Jayron32

Low key

Thank you for owning up to your actions. Do you now recognize the problem you participated in? Will you be wiser in the future and avoid helping friends (or others) to violate policy? Jehochman ^Talk 10:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I've participated in lots of RfAs and very rarely have I seen candidates asked if they have histories with other accounts on Wikipedia. So it seems strange set up a system where we encourage editors to start over with new identities, don't expect editors to be forthright about their histories, and then point the finger at those who don't disclose "what they know". I'm not even sure it's a good idea to try to prevent editors from getting fresh starts. Why not just focus on rooting out collusion, corruption, and damage to the encyclopedia? I don't see any from the present circumstances, except for all the drahmaz instigated by those looking to settle scores. If there's a policy discussion to be had it should be separate from the present controversy. I am a strong supporter of greater leniency and giving editors a chance to clear their records so there wouldn't be a need for deception or the creating of new identities. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you an alternative account of Jayron32? If not, please let him answer the questions himself. Jehochman ^Talk 23:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As I stated, I am neither embarassed nor ashamed of what I did. I do see the consequences of what has happened now. Had I had the forsight to see the problems this has caused, I probably would not have voted in Law's RFA at all. I did what I did at the time in good faith. I thought at the time (and still do today) that Law/Undertow is a good editor and good admin. I think what has happened to him is a symptom of systemic shortcomings, not individual ones. The big problem is that Adminship, contrary to what everyone says, is a BIG DEAL. This is because it is so hard to become an admin. If adminship were easier to get, and easier to take away, like being a rollbacker, then it would not be valued so much, and people would not go through deception to get it. Have you ever heard of anyone going through such lengths to become a rollbacker? No, because if they are good editors, they can get it. If they misuse it, it gets taken away. That's it. If adminship were similar, we would not have these problems. With this current controversy, I fear there will be too much of a push to make adminship EVEN harder to get, which will only lead to even more people using deception to get it. That which is hard to get is valuable, and that which is valuable is worth cheating to get. That is the most disheartening thing about this whole mess, is that it feeds people's desires to turn adminship into even MORE of a reward by making it EVEN MORE difficult to get. WP:NOBIGDEAL is long gone, and it is quickly taking WP:BURO with it. --Jayron32 00:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I agree with your views on making adminship easier to get, and easier to take away. We need to deal with the fact that admins don't all have the same level of life experience or cultural norms; what is obvious to one may not be obvious to others. Better professional standards for administrators would help, especially to prevent the appearance of cronyism. Our community is no longer growing, in part because people perceive our power structures to be insular and unfair. Nevertheless, if ArbCom screws up and makes the wrong decision, that needs be appealed and overturned, not subverted by an end run. Unfortunately, that is what happened here, and now there have been consequences. I liked Casliber very much and am quite sorry that he had to resign. Everyone involved needs to take responsibility for their errors and make amends as best they can. Jehochman ^Talk 00:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

adoption?

Hi, I saw you were in the "looking for adoptees" list. What is involved with getting adopted? Thanks, Shymian (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, That page is a bit outdated. I am not currently taking on any more adoptees. --Jayron32 03:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Can I be allowed to make a Discotek Media page on Wikipedia?

I've noticed for the longest time that Wikipedia does not have a page on the Foreign TV/movie distrubutor Discotek Media. And I was wondering what the reason for it is. Other Foreign film companies have their own pages except for this one. Was it due to copyright infringement or was there another reason? If I'm allowed to start a page on Discotek Media, I'll be sure to not include any images that might possibly be copyrighted. I hope to hear your answer soon.E-Master (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)E-Master

You may want to read the notability guideline and the corporation notability guideline. If the company itself does not meet these guidelines, the article is likely to be deleted regardless of the quality of your writing. You should also read Wikipedia's policy on conflicts of interest. --Jayron32 03:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Would you kindly unprotect the Obama article, perhaps first warning people that no further edit warring will be tolerated? Full protection isn't a good way to deal with a very important, heavily edited article, and indefinite protection is unreasonable. I note the article is on probation. If anyone is edit warring you can deal with them quickly under the terms of article probation, but best to keep the article itself free. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 03:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It's 6 hours. If something major happens in the next six hours that requires updating of the article, we can deal with it then. --Jayron32 03:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I had mistakenly thought it was indefinite. Cheers, Wikidemon (talk) 06:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

spam

I know that you've been interested in these issues in the past. Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator — Ched :  ?  04:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Llancillo Church

Hello Jayron32, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Llancillo Church has been removed. It was removed by Cavrdg with the following edit summary '(Update / de-prod)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Cavrdg before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom motions under consideration

Clerk courtesy notice: You are a subject of one or more motions being considered by the Arbitration Committee. The motion(s) is/are:

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Jayron32_admonished
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Jayron32_desysopped

Sincerely, Manning (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you busy?

