards, --Viennese Waltz 19:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Republic of Texas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native American (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) 08:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

hyperbole
At least some people recognize it when they see it! It's utterly absurd we have gone up to a three-line blurb on Turing's pardon, and anything less than hyperbole will be ignored. Given you've recognized my gambit, why not comment on the merits? μηδείς (talk) 06:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It has fine merit. If you have comments against the merits, make them yourself.  Read Poe's law and make it a part of your internet life.  Please, in the future, let it inform every decision you make about what to post, especially in response to serious discussions.  -- Jayron  32  20:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Admin help
Hi Jayron. I was notified this week by another dental editor about article Ken Hebel and the creating editor, user:shebel13, whose talk page either identical or near identical to the contents of the aforementioned article. Hebel seems to be a mildly more known person than perhaps the average dentist, but I gather that he does not fit notability requirements for Wikipedia standards. I was wondering if having posted his autobiography from his talk page in the article space constitutes enough of a COI violation to strike both the article as well as his userpage, but both wanted your assistance as an admin for such a determination, as well as for admin powers to achieve such a move, should you think it appropriate.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 04:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you need the help of an admin as an admin, the best place to get that help is at WP:ANI. I don't see anything here that requires an admin intervention from my point of view.  Get help from other editors at WP:COIN if you believe there to be a conflict of interest.  My real life has gotten a bit busy at the moment, and I don't really have the time to give this more than a cursory glance.  If you believe there to be a conflict of interest issue, calmly and politely explain the matter to the user and wait for their response.  If, after you have attempted a reasonable conversation with that specific user, the results are not satisfactory, seek additional help from users that patrol WP:COIN.  Admins should only use their tools as a last resort.  -- Jayron  32  23:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

ani
You've been mentioned at this ANI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:The_Rambling_Man. μηδείς (talk) 04:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I was skiing and wasn't able to deal with this at the time. I see it got archived and nothing happened, except excess server wastage storing the conversation.  I could have told you that would happen.  -- Jayron  32  23:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Request PR?
Hey Jayron32! Can I request if you could peer review for Football in the Philippines? Any suggestion for improving it are welcome and there is no rush, you can take a look if you have your free time. Cheers! FairyTailRocks (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my real life has gotten busy and I'm not around as much as I used to be. I really don't have the time to give this the proper review it deserves.  SORRY!  -- Jayron  32  23:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment at Kelvin Tan's ongoing peer review!
You have listed yourself as a peer review volunteer interested in music articles. Would you like to support the quest to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia? Would you like to read an interesting article about something different? If so, you are invited to give a thorough review of the article Kelvin Tan, which is about a blind Singaporean Mandopop singer. The article is very short and should not take long to review. Hope you enjoy reviewing it as much as I enjoyed writing it. ''Thanks! 谢谢！Terima kasih! நன்றி!'' --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)
Because you have edited No consensus, your input is requested in the discussion at Village pump (policy). Cheers! bd2412 T 14:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Refund request
In 2008 you deleted The Laundry after a Prod. Mind userifying it and putting it in my userspace - I think I've got enough to create an article on the subject and pass the GNG - but would like to see what was done last time and work from there (or rather the time before last - there's been an A1 since). Thanks. Neonchameleon (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. -- Jayron  32  02:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Review request
Hello....I am new to wiki and found that I need to get a new article I put reviewed. Could you take a look? Quad_City_Raiders — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shivors (talk • contribs) 14:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The Center Line: Winter 2013

 * —MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=593054360 your edit] to Washington, North Carolina may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * and Confederate soldiers burned many buildings as they retreated. American Civil War re-enactor meet in the outskirts of Washington every year. (See historical reenactment.) Many near-by

WikiCup 2014 January newsletter
The 2014 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with, at time of writing, 138 participants. The is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2010. If you are yet to join the competition, don't worry- the judges have agreed to keep the signups open for a few more days. By a wide margin, our current leader is newcomer, whose set of 14 featured pictures, the first FPs of the competition, was worth 490 points. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:


 * and were the first people to score, for the good article Tropical Storm Bret (1981) and its good article review respectively. 12george1 was also the first person to score in 2012 and 2013.
 * scored the first ITN points for 2014 North American polar vortex.
 * scored points for an early good topic, finishing off Featured topics/She Wolf.
 * scored the first bonus points of the competition, for his work on Typhoon Vera.
 * has scored the highest number of bonus points for a single article, for the high-importance Jurassic Park (film).

