Again, I am most grateful for your continued interest in helping me with my article. I have just done some edititng by pruning and adding a couple of new external links and references. I am sure that my article still needs some work, especially in terms of formatting (with which I would welcome some expert help as I am not particularly skilled at that.) Needless to say, any comments and suggestions are most appreciated. Lg4 (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful recommendation that I add some independent sources to my references, which I now plan to do. Needless to say, I welcome any additional suggestions you may have.

Lg4 (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now revised my initial article by adding more sources and references as well as some important scientific committee memberships, especially for the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), but perhaps that is superfluous as the article is not a CV.

I have still more I could add, especially references to many of my peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters. Please let me know your editorial suggestions in this regard.

And, again, many thanks!

Lg4 (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your previous help,which I not only appreciated greatly but which obviously led me to do some major revision as you will see once you access my article, Lg4. But right now I must admit that I am a bit confused as to the next step I should take. Please advise! Thanks.

Lg4 (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for recommending that I read about "conflict of interest", with which I fully agree. In response, I took note of ways of scaling down the amount of "filler" information that might be perceived as perhaps too self-promoting. In the same spirit, I have shortened the article and done some additional editing. If you feel I should still do more cutting, please let me know. Also, a there was a earlier comment to the effect that my article was "orphaned" and needed more links and refereces. Needless to say, I could redily add a few more external links and references, but in terms of internal references I wonder whether I should establish links to the names mentioned only in passing, such as mentors (e.g. Hebb), co-authors (e.g. Breznitz, Wallerstain, etc.) and others (e.g. Erik Erikson) the subject of one of the books mentioned. Again, I welcome any and all suggestions and recommendations...and thank you for your time and interest!

Lg4 (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well because I did not create that account and do not know the password for it, what can I do?86.29.249.26 (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey its me. I just want to know if you have any advice for an unblock? 86.29.241.83 (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider blocking this POV pushing, sock puppeting, genre warrior. She has been a trouble today as well. — Realist² 18:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here, most of them were blocked by Spellcast or Rodhullandemu. Blah1993blah, or as I like to call her "Jamalar", is as sock puppeting, pov pushing, genre warrior. The above IP has been changing genres, without citations, adding his own person opinion/synopsis yesterday and today. If I were an admin I would block myself, but I'm not, so I can't. Rodhullandemu has considered the possibility of a range block because, quite frankly, Jamalar is doing both our nuts in. :-) — Realist² 18:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting you issue a range block, just filling you in on the extent of the situation. I didn't think it would be a difficult decision to block the IP, purely on the basis that he is openly evading a block on your talk page. Anyway, I don't want you to think I'm applying pressure, I just thought it was a simple, clear issue. As you can imagine, I feel kind of bad badgering the same admin all the time. — Realist² 18:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was all I was asking for/suggesting honestly. I agree that this single IP blocking is getting us nowhere. Before long we will have enough info to support a full range block. I will consider your advise. Cheers Jayron. — Realist² 19:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the prompt attention in removing the mess created by that repeat vandal on my discussion page, there is something that bugs me... since the vandals have so much free time on their hands, it makes me wonder about the kind of contribution they give to society as well as online communities such as Wikipedia. Such a shame for them to waste their time vandalizing when they could make a difference in life and towards the society. Heck, it never ceases to amaze me the kind of immature mentality that some human beings are willing to stoop so low to. Thanks and cheers again~! --Dave1185 (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was beginning to lose hope, so your exposure of the DavidYork71 sock hereis very heartening. A big Thank You! Would you mind going a step further, and undoing all his edits? He also caused a great deal of damage at Pederastic relationships in classical antiquity and many other articles. Or would you prefer that I go through his edits and fix the mess myself on a case by case basis? Haiduc (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will deal with that. Would you mind checking out another (largely) single purpose account and (apparently) sock, also devoted to eroding pederasty-related topics? Thanks, --Haiduc (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, we got that one a LONG time ago: [1]. It was at first tied to a different person, but then checkuser confirmed that they ALL were DavidYork... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a *5%@#/ relief! I can´t believe I put up with his nonsense for as long as I did without having him checked out. So much for assuming good faith. You know what they say in the army about assuming. Thanks again. --Haiduc (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jayron, would you be able to paste the contents of Why We Suck: A Feel Good Guide to Staying Fat, Loud, Lazy and Stupid to my talk page. Thanks a lot, 04:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh was it? That's okay then. I was just looking for a page on it, as it's a new book by Denis Leary and was just wondering if it was mistaken as an attack, but obviously not. Thanks anyways, Grsz^{11 →Review!} 14:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jayron. I took the liberty of adding your signature to this list. I hope that's alright. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How did I make you look like an idiot, complete or otherwise? I corrected inaccurate info. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't bringing it up to poke the anon or demand public recognition for my education. At all; Crossmr had posted the info to suggest that I had lied about having multiple degrees when I had one, which is inaccurate. I corrected it. I didn't go any further than that, except to point out the pair of sources he used to state such were in fact the same diff, and did not contradict that which I have said all along. Let me reiterate: I only mentioned the educational info to clarify an incorrect representation of it, and not to seek recognition or advantage in any discussion.

Even further, I have not brought up the subject of my educational background in an article discussion since being corrected on the etiquette of doing such in Wikipedia many months ago. Nor will I ever do so in the future. Please don't confuse me correcting a misreading with using that info to sway an argument in a discussion - it's why I separated off the paragraph and directed my comments to Crossmer specifically.