Hello Jayron 32.

Do you know anything about adding associated acts sections to an infobox. See here. I have been trying on that article but I can't seem to make it show on the table. Any ideas? Thanks.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 20:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. By the way I just saw this. Are you getting ready to leave?--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 23:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope. --Jayron32 23:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I'm just curious as to what it means for you.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 23:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It means I am tired of various drama, much of which currently is self-inflicted. --Jayron32 23:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that's understandable. You know, if I didn't enjoy contributing to the encyclopedia as much as I do, I would've left last month. I prefer to work alongside moral editors with commonsense rather than editors who are just here to swim with the drama.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 23:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Naming of Plymouth

Hello. I noticed a message from you earlier today saying I should insert the information that I placed on the talk page of this piece. After inserting that information, I noticed that you placed a 'commenting out until resolved.' The information I had inserted – at your suggestion – contained a footnote to the earliest history of Plymouth that I'm aware of. What's to be resolved exactly? Are you questioning whether Plymouth was named after the place in Devon? Or what precisely is your point? I haven't noticed any disagreement on the talk page concerning the derivation of the name. In fact, I was simply responding to a poster who wondered why it wasn't included in the first place. MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

There can be some disagreement on whether the colonists came up with the name, or simply went with a name already on the map thanks to Smith. You'll notice that I said from the beginning that Plymouth was the home of most early adventurers and English explorers, which explains why Smith chose the name in the first place. I'm a bit perturbed that after I posted this to the talk page, you suggested I 'fix it,' as you put it, and then when I did, you simply reverted for discussion. In any case, I don't think your source is the last word, and as far as I'm concerned, the matter is still open to debate. MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I agree with your point. Perhaps the two thoughts can be blended. Try a rewrite. I've done many of those in my career. If you need any assistance, let me know. MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I tinkered a bit, but it looks good. Thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I retinkered as well. The word "delineated" means to "seperate", so I am pretty sure that wasn't what you intended. I changed it to "identified" and added a bit about John Smith, since the source text identifies him by name. --Jayron32 05:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The etymology of delineate means 'to define,' or as Webster's would have it, "indicate or represent by drawn or painted lines." [1] Fine to include John Smith, although earlier explorers had also passed by there as well, most notably Bartholomew Gosnold. MarmadukePercy (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it means define in a very specific way; it means to define in such a way as to seperate it by lines. You delineate a territory by drawing its borders, you would identify the location of a settlement. Both delineate and identify mean "to define"; they just mean it in slightly different ways. English words are full of shades of meaning, and it is important to choose the correct word for the situation. --Jayron32 05:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and many explorers besides Smith had explored the area; but none of them named it "New Plymouth". Smith did. --Jayron32 05:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I added the exact date of 1614, which was the year of Smith's visit.MarmadukePercy (talk) 05:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but he called it "Accomack" in 1614. Sometime between 1614 and 1616 he, in consultation with the future Charles II, changed it to New Plymouth. --Jayron32 05:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No, according to this source [2], "This locality, called by the Indians Accomacke, was named Plymouth by Captain John Smith in 1614 and is so noted on his map of New England presented to Prince Charles." MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

According to a footnote appended to this volume of Bradford's History of Plymouth Plantation, the map in which John Smith identifies it as "Plimouth" was first published in 1614 to accompany Smith's Description of New England. On later copies of the map, accompanying later texts, "Plimouth' was changed to "New Plimouth," according to a study by scholar Wilberforce Eames, librarian of the Lenox Branch of the New York Public Library.[3] MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty then. Sounds good. Go with the 1614 then... --Jayron32 02:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Jayron32

Arbcom motion

Your attention is brought to the text of a motion passed by the Arbitration Committee on 11 October 2009.