Featured articles, featured lists, featured topics and featured portals are yet to play a part in the competition. The judges have removed a number of submissions which were deemed ineligible. Typically, we aim to see work on a project, followed by a nomination, followed by promotion, this year. We apologise for any disappointment caused by our strict enforcement this year; we're aiming to keep the competition as fair as possible.

Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may be interested to take part in The Core Contest; unlike the WikiCup, The Core Contest is not about audited content, but, like the WikiCup, it is about article improvement; specifically, The Core Contest is about contribution to some of Wikipedia's most important article. Of course, any work done for The Core Contest, if it leads to a DYK, GA or FA, can earn WikiCup points.

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. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! 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), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 19:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Great Time
You'll notice, Jayron, that it was the OP himself who deleted the question. See. You might also look at talk. Given you're an admin, would you please at least comment on the user's talk page? User:Great Time? μηδείς (talk) 06:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

ITN notes
Hi! Some notes regarding your ITN edits:

1. Please remember to upload a Commons image locally (and tag it with the uploaded from Commons template) before transcluding it. Fortunately, the Commons bot cascade-protected this one quickly, so there's no need to act now. (The bot sometimes takes several hours or even fails completely.)

2. The "recent deaths" list contains a maximum of three items; when adding a fourth, the earliest death gets bumped. (If more than one death occurred on the earliest date, the item added to ITN earlier/earliest gets bumped.)

3. Please remember to update the "alt" parameter.

4. The "link" parameter should be left blank unless it's needed to link to the uncropped version of an image cropped for the main page. (By default, an image links to its own description page, so specifying the same page via the "link" parameter has no effect. It isn't inherently harmful, but it increases the likelihood that an administrator will accidentally retain an outdated link later on.)

5. The parentheses in "(pictured)" or "(foo pictured)" should be italicized.

Thanks! —David Levy 03:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help! -- Jayron  32  03:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding, I'll note that all ITN blurbs are written in the present tense. Please don't post one suggested at ITN/C without verifying its compliance with the section's rules.  Thanks again.  —David Levy 07:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Please also ensure that links lead to the intended articles. (12 Years a Slave redirects to Twelve Years a Slave, the memoir on which the film is based.)  —David Levy 15:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Tammam Salam
I just uploaded a picture of Tammam Salam to Commons where one was previously not available. Perhaps you could include this on the main page in the news template.--Flaming Ferrari (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably not. Headshots work best for the little thumbnail that goes in ITN.  This one of him seated isn't even that good of a profile.  If we had something forward facing or a better head shot, it would be nice.  -- Jayron  32  05:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive
It's that time again! Starting on March 1, there will be another GAN Backlog Drive! There will be several changes compared to previous drives:


 * This drive will introduce a new component to it; a point system. In a nutshell, older nominations are worth more points than newer nominations. The top 3 participants who have the points will be awarded the Golden, Silver, or Bronze Wikipedia Puzzle Piece Trophy, respectively.
 * Unlike the December 2013 Backlog Drive, earning an additional barnstar if you reached your goal has been removed.
 * The allowance to have insufficient reviews has been lowered to 2 before being disqualified.
 * An exception to the rule that all reviews must be completed before the deadline has been created.

Also, something that I thought I would share with all of you is that we raised $20.88 (USD) for the WMF in the December 2013 drive. It may not sound like a lot but considering that that was raised just because we reviewed articles, I would say that's pretty good! With that success, pledges can be made for the upcoming drive if you wish.

More info regarding the drive and full descriptions regarding the changes to this drive can be found on the the drive page. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message on the drive talk page.

I look forward to your participation and hope that because of it, some day the backlog will be gone!

--Dom497

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 February newsletter
And so ends the most competitive first round we have ever seen, with 38 points required to qualify for round 2. Last year, 19 points secured a place; before that, 11 (2012) or 8 (2011) were enough. This is both a blessing and a curse. While it shows the vigourous good health of the competition, it also means that we have already lost many worthy competitors. Our top three scorers were:


 * , a WikiCup newcomer whose high-quality scans of rare banknotes represent an unusual, interesting and valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Most of Godot's points this round have come from a large set of pictures used in Treasury Note (1890–91).
 * , a WikiCup veteran and a finalist last year, Adam is also a featured picture specialist, focusing on the restoration of historical images. This month's promotions have included a carefully restored set of artist William Russell Flint's work.
 * , another WikiCup newcomer. WikiRedactor has claimed points for good article reviews and good articles relating to pop music, many of which were awarded bonus points. Articles include Sky Ferreira, Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus and "Wrecking Ball" (Miley Cyrus song).