Lastly, if I never have contact with the anon again, that will suit me just fine. Whether he is site banned ar interaction banned, I have no real preference, except to suggest that the latter will likely not work, as similar measures haven't proven successful in the past. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for understanding and your kind apology, Jayron. Perhaps I should have written it better. I am not expecting Crossmr to strike his words, but I had wanted to give him an opportunity to retract them, as they were incorrect - and he's been pretty neutral in this matter. I just didn't want the comment to sit unchallenged in an AN archive, and get tugged out when I eventually run for admin. This anon stuff has worn me out as well, esp. considering that the other person appears to be in my neck of the woods. I want it to go away. From the tone on the anon's usetalk page, I suspect it won't. Good editing to you, and if we do not interact before then, have a good triple holiday. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the comments of the anon fairly point out that anything I post is going to be further rope with which to hang himself. You were right about that. No more comments from me on the topic. The anon is going to do whatever they want, no matter what we decide. Again, sorry this shit with him isn't long over. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...sigh... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. :-/ - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm not the most pleasant when dealing with disruptive editors, but I am thankful and gracious when someone goes out of their way to do something that benefits the 'pedia. I appreciate the headsup. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needed, an editor to look over the formatting and content of Fast fashion. The article is currently in its primary stages of developement right now. Any suggestions, help, or questions are welcome!!! Help needed as soon as possible. Thanks

Smeast08Smeast08 (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC) 12:13 21 Novemeber 2008[reply]

Really? Because you look like you have a handle on the basic formatting of the article. It looks like its in pretty good shape. I have no personal interest or resources in the subject, so I'm not sure I could do much more for the article. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks, I appreciate your help!!! Smeast08 (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct the date as the BFR was taken out of circulation in 2000 and the 500 BFR was discontinued in 2002. So 2008 is an impossible date. Thanks Zyclop (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT. If you have the information to back up that statement (I certainly don't) then please, be my guest, go ahead and fix it! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please look up EURO and the time-line. I cannot edit the page; is secured. Otherwise I would have done so. Thanks. Zyclop (talk) 05:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see the problem, you are a new user. Just wait 4 days, and make 10 edits to other articles, and you're "new user status" will wear off, and you will be allowed to edit the page like all other registerred users. See WP:AUTOCONFIRM --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIV, please.CSHunt68 (talk) 05:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PUH-leez... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahahaaha. You note how a situation stinks like open ass and no one blinks a lash, but you say knuckleheads and get a CIV warning. XD ROFL. This site cracks me up with the ridiculous claims of incivility. لennavecia 06:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blow me Jennavecia. Is that civil enough for ya... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Hey, Jayron? Blow me. And, Jenna, while you're at it, you blow me, too. :) CSHunt68 (talk) 06:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough blowing. Lara knows me well enough to blow me, probably. You, on the other hand, will need a VD test and a signed permission slip... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuckleheads (sic) don't need signatures. We're free to blow at will.CSHunt68 (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jayron32, I want to say thank you for letting me back on wikipedia. I promise to behave and keep wikipedia safe. Also I will not create anymore sockpuppets at all. Plyjacks (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jayron, are you going to reply here? If not, I would like to remove the message so others don't post their messages there. Thanks and best regards, --ChrisiPK (talk) 20:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everywhere I turn today I seem to find your comments. Just to say they're appreciated, O wise one.  :) Gwinva (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It comes from me being an asshole who doesn't know when to shut up, and who has no sense of his own limitations. But thanks for finding my answers useful! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've had to warn this user about vandalism to Days of Our Lives related articles. I believe he/she is using this IP --> 85.226.75.52 to circumvent the block. Editing style is the same, and articles are similar. I am unfamiliar with sockpuppetry reports. Just thought I would bring it to your attention. Thank you. Rm994 (talk) 06:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this activity on the block log and as a newbie vandal fighter, I come to ask: how do you know a blocked user is still editing under IP? I see the tip above, but wondered if you were watching the article pages as well? And how did you catch the second IP? I read your Principles of Vandal Fighting, by the way, very helpful. Regards, Chuckiesdad (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info - Chuckiesdad (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User is still circumventing the blocks with similar IP's at EJ Wells, Nicole Walker, and Sami Brady. What can we do? Rm994 (talk) 05:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32, this is interesting and complex, thanks for taking time to fill me in. I'm impressed with how quickly editors respond and pitch in when assistance is requested. Regards, Chuckiesdad (talk) 04:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Jayron. Those questions I've asked are mine. I ain't making any conclusion, but rather pointing out (IMHO) the core of the Giano -VS- Administrators/Arbitrations long running fight. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see the prob, now. I've fixed it up. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was recently interacting with Babakexorramdin (talk · contribs), and decided to check the contributions for the user. The page redirects to another page Kamranmirza (talk · contribs), and it shows no contributions whatsoever (all of the user's contributions and block are logged in the pre-redirected page for Babakexorramdin). This seems honky, but might just be a misstep by the user. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a somehow mistaken way of handling something. (Oops, sorry for barging in, I thought I was posting to an ANI thread) Gwen Gale (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. I guess I can see how that might happen; my name used to keep popping up in ANI/I threads, but hopefully, that particular ploy and nastiness has proven to be unsuccessful and, hopefully, not to be revisited.