• Jayron32 admonished: Jayron32 (talk · contribs) is strongly admonished for having knowingly promoted the request for adminship of an editor he knew was using an undisclosed alternate account. He was aware that knowledge of the former account's history would materially affect the request, and displayed poor judgment by failing to disclose that information along with his support.

For the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 16:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Intelligent, Unconventional Over-Achievers have the Greatest Potential to Make the World Better, However

• Jayron32 exonerated: Jayron32 (talk · contribs) is quaintly exonerated for having unknowingly helped others who return the favor with artistic synchronicity :p

This edit must certainly be Jayron32's most fatalistic edit of his career and I'll tell you why. For starters[4], I have used solely Wikipedia and MIT OCW and MCAT prepbooks to prepare for the MCAT which I'll be taking on the 30th of January. I plug Wikipedia all the time to people and tell them that the math/science articles have fewer errata than most every one of my purchased study materials; and, making an edit that explains a concept in slightly better wording is the most awesome way to learn! I was visiting (i.e. getting lured into chatterboxing or following links to the usual gossip) at Caspian blue's talk page where I just faintly recalled that Jayron32 was a positive user. I went back and hunted the edit, which was serendipitously an MCAT Fluids question that has became one of my strongest subjects of Physics. This story will make Jayron32's day when he learns that I pwned a somewhat-cocky, egocentric "gunner" who needed a lesson in humility (and kepting begging and wouldn't let it go) and it's that good feeling of why we're all Wikipedians! We're the ones who "retreat" from the real world and actually do something we think is important, and look down upon people who are uncaring, ingenuine "successful" people. Here is me deheading (he put his neck under the guillotine and hoisted the blade so it's his fault, a little bit mine) the alpha-male hippo at the hangout waters of most premed over-achievers. I think everyone here (except those who overlap at Wikipedia and SDN) can share in mine and Jayron32's (and of course EVERYONE at the ref desk and math/science articles and the creep & cruft and OR fighters! For the Win!) success story, because Wikipedia is working. I have good judgment[5] and I'm not defending Jayron32's actions, but I'm firmly defending his positive intentions. He's truly one of your site's best and one you can't afford to let be lost to discouragement. You can't simply overlook what he did and not impose scorn, but why hasn't someone else jumped in before me to humorously attempt and overturn the good folks at ArbCom (who have put in a lot of work, and I apologize that my argument soundly trounces yours and will make Jayron32 feel the way he should feel, if his heart was in the right place in his seemingly misunderstood actions).

I was going to ramble; but, if anyone is more interested in these uploaded images [6][7][8] which I had planned to incorporate into this essay--I got overambitious and was going to copy/paste every link from that last triplet of urls which were planned to elaborately invite my kind, generous attorney-friend into Wikiproject Law who has respectfully declined in advance due to a lack of time--then email me if you enjoy (mainly talking to Jayron32 here because I don't expect my life to be that interesting, it's mostly boring) hearing the most fascinating tale about my friend and me who if I can't get Thomas to join, maybe I can get my friend to! 윤리윤리윤리 (talk) 08:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I think for your support here? It should be noted, however, that ArbCom did the right thing, I screwed up big-time, and for that I deserved the admonishment of ArbCom. I exhibited a tragic error in judgement in supporting User:Law in his adminship bid when I knew him to be under ArbCom sanctions, and for that I am completely sorry. I count that person as among my friends, but my actions were inexcusable, and that I was only admonished is astonishing to me. I have been crafting a more formal apology for the past week or so off-wiki. I plan to post it on-wiki soon. --Jayron32 17:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's moral support. I just think it's amazing that I found out about this from a Korean's talk page and was able to write a relevant message! There's no better feeling than knowing your work here really makes a difference. This is an encyclopedia after all, and knowledge is power. Math & science articles plus the ref desk have certainly empowered me. Thank you, again. 윤리윤리윤리 (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks-

Many thanks for helping out the Jess Miller (Wisconsin politician) article- I saw the mistake while doing the article-RFD (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Phew...

