User talk:Jayron32/Archive28

clarification?
What other websites are appropriate for questions about TV or my Questions about Reading the Synopsis?(50.173.3.170 (talk) 11:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)).
 * Surely, there's some chat forum or discussion group somewhere in the world you can find. There's hundreds of them.  -- Jayron  32  12:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

if possible, please give me atleast 5 website addresses?(50.173.3.162 (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)).


 * Try starting at http://www.google.com See where it leads you. -- Jayron  32  17:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Come on, I need more specific details than google. I'm already suspended from [tv.com]. What other websites accept any Kind of Questions for svu episodes, Please?(50.173.3.170 (talk) 11:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)).
 * Right, so you've been such a troublemaker, another website kicked you out. I'm not feeling much need to help you there.  -- Jayron  32  15:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Lucia!


Happy Saint Lucia's day!

"Good Morning" Jayron32: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia! 13 December is the day when Swedes perplex the rest of the world by showing up way too early in the morning dressed in white tunics, candles in their hair, singing and bringing saffron buns and breakfast in bed to nice people. Hope you have a bright day! – w.carter -Talk  00:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Friendly request.

 * Hello there! I'm working on a project trying to bring most of the coding on Wikipedia up to the most current standards (HTML5), and I noticed that your signature is using  tags which were deprecated in HTML 4.0 Transitional, marked as invalid in 4.0 Strict, and are not part of HTML5 at all.  I'd love to help you update your signature to use newer code, and if you're interested,&#32;I suggest replacing:


 * with:


 * which will result in a 113 character long signature (18 characters shorter) with an appearance of: -- Jayron 32
 * compared to your existing 131 character long signature of: -- Jayron  32 
 * — Either way. Happy editing! — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 00:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I took care of it. Haven't changed my sig in something like 4-5 years.  I made your coding changes.  Hope it helps!  -- Jayron 32 05:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

No Kill I
i've removed the ref desk talk page thread on whether telling the truth in eastern elections even matters that you kind of moved to the talk page. Feel free to restore it, but do not taunt Happy Fun Ball. μηδείς (talk) 06:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I'm good with that. -- Jayron 32 11:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The Center Line: Fourth Quarter 2014

 * —MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of 10:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Global account
Hi Jayron32! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 11:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 launch newsletter
Round one of the 2015 WikiCup has begun! So far we've had around 80 signups, which close on February 5. If you have not already signed up and want to do so, then you can add your name here. There have been changes to to several of the points scores for various categories, and the addition of Peer Reviews for the first time. These will work in the same manner as Good Article Reviews, and all of the changes are summarised here.

Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round, and one of the new changes this year is that all scores must be claimed within two weeks of an article's promotion or appearance, so don't forget to add them to your submissions pages! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! , and

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Humanities ref. desk
Actually, there was an edit conflict, but I did not receive any useful or informative message, and so had no idea your comment was being removed. That happens from time to time with the software. It would be simplest all around for you to restore your message exactly the way you want it... AnonMoos (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Humanities Help Desk
Sorry. I had a bit of a brain fart. I said that Bakersfield was the largest city unserved by an interstate, but what I meant Fresno. Population 509,000 and about 50 miles from I-5. Just wanted to clarify. 71.194.214.138 (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why yes it is. I stand corrected.  Well done.  -- Jayron 32 23:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

ITN for In_the_news/Candidates
As an uninvolved admin, could you look at Cogolese protests? There's been a lot of work done and seems to be almost if not unanimous support for posting. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 04:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

professional advice at ref desk misc
Hate to be formal, but am very surprised by your action:

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

μηδείς (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Washington County, Rhode Island, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Algonquin, Niantic and Newport County. 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) 08:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Ref Desk proposal
Hi Jayron, I don't know if you've been following the recent threads on the ref desk talk page, but based on some review of that material, I have a simple proposal that I'd like your feedback on before I shop it to the whole group. It's very simple: For a trial period (1 month?), we agree to not remove or hat any questions for reasons of seeking medical/legal advice (and perhaps extend to include requests for opinion). Rather than a free-for-all, we first respond with boilerplate or a template, something along the lines of this: Hello, and welcome to the Wikipedia Reference desk. Your question seems to be seeking medical or legal advice [or perhaps a request for opinion]. We do not give this type of advice [links to disclaimer and guidelines, header, etc], but our users will be allowed to post citations/links to informational references. We hope this information might be useful to you. If you further pursue advice here, this question may be removed.

At that point, we can remove any responses that diagnose, proscribe, treat any illness or legal situation, but allow links to RS. Perhaps even demand that any responses include references, or risk removal. Would that seem ok to you? The thing is, we really don't get that many medical legal questions, and I like how this puts us in the position to police ourselves as respondents, rather than posters. As I see it, this proposal is consistent with our guidelines, and it might forestall some debates, because hopefully the use of a template will warn all our regulars (and irregulars) to be on their best behavior. On the upside, we can then provide useful information, such as links to other people's opinion pieces, links to WP pages that are about medical topics, peer-reviewed literature, etc. So, any thoughts? Would you support such an experiment? Thanks, SemanticMantis (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I would prefer if we simply left the question intact, added the boilerplate response, and removed ALL subsequent responses, regardless of their nature. The line between information and advice is blurry, and it's a slippery slope from "providing information about a medical condition" which can look a lot like "confirming that a person has the medical condition they think they have".  It would be best to leave the question intact, add the boilerplate, and remove any further responses.  That's an easier bright-line to enforce rather than trying to police the fuzzy boundary between advice and information.  It will not remove all debate, you should be aware.  Some people will still see that any question at all that asks for any information about biology in any vague way is "medical advice" and you'll see others that still think we should go ahead and prescribe courses of treatment for any medical condition someone says they have.  But I think this idea could have teeth, if we're consistent and set an enforceable bright-line.  -- Jayron 32 15:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Of course I don't think it would end all debate. But IMO allowing responses after the boilerplate makes placing the boilerplate less contentious. Because in my plan, the whole question isn't shut down, it makes it less problematic if some users think the boilerplate was placed erroneously. But this is food for thought. I've posted similar descriptions to other users as well, I might make a new post on the talk page once I've heard back from them too. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alvin and the Chipmunks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jason Lee. 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, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Request protection
The same vandal is at it again, just with a different IP. And yes, I'm aware that he's been blocked from causing trouble yet again, though I request if you can protect my userpage and user talkpage from the same (or different) IP users from causing mischief in the near future? Jon the VGN3rd (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added your user page to my watchlist, if it becomes a problem I'll take action. -- Jayron 32</b> 22:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Jon the VGN3rd (talk) 05:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