I didn't think it was a surreptitious thing; I just didn't know how to fix it. The editor needs to either change their user name or something, I would imagine. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a username change would be called for, else soft links between the two user pages. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd offer to assist the user in doing so, but I am not sure how to go about that. Gwen, could you or Jayrone appraise them of the issue? I don't want to make the concern seem like an outgrowth of article discussion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen, why don't you take care of this, since you already seem more involved and interested than I... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:P Gwen Gale (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that as a "yes". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:) Gwen Gale (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll take that to mean "Jay, your the best damn editor here at Wikipedia, and I could only hope to be as cool as you some day". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but WP:SPADE prevents us from saying so, ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:D Gwen Gale (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have reprimanded user Factcheckeratyourservice for "edit warring" at Sarah Palin. I'd have thought that your sysoppian power is allied to various responsibilities. Among them, surely, the exercise of intelligence in the execution of whatever you might see as your policing duties.

If you'd taken the trouble to read the SP talk page before you started throwing your weight around elsewhere you'd know that for some time now Factcheckeratyourservice has been attempting, with almost superhuman patience, to deal with a couple of other SP contributors who are totally intractable. Both are exponents of incivility and obdurate non-collaboration as instruments of force to overcome any reasoned arguments that support additions or changes they don't want. One in particular habitually reverts material from the article while refusing to explain why. (Note Factchecker's despairing SP talk observation: "...as of yesterday, Tom [user Threeafterthree] has deleted the entire rape kit section at least 22 separate times, without much discussion other than "this is irrelevant" or "this goes in the Fannon bio".)

It's entirely unrealistic to order Factchecker (and Threeafterthree) to engage in discussion at the talk page to resolve differences when even a cursory read of the interactions at talk proves that Factchecker and user Anarchangel, for example, have already tried this course. They have tried and tried and tried.

If you really want to help, swing by the SP talk page and use your SuperSysopPerson power to impose some conditions that will actually enable the discussion to get somewhere. Your orders to continue a process that has already failed are futile, if not downright counter-productive, in the absence of intervention.

Thank you. — Writegeist (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support, Write. To Jayron: I'd like to start out by pointing out the compromise that resulted in the inclusion of this text in the first place.

For my part, though I completely respect your authority to warn me for disruption, I could have sworn the "disruption" was the same editor deleting the material over and over again (25 times by now?) after it was added by compromise among numerous editors. I'm gratified that you have also warned Threeafterthree against this edit warring, but profoundly disappointed that his deletion stands, even though it was unwarranted in the first place, and now I will be blocked if I restore it. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring means to repeatedly commit the same edits over and over. If the talk page hasn't worked to resolve the problem, please seek dispute resolution by bringing in uninvolved parties. But do not continue to commit the same edit over and over, and this applies to BOTH of you... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron, could you please, please, PLEASE take a look at the following discussion I just had on the Palin talk page, replicated on my own talk page to focus on the part I am trying to show you, to see the sort of "discussion" that takes place there and why it is fruitless with certain participants?

This just gets more and more frustrating as time goes on. My view is that I am forced to waste my time refuting nonsense arguments which are irrational at best, or perhaps dishonest and deceitful at worst. If discussion is not logical and on-point, how can it have any positive result? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Fair enough, but the net effect of your intervention has been to allow TaT's deletion to stand unchallenged. I think you were wrong to warn us both yet leave his last deletion un-reverted. I would have preferred it if you had simply reverted it yourself and then blocked BOTH of us. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not talking about the protect. My half of the "edit warring" was a reaction, not an instigation. That material stood untouched for weeks, since we all left it alone after reaching the compromise. TaT did not re-engage the discussion, simply began deleting it again. By forbidding further warring without reverting it back to the state it was in before the warring began, you tacitly endorsed the deletion, even if that was not your primary intention. So I would disagree with the assertion that you took no position. And yes, I really am invoking the child's rule of "he started it". Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jayron32,
I've noted that your name appears on the list of volunteers for peer review. I would greatly appreciate if you could have a look at Masters Tournament and give me some suggestions on how to improve the article here. Prose related issues would be even more greatly appreciated :). Thanks for your time! Grovermj 08:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Thanksgiving, Jayron32!
As we all sit down at the dinner table and say our thanks today, I would like to give thanks to you for your wonderful contributions and wish you a very happy Thanksgiving. May your turkey and ham satiate you until next year! Kind regards, – Obento Musubi (C • G • S)
To send this message to another friend, please paste {{subst:User:The Obento Musubi/Thanksgiving | ~~~}} on their talk page.

I'm not a sock, you edited a case in which I'm trying to clear my name.

If you don't want to look...Good...Don't touch it and let someone else look, I'm trying to clear my account. If I WAS a damn sock I'd just change screennames without a fight, that is my only account and I want it back.

--67.160.51.32 (talk) 02:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time, I'm not a short-tempered guy but he was really starting to annoy me... Anyway, I'm leaning towards the opinion that semi-protection won't stop him in the long run. He started harassing me because the block extension apparently got to him, maybe he'd "get the message" if his evasion block got extended? He's not Wikipedia-wise and probably thinks noone even knows he's behind it. :P --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'twas User:Ragusino, without a doubt. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help with User:Reality Maker. If you would, could you check their contributions. I don't think that their other images are public domain, or whatever he claims, either but the whole image licensing thing confuses me to no end. Thanks again, Dismas|^(talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The December 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work; I was hoping someone who had more time than me would finish that section off!!!! Dafoeberezin3494 (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jayron.

