User talk:Jayron32/Archive22

Note

I've sent you an email. Bred Ivy (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't get it. Please send it again. --Jayron32 04:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

About the word selection in NFL players profiles

I think you should keep the word selection. I does make no sense to change it now!! It's traditon for years! When you watch NFL Network and Let's just say example Josh Cribbs under his it's say 2 time Pro Bowl Selection.

For the Major league profiles you have just put all-star in their profiles!! I understand selection for Major League Baseball players is odd but At least put MLB All-Star instead!! I think that's more appropriate. Just for in Blake Griffin's profile it says NBA All-Star not just typical All-Star. You know what I mean?

All I'm saying is why change it now!!! Putting Pro Bowl selection it's been on there for years and now all of a sudden it's to tacky to put the word selection now!! You see what I'm saying?

Now you are trying to take out the word selection now!! To me to take out selection and just putting typical Pro Bowl on theses NFL players Wikipedia profiles make's it tacky and wired. It doesn't fit well with the concept.

Pro Bowl selection is a traditional way!! When they put Deion Sanders info on NFL Network it says 8 time Pro Bowl Selection not 8 time Pro Bowl!!.

I think you should the word selection. Why change it now?!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.203.153 (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Powerman 5000, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heavy metal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Science Reference Desk tone

Hello Jayron, I was a little surprised at your recent response on the reference desk. I'm not a fan of bowdlerization or censorship, even applied to the lower tiers of academia; but perhaps you might review WP:TONE, given the situation? Unless the assignment is a review-paper of various cultural slangs and jargons about reproduction, a more encyclopedic term should probably be used. Even if this kid is trying to get out of doing his homework currently, we shouldn't provide him (or his teacher) any reason to discredit the Wikipedia reference desk. Nimur (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done. --Jayron32 21:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for closing ANI

Would you mind doing it again? Toddst1 (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Dumb Blondes

I have noticed you have edited and deleted some of my info on the Dumb Blondes page, although some of this may have been necessary I find most of it unnecessary and would have appreciated you informing or asking me first. I find wikipedia very complicated to use and admit there may need some 'tidying' to do, but find that some of the details you have deleted and/or edited were totally unnecessary. Why have the song links to youtube been removed? I thought there wasn't a problem with 'public' domains? also the link to the Sabbath website www.thesabbath.co.uk .

regards

(Wolfywiki (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)WolfiwikiWolfywiki (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC))

Mega Man Legends 3

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why the heck did you remove my question about Mega Man Legends 3? I am not a troll. I said please which is the magic word. I want answers please. I just want my question answer. That all I wanted. So please answer me. That the only that will make me happy.69.131.127.253 (talk) 05:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC) This is getting wearisome, and you have long worn out your welcome here at Wikipedia. If you had not already asked 1000 questions about game ratings (which can be found on the packaging of games and on game review websites anyways, you don't need us to read the packages for you), we might be more inclined to answer your questions. But after months of this behavior, it has grown old. Please find some other part of the vast internet to bother. --Jayron32 05:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Hey I did not asked this before. I Sorry of all of what I did. Can Please answer my question about Mega Man Legends 3. Please do it for me and all of the Japanese children who love Mega Man. Please forgive me. This is my request. Where can you asked question on the Japanese Wikipedia. I can not read Japanese. I just want to know if Mega Man Legends 3 will be rated A all ages in Japan if it get uncanceled. I also want to know if a child get get a B 12 and up rated game if the parent let them.69.131.127.253 (talk) 05:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Go away. --Jayron32 05:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Go away? Not until my question is answer. I love children so much that I will keep asking and asking until I get a answer. Do you have children of your own? If you do show picture of them and while you are at it answer my question.69.131.127.253 (talk) 05:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Texas cuisine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Creole (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

A point...