ANI
I need to keep my fool mouth shut. You had a point. I did listen. I dont think poorly of you. Ceoil (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't be hard on yourself. You'll be fine.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Ceoil (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The Center Line: Winter 2015

 * —MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of 18:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter
That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge,  led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:
 * took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
 * worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
 * developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
 * And last but not least, worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. , and

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter
That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge,  led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:
 * took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
 * worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
 * developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
 * And last but not least, worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. , and

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse
Hi Jayron, based on this, I take it that the Teahouse is one of the few places at Wikipedia where new queries go on top? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is.  It's been a point of contention for some time, but back when the Teahouse was new, the decision was reached by the powers that be that the Teahouse would be a top-posting board.  Those of us who didn't want it that way have conceded (it isn't worth arguing about anymore) but still have our reasons for disagreement.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah! I appreciate the edification and the backstory. :) Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

About the user who vandalized your page
Hello, Jayron! I don't think we have met; I am a brand-new admin here, and I may need some backup dealing with the user 108.25.60.172 who vandalized your talk page. I came across this while checking all the edits made by that user. They turned out to be a vandalism-only account on an active spree, so I blocked them for 48 hours and reverted the various vandalisms they had been scattering throughout Wikipedia. I don't know why they vandalized your page, but I suspect it might have to do with a previous account or user talk page they created, which got repeatedly deleted and finally salted. I don't rememer the name of that talk page, but it was close to one they were now trying to create, No.ob.11.11 or Noob 11 11, something like that. Ring any bells? Anyhow I blocked them for 48 hours; they then proceeded to disruptively edit their talk page so I blocked that too. Unless they get bored in the meantime and go away, I suspect they will come back like gangbusters when their 48 hours is over. So I would appreciate it if you would watchlist them, and take any additional admin action if it turns out to be needed. I am new to blocking so I'm on unfamiliar territory here. Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. Ah, here's why: they are 108.25.61.171, the user you blocked here: . They are also ‪108.11.63.56‬. I can see I am in way over my head here. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 05:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Turned out there were at least five IPs in the same range doing the same vandalism. I found someone to do a range block. So don't worry about this for now, I think it's under control (to the extent possible with IPs). --MelanieN (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help! -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 03:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

T.O.o.J.
Nicely put. (And somehow the third person worked well.) —Steve Summit (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hector Camacho
Hey, Jayron.

You were helpful putting a block on Héctor Camacho due to the edit warring.

I the meantime I have received verifiable information from the woman who was named in the article and who was making the edits. The bottom line is there is a verifiable (although not on line) notice of engagement, a lengthy interview with Salemassi and Camacho's son in Playboy, an article mentioning her at the funeral according to the New York Post viewable in google news, and plenty of photographs of him with her kissing, in those carnival and airport photo-booths together, and at large family gatherings, as well as photos of her grieving with his parents as part of the family. According to Playboy, she was present at Camacho's son's house and took part in the interview, where she provided plenty of evidence against interest that strengthens her story.

Given the documentation she's provided and the strength of the evidence, I added back a mention of her, in a more neutral way, which she accepts. She has also refrained from edit warring while the page has been protected, understands COI, and accepted at one point that we couldn't print her information without documentation, but then provided it in spades. (There seems to have been some miscommunication of how to get such material introduced.)

I am going to refrain from giving the playboy reference at this point, as a reserve in case the edits are challenged, but she seems to have been a "part of the family".

On this basis, I think the indef semi-protect can be lifted. I check the article regularly, and don't foresee any issues at this point.

Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Will do! Thanks for doing the hard work on this.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 00:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

IT
Hi there,

Can you please credit me for Mohamed Nasheed ITN? Thanks..-The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 14:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, take it. If you deserve the credit, take whatever credit you need.  I won't stop you.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a heads up
Hey Jayron, just wanted to let you know that 68.102.58.146, the IP who you mentioned is dangerously close to being blocked again for creating distant sporting events per WP:TOOSOON, has most likely made a real account (User:Big Steak (talk)). Not sure if you're an admin or not but this message is more of an FYI for someone to keep an eye on. Thanks! Jrcla2 (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I'm good with him creating an account to do this. I've been trying to get him to do so and learn to do this himself.  Most of these are (hypothetically) OK articles to create, so long as he doesn't keep trying to make work for others.  He has the desire to do so, it's about time he did!  It was the incessant "do this for me!!!" stuff that was annoying.  Now that he's doing it for himself finally, he's much less of a problem.  I will monitor and mentor as needed, though.  Thanks for the heads up.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I gotcha. Well..now he's sockpuppeting. See User:Big Towel. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's AGF. This feels like a little kid; maybe he forgot his earlier password, or maybe he decided he didn't like that username.  Remember, people are quite allowed to have multiple accounts; so long as they aren't using their multiple accounts for nefarious purposes, there's no problem.  Just having two accounts is not a problem.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah I understand. I'll AGF him for now and I concur it feels like a 12-year old behind the username. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * He changed it again. Now he's User:Big plate. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Chinua Achebe
I remembered working on his posting two years ago. I was wondering if maybe I had gone mad. μηδείς (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Weird that this has already been nominated once today, before your own nom. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Tim.Fosner
You recently blocked User:Tim.Fosner, but he's talking rubbish at his userpage. Please could you revoke talkpage access? Joseph2302 (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * He seems to have gone away on his own. I'm inclined to just let him be.  He can't do any harm on that one page, and if he goes off the ropes, I can do it later.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 00:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
<span style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;"> Moose  hadley  02:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Areas of Expertise/Interst
Hi Jayron, would you please consider adding some topic headings to your entry at RD_regulars? I know you are quite expert at chemistry and some other areas of science, but there are probably lots of other things I haven't even guessed :) I'm hoping to get participation up, so that it can become a useful resource for all of us. Thanks, SemanticMantis (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Al Kapone albums
Category:Al Kapone albums, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Wgolf (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement



 * Hello Jayron32:


 * Please consider participating in this week's vote for TAFI's upcoming Week 17 collaboration. Last week's voting did not receive many participants. Thanks for your consideration. North America1000 15:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I've taken myself off the mailing list; I found I didn't have the time to dedicate to the project I had hoped. Sorry!  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Un simultaneousness Heyward's of edits

 * Heads up, SemanaticMantis had actually made the same point. -Modocc (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Irony. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hard Block Needed for User talk:2601:2:1180:315:990F:7D03:BC69:80DB
Making personal attacks toward users on their talk page. - Amaury (talk) 03:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 03:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Definition
Let's imagine a situation

Article says "The capital city of New Hampshire is Concord" and there is a source to back it up.