A request for peer review was made for the article Moscow Gold. Seeing as you seem to be pretty active, experienced, and interested in history, maybe you might like to take a look at it. The article was translated from Spanish, but its coverage is pretty extensive. I personally think it could attain featured article status with some work - what do you think?--CarlosPatiño (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please protect List of Days of Our Lives Cast Members? Multiple IP's have been vandalizing, and it's hard to keep a handle on it. Thanks. Rm994 (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I much prefered your original title as well - made me giggle somewhat :). There's so much Wikidrama around that I see nothing bad when it comes to a bit of light-hearted joking, when it's appropriate. _TalkIslander 22:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HarleyLocal605 has attempted to do a copy and paste move to Daisho Con sans the AFD notice. I've undone the move since it was inappropriate. But now he has left a personal attack on my talk page because of my reverts.[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFarix (talk • contribs)

One step ahead of you my friend: [3]. Toodles! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved editor:

I see that you requested a RFCU on this person and Langford88. It does look like possible block evasion. It could be 2 high school friends, the second one who got the idea after talking with his friend about being blocked (the blocked person could have mentioned in passing the articles that he wrote thus giving the second person the idea).

The biggest redeeming factor is that you wrote that HarleyLocal605 was "He took exception to this, harassed a few editors (including me)". Langford88 has clearly not done this. So even if they are the same person, a lesson has been learned.

The question then becomes if you want to uphold Wikipedia rules to the letter and block Langford88 or whether you want to assume that the lesson of not harrassing people has been learned and allow Langford88 to edit. If the latter is the case, then withdrawal of RFCU is the thing to do to save checkuser time and effort.

I don't have an opinion either way but this is how I analyzed the situation. Chergles (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might note that one very popular ArbCom candidate said that if a productive editor evades a ban, they don't automatically have to be blocked. I don't have an opinion on this either way but this is what I read yesterday. Chergles (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. As I said, I was making an observation, not asking for more harsh or less harsh actions. I was just brainstorming (when one says a lot of possibilities without being afraid of saying them; this sometimes results in one of them making a lot of sense. If one is afraid to say things, sometimes good solutions can be overlooked).

Part of the brainstorming was to reduce the checkuser's workload.

What I like about considering only the content of the edit is the evidence is black and white. There is no guesswork on the part of the checkuser. We just consider the edits. The problem with that is considering edits requires a brain.

Once again, thanks for your reply. I'm not asking you to do anything one way or another. I just saw your checkuser request, that's all. Chergles (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Daisho Con entry is pretty much a crap pile right now. I'd like to see it deleted and restarted, or just wiped clean. What concerns me though is that it's up for deletion due to lack of notability. I'd like to cross reference this to you to hear your thoughts, as I don't find the inclusion criteria to be the issue at hand:

I would just like to point out that the 3rd party media coverage of Daisho Con, specifically found here:[4] does indeed satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. The same story is linked to by several other indipendent/reliable news sources as well i.e. Green Bay Press Gazette: [5]

Wikipedia's inclusion criteria does not have a minimum number of coverage stories, only that they present "Significant coverage" (address the subject directly in detail, etc.) Something to keep in mind is that this is a first year convention. It's not going to have CNN knocking at the door, or a ton of other coverage for that matter. This shouldn't be held against Daisho Con's entry when it comes to notability/inclusion.

Also, entries such as No Brand Con: [6] are referenced entirely from animecons.com information...which no one has taken an issue with, including TheFarix who has done some work on that entry himself?

Please give me your feedback/recommendation. It is appreciated VicFlik (talk) 08:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the tips, I'm trying to familiarize myself with Wikipedia a bit more which is why I'm bringing this up to you and others with experience. VicFlik (talk) 06:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You made a great comment and gave helpful advice on how anyone should use Wikipedia. Thank you for your words. Thomprod (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious... I left a note on the RD Talk page to tell editors that they shouldn't respond to the troll. You deleted the warning and responded. Is there some other wording I could have used that would have done a better job at keeping you from responding to the troll? -- kainaw™ 14:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am just an asshole. You can delete my message and restore your warning. Feel free to ignore anything I do as unconstructive and ultimately worthless... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't call editors names, even if they happen to be you. This kind of incivility may get you perpetually blocked. Please comment on your contributions not on your contributor. How would it make you feel if you called yourself an asshole? ---Sluzzelin talk 14:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as an administrator, I reported myself to myself and when I reviewed the situation, I determined that myself was on good terms with myself, and thus calling myself names was taken to be in good spirits, and not considered an insult. However, I will watch myself for any sort of bad-faith comments against myself, and if needed I will block myself... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would prefer Jayron32 comments to remain intact. I want people to see the personal attacks made against me for no valid reason. Is it persmissible under Wikipedia for an editor to make a personal attack on another user and then delete it, essentially covering it up? If possible, I would like it restored. I have no problem with Jayron32 putting a strike-through over his comments, but I want people to see how I've been treated. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 15:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever you want. I don't care. You continue to make yourself less relevent and important to me with every action you take at Wikipedia... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not going to insert your comments back on your behalf. I'm not sure that's ethical. In any case, nevermind. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the principle "No-consensus in any discussion should ALWAYS preserve the status quo. In an MFD, the status quo is the existence of the article" was not obeyed in the User:Apovolot MfD decision - so what could be done to correct and undo that deletion mistake ? Apovolot (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You just have said: "and administrators are supposed to take into account the content of comments, not simply the number of votes. It is not enough to simply count the votes and decide that "5 were for and 5 were against, so there is no consensus". The nature and content of the discussion should inform administrator's decision" - but Airvant didn't use this principle in Drv closing decision - in fact Airvant did'nt give any other (than "no consensus") rational for his decision. You also have said: "please start a deletion review discussion" - yes I want to do this - could you point me to process description, please. Apovolot (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC) So do I have a formal avenue to appeal again the original Mfd - if so, how this could be done ? Apovolot (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited and sacled down mmy article, but have not heard back from anyone. What is the next step? What further step might I take? Have do I deal with the comment that the article is "orphaned" and that it needs "clean-up"? Again, thanks for your help! Lg4 (talk) 02:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you kindly keep an eye over Hinduism and Buddhism article on the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buddhism_and_Hinduism&action=history