Your warning

"Please do not personally attack other users, or be incivil to them in any way..." As you did here: [1]. It would be best if you chose different ways to interact with other Wikipedia users. --Jayron32 01:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

is understood. While I have no time to check, I hope you also warned the "poor victim" to get off my back, especially after another skilled editor tried to defend me from him.--Djathinkimacowboy ^{what now?!} 16:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Trivia question: Why does that user's name sound familiar? Hint: It's an old pop-culture reference. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll spoil it for you so there's no drama: those are Popeye's first words ("D'ja think I'm a cowboy?" when asked if he is a sailor).--Djathinkimacowboy ^{what now?!} 17:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, blow me down! :) Technically comedy rather than drama. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

What any other user does is irrelevent, I'm not in the "warning other people so you feel better" business. Don't use language or terms that draw attention to yourself, and other people may be warned instead. So long as you make yourself the most noticible person, behavior-wise, it masks the bad behavior of others. Keep that in mind for the future; if you believe others to be acting badly, don't let your behavior be so bad that it lets them get away with it. Instead, make their poor actions stand out in contrast against your own behavior, which if it is beyond reproach, will avoid problems like this in the future. --Jayron32 18:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Understood. Point is well taken. And I am AGF from you.--Djathinkimacowboy ^{what now?!} 14:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Needmore

Hello! I'm hoping I can get some advice or help in dealing with a new article pasted into the existing Needmore article. Needmore was a disambiguation page, and Needmore (disambiguation) redirects to it. An editor has inserted info about a band named Needmore in place of that disambiguation text. It seems to me that the disambiguation content should be moved to Needmore (disambiguation) and the band content created at either Needmore or Needmore (band). I frankly prefer the later. Advice? Thanks! --Tgeairn (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done. --Jayron32 04:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! (Gotta find a barnstar of speedy delivery for you :) ). --Tgeairn (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It was an easy fix. You coulda done it. It didn't require any admin tools. --Jayron32 04:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't sure how to get the edit histories to work out, but looking at the disambig content, I see that the history probably wasn't needed anyway. There isn't any talk page content, so I'm going to remove the disambig template from the talk page at Talk:Needmore. Thanks again, Tgeairn (talk) 04:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Rev Del

Hi could you rev del this pls? — Abhishek  ^Talk 04:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done. --Jayron32 04:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL I guess you are the only one. Anyways, thanks. — Abhishek  ^Talk 04:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Signatures

I've improved the edit notice on Wikipedia talk:Signatures. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. People who don't read giant red warnings don't read them if you make the gianter or redder. There is no way to fix that problem. --Jayron32 15:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Paterno fired or forced to resign

That CNN article I found says that Paterno is still a faculty member at Penn State. Check it out: [2] It quotes a statement by the board which says he is being allowed to retire. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 04:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me like, combined with other sources, it is a complex issue; he was removed from his responsibilities forcibly (fired) as football coach, but is still officially an employee. He did not voluntarily stop being football coach. --Jayron32 18:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

That's why I figure it's more accurate to say he was forced to resign. All indications were that he was going to be fired outright had he not offered to retire. The BOT's vote, based on the statement from Thursday, in effect said, "Yes, you can resign--but you have to leave immediately, not at the end of the season." HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 20:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It's original research to assume he was forced to re-sign if it does not outright say so in the reference. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

SarahStierch (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Normandy: Great close!

[3] made me smile. Collect (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I amuse myself... glad you liked it too. --Jayron32 02:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Objection! I'm shocked. If you think closing Mfds is just for your amusement, please don't do it. Leave the closures to people who conscientiously try to create solutions based on the opinions of the participants. --Kleinzach 02:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Please go to WP:DRV to request a review of my actions if you disagree with my conclusions. --Jayron32 03:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all let's keep this in one place. (I'm removing your response from my talk page.) Second, Deletion review (DRV) is for contested deletions. Nothing was deleted here, so it's not a good place to discuss your jokey closure. --Kleinzach 03:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

"Deletion review (DRV) considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions. This includes appeals to restore deleted pages and appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion". Bold mine. From WP:DRV. If you disagree with the conclusions I reached, and you wish to see my conclusions overturned, please go to WP:DRV. I don't understand what you think is unclear about that. --Jayron32 03:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I've raised this here. --Kleinzach 03:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Protection of userspace pages