This got me worried for a minute until you edited it a minute later... Until It Sleeps ^{Talk • Contribs} 05:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Goodbye

I'm leaving Wikipedia forever and I just wanted to say goodbye to a fellow editor who I wish all the best for in their future pursuits on this encyclopedia.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 05:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

SOrry to hear that. Good luck, and hope to see you back some day! --Jayron32 13:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Revisiting Milomedes

Apologies if I'm digging at old wounds, but I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Revisiting Milomedes. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

15 Oct: pink/wild have been editing The Game (US TV series)

Hello: You locked The Game (US TV series). It was per pink's request until consensus could be reached on info in the article. Yet they are editing the article. The contentious info wasnot agreed upon, yet it is back to their edit. This is unfair. This is why I feel pink had the article locked so just she could edit it. On other disputed aticles changes must first be posted on the talk page, then once all agree, the info is added to the article. Why isnt this the case for TG? 70.108.77.162 (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2009

colums

My 6Sept edit & 12 Sep edit to make 3 colums by changing {div col|cols=2}/{Div col end} to {div col|cols=3}/ {Div col end} was repeatedly reverted. They said I was inferior and using an inferior brower. They reverted to this . Yet on 12 Oct pink edited to this; only to undue it. This too is disputed/contentious, so I thought it too should be agreed upon first on the talk page, then when all agree it is added to the article. 70.108.77.162 (talk) 13:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The article was not protected because it was disputed. It was protected to stop you from editing the page because you were making changes to the page without making any attempt to discuss the matter. Given that you have never even attempted to explain anything, it was reasonably assumed that you were merely interested in vandalizing the page. Without any explanation from you, and because your edits frequently made changes that no one could understand, it seemed like random vandalism. If this was not the case, you need to explain on the article talk page what you are trying to do, and see if others can help you. --Jayron32 15:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Never attemped? Did you look at the talk page. I attempted time and time again. I even posted to noticeboard and they approved the source, yet still pink/wild didnt like it and still reverted. What edits did I make that were not understood? 70.108.77.162 (talk) 02:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.129.179 (talk)

Edit filter

I replied in Wikipedia:An#Edit filter permission  Chzz  ►  14:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Raleigh, North Carolina

FYI - It appears that eithr you have been editing the Raleigh, North Carolina while logged out, or someone else has been using your name in their edit summary. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 04:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It was a message to me, not about me. See below. --Jayron32 11:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Raleigh Population

The correct Census department Numbers for Raleigh Metro was there, there is no numbers for Urban yet: see Raleigh, North Carolina (talk page) These are census Number that was in the Metro, Would you kindly unprotect the Raleigh NC and allow the right Metro Numbers to be put in, they are the most resent Census Numbers from 2008 1,088,765 Raleigh-Cary Metropolitan Statistical Area. I did what you ask me to, If you have access to the census department numbers, and can fix this, please do. --Jayron32 (Raleigh talk page). AgnosticPreachersKid continue to put in the Combined Statistical Area numbers in the Metro spot which is wrong. I have no problem asking for re-protection once the right numbers are in place. Also I only used your name in editing to show your approval of me putting the right information Table of United States Metropolitan Statistical Areas in Raleigh Metro Slot as per Raleigh, North Carolina (talk page} Thank You 67.197.178.141 (talk) 06:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss the matter at the article talk page, and provide links to the out-of-wikipedia sources you are using. If you can convince everyone of the truth of your position, you are likely to get the article unprotected. --Jayron32 11:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Quitmeyer

I've quoted you in this context (favourably, I think, since I say I agree with you) and thought you should be aware of it. Feel free to comment or not, favourably or unfavourably, as the spirit moves you. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Global IP block

This appears to be from a set of abused IPs (spambots... almost certainly OPs/zombies) I blocked yesterday. Any user on them is almost certainly unrelated. That said, I'm unhappy to see anyone getting caught in the blocks... I'll investigate more.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I granted the user in question an IP Block Exemption, so he should not be affected. You may want to have someone with Checkuser accesson en.wikipedia look into any possible collateral damage from your meta-level blocks, and maybe preemptively grant IPBEs to any active affected accounts. --Jayron32 01:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have expected any users to be affected. That said, the blocks are problematic because they don't have any reason, and they should have been anon-only. This is my mistake & the blocks will be either removed or modified tonight.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

John Adams - peer review question

John Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor has begun to question the citations and referencing of the article, with a discussion initiated at Talk:John Adams#Sources. RossF18 (talk · contribs) initially added a {{Ref-improve}} tag to the article, which I removed with the edit summary questioning whether he meant the lead section and asking for inline {{fact}} tags. He later responded, going a little overboard in my opinion with 26 tags. So, unfortunately things got off on the wrong foot. I saw your name in the list of people willing to do peer review, and am asking if you would review the article. I haven't asked for this before and I am not sure if this can be done informally or if I need to go through the process of adding the PR tag to the talk page, set up a subpage and so on first. Thank you for your time – Sswonk (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