IP user comes in and changes it to "The capital city of New Hampshire is Manchester" and the source still says it's Concord. You try to undo it but he reverts and says "read the source". You check the source, nope it's still Concord.

How do you call this situation, and what do you do?--Twofortnights (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't respond to hypotheticals. No one has changed the article about the capital city of New Hampshire, so I won't answer this question.  Also, I don't respond to assessments of the behavior of other users in a private place like my talk page.  If you want your question answered, use WP:ANI and directly cite the diffs that are a problem, as well as any other evidence such as the source in dispute.  If you let me know when you start that thread, I will assess and comment there.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So you don't help users who have questions with how Wikipedia works? Why is that? I feel like your response is a bit hostile. I just want to know the right course of action. What if it's not a hypothetical at all, I want to go and edit the New Hampshire article as described above so I want to know what kind of reaction will come from you. It's perfectly normal to ask. So it's not assessing behavior of other users in private either, it's assessing my proposed edits. And yes I am asking because in a not so hypothetical situation yesterday one user blatantly added wrong information to one article just like what I've described above and you said it's not vandalism but a content dispute. So I am wondering where is the line between introducing deliberate factual errors and a content dispute? Do I not have a right to know? Because I don't think it's a content dispute when someone deliberately adds wrong information (for fun or whatever the reason) and when it's perfectly obvious. Should we discuss it? With whom? IP address you yourself say belongs to a huge University? I don't see the point but I am open to be convinced with arguments to think otherwise. And discuss what? Would you engage in a discussion over the New Hampshire example above? Of course you wouldn't, let's not be cynical. If that was a content dispute no one would have created these official Template:Uw-error1, Template:Uw-error2, Template:Uw-error3, Template:Uw-error4 warnings, for deliberate introduction of factual errors. It's clear Wikipedia differentiates between the two and I am asking where is the line. Too much to ask?
 * Wikipedia says cynicism is "an attitude or state of mind characterized by a general distrust of others' motives" and I feel like you think I have some ulterior motives. I assure I don't. The only two things I am looking for is for is to remove nonsense from Wikipedia and to have a positive helpful attitude from other editors instead of jaded negativity. Thanks.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * if you want help, post a thread at ANI, post diffs of the edits you feel are questionable, let me know, and I will comment. What I am not going to do is make a decision about what is or isn't appropriate if I don't have all the facts.-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 23:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Heads up
Just to let you know, in response to your comment here, you don't even need to be autoconfirmed - WP:ACTRIAL never went through. Mdann52 (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

a user who may need a friend
hello Mr. Jay (if i may call you that) this is Dfrr i know you have heard of me before. well lets cut to the chase this user name User:Trimethylxanthine has only been getting messages from me (which is no problem at all as i a happy to send him mesages) One user who welcomed him here when he first came here in 2007 and User:EpochFail who told him that i told him (Mr. Epoch) about him. User:Dennis Bratland User:Matty.077 User:StuRat User:Conifer and many other users have gotten this message and Mr. Epoch will be talking to Mr. Conifer about Mr, Trimet. so we should be sending him (Mr. Trimet) messages barnstars wikiloves anything to make him feel that people know about him. anyways you can discuss it with the users listed here and User:Conifer who will be happy to speak to you about it. thank you and have a very good year````
 * OK. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 23:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

ANI
Any suggestions? My warning on her Talk page was simply cited on the MfD talk page as retaliation for her vote. Formerly 98 talk 01:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have left my response at ANI. Let's keep the discussion in one place.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

No sarcasm intended
I only just now saw this edit summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Medeis&diff=654725065&oldid=654724876 and wanted to let you know that I meant what I said sincerely, without sarcasm. μηδείς (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. It can be hard to tell sometimes.  But I appreciate your comment.  Thank you.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 23:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the protection adjustment
Cheers. I protected one of those refdesk pages 12hrs yesterday, but could have sworn Materialscientist was protecting a week. Now I see the logs are usually a day or less. I will follow suit.

I try to remember this saying: "Don't trust your memory.", but it always slips my mind. :)

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's all good. The Red Desks are a high traffic area for lots of IP editors.  We really shouldn't protect it long term.  Besides, once we figure out this guy's editing pattern, we can probably make it even more targeted.  Assuming he has to go to school or earn a paycheck some time, he can't vandalize it 24 hours a day.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 23:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. I actually always err on the side of under-protection whenever possible for exactly that reason. So, this was a poor memory issue. :) And yes, I do hope he finds something more interesting to do than this. Such a waste of precious life hours. Thanks again and happy editing, my friend. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/header
May need semi-protection, or at least watchlisting. Abecedare (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Unblock request on hold
I have placed on hold an unblock request at User talk:PartyPerson 880. I totally agree with your block, but the editor is now apologising and promising to edit constructively in future, in a way which seems to me sincere. In my experience, in this situation, if the editor is unblocked, the promise to edit constructively is kept, and we gain a constructive editor, while the worst that can happen is that the vandalism continues, and we block again very quickly, so little is lost. I am therefore very much inclined to make a WP:ROPE unblock, but I thought I would first ask you if you have any opinion on the matter. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No objections from me. Blocks are cheap.  If there's another problem, we can always reblock.  Go ahead and unblock them.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks for the answer. We'll see how it goes. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Q
[Copied from help desk in. I tried to copy the whole section, but got caught in the edit filter as a vandal]

So they can't check if users over a certain age are the same? Is that not a little pointless? Or is it in case they happened to have the same IP as someone else a while ago? 86.190.44.212 19:46 (UTC)


 * Above edit is still marked as vandalism by the editing filter, see the talk history. Delibzr (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The moron returneth
Didn't take long before the perennial pest found out that Reference desk/Language had been unprotected, so I saw no alternative to reinstating the protection. Favonian (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 4 minutes. Not bad.  Thanks for taking care of that.  We need to get some checkusers on this post-haste and see if we can't get a rangeblock.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

