Before we get too far into things, I have a simple question for you. Regarding This, is it your intention from today forward to "box" every joke made at the reference desks, or just mine? I just want to know whether it is your lack of a sense of humor or your personal distate towards me that is leading to this behavior of yours. --Jayron3220:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Since 10.28.2010 has given you some cookies. Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully these have made your day better. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:plate}} to someone's talk page, or eat these cookies on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munchplate}}.
You have 838th place in most edits (39050). Nice! Probably changed by the time you read this. Here:
Hello! Since 10.28.2010 has given you some cookies. Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully these have made your day better. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:plate}} to someone's talk page, or eat these cookies on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munchplate}}.
Ask and ye shall receive. I laughed! And then all kinds of "but, but, but, buts" went through my head - wrong version you see. Nonetheless, I am bored with it, too. Regards, Bielle (talk) 04:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You told me to drop a note on your talk page if I get any more questions about Chicago and your time there, so I got another Chicago question for you. You said that there is a Chicago Street Grid, which was planned out, but Manhattan also has a street grid that was planned too, which having been there I can tell that makes driving a nightmare there. You said that driving in Chicago was easy for you, but my friend who grew up in Chicago said that he didn’t need a car at all when he lived there. On the other hand, you said that the suburban residents clog up the freeway system horribly. That's not a good sign. I read that car ownership in Chicago is much higher than that of New York City’s, but is Chicago overall a car friendlier city? Will it be easier for me to drive when I go to Chicago this August? How does the car culture history there compare to that of New York City’s? Because when I went to New York City, it was a nightmare for me driving there. I’m used to cities like Tampa, Clearwater, etc. since those are the kind of cities I grew up in, so I'm a bit nervous about driving in Chicago when I go there. Willminator (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New York's grid is not as nicely organized as Chicago's is for a few reasons:
Chicago's house numbering system matches the grid. Thus, you always know that all houses between (say) 71st street and 72nd street will have numbers between 7100S and 7199S. In Manhattan, they start numbering at one end of the street with "1" and just go up from there. Thus, the house on the corner of, say, 5th Avenue and 42nd street and the house on the corner of 5th and 43rd won't necessarily have the same number. In Chicago they do.
Chicago's grid is rigidly obeyed, even if streets are discontiguous. For example, you can expect to find the street named "Polk Street" at the same place in the grid even if it exists in lots of disjointed segments. Polk is always between Roosevelt and Congress, even it only exists in little 1-2 block segments with several miles of gaps between the segments. In Manhattan, the same street changes name as you are traveling on it", i.e. the exact opposite as Chicago. Thus, if you start out on Eighth Avenue it just becomes Central Park West.
Chicago's street grid covers the whole city, while Manhattan's only covers Manhattan north of 14th Street. The Loop has a few eccentricities, but it still fits fairly well into the Chicago grid; lower Manhattan doesn't follow the grid at all.
Chicago's grid is highly heirarchical; every 8th street is a major boulevard, every 4th street is a semi-major boulevard, the streets between those are small neighborhood streets. In Manhattan, the system is rather random. There's no guarantee that the street you're on won't just sort of end at a T-junction, or suddenly go from a fairly major boulevard to a minor neighborhood street. In Chicago, you can reliably expect Roosevelt Avenue or Western Avenue to be a 5-lane boulevard, running straight-as-an-arrow for the entire length of the city (and in both of those cases, for several miles into the suburbs as well). As long as you know what address you are aiming for, just get on the nearest main road, and you can just drive. There won't be any surprises. For a time, I worked in Glen Ellyn which is a suburb to the west of Chicago. The Eisenhower Expressway went right there; and if traffic was clear, it was of course the fastest route. But if there was a traffic jam, I could always count on getting of the Eisenhower, dodging over 4 blocks to Roosevelt Road, and other than a stop light every 8 blocks or so, it was usually clear sailing all the way to Glen Ellyn. I can't remember the name, but there was a diagonal avenue (maybe Milwaukee Avenue?) that used to parallel the Kennedy Expressway; on more than one occasion I would be able to cruise down Milwaukee, laughing gleefully at all of the cars I was passing in some major back up on the Kennedy.
Regarding needing a car: No, you don't need a car at all in Chicago. The buses run regularly (sadly, I think they changed the color scheme, as they used to be known colloquially as the "Cream-Green Limosine", a catchy name, but I don't think they are that color scheme anymore) and go anywhere the L doesn't go, which isn't many places. Chicago has more of a car culture than Manhattan because a) it doesn't have a commuter rail system as robust as New York. There's lots of Commuter Lines that stretch far into the NYC suburbs (Metro North, etc.) while in Chicago, the only commuter rail I can think of is the Milwaukee-Chicago Amtrak line, which runs up the shore of Lake Michigan. If you live in any other suburbs, your only option is to drive. b) Chicago's grid is better designed for driving, as I noted above. It has a major, robust expressway system as well (three major expressways meet RIGHT in downtown at Chicago Circle. Other than the crumbling, outdated, decrepit freeways that sorta ring the shores of Manhattan, there's no freeways that go into the city all that far. Sure, I bemoaned the expressways earlier for their traffic, but it actually is a pretty decent freeway system, especially when compared to Manhattan. And, as I noted above, the grid itself seems to be better designed for car travel as well. It's still a city, so it isn't going to be like driving out on some rural interstate. But compared to other major cities I have experience driving in (New York, Boston, Philadelphia, even Raleigh where I live now), it's not all that bad.
Thanks for your help. It was very informative. So basically your advice to me is to relax and take a deep breath when I go to Chicago since as you say the driving will not be nearly as hectic as I had experienced in NYC in general. However, I do have one more concern to ask you about. Are Chicago's drivers going to be more or less rude than New York City's drivers when I go to Chicago? Will they cut me off and bonk the horn like a toy at me for absolutely no reason like I experienced with NYC's drivers? Willminator (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. New York drivers are assholes. Chicago will not be as hectic. As anywhere, if you do something really stupid, you'll piss someone off. In New York, "really stupid" means driving slower than 90 or not having a New York plate on your car. Chicagoans wouldn't get pissed unless you actually do something stupid. --Jayron3201:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks, I feel more confident now. So, did you like Chicago better than all the cities and towns you lived in? If not, which city or town did you like better? Which one did you like the least? Just curious, what part of New York City did you live in when you lived there? Willminator (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I loved Chicago for when I lived there. I was 21-23, had a girlfriend/fiancee but we weren't married yet, and had no kids. I absolutely wouldn't want to raise kids there, but being single, young, and with no real attachments or responsibilities is was an AWESOME town. I absolutely cherished the time I had there, and it was awesome. Now that I am mid-30s with two kids and a mortgage, I live in a great town for that as well (Raleigh, NC). I've never lived in NYC, but I have visited many times, and am a geography buff as well. I've personally lived in a small New Hampshire town (essentially my whole life until I went to college), a college town that was an outer suburb of Philadelphia, near west-side Chicago, and now in North Carolina. I'm an easy to please kinda guy, but I genuinely had a good time living in every one of those places. Maybe I'm lucky, or maybe its my personality, but I think I had the perfect home for whatever phase of life I was in. --Jayron3203:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Plymouth holds a special role in American history. Rather than being [entrepreneurs] like many of the settlers of Jamestown, a significant proportion of the citizens of Plymouth were fleeing religious persecution and searching for a place to worship as they saw fit.
Jamestown wiki
Late in 1606, English entrepreneurs set sail with a charter from the Virginia Company of London to establish a colony in the New World.
In these two paragraphs are the word entrepreneurs is used. I would think "settlers" would be a better term. It seems that someone with a modern perspective is trying to influence the direction of the page. What actually the Plymouth / Jamestown called themselves I don't know but I don't they they called themselves "entrepreneurs".