Other competitors of note include:


 * , who helped take Thirty Flights of Loving through good article candidates and featured article candidates, claiming the first first featured article of the competition.
 * , who claimed the first featured list of the competition with Natalia Kills discography.
 * , who takes the title of the contributor awarded the highest bonus point multiplier (resulting in the highest scoring article) of the competition so far. Her high-importance salamander, now a good article, scored 108 points.

After such a competitive first round, expect the second round to also be fiercely fought. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2, but please do not update your submission page until March (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

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. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! 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), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Halfback (American football), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fullback (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) 09:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

GAN March 2014 Backlog Drive
The March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on April 1, 2014! Sent by Dom497 on behalf of MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Preemptive hatting
It's been tried before; didn't work. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 22:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I know. But seriously.  Predict where this is going.  Will there be any result from this discussion beyond a reinforcement of Malleus's status as immune from consequences for his actions?  -- Jayron  32  22:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course not; that's why I was the one who tried it (or at least was one of them). This ain't disagreement, this is forewarning. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 22:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In what way am I immune? Seems to me like this latest incarnation of Mattisse is the one who's immune, claiming that I called a numptie.  Eric   Corbett  22:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

When you tell lies you really need to be pulled up on it, not try and hide. Eric  Corbett  22:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Trying to hide the truth seems to be the new fashion among admins. Did you all get together and have a union meeting at which it was agreed you were all infallible? Eric  Corbett  23:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

140's
That 140 user seems to ask a lot of questions about religion which are a bit "off" in their premises. Assuming the questions are in good faith (pardon the metaphor), and knowing that you're strongly religious, would you consider interacting with him directly? He might benefit from an extended discussion on the matter instead of the piecemeal approach. I might benefit likewise, by observing. I learn new information from you every day. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think he's someone I've had extended discussions with before. See here.  I'm not sure this is the same person as that discussion, but his lack of awareness of Christian church operations and the style of his questioning reminds me of that person from 2012 or so.  His questions on the Ref Desks led to some extended discussions with me.  If it IS the same person, perhaps he'll recognize me.  If it isn't, and it's a different person, whatever.  My only hope is to educate people, and if he's really earnest in his questions, and genuinely asking out of a desire to know more, he's not a problem.  -- Jayron  32  03:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you considered constructing a sub-page that explains Christianity as you see it? Or have you already done something like that? In your "copious free time". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Peer review request for Global F.C.
Hey! I saw that you are one of the volunteers willing to help in PR. Can I request if you can review the article above? I want to nominate it as a good article, and I noticed it has a potential for having a GA promotion. Any suggestions for further improving the article are welcome. Thanks! FairyTailRocks (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

WV driver's license issue on RefDesk
Jayron, I greatly appreciated your comment on WV drivers licenses and the whole issue of "illegals". Some might see the comment as a matter of POV, but it seems factually accurate to me. Marco polo (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Taken under advisement. -- Jayron  32  15:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

RE: Quit it
Where am I het arbiter of what should be here? I feel it shouldn't, I challenged it, it was rejected and I accepted that. Im not arguing. Im perfectly in my right to challenge it. QUITE IT forcing other people to adhere to your whim and threaten.

Instead I was saying the content IS valid (of you bother to read(!), just that it needs another location. Further read BOLD...that is separate from an edit war! Where iam I coercing anything?

Further I have created many articles too with cntent some deleted/merged/redirected/stayed. In each instance other editor have right to suggest alternatives too without warring. Which is what I did in each instance!!!! So stop 'threatening;;;!!!(Lihaas (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)).
 * I didn't threaten anything. -- Jayron  32  15:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears Lihaas has removed your post on his talk page as "a threat", "blackmail", and "ownership". Andise1 (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup. -- Jayron  32  18:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you... Rollback button on a phone, whoopsies. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. -- Jayron  32  02:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3
Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK  [•] 00:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 March newsletter
A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. , who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.