 * Thank you so much! -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment
I saw your name on the volunteers list at WP:PR and it was suggested that I ping someone. So, can you review my article? Best, jona   (talk)   03:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

someone private address at the reference desk
Hi Jayron32. I'm not 100% certain of the wikipedia policies, but it doesn't seem right to me that a person's private mailing address is being posted, together with their name (and presumably without their knowledge) in these two threads: language desk, reference desk talk page. I mean, I have seen people redact phone numbers and addresses before. If this is correct, can you do the magic admin deletion on the relevant edits? Thank you. 184.147.117.34 (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Jayron 32, since you seem very busy hope you don't mind I ask another admin I have seen at the ref desks to have a look at this. Thanks Future Perfect at Sunrise. 184.147.117.34 (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Protection
Did you intend the semi-protection on Reference desk/Mathematics to be indefinite? I believe that the protection on the other parts of the ref desk has expired, though of course it may need to be reimposed if the vandal returns. The question was raised at WP:HD. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Move Discussion
Hi,

This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Today's featured article/April 26, 2015
Hi Jayron, I watch WP:ERRORS and didn't see anything ... also, that wasn't an error. What did I miss? - Dank (push to talk) 00:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * See T:MP. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 00:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing me to it, I don't usually watch T:MP. FWIW, I see that construction more often from the Australians at Milhist than I do in AmEng, but it's not ungrammatical in any flavor of English. - Dank (push to talk) 00:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Also: I want to apologize for the "it's just obvious" tone I was taking on WT:MAIN, that wasn't helpful. Part of the problem is, I think, that the TFA process is missing something it needs. I'll work on that. - Dank (push to talk) 13:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Erroneous edits
I think it would have been more appropriate for you to alert me to any errors so that I could fix them and apologize rather than reporting what even you note as probably a mistake to AIV. Donner60 (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I have added this to the AIV page and leave it here in case you are not monitoring it and to keep all the comments in one place. :What I saw, and what I thought I was reverting, was removal of the redirects. Perhaps I made a mistake and misread those changes. I am sorry that you felt the need to chastise me. I have made a few mistakes over the years but I have made many proper edits and almost 250 reports to AIV which have resulted in blocks.

Please know that I have no intention of being critical or argumentative. I simply felt I needed to explain myself. I know administrators have a hard job and you are not mind readers. I also know you need to act quickly on what you see when there is a backlog. So I apologize if I have seemed petulant. Donner60 (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I placed no warnings on the user's page. Nonetheless, I have apologized for any trouble or inconvenience caused by my reversion. My report followed warnings by another user. I checked back again and found the user left no edit summaries on the removal of the redirects. On the other hand, I realize that the one sentence substituted for the redirect may have been intended as the beginning of a substantive article or could even be considered a stub. Again, I only note this as explanation and clarification, not to be argumentative. I have changed a few redirects to articles myself. Thank you for your work on these problems and mistakes. Donner60 (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

week long
The IP is correct, the riots were only one night, the protests and curfew have been week-long, the blurb shouldn't imply the riots themselves were a week long. Thanks for posting, in any case. μηδείς (talk) 03:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So fixed. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 03:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not to pester you, but I'd say "following rioting in Baltimore and a week of national protests", since the protests have been widespread, from NYC to Denver and with clashes with police in Philly. μηδείς (talk) 03:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think eventually conciseness and completeness need to reach a happy medium. I'm happy with what it says now.  There's been a weekish worth of protests in Baltimore, which is the locus of the news story anyways.  The existence of smaller, satellite protests in other cities is a fact, but probably not worth mentioning in the blurb, IMHO.  The blurb is now, at least, not wrong (as the "week long riots" would have been) and readers can find out more by clicking blue links.  It's sufficient and fully correct, which is enough as far as I am concerned.  We can't tell the whole story in a line of text.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 03:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Bring joy
Quoting you: "If it brings you joy to add them where needed ...", talking about infoboxes, - I would like to express that it would bring me joy to have one for Ray Barra, an article I expanded yesterday (and linked to on the Main page). I may not add one by the power of the holy arbcom, because I didn't turn a red link blue, - I have to carefully watch that or will be taken to arbitration enforcement. If this makes as much sense to you as to me, feel free to add one, - a small one is fine, - I may add. Also I like them small, some idea of place and time at a glance is all I want ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have a history of disruption, the community will try to stop you. It isn't like you can wake up every day and the past patterns of your behavior magically didn't happen.  You (as in the singular you) cannot do so because you (as in the singular you) have shown you cannot be trusted to work well with others.  If you had not have done what you had done, you would not be in this situation.  Don't act like someone singled you out for no reason, and that you'd never done anything to disrupt the editing process.  People who don't have a history of disruption can feel free to continue to not be disruptive.  Those that have lost the community trust should not do those things which caused the loss of that trust. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Question
Why did you close the discussion and write 'has no one ever learned ANYTHING around here. Seriously. Just no' - what do you mean? AusLondonder (talk) 01:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No positive, productive, or useful result has ever come from bringing up Eric Corbett/Malleus at ANI. Ever.  In History.  Don't do it, you will not be happy. The best thing to do is just pretend it didn't happen and go about your life.  You'll be better for it.  Trust me.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? Wikipedia has a cartel going for uncivil users. AusLondonder (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, just him. Look, run the experiment.  Reopen your discussion.  I'm just saying I've been here a decade.  I've seen the experiment run many times.  I don't expect the sun to rise in the west tomorrow.  But who knows?  You go ahead and have your fun.  We'll see how it turns out.  Just don't say you weren't warned.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I won't, I've had enough of Wikipedia and the incivility. I have tried hard to learn policy and contribute (710 contributions, 21 new pages) but I won't put up with constant abuse. AusLondonder (talk) 02:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't have to. You just ignore Eric, pretend he isn't there, and go about your business.  It works for everyone the best.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What about the other, ruder, more aggressive editor? AusLondonder (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * He isn't Eric. I'm sure someone will do something about him.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Jayron, in all fairness, this was a dispute whose outcome was going to be obvious, and whether or not Eric was involved doesn't change that. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, no one should ever bring Eric's name up at ANI. It never produces any good results, regardless of the merits.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not true: in this case, the result was as it should have been. Jayron, do you need a kitten, or a little pastry with your morning coffee? :) Drmies (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