If you can come up with a way to say "The Jamestown settlers were interested in making money through their settlement, but the Plymouth colonists were interested in setting up a religiously isolated colony" and say it less clunky than I did there, feel free. The nice thing about "entrepreneur" is that it means exactly what it is supposed to. If you want to use another exact synonym, feel free. --Jayron3212:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your consideration of my concerns as reflected in your determination in the AN/I. While I have elected to forego any further discussion on the issue of POV tag placement/removal within the AN/I itself and am quite content in my acceptance of your determination (it is, after all, not that big of a deal anyway relative to the issue it represents), I do have some thoughts as to your rationale which you may or may not find to be persuasive. When my thoughts gel into something concrete I can relate, I will do so here. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. You'll find at Wikipedia that the most important thing is research. Its hard to argue with good, reliable source material, so if you want to see some change, you really need to bring up some some good, quality sources. If there is contention about the fact that some of the so-called "false" claims aren't, in fact, false, but are actually verified, then provide those sources. If it is the particular word "false" that is the issue (that is, if you don't object to the substantive content of the section, just the word false) then perhaps propose an alternate wording (diputed? disproven? untrue?) on the talk page. I'm not particularly partisan one way or the other in this issue, I just want to see that good, objective work is done, and that we are doing good research and writing on these articles, working from verifiable source material and not from emotion or political feelings. If you need some help in the future, please feel free to drop me a line. --Jayron3216:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe one quick observation then. My concern is not with either the strength or breadth of "sourcing" that might dispute or even refute, seemingly incontrovertibly, any and/or all "theories" related to the "birther" issue but rather whether Wikipedia can be, per WP:NPOV, represented in section titleing as an arbiter of absolute "truth" in a highly contentious and contemporary topic of debate. I offered that opinion in the article talk and my perspective was almost mirrored by JClemens' comments in the AN/I. Hypothetically for example, even were it to be discovered that SOME "theory" offered by "conspiracy theorists" was actually found to be TRUE, that would not affect Wikipedia's mandate for an NPOV "presentation" of relevant sourcing and the article section treating the veracity of "theories" would not require change.
You asked about alternate wording. I provided that alternate wording in my attempted NPOV edit..."Conspiracy theories and rebuttals" which was quickly reverted.
At any rate, I strongly disagree that a consideration of WP:NPOV section titleing is, in any way, predicated on the provision of sourcing substantiating the "truth" of a "theory". Were it "true", it would no longer BE a "theory" and the standard, as I believe you are suggesting, is an impossible one to meet. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, without getting in the specifics of this case, just speaking in general terms, Wikipedia is under no obligation to hold as possibly true, any random assertion that is made merely because it is made. It isn't WP:NPOV, for example, to give credence to the idea that the Earth is flat if, in fact, it really isn't. NPOV doesn't mean "every possible idea is assumed to be true until proven beyond false to the satisfaction of every person in the entire world." It is OK for Wikipedia to call a spade a spade (and not a shovel or a trowel); and if indeed something is false, then it isn't wrong to claim it so. You may be right here, but no one can tell if you are correct unless you have reliable sources which show that the statement "X is false" is a contested fact. That's all I am asserting; if all reliable sources say "X is false" (or equivalent wording to that effect) then Wikipedia should say that. If you have a reliable source that says "X is true" or "X is not known to be false" or "There is some confusion over whether or not X is true or false" then you need to provide those sources. Wikipedia is built on good sources. If you can show that the article, as it exists, does not represent existing scholarship, then you need to provide evidence that it doesn't. You seem to feel that the article doesn't, so you must have some reason to believe that it doesn't. All we are asking is to show everyone the evidence that the article, as it exists now, is wrong. Because the evidence there right now seems to indicate that it is correct as written. Could the sources being used in the article be chosen selectively, and could the article be ignoring equally good sources which could make the situation less clear cut than the article makes it out to be? That may be the case here. But if that is the case, then you need to provide the sources that the article omits. --Jayron3219:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you will note that I edited the page in question exactly once. That is, I did not revert once, I edited it once. I find your accusation baseless, and I am highly disappointed that you, as a long time editor at Wikipedia, would find it responsible to throw around baseless and evidenceless accusations without even a shred of evidence. You disappoint me that you would do this, and I would kindly ask that you review my personal actions on that page, and explain how I, in editing the page exactly once, have committed any violation of WP:EDITWAR. Please present evidence or please retract your baseless, damaging, and irresponsible accusation. --Jayron3223:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your heartfelt apology. Just to explain a bit more, I noticed that the discussion had been closed, and I also noted that the WP:USERPAGE page hadn't been updated with the results of the closure. I was, at the time I made the change, unaware that the closure had generated controvery. I just thought that he forgot to update the page after closing the discussion. I hadn't thought to check the page history before making my change, which I perhaps could have. If I had any knowledge of the controversy, I would not have made the change, and I have no intention of making the change again. Please understand I did not intend to give the impression that I was stirring the pot, it was nothing more than innocent ignorance on my part. --Jayron3223:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As an addendum, I can't say I care enough about the issue to comment on the futher discussion. It literally matters not one bit to me how this plays out, just that it ends one way or the other. I'm more interested in the endless back-and-forth over this issue never happening again, rather than either side "winning". It matters not how it ends, just that it does. --Jayron3223:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you're not alone here. There's apparently some deep water under this, which I wasn't really aware of until just recently myself. As for my mistaken assumption, if you look at the last few diffs you'll notice that you (accidentally) re-added almost exactly what had just been removed, so from my perspective it was "oh geez, here we go with the reversions...". That sort of thing, coming from the likes of yourself, had me really worried for a minute. I tend to agree with the thought that this isn't that important as well, and I agree with the sentiment that it needs resolution. Part of my motivation here is to try and prevent a "resolution" that will only cause further dispute. I wish that we could just say nothing specific on the issue, but apparently that creates too much confusion (...or something). — V = IR(Talk • Contribs)23:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jayron:
Schyler and I have been discussing his signature, and what follows from enquiring about the meaning of "one language", on his talk page. We have both said our piece, but have found no common ground. Neither of us wants to jump into any of the usual circuses, and we have thus agreed to ask you and Jack of Oz to comment. (Schyler picked the names and I agreed.) If there is still no meeting of the minds following your comments, we may ask a third user. If there is a conclusion, Schyler and I have agreed to accept it. (You may check this in the thread; if he has changed his mind, I am sure he will say so.) I agree not to argue with you, though I will answer any specific questions. I trust your common sense and would appreciate your help. Bielle (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For me to thank you on Schyler's page would be presumptuous, but I would like to acknowledge a thoughtful and thought-provoking answer. Bielle (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This is going nowhere fast. I have admitted fault, and conceded that Chzz was correct, and gave him permission to undo my work. Extra comments from uninvolved people are not particularly helpful here. Consider this done. --Jayron3214:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"is lack of appetite a symptom of amoebosis" is a knowledge-question; there's no concern over WP:MEDICAL, as long as they don't get specific - such as, "Should I eat bananas to fix my condition", style-of-thing.
I'm pretty confident about that, and it looks like another person agreed [1].
I suggest it'd be best to put the original question back, and leave the appropriate part of DuncanHill's answer - ie that "Our article Amoebiasis should help answer that question", with the additional info that, if not, WP:RD could help.
You could've added a note that "the helpdesk cannot answer any medical questions' but, really, it's a ->RD type of question, not a concern.
It doesn't really matter about that specific 'case' though; I was leaving this message to hopefully avoid it in the future. Happy to discuss it further, if you want. Cheers, Chzz ► 16:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If people want to know the symptoms of their diseases, they should see doctors. The potential harm we could do to this person if he follows advice someone on Wikipedia gives him is FAR GREATER than the off chance that he isn't asking about treating himself. It is best to err on the side of "don't kill people". I will not be returning the question today. If you wish to take this person's life in your hands, personally, you do what you want to do. --Jayron3216:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's really no need for SHOUTING and hyperbola.
As DuncanHill, said, it "was not a request for medical advice or a diagnosis".
If users cannot write "Is X a symptom of Y?" on the project, it is extremely difficult to work on any articles relating to medical conditions.
In a case of an information request on the help-desk, of this nature, removing it per medical is an over-reaction, and unnecessary harsh. It's no different to asking "Is Oslo the capital of Norway".
Of course, it's a bit hard to discuss/get confirmation/consensus on the issue, because discussion of it is going to involve re-quoting, which is a bad idea if I'm wrong. And I reiterate that the specific case doesn't bother me - I'm not demanding it gets reinstated; the answer given by DuncanHill covers things satisfactorily; my only intention in raising it here was for future similar incidents.