The other editor Mitsube appears to be very aggressive and is undoing edits without properly discussing them. He appears to be biased as he continues to suppress well referenced edits which do not seem to agree with his thesis.

I have been trying to avoid an edit war and would appreciate some moderation. Thanks.--Satyashodak (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jayron, Thanks for getting in touch. To be honest, I'm a little confused. Obviously, I've been putting up a lot of links to one site, however all of the content that is being put up is both relevant and useful. As such, why would it be considered spam? Please advise.

Also, have my edits been removed? I look forward to hearing from you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psch1986 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice Jayron. So how can I put up content from the site without sourcing it as in most cases it was genuinely enriching the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psch1986 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

83.108.25.133 – from Norway, editing Bryan Adams articles, making the same types of spelling errors, claiming to know how discographies should be formatted. Case closed, I'd say. —Zeagler (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He continues to edit: 80.212.228.54. —Zeagler (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you with this but I suspect User:Be Black Hole Sun is editing again as User:QotSA. The editing style, subject matter and a knack for inaccuracy are all very similar. Piriczki (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two more: RECORDCharts and Wiki libs 2. —Zeagler (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron, thank you so much for pitching in on my search for this "Prof. G[e]rashchenko." Seems like my next avenue of inquiry leads to the Majdanek museum, with my hopes raised by mention (on the Majdanek page) of work done in 2005 by someone on their staff. Meanwhile, I'd like you to know your RD response had quite an impact you couldn't have known: I first read your reply in the middle of my 2-1/2 hour demonstration of Wikipedia to a group of nine educators in a state-sponsored program helping teenage dropouts in Galilee communities get their h.s. equivalency. (Incidentally, two former CIS immigrants among the teachers were quite emphatic that Viktor Gerashchenko is Jewish, no less!) Anyway, my effort—voluntary, like all I do in WP—is just getting off the ground...and if these teachers' enthusiasm is any indication of what's ahead, I believe this will snowball and fulfill its potential for doing a lot of good for all concerned. So keep up the good work; you do us proud! -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. I am glad my personality flaws of being a "know it all" have helped you in some way! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we remove all links and all mentions of The Library Corporation in Wikipedia?? There are too many SPAM links!! -- Raysonho (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to, see Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. That should take care of it. I have removed all links that are counter to policy that I have found. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is from SirsiDynix - They keep deleting us and only leaving their links. I am adding The Library Corporation and ALL links to the companies. Raysonho seems to ONLY want SirsiDynix on there - Please do not let him run a monopoly on Wiki!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Look at this edits - he only leaves SirsiDynix - I am trying to include everyone!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trillium608 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't work for any library software company, and in fact I wrote the Chinese wikipedia version of Evergreen (software). No matter what, all SPAM links of any kind will be deleted in wikipedia. -- Raysonho (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't care. I am not swayed by his arguements. The policy exists, if he continues to violate it, he may suffer consequences for it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is from SirsiDynix - They keep deleting us and only leaving their links. I am adding The Library Corporation and ALL links to the companies. Raysonho seems to ONLY want SirsiDynix on there - Please do not let him run a monopoly on Wiki!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks Trillium608 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trillium608 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trillium608, I am not the one removing all the links. I basically reverted your edits. You keep on adding multiple external links in the same article, and that is considered as SPAM by others.