"The Bible and rape" page
Hi, I've been working on a page on "The Bible and rape." I just saw the AfD and wanted to ask you whether I've adequately addressed your points. If you would like, I could copy-paste what I have below. I think I've found a great deal of reliable sources on the topic, and I am very careful to have a high quality of referencing, no OR and adhere to NPOV. I still discuss some of the passages you flagged, BUT only if they have been interpreted as such in reliable sources. What do you think? Once again, I can show you what I have so far if you want. Thanks. BenLinus 1214 talk 18:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 9 years is a LONG time to remember my thoughts. Do you have a link to your new draft article?  I can look back at the AFD and see perhaps what my concerns were, and see if the proper changes have been made.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not done with my draft yet. Should I show you what I have so far or wait until I am done? BenLinus  1214 talk 21:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Whenever you're ready, just let me know. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 00:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've posted part of it at my sandbox. Scroll down a bit. Don't worry--the "religious responses to criticism" section will be a decent length as well. BenLinus  1214 talk 02:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've read the bit that you have there, and my suggestion is to spend more of your writing covering the work of reliable, respected scholars from various religious traditions and what they have to say on it. Presenting Bible passages as being about rape where it isn't unambiguously so is hard to do.  For example, in the lengthy Deuteronomy section you quote, I would only interpret the middle scenario as probably rape, it makes it somewhat clear there that the sex wasn't consensual.  The other scenarios so described, not so much.  What you should focus on is "Scholar John Doe notes that passage so-and-so describes rape thusly" and not merely "passage so-and-so describes rape thusly".  There's likely a lot of good scholarship on the topic; you would do well to not speak in Wikipedia's voice, but instead cite (directly, naming them) scholars themselves.  That's my feeling so far.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. Do you have any suggestions on how to organize the article now? And you would have me intersperse passages with interpretation? BenLinus  1214 talk 18:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr.
Following the closure of a recent RfC you participated in, I have started an RfC on the separate but related issue of commas after Jr. and Sr.. Please see  and feel free to comment there. Thanks! —sroc &#x1F4AC; 06:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Samuel L. Jackson GA Reassessment
Samuel L. Jackson, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

User talk:109.69.5.196
Your comment is not true.


 * Removing "Greek".
 * Removing Greek and OR-ing (no sources), despite 4 sources claiming otherwise.
 * Changing Greek to Albanian, despite sources claiming he is ethnic Greek.
 * Changing information.

How could this be in good faith?--Z oupan 19:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a content dispute, and not vandalism. Saying that doesn't mean he's right, but it does mean two things 1) It isn't appropriate for an AIV report and 2) there are other, more appropriate venues to get the problem solved.  Let me say it a different way to make it clearer.  You have presented no evidence that the user in question believes themselves to be adding wrong information to Wikipedia.  From appearences, it looks like he believes himself to be improving articles.  That doesn't mean they are correct and it doesn't mean they shouldn't be blocked, it does mean that AIV is not the correct venue.  --19:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I seriously disagree with you. This is not a content dispute, he has no sources backing any of his edits, or refuting those presented. This is breaking both NPOV, OR, and shows clear vandalism. I think that a 24-hour block, with a tag clarifying why would be perfectly fine. Since this is an IP, I believe that the user will continue his behaviour. Note that the exact edits have been made earlier: example 1, example 2, example 3, and so forth...--Z oupan 20:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You have not established the user is trying to harm Wikipedia. Please note, from the vandalism policy, "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism."  You have not shown that the user is acting in a way that they believe to be harmful.  It may actually be harmful, but unless the user is trying to ruin Wikipedia, it isn't vandalism.  It may still be worth blocking, but you'll have to use other venues except WP:AIV to do so.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 08:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

NFL conspiracies
You seem to love football. That probably means that you have a lot of personal experience in following american football and conversations people have about the history of the nfl, players, games etc. I want your opinion on a few things. (if you would be so kind mein furor) People talk about certain superbowls or regular games that involve conpiracies. (by conspiracy I mean the text book definition/ CA penal code 182-185). How probable is it that refs, players, coaches, owners etc conspire to change variables to alter a game to favor one or more people? It is interesting to think about all the money involved in that industry. I dont't follow football enough to see if there's any evidence or not. I've also heard that teams hire people who try and read lips to see what the coach is saying to a quarterback, and that other people are hired to try and see if anyone on the other team has lip read their coach based on behavior analysis. Even water boys who spike gatorade and water.. If you know anything mind blowing about the nfl I would love to hear it.Agent of the nine (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * One notable NFL conspiracy predates the Super Bowl by a few years; it was the Alex Karras-Paul Hornung gambling scandal. Also a fun read is the so-called Body Bag Game, where Eagles head coach Buddy Ryan supposedly put a "bounty" on the Redskins, paying bonuses under the table for injuring opposing players.  The same accusations came up during the Bountygate scandal.  There were some accusations levied against the Green Bay Packers that they intentionally froze the field for the famous Ice Bowl game against the Cowboys prior to Super Bowl II.  Not NFL, but NBA, there's also a famous "Draft fixing" scandal involving a draft lottery envelope, a freezer, and Patrick Ewing.  That's a fun one.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Jayron,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Joined moths.JPG is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on June 11, 2015. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2015-06-11. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Original research
If a user does original research from different IPs and doesn't want to learn, then what should i do?. Where to report such users?. There is no use discussion with IPs of old editors as they know what they  are doing. Should i correct the edit again and again and not report him.--  C E  (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. You bring up the issue at other noticeboards, such as WP:ANI.  AIV is not the "request a block" board.  It is strictly reserved for narrowly-defined vandalism.  It isn't that you are not having a problem, and it isn't that there is not a remedy possible, it is that you are using the wrong venue for the wrong reasons.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

ani discussion closed too soon
fine we'll close however if I notice myself or anyone else on the talk page get what I consider harassment from this individual ill come back nere, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You have fun with that. Let me know how it turns out for you.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Daniel9122
Or is it Dan9122? Anyways, this user has been reported to AN/I, but hasn't been dealt with yet. Could you please handle him, he is causing problematic issues.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Who, and what issues and where? -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
before things spun out of control, though many doubtless are saddened at the loss of opportunity for further drama. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Deleted page
Sorry to bother you with this issue of questionable importance, but could you check what a deleted page said -- apparently Special:Contributions/Donovan_delaney made a "legal threat" on a page that got deleted, it may have been their sandbox -- he seems to have forgotten what he said on that page and I can't comment on it since I can't see what the page said. See also: the bottom of this section. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've already quoted it back to him on his talk page, but if you want it again, he said, and I quote, "You can't block me. If you block me I'm call the police." Look, I appreciate you're efforts here, but either he's being willfully obnoxious, or he really lacks the ability to understand what we are trying to tell him.  I've left him copious, direct instructions on EXACTLY what he needs to do, and he's steadfastly refused (or lacks the understanding to know how) to do it.  Good luck.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks for giving me the direct quote so I understand the situation, I didn't see it anywhere on the talk page. And yeah, I understand it's a hopeless situation and it's better to leave it alone, I just wanted to clarify what the threat was, since that's the main reason he's blocked. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Why edit other people?
Why do you allow this? 125.209.88.46 (talk) 18:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't allow anything. I do not set rules, nor am I the police.  I also don't see any violation there. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