I'm one of the first people to remove anything inappropriate per medical, legal etc. -but, I'm sure that one didn't fall within the remit.
Regardless, I do agree that it is better to err on the side of caution in these matters, so I'm quite happy to move along, and I thank you for contributing on the help desk. Best, Chzz ► 17:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look, let me spell this out for you because apparently you do not understand. I am wrong. You are correct. This will always be true, so rather than coming here to tell me that I am wrong, you can skip that step. Since I am always wrong, you don't need to remind me of it. My perfect and never ending wrongness is a fact about my life I have accepted long ago, so it is entirely redundant to come here to tell me I am wrong. Go through life as though I have already admited that I am wrong, and have already confirmed that you are correct, and just fix all the problems I create. It will make things much easier. Just remember, I am wrong here. You are correct. So feel free to fix it. --Jayron3220:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, Cuddlyable3, you may not keep a log of everytime I forget to place an apostrophe in a word, or indeed, any accidental spelling mistake or typo in what I write at Wikipedia. You also may not correct those mistakes, or point them out, or pretend that you cannot understand what I write because I forgot an apostrophe. You may quote that. You may also stop coming by my talkpage and leaving comments uninvited. Chzz is a useful, productive member of the Wikipedia community, and he may come to discuss issues with me. You are not, and may not. Take off. --Jayron3223:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And CA3, from myself, who you may or may not have referred to as a "belligerent stalker" elsewhere, you are once more wading unto the brink. In fact, the user talk pages on my watchlist are there from long history on this site and nothing to do with your own interactions on-wiki. And yet again I see your sig pop up, stirring controversy. I'd strongly advise you to concentrate on article editing. Franamax (talk) 01:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I clarify that my question about quotability concerns only the statement here by Jayron32 that AFAICS is free of any of the mistakes mentioned. It is a statement of interest that was also brought up at WT:RD. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's August Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by over 1,000 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions! If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks! NoleloverTalk·Contribs17:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The drive starts August 1, but you can still sign up!
Jayron32, I have great respect for your work generally and I don't think we've ever had a difference of opinion; thus, I hope you'll have no reason to take this as anything other than well-meaning constructive feedback. Your "admissions" of being incorrect, like this one, ring hollow when I read them because they are all pretty much the same (just a few recent examples: [2], [3], [4], [5], etc). You assert when challenged that you're always wrong, immediately disengaging from any discussion (arguably rude to those you've just contradicted). I do believe you say this in good faith to defuse any conflict; however, my perception is that it's a cop-out similar to an insincere cookie-cutter apology, and frustrating for a person who's just been contradicted. I realize it's not meant to be an apology (that was just an analogy), but rather you mean it to be an explanation that you're always wrong; however, that's clearly (to me) insincere, because if you believe that you would not continue to (often correctly) assert that others are wrong on another page. When you disagree with someone, and they or others disagree, it would be far more meaningful if you engaged in that discussion or simply acknowledged your error (either very briefly or specifically in a content-specific way, but not generically). This is just MHO; feel free to disregard this, especially if I'm the only one who says something like this to you. If others feel this way, there might be something here for you to consider. All the best, and thanks for your many efforts to improve the WP - they really are important. -- Scray (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your concern Scray. I think you need to understand part of my philosophy to understand where I am coming from. I hold no attachment to any idea. I literally am willing to be wrong on everything I say. I really don't feel the need to be right. I find that conflict is caused when people hold onto an idea too long; in any conflict there is always someone who is holding onto an idea not because they are correct, but because they don't want to lose. With many conflicts, it isn't about arriving at the right conclusion, its about "defeating" ones opponent. That's pointless: our goal should be to strive for correctness in all things: right thought, right action, right behavior, right speech. If I have a thought, or an idea, or I do some action, I am already prepared for the notion that I may have been wrong. I generally assume that I am. This is not a cop out, or an attempt to avoid honest discussion of issues. I genuinely try to see all issues from other people's perspective. I tend to value the perspectives of other people more than my own, and that leads me towards taking sympathetic positions with them against myself. Since you've brought up some specific examples, let me explain how I was wrong in each of the above cases:
First, in the closed discussion above; I closed a discussion at the help desk when at first I thought was a request for medical advice. Chzz rightly notes that the request I deleted incorrectly wasn't actually a request for advice, but rather a request for information. The OP of the question I deleted didn't ask "what is wrong with me", they merely asked for a symptom of a condition; that's a request for information and not advice, so the question should have been answered instead of being removed. Ergo, my initial action was wrong. I don't need to "win" any battle with Chzz: he was correct, and I made a mistake.
Second, this response is much the same: a person made a request for medical information at the reference desk, which I removed. It was clearly incorrect for me to remove that question, since it wasn't advice, and so I should have answered the question earnestly and not removed it.
Third, this response was in regards to a sockpuppet I misidentified. It is quite irresponsible for someone to throw around accusations of sockpuppetry, and as Wnt correctly pointed out, the evidence wasn't strong and I should not have made the accusation without better evidence.
Fourth, this was more a statement about my general philosophy on life. I am always willing to take evidence that I am wrong; in fact I generally start with the assumption that I have done something incorrect.
Seriously Scray, I find it very liberating to be willing to take the perspective of others. It makes it easier to deal with myself; I can more readily identify my own faults, which makes it easier to work on them. Like take this conversation we are having here. I could very easily just take an adversarial stance against you, claim that I had done nothing wrong, and tell you off. However, I can clearly see that, when read through anothers eyes, like yours, my comments do not adequately represent my philosophy here: the come off as flippant, rude, and appear that I am trying to just "kill" the conversation rather than resolve the conflict. What I need to do is do a better job of explaining my philosophy: I am not trying to end discussion; I genuinely feel in each of the cases you have cited that I had screwed something up, and that I am at fault. It is not an easy thing to do, to recognize your own mistakes and to take the perspective of others when you disagree with them initially. But I find it does work towards making me a better person, and while I am clearly not there yet, it is situations like this, where people like you are kind enough to discuss things with me in an open and mature manner, that helps. Thank you for your concerns again; they have not fallen on deaf ears, and I do value your input here. --Jayron3204:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You said I was welcome to discuss things here, so here goes; I'll use bullets as there's 3 largely unrelated comments I'd like to make;
There's two reasons why your admission of fault didn't come across as sincere, to me, initially;
It began with, "Look, let me spell this out for you because apparently you do not understand." - and what followed was the first time you'd said (to me) that you were wrong. So what could I have previously misunderstood? I had no prior knowledge of your 'assume I am always wrong' philosophy.
You said it is "redundant to come here to tell me I am wrong." - imagine if a vandal said that; would we stop warning them, and take no further action? It is helpful to have others point out problems, so that we can avoid recurrence. I certainly did not approach this in the hope of 'winning' an argument; what I intended was, to try and make Wikipedia just a little bit better, by improving our responses on the help desk. I learned things from the exchange, because it made me re-evaluate how best we can response to medical-related queries.
Example 2 above [6] was interesting, because I wouldn't consider the question problematic, but I would consider the answer to be. I think the best action there would've been to remove the response, but leave (or answer) the question.
I noticed that Cuddlyable3 had been blocked, and thus investigated the background there - I didn't know anything of that user before. Having investigated, I now understand your response better.