NiceHotShower

NiceHotShower (talk · contribs), an editor you blocked back in March, is asking for an unblock. Given that he was blocked for usurping admin powers, I thought I should let you weigh in before going further. Blueboy96 21:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, go for it. If he fucks up again, give'em the boot again. But I'm all for second chances. Unblock him and see where it goes. --Jayron32 05:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

User:SCGamecocks2121 has been editing South Carolina Gamecocks. Is this a conflict of interest?--NiceHotShower (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably not at all. See WP:AGF. People who are fans of sports teams often take internet handles which match those sports team names; it doesn't mean they have a vested financial interest in those organizations. I would not be a conflict, for example, if you were to edit an article about showers. Seriously, though, considering the trouble you got in last time, you would be best served simply editing articles, and leave the regulation of others behavior to someone else. --Jayron32 01:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I already know about the assume good faith Wikipedia policy, I was just checking whether or not is was a conflict of interest or COI as some call it. As I am not an admin (and I will not pretend to be) I just thought it would just be best to bring the matter to admin attention. I didn't want to bring the matter to AN/I because it is not really a serious incident and I didn't want to leave a comment to the user as such in case I was assuming bad faith on a good, constructive user to the project mainspace. I actually wasn't assuming bad faith on the user at all, just a bit worried over the possible POV being put foward here (not that their edits suggest that they cannot be neutral, just the username). Because there are also policies on usernames not only for usernames that are appropiate but also for similar usernames to articles but, of course, the only real concern for such cases are companies self-promoting themselves on Wikipedia. But I'll take your advice though and stay clear from non-article areas.--NiceHotShower (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:User talk:74.160.132.223 requesting unblock

Hello, Jayron32. You have new messages at Fastily's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 05:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Damian Nabot

Hello, you just declined to speedy delete the article Damian Nabot. I hope you realize that in doing so you give a premium to people who only use Wikipedia for blatant self promotion and violate Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Spam using sockpuppets (see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Damiannabot). I think it should be deleted to show that such behaviour is not appreciated. If anyone thinks that this person is notable, they can start a new version. Kind regards. - DonCalo (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Midnight Radio

Thanks for your dedication to the wiki community: it's exemplary.

My question, as the author of the midnight radio disambiguation page, is at what point does a band page stray from informational to self-promotional? I'd like to know if there is a bright-line which makes it clear.

Again, thanks for your time and oversight/edits. I look forward to your insight on this matter. Be very well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somepocho (talk • contribs) 22:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello: I'm a little confused as to why this page was deleted as it was a work in progress and the other administrator had moved this page into a sandbox but now I cannot access that sandbox pae to reconstruct the page. In addition to myself starting the page various members of the music community in Los Angeles were going to contribute informtaion to it that would not be COI related. Further the band is significant in that it is one of the first rock bands in the world to feature an Indian Dalit Untouchable singer.Please let me know how best to proceed. I am dyslexic and that reflected a ton of work that went down the drain. Dalitdiva (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

To both of you; if you are concerned about finding your articles not deleted, please see WP:N, and make sure any subject you create an article about meets WIkipedia guidelines. Merely because something exists does not mean it merits an article at Wikipedia. Some topics are not likely to deserve an article. --Jayron32 01:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Article (BLP) For Deletion - Again

You were definite in registering a Keep the last time the BLP ofRay Joseph Cormier had an Afd tag placed on it. This is the 3rd time the same editor has nominated it for deletion. Is this having an NPOV? Being the subject of it, there is not much I can do except rely on the good faith of others, patiently waiting for someone to have an interest in improving it. Except for the ´Early Life and Conversion´ section Steve Smith improved, I tend to agree all the rest, as it is, it not that notable, being a rush job as detailed in the article talk. There is much room for improvement that can be drawn from the numerous newspaper references. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for voting on the subject. I don´t understand how some editors received an automated bot advising them of this Afd, and others did not.

User_talk:J_Milburn#AfD_nomination_of_Ray_Joseph_Cormier

User_talk:Earl_Andrew#AfD_nomination_of_Ray_Joseph_Cormier

I have recused myself from making any more comments on the Afd discussion, but it is exasperating to see editors voting delete and ignoring Wikipedia´s fundamental requirement of numerous, independent, reliable newspaper sources to determine Notability. By that Wikipedia standard, there is no question of Notability of the subject. The reasons they openly give is they don´t like the subject, in other words.