In fact, it is not uncommon for Wikipedia editors and administrators to delete all external links, as Wikipedia is not a place for you or any company to place ads. -- Raysonho (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User is blocked for continuing despite warnings. No need to continue this debate on my page. See WP:RBI. Let's all "I" now, mkay? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jayron32. -- Raysonho (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is SirsiDynix allowed to be on there and The Library Corporation is not? Raysoho works for SirsiDynix!! Please include all library software companies - which is what I'm trying to do. My links are not inappropriate - Raysoho is trying to only have his company on here - ALL should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trillium608 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sigh as well, but I suspect for different reasons. I just wanted to be sure that you noticed my response.—Kww(talk) 22:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Permanent is sharp-P-complete. I have got to start using "Clusterfuck" as a discussion result more often. Maybe we should get Mr.Z-man to add it to his Afd-closing script! Anyway, thanks for the laugh. (Oh, and not that it's necessary, but you made the right call.)--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 09:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you closed this AfD. The use of the word "Clusterfuck" to descibe the close does not particularly bother me, but I disagree with your analysis of the situation. Prior to laudak's involvement, the article was in fact being improved (by me), as is customary during the AfD process. His actions, joint with a couple of other users, however, were extremely inappropriate: setting up a separate fork article (computation of the permanent) designed to kill this one, transferring all of my improvements and sources there, and then gutting the AfD article of these improvements and changing its title. A worse example of gaming the system I have never seen here, and I have seen a lot of AfDs. Of course after his "hit and run" job the AfD, that had in fact been clearly headed for a "keep" prior to Laudak's involvement, was completely sabotaged. This sort of behaviour is highly inappropriate and should not be rewarded. In spite of loud protestations by a few delete !voters, the situation with this article had not been very different from many of typical AfDs. The subject of the article, in its pre-AfD version, was clearly identified in its lede section as the theorem stating that computing the permanent is sharp-P-complete. Most of the article was occupied by a proof. Even if one accepts that having the proof was entirely inappropriate (which I certainly do not), the objection to having the proof as a part of the article was an issue of balance, not deletion. The main deletion issue in such cases is whether the stated subject of the article (theorem) is notable and whether the article is improvable. The answer to both question was quite clearly "yes", as the AfD showed. I would ask you to change the version that is currently protected to one that the article had before the AfD was hijacked by Laudak. I also think that the AfD actually deserved a formal "keep" closure, both because of what the !votes cast actually say and because disruptive AfD-hijacking attempts like those perpetrated by Laudak should not be encouraged, even indirectly. Also, if you are going to leave the article protected, please restore the pre-Laudak version of it as a more sane basis for the start of the discussion on how to proceed further. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 10:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at yes and no. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be interested in RFCU on Tajik results, see section's 14 and 15. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's exactly what I expected. The issue as I always read it was at least 2 seperate sock farms that were commenting on each other's RFCU reports. I knew that it wasn't Tajik, but I also knew that it was a user who had been banned for other reasons as well. Thanks for the headsup tho!--Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely appreciate it, especially that I need to patrol for vandalism. Thank you! Optakeover (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, have a great and safe Christmas. I hope Santa brings you everything you want :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 12:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Merry Christmas and God Bless back atcha. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert Wells (songwriter), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 05:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to have a go at you by pointing this out, but it does bug me somewhat:

"For the record, I have never been a fan of Betacommand's rudeness or refusal to abide by simple rules of civility ... That being said, lay the fuck off of him".