Chzz, you are entirely correct in that. My writing was not appropriate in any of those examples. My after-the-fact explanation of them did little to justify the problem it likely caused at the time. Thank you for sharing your concerns with me. I can only say that I will work better to communicate with others. Again, not that it matters because intent and inner philosophy cannot be read, only actions, but my intent was not to be rude. Reading it again through the eyes of others, however, it clearly was. My belated apologies. --Jayron3212:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jayron, Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I think I understand (and do laud) your philosophy, but I am not sure you understand that in a more-or-less charged situation it may be more effective to simply say "I was wrong", "I was probably wrong", etc (if you genuinely think that's true). Your habit of saying (essential templating) "I am always wrong" says nothing about the specific situation, thus my impression that it can be perceived as a cop-out. Because WP is about the content and not the editor, your personal philosophy (of which you're clearly proud - another off-putting aspect of you mini-lectures about being wrong) really isn't important. I think you could simply drop the "I'm always wrong" thing and stick to the content or issue at hand. Just my two centimes, and I hope it is helpful. -- Scray (talk) 12:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Scray, it is helpful. I appreciate your efforts to make Wikipedia a more congenial and less rude place, and for my part in being a problem in that regards, I am truly sorry. I am somewhat confused about a statement you just made regarding "off-putting" aspects. Are you suggesting that it is off-putting to be mindful of the perspectives of others? I just need a little clarification on this, so that I don't miake the same mistakes I have in the past. --Jayron3213:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry I was not clear. My phrase about "off-putting" immediately followed "of which you're clearly proud", and what I meant to convey was that the pride in your philosophy magnifies somewhat the off-putting impression I perceive when you use this disclaimer (you clearly think that your approach is the correct one). Your philosophy (about being wrong) is not the topic at hand in any discussion on WP unless it's actually a discussion of your own behavior (rarely the case). Again, I am just one person and I may be misreading; my impressions may not represent those of others (I truly think this is possible) - my reaction here is just one data point. I was tempted to do it quietly via email, but thought this would give a chance for others to comment (refute or agree with my estimation) to provide a better-calibrated assessment. I certainly do not think this rises, by any stretch of the imagination, to disruptive behavior. On the contrary, I see this as a suggested tweak for an editor I hold in very high esteem, whose contributions greatly surpass my own (I'm not being ironic here in the least - check my editing history and you'll see that I rarely do this sort of thing). -- Scray (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well please accept that I will be changing my approach. You will see no more of this sort of the sort of "off-putting" behavior from me. I do not intend, however, to stop trying to work with other people or to suddenly start acting like a bullish asshole who acts without regard for others. I value your input here, I will work harder towards humility, and I thank you deeply for taking the time to discuss these matters. Understand that your message about the "I am always wrong" thing was received and it will change how I interact with others. Thank you again and I intend to keep working towards self-improvement. I no longer think the correct aproach is to behave like a petulant twerp and just declare "fine, I am wrong" at the first sign of opposition, and instead I intend to behave in a more collegial manner. I hope this was the intent of your coming to my talk page to discuss this, and I want to assure you that your effort in spending the time to discuss this matter with me will not be in vain. You have had an effect, and it was a good one. I also thank you for your kind words about holding me in esteem; believe me when I say that I feel that your esteem is undeserved by me based on what I contribute to Wikipedia, and I am quite humbled by you for saying so. I do appreciate it. --Jayron3215:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no doubt some legislators are unscrupulous. But I think the issue of money in politics is less about politicians basing their votes on what will bring them money (although they're not necessarily averse to trying to help out individual donors). Rather, it's about monied interests getting the people who already believe what they do into positions of power. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 09:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's the whole "helping out individual donors" issue that is the problem. Politicians shouldn't be helping out anyone based on how much money they give. The very existance of the money raises doubts as to the legitimacy of the entire process. I am heartened, as you noted before, that some politicians do have scruples, but the sheer amount of money that's coming in can't all be clean. And regarding "monied interests getting people... into power" issue. Allow me to respectfully disagree on that. If that were the case, you wouldn't see those monied interests giving to both parties. You've been in the political process, you know that large corporations (via their PACs) often give lots of money to both parties. It isn't "finding someone who agrees philosophically" and supporting them, its buying a seat at the table. Yes, some of the small donors, the sort of "grassroots" small donations that come in from individual people are based on political philosophy. But if a group gives money to both parties (and many of the big ones do, often in nearly equal amounts) it doesn't read like "supporting your philosophy", it reads like buying influence. Secondly, representatives on these self-same interest groups are often the same people who are lobbying Congress, and also writing legislation, and also being given jobs as regulators over their own industries. Take one example: Henry Paulson was U.S. Sectary of the Treasury, and a major figure in financial regulation both before and during the housing and financial crises of 2007-2008. And he was the ex-head of Goldman Sachs, a firm who has been cited numerous times in the sort of shady investment practices that led to the very crisis he himself was also in charge of regulating. I could find as many problems in this regard from both parties. That sort of thing happens too much for my taste. --Jayron3212:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Looks like they moved the article. I have updated the link. Cracked is some of the best writing on the web; I hope you take some time to poke around their site. It's good stuff. --Jayron3215:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are half way through the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; there is less than a month to go before we have our final 8. Our pool leaders are Adabow (submissions) (Pool A, 189 points) and PresN (submissions) (Pool B, 165 points). The number of points required to reach the next round is not clear at this time; there are some users who still do not have any recorded points. Please remember to update your submissions' pages promptly. In addition, congratulations to PresN, who scored the first featured topic points in the competition for his work on Thatgamecompany related articles. Most points this round generally have, so far, come from good articles, with only one featured article (White-bellied Sea Eagle, from Casliber (submissions)) and two featured lists (Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story, from PresN and Grammy Award for Best Native American Music Album, from Another Believer (submissions)). Points for Did You Know and good article reviews round out the scoring. No points have been awarded for In the News, good topics or featured pictures this round, and no points for featured sounds or portals have been awarded in the entire competition. On an unrelated note, preparation will be beginning soon for next year's WikiCup- watch this space!
There is little else to be said beyond the usual. Please list anything you need reviewing on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, so others following the WikiCup can help, and please do help if you can by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup- points are, of course, offered for reviews at GAC. Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed1711:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again Jayron. How are you doing? I just asked a new question on the Reference Desk, but in general I'm just chilling out overseas. Unfortunately, my friend had to postpone his search for homes in Chicago and Detroit since he got layed off from his job. That means that the trip to Chicago will have to be until my friend gets a job. I wanted to go this month, but you know that times are tough in this country now. I'm still researching about Chicago and so far I found it to be an easier city to comprehend than New York City, so far. Chicago doesn't have the borough thing, confusing linguals, and a city model I'm more familiar with. I got one more Chicago question for you. Why is Chicago a global city of A status whereas Los Angeles is of A- status? Chicago's population has been declining for half a century, and now Los Angeles has almost double the population that Chicago has. Less people usually means a smaller economy. Willminator (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how whoever ranks these things comes up with such ranks, but I do note that population is not, of itself, an indicator of "global city" grading. If you look at Global_city#Criteria, you'll see that population isn't part of the calculation; though a certain population limit will support the sort of businesses and services that a "global city" demands. I mean, Nanjing has more people than does Los Angeles, and it doesn't rank at ALL on the global city list. Chicago is still a major corportate and financial center; moreso than L.A. Consider how much financial business is done in places like the Chicago Board of Trade, which makes Chicago the U.S.'s second largest financial center after New York. Chicago also serves as the national headquarters of major major major businesses like Boeing and Sears. L.A. has the film industry, and lots of oil wells, but despite its population it isn't as big of a deal at the "top end" like Chicago is. Again, I can't tell you exactly why Chicago is ranked higher, but that is my best guess. --Jayron3213:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I read that L.A is also important in the science industry and has the most important port in the Western Hemisphere. Detroit, a city in decline, is also listed as a global city, but of Gamma- status. Would you personally object to this ranking for Detroit? When many people think of Detroit, they think of decline, not prosperity. By the way, my friend is looking for a new job so he can move to either Chicago or Detroit, his hometowns. Of course, he'll have to resign from whatever job he gets in Florida if he decides to move to either of the 2 cities. I know that finding a job in Detroit may be difficult. So, will it be easy for him to get a good job in Chicago? What was your personal experience in finding a job in Chicago? Is it different today from your past experience? Willminator (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much of an opinion on Detroit's rank one way or the other. The people who created the "global city" ranking system have their rubric, and if Detroit is ranked as "Gamma -" on that rubric, then it is what it is. Whatever. L.A. does have some importance in scientific research, mainly due to nearby CalTech which is (with MIT) probably one of the top two science research centers, in terms of presitige, in the U.S., so that's going to attract a lot of business in that realm. However, in terms of overall "science and technology" as a business sector, L.A. isn't even first in its own state, Silicon Valley probably has greater prestige and does more business in this area. And I have no doubts about how important the Port of Los Angeles, but as I said with regards to Chicago and Detroit immediately above, the ranking is what it is. That LA has an alpha- is still a pretty darned good ranking, and it just means that it ranks slightly lower on whatever the "Global Cities" rubric is. Regarding working in Chicago, I'm not going to be very helpful there. First of all, I moved away in 2000, so its been 11 years. Secondly, I never held a real "job" while I was there, I lived there for two years as a graduate student, and I maintained myself on a combination of student loans and menial office jobs under the guise of "work-study" through my University. I did a little google search, and This report may be helpful for your friend. --Jayron3216:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, am I highly offended by this.