Re your comment at WP:HD about userspace protection: see WP:UPROT, which permits userspace protection upon request from the user. Nyttend (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Go for it then. I'm not going to stop you. --Jayron32 02:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Hello. The IP 90.195.244.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that you blocked a couple days ago has, sadly come back and resumed the exact same editing style. I place one more request to stop and learn rather than a warning but this has been ignored. I came to you first since you had some familiarity with the situation but if you would prefer me to go to AIV I will be happy to do so. Thanks for your time and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 16:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done Keep me apraised. --Jayron32 03:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance. I will keep an eye on things and update you as needed. Have a great week on wiki and off. MarnetteD | Talk 03:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. Sadly, the person has returned and is now using this IP 2.222.145.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). They are both from Burton-on-Trent and are hitting the same articles with the same edits. Do you think you can act on this info or do you want me to post a set of warnings on the new IPs page? Also if this persists would you like me to make a list of the articles hit and add semiprotection? As ever thank for your assistance in this matter. MarnetteD | Talk 21:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done. --Jayron32 05:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

John P. Surma vandalized again by same IP.

User talk:184.22.125.24 vandalized John P. Surma again in the same way. Any ideas?

WikiCup 2012 January newsletter

WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is Grapple X (submissions), due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by Ruby2010 (submissions), whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is Jivesh boodhun (submissions), who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!

The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.

A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.

• 12george1 (submissions) was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
• 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
• Sp33dyphil (submissions) was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.
• Sp33dyphil (submissions) is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
• Speciate (submissions) was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
• Jivesh boodhun (submissions) was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.

We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: 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 ed17 00:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice work

[4]. Partly because I agree with the result, of course, but mostly because it was so well-thought out and well-explained. A well-considered close like that I'd be happy with even if I were on the opposite side. Let's hope she makes it worth the effort. 28bytes (talk) 05:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with 28bytes. Very nice close. Reyk _YO! 05:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for your kind words. Yes, as I said on their talk page, their number one job right now is to prove all of those who opposed the unblock wrong. Let's hope that happens. --Jayron32 05:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• FYI, I reviewed the case last night and had pretty much reached the same conclusion... the only reason why I didn't unblock was because I felt it needed to wait one more day before closing... but I just went there to close the issue with pretty much the same rationale as you did unless somebody provided a compelling case not to or the tide had turned significantly. So, I'll throw in my support as a good close.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Well I voted 'Oppose', but I still think you did an excellent job of summation and closure, so that's a 'nice work' from me too. Manning (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

116.240.155.57

You can swipe their talk acccess as well - Calabe1992 05:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done. --Jayron32 05:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Did not work correctly. Calabe1992 05:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops. It would help if I actually check the box. Done now, for realsies. --Jayron32 05:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. Calabe1992 05:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

What a total idiot - I've been watching him harass Bugs for awhile. I hope he comes after me - he'll wish he didn't. Doc talk 05:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Is he using a variable IP? Calabe1992 05:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Meh. I try not to get my blood pressure up over these sort of people. Not caring is the best revenge. --Jayron32 05:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

On one hand, yes we should WP:DENY, but on the other, rapid-fire can be fun.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:DGAF. Learn it, love it, live it. --Jayron32 05:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:DGAF. Said.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I much appreciate the help; it's all the same disturbed person across multiple IPs. Is there any chance of protecting my talk and user pages so that non-registered users cannot post? Thanks again, --Tenebrae (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

As for me, I have User talk:Jasper Deng/Nonconfirmed. It diverts most harassment to a less-visible place and does not trigger unnecessary "You have new messages" notices.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for both the help and the tip! With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you address my RPP as well? Thanks. Calabe1992 19:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done. --Jayron32 19:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for watching out for me. :) Freakin' neo-Nazis. >:( Reminds me of this [5] scene in The Blues Brothers. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

USRD WikiProject Newsletter, Winter 2012

Volume 5, Issue 1 • Winter 2011 • About the Newsletter
This edition is going out to all USRD WikiProject members (current, former, or potential) in addition to other subscribers as part of a roll call to update the participants list. Anyone that would like to continue to receive this newsletter in the future needs to update the subscription list if they are not already subscribed.
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features U.S. Roads consolidates M-6 article makes headlines Planning Department debuts Stub drive concludes early, successfully Editorial	State and national updates Project news Task force reports for MD, MI, PA, and VA
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—Imzadi 1979 → 22:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Question about revert