I hope my point's fairly clear. _TalkIslander 15:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your point that the use of an expletive is prima-faciae evidence of incivility is duly noted. However, it should be noted that sometimes, the use of expletives for emphasis or for drawing attention to a point is deliberate and intentional and not merely for "decoration", or for the sake of being rude. Generally, adults with a full grasp of the English language understand the appropriate use of such words. It is unfortunate that you find the use of such words as automatically rude, without considering their context. Had I meant to be offensive or intentionally rude or offputting, I may have apologized. However my use of the word "fuck" was neither meant to offend or attack other editors, nor be incivil, and as such I feel no remorse or regret over its use. I cannot control your internal emotions; your emotions and feelings are yours and you have every right to have them, but please do not expect me to acede to the implicit claim that you make above that I was somehow hypocritical or wrong because I used the word "fuck". I hope you can see the difference between attacking and berating other users, as Betacommand is wont to do, and the mere use of a "naughty word" in adult discourse. If you cannot, I am not in a position to educate you on the difference between those modes of communication. If you genuinely feel that words like "fuck" cannot be used without being incivil, I can only say that I am sorry you will never come to enjoy the full scope and breadth of the English language and all of its nuance. Again, you have every right to any emotional response you choose to have to such words; but also understand that it's your emotions, and not mine, and thus I feel no need to somehow predict what choices you will make in having those emotional reactions. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. There's so much that I could say to that, and a lot that I disagree with, but I'm really not in the mood for another debate at the moment. Thanks for taking the time to reply, but we'll have to agree to disagree. _TalkIslander 16:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully in agreement with that! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been reviewing the discussion, and see that we have generally moved into the realms of "how can we accommodate BC in future/how to we get BC to comply with restrictions" - which is all well and good, but I don't see a consensus that he should be unblocked! I see almost no opposes against my original indefinite block notice, and the unblock discussion promoted by you was closed as no consensus; therefore I think a consensus was established for the current block. Subsequently BC made his statement, and a good number of people argued that an unblock should be considered but not (in my view) sufficient to change the recently established consensus for the block.
To allow the discussion regarding the terms under which Betacommand may return to editing to develop to a consensus, I think there has to be a determination given that BC remains under indefinite block pending a change in consensus and that this needs to be stated clearly at WP:ANI. I think that it might be best if it were to be made by you, and/or Ryan Postlethwaite (who I will be copying this message) than by me as the blocking admin. This would allow the community to focus on how BC may be allowed to return (I favour the status quo; the restrictions worked because only by the block was BC forced to reconsider his actions) and BC to address the issues. As the block is indefinite, then when a sysop is prepared to unblock they can bring the matter to ANI and present their case, and enact the unblock upon reaching consensus. If you, together with Ryan if considered necessary, feel that a "resolved, Betacommand indefinitely blocked" template should be placed upon the matter please do not feel it necessary to confirm to me - but I am otherwise open to discuss anything arising from this suggestion. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no impending need to short-circuit the discussion in this manner. Implicit in any discussion of terms for continued participation by Betacommand is that he is unblocked; I don't think that anyone participating in the discussion thought that Betacommand would be left forever blocked if we are currently discussing conditions by which he could return! Honestly, I thought that the block in this case was premature; but given both my past interactions with Beta, and the general course of the discussion, I am not sure he will be missed. He certainly will not be missed by me... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuggit. You were right LHvU. I closed it. It was clear to me after reading it over and over that closing was the best option. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For your outstandingly excellent admin work and your civility/politeness as well as your exemplary tone. Thank you for all that, Jayron. — Aitias // discussion 05:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan K. Shane! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be kind enough to unblock Lightbot? I will not use the bot to unlink common units of measurement until the RFC has concluded. But there are many other good tasks that it can do. Lightmouse (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937. Any inputs you can offer would be appreciated! Thanks. Foofighter20x (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are a user who responded to RFC: Use of logos on sports team pages. As someone interested in the discussion a new straw poll has been laid out to see where we currently stand with regards to building a consensus. For the sake of clarity, please indicate your support or opposition (or neutrality) to each section, but leave discussion to the end of each section. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a user who responded to the straw poll regarding non-free images in sports, your further input is requested with regards to the Straw poll summary and proposed guidelines on image use — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jayron32. There is a new contest for U.S. and Canada roads that you may be interested in. To sign up or for more information, please visit User:Rschen7754/USRDCRWPCup. The contest begins Saturday at 00:00 UTC. Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 04:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The January 2009 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London Force is a real band! and as a founding member I resent that you deleted its Wikipedia page which while it may have been semi-incorrect information was a valuable addition to the Wikipedia community and I am not happy with the way you mis-treated our page. -respectfully M. West 71.184.93.49 (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the band is a real band, then someone outside of Wikipedia has written about it. Please find that writing, and use it to build an article that is compliant with our policies, especially WP:N and WP:BAND. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You don't know me. Nobody knows anybody here, and I'm nobody, to boot. I just felt the need to tell you what I'm thinking about your demeanor on the reference desks. You come off a little "bitey". I like sarcstic humor much better than the next guy, truth be told, but it's out of place there, sadly. Here's an example. I hope you'll take this message as a friendly nudge toward a higher standard of refdesk hospitality and professionalism. The refdesk interfaces Wikipedians with the public, and we want to create a good (if admittedly bland) impression. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right. Sorry about that. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keeps adding untruth statments to Carly Corinthos and Jasper Jacks. I have revisted his edits and undid them. When i leave he just redoes them. --M42380 (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the IP is telling untruths. General Hospital's official site lists Carly's current marital status as married to Jasper Jacks1. Jasper Jack's Bio says he is currently married to Carly Corinthos Jacks2. SoapCentral also lists them as still married.Rocksey (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no longer unsure. The editor you banned was not the editor adding false information to the article. The IP was correct that Carly Corinthos and Jasper Jacks are still legally married. I edited both articles with that information and provided these sources [7][8].Rocksey (talk) 03:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP had whois data that matched other IPs of a known troll and banned user. That those specific edits turned out to be Kosher is moot. It was not the deciding factor in blocking him. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, on November 15th we had a conversation about a sockpuppet vandal, and you were very helpful. I have another candidate, possibly the same fellow with a new hat, here. Can you check him out or is there an official way of doing these things? Thanks, --Haiduc (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I promise you in not a BBHS. Please isn't it a way to prove that i'm not BBHS, because i know i'm not BBHS and i want you and any other user in wikipedia to know i'm not guilty of this charge. Please help me with this one, please. I'm not a BBHS. A solution is all i want, nothing else, so please let me prove that i'm not a BBHS. Retrospective III —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.54.130 (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This IP has been confirmed to be BBHS via CU. Good call on blocking it, Jay. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 19:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used poor man's checkuser to confirm it as well. Norweigian with poor English skills editing music articles? Mmmmm... who could it be?!? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that; removed the statement. I guess it's just satisfying to point out silliness! :-D Thanks and take care, man! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your question was removed and I haven't seen it. What was the question? [I am in no way committing to give you an answer.] Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not my question, you are mistaken. Response left at your talk page. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time you have invested to study me on Wikipedia and thank you for the accuse ;)Matter of fact I don’t have another account currently and yes it’s true I am not any new to Wikipedia. I was a frequent editor for like a year ago and I think I just lost the password ;) — Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You still think the bad of me, I am telling you it was like a year or over that, I don’t even remember my username, I am telling the truth if you do not believe me then feel free to take a sock check for any user you suspect me for — Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine — Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the editor Wikkiiwriter is an administrator, should he be answering requests as tho he is???? also. how can I check his contributions. Thank you...--Buster7 (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...didn't realize that. I guessed that since it was called the Administrators Notice board, that it would be patrolled and facilitated by Administrators. How foolish of me!--Buster7 (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't take long after you removed the page protection for the vandals to return. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed nothing. Protections expire. I will look into it tho. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into it. It was one IP user, who has been stopped. I don't see the edit war that existed before. I see no reason to reinstitute protection at this time. If the edit war returns, please request protection at WP:RFPP and if vandalism is a problem, ask that the vandals be blocked at WP:AIV. Thanks for your vigilance. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given what you wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No, you might like to see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No (2nd nomination). Uncle G (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of James Scott Cooper at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Jappalang (talk) 00:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jayron32. First, thanks for taking the time to respond to my help desk question. Some time ago, another admin suggested I submit something to the Essay section. I've been working on it a little bit, and wanted to get some other opinions. The article in question is here. I wanted to get some other opinions before I even looked at how to submit it. While I am familiar with how to create an article, I'm not really sure what procedures are involved for the essay part which fall outside the normal Wikipedia namespace. (I hope I'm using the proper terminology here). Thanks again, I hope I've explained a little better this time. Ched (talk) 06:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK ... let me read through the Essay section talk pages, a bit. I'm basically wanting to get opinions on how to improve it, and didn't know if "peer review" or RfC was proper. I followed the link to that essay section, and didn't know how article got there. I'll read and research a little more and get back to you in a day or two (if that's ok with you). I do appreciate your time. Ched --Ched (talk) 06:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for any confusion caused by my editing of "Presidency of Barack Obama". You accused me of "vandalizing" the page. If it is your opinion that it is "vandalism" to remove the INCREDIBLY RACIST photo I found on that site of a gorilla instead of Prsident Obama, then I plead guilty of vandalism. I'd rather be a vandal than allow such gutter racism to stand on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.22.137 (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi Jayron 32 some monthe back we dicussed this now i habe been able to make a stub. could you help me with some translation doubts? which are marled by / or (..)in the text or may be you know whom to ask. see as well the discussion of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_bankruptcy thanks --Stefanbcn (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, you recently dealt with an editor who has been banned and repeatedly blocked due to his relentless self-promotion. Harvardlaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), aka David J Silver. I've indef blocked the latest account and put a long term block on the IP.   Will Beback  talk  16:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