This too removing others edits, is not right is it? 125.209.88.46 (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't worry IP, Jayron sees what Jayron wants to see, much like other editors on Wikipedia who act as apologists for those who violate IBANs. It's not important, I've re-added my comment that was censored against policy and against the IBAN.  Don't be surprised to Jayron and others doing this sort of "I didn't hear you" thing all the time.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm also not your Mommy, TRM. Grown ups handle their own business.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You're also incompetent as an admin. Do something about this or give up the bit.  Pathetic.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I work very hard to be incompetent. I used to be dreadful.  Maybe someday I'll be as good as worthless.  Thanks for noticing my continued improvement!  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I notice you don't like it when your comments are edited out, censored, removed without notice, i.e. against policy. Your selective use of your position is utterly beyond contempt.  (By the way, it is most certainly not opinion for you to allow someone with whom you are IBANned to remove one of your comments, regardless of what you think of me, you're either an admin or you're not, right now it seems like you are happy to be bereft of your duty).  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Beyond contempt! Wow.  I always strive for excellence.  Nice to know I am moving beyond!  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not that you can do it all day, you do do it all day. Protect your own, ignore your duties.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I like how jay fails to address the context of the claims made against him. I have no idea if those claims are valid or not but it is worrying that jay acts so sophomoric JAY   Agent of the nine (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I would like for Jayron to explain why this does not constitute an IBAN violation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Statement of fact. Now explain why you removed my post.  Mind you, knowing Jayron, he'll overlook your serious policy violation, and IBAN violation, and just focus on me... He loves it like that.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I did it to prevent someone else from taking you to ANI yet again, over yet another IBAN violation. I apologize for trying to help you stay out of trouble. I won't let it happen again. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Do not ever do that again. Simple.  When we go to ANI now, we'll both be blocked.  Deal with it and stop policing me by violating both IBAN and policy.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine. Let it stand, and you'll risk being blocked because you violated your own IBAN. Regardless, if this or anything else is taken to ANI, it won't be by me. I told you in January or so that I would never again file a complaint about you at ANI. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And you'll be blocked too. Why you censored me then followed my posts at ITN to create such a hubris is beyond me.  Thankfully we had Jayron here to do absolutely nothing about his compatriot's behaviour.  In any case, time to stop, stop following my edits, stop chasing me around Wikipedia, stop removing my posts.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your comment to Medeis was an IBAN violation, and I removed it to try to keep you out of trouble. I am now letting it stand. Stop violating your IBAN, and you won't hear from me again. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And your censorship of my post was an IBAN violation so you'll be blocked too. Get it?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Ref desk abuse filter
Hi Jayron. I moved the request for an edit filter regarding sections removed from the reference desk to the denied requests section to keep the page tidy. If the filter (683) becomes necessary again feel free to re-request :) Sam Walton (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Will do! Thanks for all of your help! -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015
I noticed that a message you recently left to Stockst may have been unduly harsh for a newcomer. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. I know you are experienced here, but I think that was a bit harsh don't you? EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 16:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If he's a newcomer, I'm the queen of England. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh give over, AGF view of it tells me they are just a occasional business article contributor. Obviously I can see your suspicion, but there isn't enough evidence to go ambushing him for having a different view from you. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * He has the same viewpoint as I do. He's just masking it behind a secondary account so he can keep his other persona(s) clean.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 22:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Potential Unblock of User:Donovan delaney
I just wanted to give you a heads up that I am planning on unblocking this user per this here unless you have any serious objections to this. You blocked User:Donovan delaney for making legal threats (and rightfully so). He has apologized and taken them back at the guidance of some other editors. Chris lk02  Chris Kreider 18:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You do what you gotta do. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 22:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just like to leave a note as a courtesy/give one a chance to provide any information that I may have missed. I think it is important to give people second chances, and the guy seems active.  If we could get him to contribute positively, that would be nice.  If he causes trouble again, it is easy to block him again.  Thanks for the reply! Chris  lk02  Chris Kreider 23:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hat/Hab?
Hi, I am just here to ask about the Hat/Hab template you added on Ani/I against SandyGeorgia. What is the purpose of the template? The first template begins with hat then it ends with hab. I was about to fix it when I realized that it was used to hide content and the t standed for top and b standed for bottom. Am I wrong? Callmemirela ( Talk ) 01:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is an abbreviation for "hidden archive top" and "hidden archive bottom". See Template:Hat and Template:Hab.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks! Callmemirela  ( Talk ) 01:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

RE: OregonDuck22
I'm all for educating new users about copyright, but they ignored the warning I gave them. The user first added copyrighted text at 14:45 PDT on May 27 (Special:Diff/664338297). I put a notice on their talk page at 15:59 PDT on May 27 (Special:Diff/664344349), and then they reinserted the material at 11:54 PDT on May 28 (Special:Diff/664462578). <span style="color:forestgreen;font-family:Georgia,serif">Conifer (<span style="color:forestgreen;font-family:Georgia,serif">talk ) 03:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The Center Line: Spring 2015