With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. 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. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! 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), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Note
I've sent you an e-mail. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Another one on the way now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Rollback
Sorry about the rollback earlier. I just noticed it on my contributions. It was accidental when browsing my watchlist on a tablet. Agathoclea (talk) 05:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Slight change in the White Album move discussion
The proposed move of The Beatles (album) to The White Album has been altered slightly, to the simpler White Album. I'm letting you know in case you'd like to review your vote. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 01:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of monarchs of Prussia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingdom of Poland (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) 08:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Another e-mail
I just sent you an e-mail, on a totally different topic. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Looks like someone else already took care of it.  -- Jayron  32  10:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Says here you are admin. And yet you think its your job to pathetically attempt to ridicule people and call them stupid.

Complaint is on its way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.41.108 (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, Admin you say you are?
Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks For disputes, seek dispute resolution

Jayron32 - Calls new posters stupid and admits to attempting to ridicule them.

Can you see the discrepancy here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.41.108 (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "ITN". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 21:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Admin?
You're an admin. I put up with enough bullshit at the ref desk for you to be making jokes at my expense. And not even funny. If you want me to take your advice seriously, delete your comment. μηδείς (talk) 03:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Soccermeko
Take a look at the contributions of Indiafriend and let me know if you think our old friend Soccermeko is back. His grammar certainly seems to have improved, but his experience level with Wikipedia would make him seem to be an old hand, and his knowledge of my past actions with Nicole Wray articles seems suspicious to me.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd go to SPI. It's honestly been so long, I remember very little about it.  Perhaps someone there can come up with the technical details to help.  -- Jayron  32  00:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Technical data is completely obsolete. I'll just have to keep an eye on him.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, good luck. It's really been a very long time.  Perhaps bring up some of those old edits for a side-by-side comparison.  You can still make an SPI case on behavioral evidence alone.  -- Jayron  32  00:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the well aware of the user. Are you using this as an excuse to revise the page back to a dead article? Furthermore, if you do the research like as I have, you will obviously come up with the same results. Lastly, my productive edits towards the page does not warrant a checkuser investigation. Kww, if you present a further problem, I will report you for disruptive editing and possibly hounding. Indiafriend (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Update. Jayron32, I would like to give you a heads up. Please do not hound me. Thank you! Indiafriend (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Baseball
I thought I recalled you liking baseball. So when I ran across this, I thought you might like to see it. Dismas |(talk) 12:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Village pump 'relativity' discussion
Thanks for shutting the thread down - I was just about to raise it at WP:AN, and ask that it be closed as clearly off-topic. I somehow doubt we've seen the last of LCcritic though... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a variation of the Dunning-Kruger effect going on there, and I'll just leave it at that. But yeah, the venue was inappropriate.  He just wants to see article content changed, VPP is the wrong venue for that.  He should be making his arguments and presenting sources at the article talk page instead.  And if consensus doesn't favor him, he shouldn't be forum shopping to find some traction.  -- Jayron  32  00:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

New Otto4711 sock
Hello: As the admin who blocked the most recent previous sock of perennial puppeteer Otto4711, User:Buck Winston, I thought you might be interested in pinning the tail on the current donkey, User:Jerry Pepsi, whom Alison has determined to be "Likely". (Personally, I think the behavioral evidence and WikiStalker report are pretty darn conclusive, but then I'm not a CU who has to be somewhat circumspect in their pronouncements.) You'll find the SPI here. BMK (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, as the admin who blocked the something somethingsomething I thought you might be interested in reviewing the quality of the "evidence" that includes such stellar notions as "they have a first and a last name" and "they are both gay and they edit gay-themed articles" before throwing me to the lions. I don't know what BMK's deal is but he seems more than a little obsessive and willing to condemn people based on coincidence. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Otto, I think that Jayron is perfectly capable of reviewing the very damning evidence in the SPI upon which Alison based her conclusion that Jerry Pepsi was "Likely" your sock, so there's very little advantage to you in trying to influence him in such a silly manner. BMK (talk) 07:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! BMK (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Was Voltaire wrong about William Penn's 1683 treaty with the Lenape Indians?
There is a discussion here about William Penn's 1683 treaty with the Lenape Indians, and specifically whether Voltaire's famous quote ("...a treaty never written, never broken") from his 1764 Dictionnaire philosophique was incorrect. Could you please take a look at it? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I have no expertise in this area... -- Jayron  32  17:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 April newsletter
Round 3 of the 2014 WikiCup has just begun; 32 competitors remain. Pool G's was Round 2's highest scorer, with a large number of featured picture credits. In March/April, he restored star charts from Urania's Mirror, lithographs of various warships (such as SMS Gefion) and assorted other historical media. Second overall was Pool E's, whose featured list Silver certificate (United States) contains dozens of scans of banknotes recently promoted to featured picture status. Third was Pool G's who has produced a large number of good articles, many, including Falkner Island, on Connecticut-related topics. Other successful participants included, who saw three articles (including the top-importance Ian Smith) through featured article candidacies, and , who saw three lists (including the beautifully-illustrated list of plantations in West Virginia) through featured list candidacies. High-importance good articles promoted this round include narwhal from, tiger from and The Lion King from. We also saw our first featured topic points of the competition, awarded to and  for their work on the Sega Genesis topic. No points have been claimed so far for good topics or featured portals.