[7] How dare you correct my gross errors in an effort to make me look less like an idiot? I will fight you to the death over this! On second thought, I'm not allowed to do anything to the death. Doctor's orders. So I guess I'll let it stand. But don't do it again, or I shall you taunt you a second time! :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What you wrote on my talk page. Even before responding here, at the very least you could have checked my last few edits, which might have given you a small clue [8] (two other administrators worked this out on their own without asking stupid questions). Mathsci (talk) 21:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, if I had that information I would have blocked it right away. As I didn't have that information at the time, I earnestly wanted to make sure wasn't blocking YOU directly, if you had created a doppelganger account or one for use in public terminals. If it WAS a legitimate alternate account, say one for public terminals, and I did block you without asking you first, I have a sneaking suspicion you'd be coming to my talk page with a much more sterner complaint than asking a "stupid question". In this case, I was exercising due caution, it was better to ask first and be sure than to block and find out later I had screwed up. I hope you understand I was asking in earnest and not trying to be silly or stupid. Please see this from my point of view; what would you have done if I had blocked you? --Jayron3222:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was obvious enough to 2 other administrators that it wasn't me. Now shoo. Mathsci (talk)
"Fuck off" like "shoo" is OK as harmless invective. (It is slightly more extreme.) But "asshole", the word Jayron32 used in his edit summary, is a personal attack. The diff I supplied above gives a link to an WP:SPI I just requested. It concerns a long term puppetmaster Magnonimous(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) who has become active recently. At the same time I have been subject to quite a lot of sockpuppet attacks recently from two other puppetmasters, some of which involved explicit outing by my full name in two usernames. Dealing with that has involved several arbitartors, checkusers and oversighters, who have been extremely helpful. Thanks,Mathsci (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And, considering how long I have been editing (23,000 edits?), I would have used an alternative account before today and would have declared it. Mathsci (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I have no doubt that Magnonimous has been harassing you, and I don't think he should do that. If you want to take the issue to ANI and demand that I be summarily banned from Wikipedia for calling you an asshole, please do that. But I don't see where my earnest question needed to generate all this rediculous invective from you over the so-called "stupidity" of the question. I was trying to be polite and avoid blocking you, if you find my caution to be offensive, then fine: I'm not going to change my use of admin tools merely because you find politeness, caution, and prudence in using them to be offensive. But please polute my talk page no longer with your presence, if you don't have anything to useful to say. I am officially opposed to people using sockpuppets to harass you, but the rest of this is just plain, how shall I put this, stupid. --Jayron3223:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jayron32, please do not use the word "asshole" on wikipedia. Equally well "polute [sic] my talk page with your presence" is another personal attack, so please try not to use that kind of language. You left a message on talk page, so should expect a response here. Tnanks, Mathsci (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That page is now off my watch-list. It occurs to me that your approach, switching to a general discussion, might work out well - that is, with more eyes on it, the creator might really get blistered for what he's doing. This is "wikipedia review" stuff that has no place on wikipedia itself (FYI, I've been on a couple of enemies lists myself, but that's of little concern, as their creators were eventually banished). ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your cultural sensitivity. It's nice to see such helpful folks around on Wikipedia. I have had my fair share of punks, but you are a welcome cool breeze. Many thanks. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 02:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did either of you notice I wasn't even in the room?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is tasteless and uncalled for. If you want to know why there's an "admins sux" crowd, it's because of thoughtless and arrogant crap like that. If shutting people up is all that matters to you, I recommend logging off for good. You'll never hear any of us again. SDY (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was in no way concerned with the fuck. Profanity has very little to do with incivility. The impression I got was that he was absolutely sure of his opinion and that he would deign to follow process to appease the little people who disagreed with him. It was snide, condescending, and arrogant. The profanity matters little. SDY (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, because the objective of discussions is not to generate consensus, but to browbeat your opponents until they shut up. The "not pretty" truth is that admins acting smug and self-righteous is part of why they are sometimes treated with suspicion and disrespect. Smiling about it just makes you look disingenuous and crude, like a used car salesman trying to be cute, but I'm sure you've already read WP:SARCASM and know that. SDY (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're totally ignoring my argument. I don't care what the policy is on enemies lists says, that conversation is elsewhere, I'm talking about the policy on civility. Being right about policy in no way gives a user the authority to be unpleasant. Sure, he's right about the rules, but Wikipedia doesn't have strict rules anyway. People have bad days, I haven't interacted with Jayron much, maybe he's just touchy about this one thing or there's something else on his mind, but that you think that kind of behavior is acceptable just because he's right about the rules, that's really not a good sign. SDY (talk) 00:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you think Jayron's comments are uncivil, you haven't been here long enough. I might be biased though - Jayron is one of the admins that I hold in high regard (and I assure you there are plenty that I don't), as he doesn't mince words and play politically correct, but rather he makes like Howard Cosell and tells it like it is. And "like it is" is not always pleasant to hear (as I myself have been talked to in pointed terms by Jayron a few times). ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(undent) What you're calling "telling it like it is" is actually being condescending and arrogant. That's the exact problem I'm talking about, and part of the reason for the lack of respect. Admins enforcing the rules because they're the rules and "telling it like it is" without explaining why the rules make sense is part of why newbies consider this place arbitrary and bureaucratic. The Blue Wall is another problem, as you hinted at with your concern about bias, though I'm assuming that it's a subconscious assumption (admin v. user -> user must be wrong) rather than some goofy conspiracy.
I wanted to explain to you why I felt it necessary to add a formal warning to that user [9] despite the fact that you'd already asked him to tone it down [10]
I've been trying to seek the simplest resolution to the concerns, without resorting to further action, for several days - as you can see here, and my edits to the related talk page, [11]. Thus, I felt compelled to place a clear warning. I hope the user will desist, but if xe does not, I shall post to ANI.
Hey, given this user's problems, and clear warnings, I'm not sure ANI is necessary. Just buzz me and I'll take care of it. Unless you enjoy the unneeded bureaucracy and pointless drama. --Jayron3216:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could be as eloquent and removed as you seem to be when discussing topics about which I feel passionately. It's no wonder someone accused me of canvassing; it is really difficult for me to remove feelings and stick to reason. Thanks for your more grounded voice. CouplandForever (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm contacting you because you participated in the proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles a few months ago; and particularly because you had some interesting ideas on how to implement the trial. I have set up a discussion page for various aspects of implementing the trial at WP:ACTRIAL. Please feel free to join the discussion if you are interested. I am not initially contacting a large number of users (in an attempt to keep the discussions contained and manageable), but feel free to invite any other users who might be helpful. Thanks. —SW—babble00:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Who knows, perhaps 6 months is long enough for him to get laid, and that may take his mind off of being a vandal for a while. --Jayron3202:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a serious problem on the Swarcliffe page, as some editors are ignoring advice about the edits they are making. I have made a list of mistakes on the talk page, to which one editor replied, "I have no intention of going through the list of "errors" ". Help is very definitely needed here.--andreasegde (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote this [12], just minutes before your posting. My intention is to not reply. If anything is unsolved or unclear, please go to my talkpage. -DePiep (talk) 00:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand your concerns with the medical type questions I come to the Reference Desk on occasion with, but really, I do know the policy, and I do have a very good understanding of when a question I have (or others have) can and cannot be answered within Reference Desk policy. In general, while I sometimes use myself as an example in a question, I usually want the answer in general and not as it relates to me. A good example of this type of answer to one of my questions is the second paragraph of Red Act's response. Really, that's all the information I was looking for and I would honestly feel like I was wasting my doctor's time if I just called him up on the phone to ask him "Hey, what makes more difference in whether you gain or lose weight: intake of calories, fat, carbs, or protein?" (which is the simple way of asking it that I was having extreme difficulty phrasing). But anyway, like I said, while I understand your concerns, I do know the policy and I don't ask a question without first thinking about whether it could be answered within that policy...if I think it really would require medical advice instead of medical information to answer, I don't ask it. Ks0stmIf you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.05:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Jayron32. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Who / what is LC? Are they a famous, er, animal lover? (Feel free to email or msg me on IRC if in next 10 mins if preferred for DENY purposes) EggCentric00:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The finals are upon us; we're down to the last few. One of the eight remaining contestants will be this year's WikiCup champion! 150 was the score needed to progress to the final; just under double the 76 required to reach round 4, and more than triple the 41 required to reach round 3. Our eight finalists are:
Casliber (submissions), Pool A's winner. Casliber has the highest total score in the competition, with 1528, the bulk of which is made up of 8 featured articles. He has the highest number of total featured articles (8, 1 of which was eligible for double points) and total did you knows (72) of any finalist. Casliber writes mostly on biology, including ornithology, botany and mycology.