 * —MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 12:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Troll is back yet again
Newest reappearance of the troll that keeps calling people judeophobes, Eurotraśh, etc. Have not warned, because I don't think warning an "editor" that has been blocked across several accounts and a dozen or so IPs in the past week alone is particularly useful. . AddWittyNameHere (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Special Thanks
Hey, since I see you're active at the moment and you're an admin, I submitted Talk:Caitlyn Jenner to WP:RPP asking for it to be set to autoconfirmed for a week. Would you kindly consider the request? Thank you!  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 05:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'd rather not. While there's a lot of bullshit coming through, I also see a lot of good-faith discussion and requests from IPs and new accounts. I'd rather not stifle good-faith discussion (and the likely potential thereof) merely to make it more convenient for us.  I'd rather deal with this through vigilance.  I'm pretty sure every admin on the site (or statistically close to that) has added this to their watchlist.  If someone does protect this, I won't undo it, but I don't think it's a good idea.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 05:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Good points. And with admins as vigilant as you watching over it, I trust any vandalism will be dealt with quickly. OS, you, and responded very quickly. Thank you again for everything!  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 05:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that didn't last long. For the record, based on clear behavioral clues I'd rather not go into, the specific sequence of attacks that led to the block is clealry a known troll whose behavior we don't have to memorialize.  I wish I didn't have to protect the article.  But yeah, it had to be done.  It quickly (within minutes of my note above) became unusable.  Anyhoo, I'm going to bed.  Good luck and Godspeed.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 06:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Had to be done given the circumstances. And even I recognize that pattern of editing but can't place the sockmaster's name for some reason . Anyway, thank you again for your hard work!  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 06:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Request
I notice that you are an admin. Can you G7 delete the Daniel Fields re-direct as the re-direct is no longer necessary.--Yankees10 04:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why it isn't necessary, the target article still lists Fields on the roster of the Mudhens. Can you clarify what your need is here?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 04:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * He was called up to the majors. The re-direct is no longer necessary.--Yankees10 04:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If he was called up, you can just edit the redirect and create text there. It doesn't have to be a redirect.  Generally, players on major league rosters merit their own articles.  Just edit the redirect, and turn it into a normal article.  There's no need for any deletion (or any other admin action) here.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 04:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but my preference is re-start the article from start without the re-direct. I'll admit it's kind of an odd request.--Yankees10 04:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's also inconsequential and against standard practice. Open the redirect, and put the text there.  I see no reason to deviate from over 10 years of standard practice for a singular preference.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 04:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * G7 states:"If requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content to the page was added by its author". I created the original re-direct and I added all of the information that is there. I'm not sure what the issue is here. Re-direct targets are consistently being added/deleted/re-added with these pages. --Yankees10 04:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There's . I'd have think you'd have realized that seeking one of them to do your bidding would be more fruitful than badgering me, when I've clearly indicated I have no interest in making an inconsequential delete, when you can cause the same result to happen by merely adding your own text to the article.  WP:BIKESHED applies here.  We don't need to do mindless deletes where not necessary.  You've not reasonably explained why the redirect needs to be deleted, beyond the fact that you want it.  There's also no compelling reason why I, among the  total admins at Wikipedia, must be the one who has to do it for you, when I've clearly explained that you can cause the same result without bothering me at all (or bothering any of the other  admins either).  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 04:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What an unbelievably unnecessary response this is. How am I badgering you? I am responding to your questions with answers to why I don't find the deletion to be a problem. None of my responses were rude or in bad faith or said in a manner such as "YOU MUST DO THIS FOR ME". I simply made a request. You don't want to do it, oh well. I'll move on. The reason I went to you is because you were actively editing and I noticed you are also a sports fan (somewhat rare among admins). I apparently went to the wrong person, not because you wouldn't do the deletion but because of your unnecessarily harsh response to it.--Yankees10 05:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You've asked me five different times to delete the article, I've explained five different reasons why deleting it is against policy. Maybe you can tell me how many times you're allowed to ask the exact same question before it becomes badgering.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 05:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Check again. I asked you once. My first comment on this thread. The rest were just responses to your questions. Your stil being hostile for no reason.--Yankees10 05:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Even though you didn't have to or want to delete it, I appreciate that you did. I apologize if you feel I was badgering you, this was not my intention at all when I came to you with this request. Hopefully if we happen to have future interactions they end better than this one. Anyways, Thanks again.--Yankees10 05:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
For User:Gyotu. There doesn't seem to be a way to "thank" blocks, although there should be. Almost makes up for the Phillies' loss. I just got home from. μηδείς (talk) 04:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Closing a discussion
Hello, Jayron32, The discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents has gone on for weeks without any consensus being reached. You were one of the few admins voicing an opinion about a proposal so would you be willing to close this case? I was going to archive it as stale but this act might be frustrating for the involved editors, to not have some resolution to this case. Thank you. Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 20:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, since I registered an opinion, I am exactly the wiping amin to deal with it. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

"The Bible and rape" page part 2
If you remember, a while ago I asked you about a "The Bible and rape" page I was working on. Well, I worked on it a bunch more, and I would be very grateful if you could look at it again and tell me what you think. Thanks. BenLinus 1214 talk 03:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * My biggest suggestion is to be more explicit in you attributions. When you say "has been depicted", or " has been characterized as " of other similar phrases, the first question every reader will have is "by whom?".  Say the actual name of the actual scholars who make these claims in the text itself. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 21:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. I think I fixed it. Let me know how that looks. :) BenLinus  1214 talk 00:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's a really good article now. Of course, I'm sure things can be fixed in the future, perhaps by users down the road with fresh eyes and more sources, but it looks solid enough for the main space, as far as I am concerned.  I'd say go with it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed users to Admin
Hi Jayron32, I have been editing on Wiki for a while now (since 2007) and my current account has been in use since July 2014. I wanted to know (as I could not find any reading for the same) on what are the requirements to upgrade my account to administrator status on Wikipedia - if that is possible at all? Thanks in advance  yanka   AD    =Talk=  05:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You need to get the community to grant you admin status by submitting yourself for a vote at WP:RFA. There are all sorts of guides linked from the WP:RFA page which describe how to do so.  I'm not familiar with you at all, as we've not interacted before now, so I'm not comfortable nominating you formally, but you're quite welcome to nominate yourself.  Good luck!  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry
Jayron, i apologize, i can't believe at the time i thought i was acting maturely just because i didn't get real mad. What I actually did was sanctimonious and nosy, getting involved in the "flaw" debate. Where i suggested you "relax" probably was very condescending and controlling, and quite annoying. I should have known better because when i long ago would protest about being bullied, the bully would cut me off with "relax!" What makes this much worse is recollecting a time i was very rude to you on science ref desk a few years ago,, something about astronomy. Anyway, I hope the fact that at the time, yesterday, I really thought I was doing right, (acting "maturely" just because I didnt blow up) will help you forgive the passive agressive condescension. Also, thanks for all of your many many terrific contributions to wikipedia. Oh, I forgot to say, it's to your credit that though you were very annoyed, you never were insulting.Rich (talk) 09:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And I apologize for being rude myself. We all have our bad moments.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Donovan delaney
Hi Jayron. Just wanted to let you know that I've unblocked Donovan delaney, who you blocked per NLT, as they've retracted their legal threat. Sam Walton (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

bravo
I loved your recent schooling in the science reference desk. I know I am guilty of "casual talk" but I believe in an appropriate mixture of reliable sources and "casual talk". I do try to find sources but I am a noob. I know I'll get better with time. I was starting to get frustrated with the taste bud post and my radiation post. I worked off of Nimur's response to my radiation post (most helpful as always). It seems that the "no chat no soapbox" rules arn't really enforced (how would you enforce those rules?) keep it up grand master!Agent of the nine (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Chatting, light humor, etc. is fine to a point. A little friendliness and community camaraderie is useful.  However, when one attempts to answer someone's question in earnest, one should always tell a person where they can read up on additional information, either in Wikipedia or outside of Wikipedia.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Re-adding one oldest ITN story
Can you re-add one or two oldest stories? Another set of DYK queue will be posted soon. --George Ho (talk) 03:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There's still a big white gap on the left side, EVEN after I removed the oldest two items. Even if the new DYK queue is longer by an item or two, it won't make the left side significantly longer than the right.  If the white space on the right becomes too long, we can add one back.  But as of right now, it isn't.  When it is, any admin can add one back.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 03:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And after the DYK update you noted would be happening, the two columns are almost exactly the same length, with almost no white space. So we're good here.  No need to return any ITN items.  .  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 03:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement
You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case
You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement'' arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement'' arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction
This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