192 was our lowest qualifying score, again showing that this WikiCup is the most competitive ever. In previous years, 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) or 100 (2010) secured a place in Round 3. Pool H was the strongest performer, with all but one of its members advancing, while only the two highest scorers in Pools G and F advanced. At the end of June, 16 users will advance into the semi-finals. 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. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! 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), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 17:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

User talk:10.68.16.31
I saw that you blocked 10.68.16.31 in April because of it being a logged off bot. It's at it again. -- Amaryllis Gardener talk 19:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I was chastised for blocking it last time. Please bring it up at WP:AN and see if someone knows how to fix it.  -- Jayron  32  19:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jayron
Something concerning you is on the Administrators noticeboard. Hope you can forgive me. I'm truly sorry for my 19-year-old immatureness. --190.178.156.205 (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

K.
is using 172.56.3.93  again.Can it be re-blocked, perhaps for longer?BMK (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also 2607:fb90:310:128a:43c0:f86a:6807:c7d2 BMK (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * They're hopping around. Just whack-a-mole them and protect their targets.  -- Jayron  32  02:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

BullGuard Wiki page- deleted
Hello, I would like to ask you about the deletion of BullGuard Wiki Page. You considered it as Promotional Page. The page was written in a neutral way, and it didn't promote any product in a direct way. It was only for public information. It also contained a section about "Criticism", so not only data about the company's products. All the information there was documented with external links,(big journals, forums, etc) and it was structured in the same way the others Wiki pages from IT security industry are created (see: Bitdefender Wiki Page, Norton Antivirus, Kaspersky Internet Security, etc)

I would greatly appreciate if you kindly give me some feedback on this issue, and give me the reasons why BullGuard page was considered "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" while the other similar pages are not.

Thank you very much! Saab 00 (talk) 09:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)Sabina Datcu
 * I've moved the page to a draft article in your userspace, as explained at Help:Userspace draft. You can request feedback at WP:AFC which explains how to get other users to review your draft and get feedback in making it appropriate as an article.  -- Jayron  32  11:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Gay adoption versus heterosexual adoption
Hi Jayron,

I'm the poster who started the "Gay adoption versus heterosexual adoption" question on the science reference desk. As I clarified in my last edit, I was neither trying to start a debate on same-sex adoption nor was I "looking for affirmation rather than information". In fact, while I don't have an opinion on same-sex adoption if anything my bias pushes me to support it rather than oppose it. However, I like my political opinions to be based on objective fact as much as possible, and as I see it the most rigorous way of assessing the impact of same-sex adoption is through systematic studies that compare (using objective criteria like IQ, crime rate, etc.) adults adopted as children by a same-sex couple with adults adopted as children by a heterosexual couple -- hence my question. I apologize if my dismissal of the Farr, Forsell, and Patterson study sounded like I was ignoring inconvenient information, but I'm just not convinced by studies that rely on either self-reports or third-party subjective assessments.

Respectfully, I'd appreciate it if you could re-open the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.7.8 (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I had already done so. Thanks for clarifying, and tread carefully in sensitive areas.  Subtext is important.  -- Jayron  32  02:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Double the Help Desk, double the fun
I looked through the history to see what happened and saw that you removed some duplicate information. I saw that the same thing had to be done with earlier questions. This seems to be where it happened.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 19:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion
Hello, i am in need of asking for the opinion of more experienced wikipedia users and administrators, the issue is wheter, regarding data about a country official sources must be favored over unnoficial ones, i oppened a case in the main noticeboard for administrators but barely got any answer, do you know if there is a guideline for issues like this?. Thank you Aergas (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The admins have nothing to do with this issue, which is why it isn't being dealt with on the admin noticeboard. This is a community-wide discussion that admins don't need to be involved with per se; you should be discussing it at WP:VPP.  -- Jayron  32  09:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link. Aergas (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)