PresN (submissions), Pool B's winner and the highest scorer this round. PresN is the only finalist who has scored featured topic points, and he has gathered an impressive 330, but most of his points come from his 4 featured articles, one of which scored double. PresN writes mostly on video games and the Hugo Awards.
Hurricanehink (submissions), Pool A's runner-up. Hurricanehink's points are mostly from his 30 good articles, more than any other finalist, and he is also the only finalist to score good topic points. Hurricanehink, as his name suggests, writes mostly on meteorology.
Wizardman (submissions), Pool B's runner-up. Wizardman has completed 86 good article reviews, more than any other finalist, but most of his points come from his 2 featured articles. Wizardman writes mostly on American sport, especially baseball.
Miyagawa (submissions), the "fastest loser" (Pool A). Miyagawa has written 3 featured lists, one of which was awarded double points, more than any other finalist, but he was awarded points mostly for his 68 did you knows. Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, including dogs, military history and sport.
Resolute (submissions), the second "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Resolute's points come from his 9 good articles. He writes mostly on Canadian topics, including ice hockey.
Yellow Evan (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool A). Most of Evan's points come from his 10 good articles, and he writes mostly on meteorology.
Sp33dyphil (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Phil's points come from his 9 good articles, 4 of which (more than any other finalist) were eligible for double points. He writes mostly on aeronautics.
In other news, preparations for next year's competition have begun with a brainstorming thread. Please, feel free to drop by and share any thoughts you have about how the competition should work next year. Sign ups are not yet open, but will be opened in due course. Watch this space. Further, there has been a discussion about the rule whereby those in the WikiCup must delcare their participation when nominating articles at featured article candidates. This has resulted in a bot being created by new featured article delegate Ucucha (talk·contribs). The bot will leave a message on FAC pages if the nominator is a participant in the WikiCup.
A reminder of the rules: any points scored after August 29 may be claimed for the final round, and please remember to update submission pages promptly. If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed1700:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's an odd one. I wouldn't have done a false positive, not with that many rollbacks, and I'm pretty sure I wasn't drunk or stoned at the time. I'd be perfectly willing to unblock, but I'm curious why the reasons are gone. I admit, I don't leave the most informative messages, I tend to believe the diffs will speak for themselves, but as you can see from [13], ... well, it says I reverted an edit by Vitalevent. But that edit ... is not existent. I checked the histories on the articles they edited in March 2007 and that trend continues. For example, from 2006 Lebanon War, we have:
(cur | prev) 21:13, March 27, 2007 Golbez (talk | contribs | block) m (114,186 bytes) (Reverted edits by Vitalevent (talk) to last version by MartinBot) (undo)
(cur | prev) 00:08, March 27, 2007 MartinBot (talk | contribs | block) m (114,186 bytes) (BOT - rv Vengeancetaker (talk) to last version by I m dude2002) (undo)
So where is Vitalevent's edit? There's nothing in the deletion log, nothing in Vitalevent's deleted contributions... could they have been oversighted? That's the only situation I can think of. --Golbez (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm trying to find an oversighter to confirm this. But... wait, someone confirmed he's a sockpuppet now? Is there a link? --Golbez (talk) 05:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, Grawp. Thanks much for vindicating me. :) As for his RFU... ballsy, I must say. When there's no more sleeper accounts, time to wake up the dead ones? --Golbez (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its worth a try. The edit filters and diligent work by old-guard admins means many of the newer admins prolly don't even know who Grawp is. Old disruptive sockpuppeteers used to do fun stuff like him and Willy on Wheels. Now the only sockers we get are neocon POV pushers who don't know when to give up. C'est la guerre. --Jayron3205:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason why you just over-rode my decision to not protect Template:Dale Brown? On both RFPP and the template's talk page, well before you acted, I explicitly declined protection, particularly since the request came very soon after the template was reverted to the preferred version of the requester? And the fact that I'm not sure that an edit-warring block on one or more of the parties isn't a more appropriate solution? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please protect the proper version. On the talk page discussion four editors: Sadads, Truthkeeper88, Dream Focus, and Edison said to keep the red links. The only person stating they wanted them removed was Fleet Commander. DreamFocus03:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make any sense. If every single other person is against his change, and he is the only one for it, then why give him what he wanted? Page protection is to protect against one editor going against all others, not to give them what they want. DreamFocus03:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What doesn't make any sense? I told you I made a concious and deliberate decision to protect that version, largely because I knew it would piss you off specifically. Or maybe I just protected the most recent version which policy requires that I do. So, you make a decision: Do I hate you, or do I just follow the rules? Either way, it isn't being changed by me today. --Jayron3203:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, your solution ended up being the correct one, by far. Due to comments made after the protection, I ended up leaving it in place; now, as a result of discussions, there is actually the very beginnings of a consensus forming for a possible solution. I'm glad you ended up conflicting with me and protecting, as my approach would almost certainly have resulted in blocks and even worse feelings than there are now. I shall consider this for the future. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no problem. I always tend to favor protection over blocking for pages that don't see a lot of traffic; the chance that someone random is going to trip over this template and need to edit it, but isn't already involved in the conflict is essentially nil, so there's no chance of collateral damage, and people who get blocked tend to get more pissed and more entrenched and less likely to try to work for a solution. Thanks for the vote of confidence! --Jayron3216:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you unblock it now? I believe we worked it out. No one is against listing all the books the author had in the template, just some don't like red links. So no one will object to simply listing the names of the books in their proper place to make the template complete, as long as there are no red links. DreamFocus10:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the edit war rages on! I cannot believe this. You unblocked and Dream Focus went against the consensus immediately. This was NOT the consensus. I always though that Dream Focus could fool no one. Well, I was wrong. I request reinstatement of the protection. I am going to consider my next action this violation of all codes, although I must confess that Template:Dale Brown is no longer so much of a problem as is the Dream Focus himself, who I suspect is wikihounding me. Fleet Command (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't act as an admin, and as an editor, I would argue that Dream Focus's edits are basically gaming the system. I'm not going to revert for fear of being blocked, but adding all the unlinked articles back as plain text instead of red links, he's messing up the template just as badly as before.—Kww(talk) 00:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was with the red links. That was all people were complaining about. I wasn't aware anyone (so far only you) would complain about plain text. I did that BEFORE you stated your objection. I honestly thought the issue resolved. I am certainly not gaming the system. DreamFocus01:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as I posted a bit earlier in the current debate[14] every single writers I find has plain text in their template. I didn't see this as anything strange at all, since I see it constantly. DreamFocus01:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are two groups of people in the world: People who care about this issue, and me. Find someone else to help you all sort this out. --Jayron3202:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kww. And, Jayron32, if I take the issue to MedCom, they will expect a certain degree of accountability from you, although don't take me wrong: I am not threatening you and I do not mean that matter can even comes as close as a light year to removing your admin rights or such things. In fact I am sure that it won't. Fleet Command (talk) 08:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I got it. Dream Focus is now reverted, and will receive a nice swift block for editing against consensus. FleetCommand, everyone on this project is a volunteer--no one can be forced to do anything, even admins. If Jayron32 isn't interested in the issue, that's fine. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look, KWW and FC. I don't have a horse in this race. It doesn't matter one iota who "wins". After DF requested unprotection, I looked over the talk page, and it looked like a reasonable compromise has been reached. If it has not DO NOT CONTINUE TO EDIT THE PAGE. This is directed at DF and KWW and FC and anyone else who is reading this. The fact that the protection is taken away does not mean that I endorse any side or the other. I had read the talk page and thought the problem had solved itself. If it has not, then you will be blocked. And by you, I mean you. If you are asking "do you mean me", then the answer is "yes". And if you think I am not talking about you, then you are wrong. --Jayron3217:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
if two reactions occured in a vessel such that temperature doesnot change.their enthalpies are different . how to relate their rate of reactions by arrhenius equationChotu23 (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that question makes sense. The Arrhenius equation allows you to calculate the rate constant of the reaction, but you'd first need to know the activation energy for each reactant. I'm also unclear on the specifics regarding which two reactions are going on. You don't give enough information here to work with. Your best option is to go to your teacher personally and ask him or her directly when they have time to listen to your question and work with you directly on the trouble you are having. --Jayron3214:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fleet Command here. I have question regarding our recent discussion. Tell me, what kind of person do you think I am?