good times. Do you remember which incarnation of him I dealt with? I don't recognize him right now... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, yes, I guess that'd be helpful! User:Silver ENT (talk · contribs) created David J Silver Enterprises LLC, roughly the eighth article he's written about himself (not counting many recreations of those titles). I also blocked 72.223.0.151 and 72.222.215.140. I believe he uses a DSL or similar connection with semi-static IPs, and has returned to using the same IPs when short blocks have expired, so I applied six month blocks instead of the usual short ones. Anyway, no special action required. I was just letting you know that he's a longterm problem so that there'll be more eyes watching out for him in the future.   Will Beback  talk  03:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AH... Well then. I will definately keep my eyes open. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tahnks for your indication

i hope i have put it here correctly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Translation/National_bankruptcy

--Stefanbcn (talk) 02:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was childish. You gave me a very good opportunity to look back on myself. I made up my mind to have a conversation with Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs). I don't spare my efforts to realize mutual understanding with Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs). --Bukubku (talk) 05:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a response on the talk page with a link to the AIV report diff. I have also contacted the user who made the AIV report for clarification. Daniel Case (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted him again for adding the non-free picture into Matt Smith (British actor), and left what I feel is an acceptable explanation, but since you were involved with the unblock process I thought you might want to try and head off the problem before he becomes indistinguishable from a SPA. I just don't think he's going to listen to me, since he already removed several explanations by me with no comment (or one with a very flamy comment). Templarion (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. If you are happy to unblock, then I have no objections (if you have not done so already). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This user, who you blocked, has asked me to be unblocked. He's currently editing anyway as User:whirl editing. Technically this new account should have been blocked as block evasion. I'm not exactly willing to help him if he's been sending abusive emails about me. The JPS^{talk to me} 16:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I would rather not block him myself as I have had a couple of content disputes with him, and it might justify his claims. I would, of course, support you at ArbCom, if it went that far. (I would, though, block any future account.) The JPS^{talk to me} 21:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the note I left at User talk:Matt72in. Although I support sustaining the block, the reason you gave -- that it was to evade a block for another account -- doesn't quite mesh with the timing. --EEMIV (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I thought it was 4 hours, not 28 hours. Sorry about that. Still, I don't think this counts as a valid use of a second account. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On that, we completely agree :-) --EEMIV (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, thanks for taking the time to comment on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. I am glad you see how important this guideline will be, since it will determine the inclusion or exclusion of television character and television episodes. I could tell your points were thought out, and they came across as very intelligent Ikip (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. I try to fake intelligence where I can. "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit". Just don't tell anyone, OK? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Have you considered joining WP:Article Rescue Squadron? We could use your wit in helping to save articles. Ikip (talk) 05:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I tend to have a hard time getting worked up over random articles outside of my particular interests. If I find an article I am already interested in that needs clean-up, I will usually handle it. However, the idea of "rescuing" random articles which I have little interest otherwise doesn't really float my boat... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me too actually. It is hard to defend an article on some obscure business or some rock band in Australia I never heard of, nor ever will.

I spend time helping new editors, about wikipolicy, and how to make their article better to survive deletion, which is really rewarding.

I hate and despise working on policy, but I see it as the only way to help and retain the most editors (the majority of articles for deletion are against new editors articles).

Recently I took another editors excellent idea and made: Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Hall of Fame maybe you belong in this too? Ikip (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your name is being brought up here: MediaWiki_talk:Watchlist-details#Add_notice_to_advertise_WP:FICT.27s_adoption_as_a_guideline Ikip (talk) 06:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, but I don't think I have anything to add. Protonk appears to have captured my opinion on the matter quite well. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

your welcome. I always enjoy a heads up. Ikip (talk) 06:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]