Warning message
You left the threatening message on my talk page. I am very aware of this policy and the other discussions of MOS:Identity. What exactly are you implying? That I did something wrong? Who is the judge of this? Trackinfo (talk) 04:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I left no threat at all. I left a notice.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 04:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It sure looks like a threat. You dropped that on my page as ifI am doing something wrong.  I am an experienced wikipedia editor.  I have been involved with this article for more than 5 years.  I have a long history on this article, I have written a lot of the content here.  I have an interest to keep it factually correct against a tide of johnny come lately editors who do not seem to care as much about presenting accurate information as they do inserting their WP:agenda into the article.  So if you have a problem, open your mouth and don't hide behind threatening sounding "notices." Trackinfo (talk) 08:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read the words written on the notice. The ones that say "It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date."  Those words have meaning.  Get to know their meaning.  If I didn't mean those words, I would not have written them on your page.  Your own response to those words speaks volumes about your own sense of your own actions.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Bowei Huang 2, User Nineguy and your block of IP
Looking at the user compare report at the current SPI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bowei_Huang_2 I see you blocked User:123.100.149.51 for vandalism in April. You may be interested to know that he and the new user Uesr:Nineguy appear to be the same person, with IP 123 posting this question at the ref desk then subsequently erasing his own address and overwriting it with the signature of registered user Nineguy. Given the current blizzard of random posts by Nineguy, maybe you could consider doing something? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Obvious troll?
I see you removed a post just as I was posting some references. Is it so strange to think that someone would ask us a good faith question about nude modeling? Here's what I was posting when your removal caused an edit conflict.


 * We can't say, people are different. Some people might find that technique helpful, others may find it exacerbates the problem. You've argued both sides of that, so the only way to tell what works for you is to try a few things out. It's a very common question though, you can probably find other models sharing their experiences. Here's a few relevant things I've found  ..

Honestly, what problem would that question and response cause? If OP was trolling, I don't think my response will be much fun. Whatever, SemanticMantis (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a guy. He's been here for years.  He posts breaching experiments to see how much he can get away with.  This is what he does.  In a little while, he will repost his question, demand we answer it, then when we remove it again, he'll throw a hissy and try to blank the ref desks.  Then we'll have to semiprotect them to make him go away.  This is not a new user, his language style, and specific subject matter of his posts is easily recognizable to anyone who's dealt with him for years.  If this were an unrelated user I'd agree with you.  This is a regular troll, not a rando, and this is what he does for fun.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 21:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Nanak Shah Fakir
Hi Jayron32,

Despite your warning the page has been revert back by IP 173.71.50.211 again, what should be the next step in this case, I dont really want to get into edit war, but would likely to know from you, if i want to update something on that page what should i do ? Kulvinder Singh 19:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

What happened here exactly?
I posted a question on nude modeling on the Miscellaneous Reference Desk and this happened. I'm pretty sure just that first redacted message was mine (I might have had a second correcting a spelling error or something, I can't recall the circumstances of posting exactly.) I just checked in to see if there were any replies, and saw the history of the page and your edit description: "Owned by the self-admitted troll. Nice...".

Did my question violate some rule? Am I considered a troll because of my question? I'm just confused what rules I broke that were so bad the entire question needed to be unpersoned. I just moved to a new city so I've never used this IP Address before. 2605:6000:EA01:7E00:F998:C192:853C:97E2 (talk) 09:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Using open proxies and pretending that prevents us from telling who you are isn't going to get you any sympathy. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's assume I'm not technically savvy, I don't know what an open proxy is and this is a case of mistaken identity. Was the question itself in violation of the Reference Desk rules? If not I can just reask it once I'm at a library or something with a different IP that isn't tripping your filters. 2600:100C:B011:F77:400C:C47E:3042:713 (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Update, I just read your post shortly above mine, I can see where the conflict of interest is. I guess this is just a bizarre coincidence, I moved to this city a few weeks ago and this IP address belongs to a co-op with over 20 people living in it. But if you've have problems as large as you stated in your reply, I can understand why you'd be hesitant to assume good faith. I'm prepared to let the matter drop, SemanticMantis answered my question sufficiently enough. 2600:100C:B011:F77:400C:C47E:3042:713 (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Reinserting oldest blurb in ITN
Would you reinsert the oldest blurb? The current MP is outbalanced by lengthy left side. Also, the next DYK queue will be just as lengthy. --George Ho (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Would you reinsert oldest blurb, discovery of planet Kepler-452b. The next queue will outbalance the right column more than current state. I previewed the Main Page with the next set. --George Ho (talk) 06:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks fine to me now. Sorry I didn't catch this when you asked.  I do have to sleep and earn a living, so sometimes I don't catch every request.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Currently, it's outbalanced. Also, the next DYK queue will outbalance the ITN. --George Ho (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

ITN
Hello, I see that your active at ITN, and I was wondering if you could you please post Roddy Piper to the RD ticker at ITN? I'd rather not have a repeat of the Dusty Rhodes fiasco where it had consensus for several days but was ignored by admins then rejected for being too old. It's been several days and the discussion has stalled. There is overwhelming consensus to post, and the article has improved markedly. ITN is not GAC, and while the article is far from perfect, I think 134 references is more than enough. -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  12:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Have the referencing problems that people noted been fixed? -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A lot of them have, yes and the page has been vastly improved. There are some new fact tags up for minor things that don't violate BLP. Under normal circumstances I'd take care of them, but I'm on vacation right now, so I don't have the time or access to do it. If it's posted, I will take care of those tags as soon as I get home. The fact remains that it has more sources than any of the other current RDs, and I'd like it posted sooner rather than later because August 4 is 5 days since his death, which is really pushing it. -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  02:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for posting it. I'll fix any citation tags either tonight or tomorrow. -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  20:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hampton Beach, New Hampshire, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Spit and Rye Beach. 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) 09:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)