No, I am not "chitchatting" as someone previously put it. It is strictly Wikipedia business: For a person to improve, having links to Wikipedia policies is not enough; he must know where he stands and how bad he is. So, please tell me: Do agree that I am "a deceitful person", that "I use under-handed tactic towards other administrators" and "talk down" to them?
I highly appreciate your spending time and effort answering to this question. It is very important to me.
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#User:La goutte de pluie and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Hello Jayron, I want to let you know that I asked a question on the Humanities section of the Reference Desk that I know you might be interested in. The question has to do with the population decline that some American cities are experiencing, which for some reason all started declining in population in the 1950s. I included Chicago in the list by the way. I thought of you after I posted my question because I remember that a while back you explained to me about the reasons for Chicago's and Detroit's populations' decline on a previous question and because this is one of the many things that you're very knowledgeable about. By the way, I'm still planning to go to to Chicago with my friend like I told you a while back. I was planning to go there last month, but now I'm planning to go next year. My friend is still looking for work, but he is almost there now. I recently have been keeping an eye at some nice Chicago appartments online. Willminator (talk) 01:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I missed this post. I was busy, and then he archived it.
As you know, he was finally blocked for 48 hours. It was only after I clearly pointed out his history, that his block was extended to 6 months.
You and others knew of his previous 3 blocks under a different IP. Yet, you allowed him to continue with a further 297 edits in 4 days. Almost all of these were disruptive.
I am very curious why you (and others) allowed this to continue so long. I'm also curious why nobody spoke up when the insufficient 48-hour block was given.
For me, this was the classic conflict between WP:AGF and WP:CIR. On the one hand, I never believed that he meant bad. On the other hand, he was clearly unable to understand why his behavior was causing problems. I allowed him to continue after the first day or so because a) I thought that he may come around and b) I saw that you were working with him, so I specifically didn't want to step on your toes. It looked like you had it under control, and so I thought it reasonable to let you handle it until you asked for help. Since you never asked for help, I never stepped in. --Jayron3202:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to pack it in when I found a wierd glitch in my contribs. I reverted the article to 21:04, 22 August 2011 to remove vandalism - (.. can't read and ...homosexuality...). But the diffs has me putting in the offensive material, which I didn't. There's no question I reverted from 02:06, 16 September 2011 to 21:04, 22 August 2011. Ever see something like that? SlightSmile03:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I know what happened (I hate mysteries like this). I had the diffs open for undo but I clicked on Edit by mistake. If I start making blunders like that maybe I should take up lawn spraying. Glitch in the matrix? SlightSmile16:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's October Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by over 1,000 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions, including a brand new one for the single largest wikified article! If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!
Note: The drive starts October 1, but you can still sign up!
Hello, how are you? It feels like it has been a while. Maybe it has been. I have good news for you since things have been going in favor of Chicago for my friend. My friend has taken off Detroit, his hometown, as his option of buying a house, apartment, condo, etc because, although getting a place to live is cheaper in Detroit than Chicago, Detroit has much higher unemployment and lower standards of living. You were right. So, that’s where things are at now. Therefore, Chicago, where my friend grew up, is now the only option for him to find a place to live and move there, though it’s going to be more expensive and harder to find a house or something like that there although I’ve been keeping an eye on some apartments there as I told you before.
So anyway, thanks for your answer to my new question on the Reference Desk. I got a new Chicago question for you. I read that as of 2009, there are 6,999 yellow taxicabs in Chicago (the second biggest number of yellow taxicabs in the U.S) and 13,237 yellow taxicabs in New York City (the biggest number of yellow taxicabs in the U.S), which includes the 5 boroughs. Would I be correct to deduce, that if I apply the answer you gave me and the answers others have given and will give me in the Reference Desk about why so many taxi cabs in Manhattan, that much of Chicago’s taxicabs 6,999 yellow cabs would be concentrated in The Loop for similar reasons that much of New York City’s 13,237 yellow cabs are concentrated in much of Manhattan? Did you see a lot of taxi cabs while you lived in Chicago? As I mentioned in the question on the Reference Desk, New York City government wants to add 6000 new yellow taxicabs in the outer boroughs. Could the reasons why New York City wants to add more taxicabs in the outer boroughs be applied and relevant to adding more taxis in Chicago outside of the Loop? Chicago is a more car friendly place though like you told me before. Willminator (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From my experience, most Taxicabs were indeed found in the Loop and Gold Coast areas of Chicago, I rarely saw such cabs east of the Dan Ryan/JFK, but they were fairly common downtown. Where I lived, which was roughly in the Little Italy/Greektown/Illinois Medical District area (my neighborhood was kinda on the border between all three), I rarely saw a taxicab. I had my own car, but usually I took the "El" everywhere, as I was walking distance from several stops and it went almost anywhere I needed it to. There were lots of busses as well; I didn't often take a bus, however because the El was so close, but I am pretty sure buses are more common in areas where the "El" didn't go, esp. on the southwest side. --Jayron3221:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, so what if Chicago wants to add more yellow cabs in Little Italy, Greektown, east of Dan Ryan/JFK, etc? Would the possible reasons that NYC wants to add more yellow cabs in its outer boroughs apply to adding taxis in those areas of Chicago were taxicabs are rare? I haven't seen anything yet that said that Chicago wants to add more taxis in the almost taxiless areas of Chicago, but I'm just saying if Chicago starts wanting to add more taxis where there are few of them. By the way, I think it would be better for me if we can communicate by email. I'd feel more comfortable with that. So, if you're willing, here's my email address: williminator2005(at)yahoo(dot)com. Replace the "(at)" with an @ and the "(dot)" with a period. Willminator (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks. I understand. Regards and take care. Edit: I want to say thank you for answering what you were able to answer. Forgive me for not thanking you earlier. Edit: You got my email address just in case if you want to contact me that way for anything. So, feel free to send me an email. Are you ok with that? Willminator (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Jayron, you've previously commented about my complaint here [15] about user Kurdo777's disruptive edits on the Azerbaijani American article. Nothing was done to the complaint, so user Kurdo777 came up with a disingenuous strategy - to go badmouth me in retaliation to another user [16], who then followed his advice and got involved. How's removing, without any discussion or explanation on the talk page, a whole long paragraph with some 18 verifiable and reliable quality sources that are crucial to the article, contributing to the improvement of the article or alleviating the complain that some editors are acting in bad faith when trying to keep this article as short and uninformative as possible? See these edits: [17] and [18]? On top of this, user Beyond My Ken (BMK) goes to the page of an admin who he knows blocked my account over a 3RR dispute on another article with him (BMK), and tries to justify his edits to her (but not on the talk page of the article itself) while getting that admin to intervene again against someone she blocked before [19] This is clearly editing in a very bad faith, with two editors being driven by some personal feelings, and in the case of Kurdo777, ready to say and do anything, however untrue and false. I have significantly improved and expanded the article in question over the past month, whilst Kurdo777 and now BMK are only removing information and trying to put every roadblock they can. Very unfortunate. --Saygi1 (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since you were the only administrator who commented on this issue, please note that Saygi1 continues to remove the dispute tag without a consensus on the talk page[20], and despite objections several other editors.[21] I've raised the issue of Saygi1's disruptive conduct here[22] and here[23], and as you can see, those two Wikipedians also agree that there is an issue with Saygi1's conduct and behavior in general. A WP:SPA by the name of User:5aul is also making blind sweeping reverts on the same page, and removing the tag, without as much as an edit summary.