Comparing the numerous newspaper reports to getting coverage in small town pie baking contests is absurd. They are all from the major dailies of Canada´s major cities spread over many years. To judge the character of the subject by the newspaper headings listed here Talk:Ray_Joseph_Cormier#Improving_the_Article without knowing the content is also superficial reasoning.

It is significant in understanding the subject, to notice The Ottawa Citizen, the major daily in Canada´s Capital, changed their choice of header from ´Preacher Arrested on Mall´ to ´Second Police Warning for God´s Emissary´ one week later. Most would not have noticed that.

I could go on, but you get the point. Again, I appreciate your support. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me be clear. I am not supporting you in any way. The article indicates there is enough source material for someone to write a proper article. You are not that person; because of your blatant conflict of interest. I would prefer if you never edited the article again, and left it to uninvolved people to improve it. --Jayron32 03:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Your point is taken. For the record, I recused myself from editing the article a long time ago. I withdrew from the article talk as well, only checking back occasionally to see if someone was willing to look at the original references with a view to improving the BLP. Knowing full well if the article was not improved, inevitably another Afd tag would be placed on it. I could not improve it myself because of COI, and if no one volunteered to take it on, it would be deleted. I was damned if I did, and damned if I didn´t, between a rock and a hard place. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 04:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

Just wanted to let you know I put a response down. Writing article about Pugs and Nintendo doesn't necessitate the creation of an account. Reporting someone who is trying to create the appearance of consensus via socks, on the other hand, does. FluffyPug (talk) 04:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Wurdalak

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Wurdalak. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 05:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Code letter missing

You recently compiled and listed a case at sockpuppet investigations. A checkuser or clerk has asked that you list the code letter which matches with the violations of policy, which is listed at the top of the sockpuppet investigations page. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed in a timely manner. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. GrooveDog • i'm groovy. 05:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I got it right away. Thanks for the heads up anyways! --Jayron32 05:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Alternate accounts

Hello,
I decline, as politely as I can, to name any other accounts that I have or have had in the past. To re-assure you I can state that I have never, under any account or IP, been blocked, banned, subject to any restrictions. I've only ever had one templated warning, but that was in error and was sorted out amicably with the twinkle user who placed it. Some more re-assurance - I don't ever use alt accounts for abusive purposes; there's no vote stacking or fake consensus building. Does that help? Remember Civility (talk) 15:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems baffling that you wish to block an account with no evidence of disruption from that account. Do what you feel you must, but be aware that there is no disruption from this account, or from any other account that I might have, and that all you're doing is preventing an editor making minor meta contribs. Look at the date of the account, and look at the rate of contribs; it's an account used rarely. Remember Civility (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for the reply. I need to check, very carefully, what you mean in your last message. "The use of alt accounts to avoid scrutiny is against policy". I agree that if any of my accounts had *any* warnings, blocks, bans, or if there had been concerns raised about any accounts on any noticeboards, or if any of my accounts had had RfCs or whatnot raised then I should disclose those accounts, and should have those accounts blocked if I did not disclose them. (I think that's the bit we agree on.) Some editors scrutinise edits for malicious bad faith purposes. If I promise not to use my alt accounts in *any* areas, for any reason, that these contentious areas are, and to disclose my alt accounts as soon as any one of them is raised at any notice-board (or blocked, or banned, etc etc) am I okay? I feel I'm operating within the spirit (if not the strict letter) of policy. A block on this account won't be controversial from me, it'll just be very disappointing. Remember Civility (talk) 13:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The silence of the lamb chops

Please see this discussion. It's less intriguing than it seems. Durova³⁵⁵ 21:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NEWT

Hi there Jayron32. I want to inform you that you were unwittingly part of an experiment of newbie treatment in which I participated under a different name. The purpose of WP:NEWT is to determine how experienced users would be treated if they were new users and created sub-standard but viable articles. You can find a recollection of my experience at WP:NEWT#SoWhy's experience in case you are interested. Last but not least I want to apologize for having used your time in this way, diverting it from real work on the encyclopedia. If I can offer my time and services for anything you need in return, feel free to ask at any time. Regards SoWhy 08:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)