[24] I suspect the latter of being the meatpuppet of Saygi1 who himself is most likely an ArbCom sanction-evading sock-puppet/reincarnation of an old user, given the fact that he was editing at an expert level of familiarity with complicated Wikipedia codes from the get-go, and that this topical area was subject of several ArbCom, and most regular Azerbaijani editors have bee subject to such sanctions. Kurdo777 (talk) 01:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kurdo777, I've objected to your edit warring and malicious editing numerous times as well, such as here [25] and here [26]. So I've complained plenty about your bad faith and groundless placement of a tag that has been disputed and reverted by other editors. You never substantiated your disruptive actions. You talk much about some meat- sock-puppets, are you one yourself? Because an editor who collaborates with you has been coming and helping to revert the page on your behalf before. I don't know what so impressed you in my "expert level of familiarity with complicated Wikipedia codes" - I am greatly honored, but what codes are complicated? I know far more complicated codes than Wikipedia, so wouldn't consider it "complicated". As of Arbcom - I've checked it, it's about Azerbaijan and Armenia, two nation-states and the pages and articles that are directly related to them. The article Azerbaijani American is not related to it any more than Armenian American. Also, when I placed the dispute tag on Iranian American, and substantiated it in the talk page, your friends removed it still. In general, please substantiate your edits and your complaints - don't just throw everything you have hoping it will "stick". --Saygi1 (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The ArbCom in question[27] covers ALL TOPICS THAT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO with Azerbaijan, which includes Azerbaijani-Americans. And for the record, you've just acknowledged that you're aware of the ArbCom in question, which should save the admins the trouble of warning you about it, before applying the sanctions to you. Kurdo777 (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Bert Bell article looks really good. I notice that we do not, as yet, have a seperate article on the NFL Commissioner/President position. Perhaps that may be somewhere to go. Honestly, I can't think of anything extra that hasn't already been linked in the main text, so I don't think you necessarily need to have any more "see alsos" there. --Jayron3218:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
k, thanks. I am probably going to delete the see also then. I put the article in for copy edit. But the article has way too much off topic stuff in the eagles and steelers. do i request a peer review 1st (hoping someone will delete off topic stuff) or copy edit 1st. I baselined the article as there are no more citations needed. I don't want to edit until until October. No one adds content to the article but me. Thanks in advance. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can do either. There is no formula. You can even do both at the same time. And someone may add content or cleanup the article in the mean time. Perhaps it doesn't get a lot of attention, but it might. See WP:OWN for more information. --Jayron3221:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I'd love to take a crack at it, but since I've had children, and they've grown, I have lost a lot of the time I need to do quality research and writing, so I don't have the time to do deep work on Wikipedia as I used to. Maybe I'll add this one to my queue of "when I someday have the time". It's definately a good start! --Jayron3222:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't delete the text on purpose. That was apparently a glitch since my A7 tag somehow went through twice. And I still don't see how it's NOT an A7. "Multiple albums" by itself is not a claim to fame. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)00:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are on this year's home straight, with less than a month to go until the winner of the 2011 WikiCup will be decided. The fight for first place is currently being contested by Miyagawa (submissions), Hurricanehink (submissions) and Sp33dyphil (submissions), all of whom have over 200 points. This round has already seen multiple featured articles (1991 Atlantic hurricane season from Hurricanehink and Northrop YF-23 from Sp33dyphil) and a double-scoring featured list (Miyagawa's 1948 Summer Olympics medal table). The scores will likely increase far further before the end of the round on October 31 as everyone ups their pace. There is not much more to say- thoughts about next year's competition are welcome on the WikiCup talk page or the scoring talk page, and signups will open once a few things have been sorted out.
If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed1712:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing the result of the discussion at AN/I, I went ahead and added the banned user templates to the Noloop and Mindbunny user pages. I hope you don't mind. — OliORPyfan!02:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And this is the edit summary a grown-up uses when exercising their amazing computer powers to permanently block a user from participating here? Way to go. N-HHtalk/edits15:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 13:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Done Someone else cleaned up my mess. --Jayron32 16:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Adabow (submissions) (Pool A, 189 points) and 
PresN (submissions) (Pool B, 165 points). The number of points required to reach the next round is not clear at this time; there are some users who still do not have any recorded points. Please remember to update your submissions' pages promptly. In addition, congratulations to PresN, who scored the first featured topic points in the competition for his work on Thatgamecompany related articles. Most points this round generally have, so far, come from good articles, with only one featured article (White-bellied Sea Eagle, from 
Casliber (submissions)) and two featured lists (Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story, from PresN and Grammy Award for Best Native American Music Album, from 
Another Believer (submissions)). Points for Did You Know and good article reviews round out the scoring. No points have been awarded for In the News, good topics or featured pictures this round, and no points for featured sounds or portals have been awarded in the entire competition. On an unrelated note, preparation will be beginning soon for next year's WikiCup- watch this space!
Casliber (submissions), Pool A's winner. Casliber has the highest total score in the competition, with 1528, the bulk of which is made up of 8 featured articles. He has the highest number of total featured articles (8, 1 of which was eligible for double points) and total did you knows (72) of any finalist. Casliber writes mostly on biology, including ornithology, botany and mycology.
PresN (submissions), Pool B's winner and the highest scorer this round. PresN is the only finalist who has scored featured topic points, and he has gathered an impressive 330, but most of his points come from his 4 featured articles, one of which scored double. PresN writes mostly on video games and the Hugo Awards.
Hurricanehink (submissions), Pool A's runner-up. Hurricanehink's points are mostly from his 30 good articles, more than any other finalist, and he is also the only finalist to score good topic points. Hurricanehink, as his name suggests, writes mostly on meteorology.
Wizardman (submissions), Pool B's runner-up. Wizardman has completed 86 good article reviews, more than any other finalist, but most of his points come from his 2 featured articles. Wizardman writes mostly on American sport, especially baseball.
Miyagawa (submissions), the "fastest loser" (Pool A). Miyagawa has written 3 featured lists, one of which was awarded double points, more than any other finalist, but he was awarded points mostly for his 68 did you knows. Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, including dogs, military history and sport.
Resolute (submissions), the second "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Resolute's points come from his 9 good articles. He writes mostly on Canadian topics, including ice hockey.
Yellow Evan (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool A). Most of Evan's points come from his 10 good articles, and he writes mostly on meteorology.
Sp33dyphil (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Phil's points come from his 9 good articles, 4 of which (more than any other finalist) were eligible for double points. He writes mostly on aeronautics.
Piotrus (submissions), 
Grandiose (submissions), 
Stone (submissions), 
Eisfbnore (submissions), 
Canada Hky (submissions) and 
MuZemike (submissions). Everyone still in the competition at this stage has done fantastically well, and contributed greatly to Wikipedia. We're on the home straight now, and we will know our winner in two months.
Miyagawa (submissions), 
Hurricanehink (submissions) and 
Sp33dyphil (submissions), all of whom have over 200 points. This round has already seen multiple featured articles (1991 Atlantic hurricane season from Hurricanehink and Northrop YF-23 from Sp33dyphil) and a double-scoring featured list (Miyagawa's 1948 Summer Olympics medal table). The scores will likely increase far further before the end of the round on October 31 as everyone ups their pace. There is not much more to say- thoughts about next year's competition are welcome on the WikiCup talk page or the scoring talk page, and signups will open once a few things have been sorted out.