This is concerning the revert on University of Tennessee Health Science Center from Feb 1. You referenced the page to use low resolution, but on the image page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:University_of_Tennessee_Health_Science_Center_logo.gif, it says "The logo is of a size and resolution sufficient to maintain the quality intended by the company or organization, without being unnecessarily high resolution." I admit to working for the organization, and the organization not being happy with the quality that is portrayed. The resolution used is 320x98, but since it is scaled done so much (the uploaded image is 942 × 288) the quality seriously degrades. I know that many other logos have both low resolution and high quality. Even changing out the logo from .gif to .jpg or .png would probably solve both of our concerns. I don't want to start changing the page since I am an employee, but want your advice in how to adhere to Wikipedia's policy but also allow for the quality of the brand to be reflected on the page. Thanks for the guidance. Ctbarber (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:ANI

I don't think that's quite what I said. I would restrict it to issues I am directly involved with. For example, the Russian IP farm that keeps trying to post copyright-violating Beatles recordings. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Closing logic

39 to 25 in an on-going discussion, in which people were still debating the topic shortly before you closed it. And as was pointed out, at least a couple of those opposes seem to be ironic and not really serious. As it is, 60% is not an overwhelming majority, but the community was in the middle of the debate. Bugs voluntarily offering to avoid the boards for 1 month is irrelevant because people weren't discussing a 1 month topic ban. Knee-capping community discussions like this really doesn't help the community take care of itself. Why would people want to get involved in debate and solving problems if someone is just going to come along, close it down and declare the entire discussion null and void because the subject being discussed saw the writing on the wall and tried to make a plea bargain at the last minute?--Crossmr (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been trying to figure out what provoked your viciousness towards me on that board. I expect it from the likes of certain users there. But not from you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Reopen the discussion then. If you think it will make Wikipedia better. --Jayron32 04:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

We'll never know. Discussions which aren't immediately re-opened seem to end up "poisoned" as it were. The discussion flow once interrupted for a significant amount of time is not easy to recover, or so I've found in the past.--Crossmr (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Then why bother posting this on my talk page. You think I made a mistake. I gave you permission to fix it. You say "It's not worth fixing it." WTF. If you had no intention of fixing anything, why fill up my talk page with your disapproval? Seriously, I am all for coming to a compromise here, but it now appears your only purpose in coming here wasn't to fix anything, but to make me feel bad or something. If you aren't interested in improving anything, I'd rather you just kept your idle opinions to yourself. If you are interested in fixing things, then fix them. I won't get in your way. --Jayron32 19:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

A blanket, "lifetime" ban from ANI would mean that I would have to take issues to specific and trusted admins and hope they are available at a given time, rather than posting on ANI where the next available admin could review it. Is that what you would want? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be what the community was leaning towards. There is very little, if anything, that you are dealing with on a daily basis that someone else couldn't report to AN/I if it was truly necessary. As I recommended if an issue directly involved you, you'd be free to participate in that discussion. As it were, if you stuck only to reporting issues, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.--Crossmr (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I have several thousand items on my watch-list, so there is more that "involves" me in some way than you might think. This also raises an oddity: If I report someone to ANI, then I am required to notify them, even if they falsely claim that such notification is "harassment" or "trolling". But if I report someone directly to an admin, is there any notification requirement? I'm not saying it wouldn't be good practice. But is it required? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

By involves you, I mean it's directly about you as a person or your specific edits. If you report someone to AN/I and they don't want you to notify them, you can make a note in the report saying as much. I've seen it done numerous times and someone else will go and notify them. There is no policy on wikipedia that requires you notify an editor every time you bring their name up somewhere. If you were to bring something to an admin with the intention that they would bring that to AN/I on your behalf, then I'd suggest you notify the person in question. If you took something to an admin as something you had no intention of taking to AN/I, then there is no obligation to do so. I've only met one admin who felt any differently, but that was only in regards to one user he'd taken a shining to. You can check admin talk pages all over wikipedia. People frequently bring up issues to them about other users without notifying the other participant and no one says boo.--Crossmr (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

David Larson vandalism attack

Jayron, need some help at David Larson. The article is under attack by multiple IP users and two newly registered editors, all of whom may be the same Miami area person. Page protection and vandalism warnings are needed. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm heading to bed just now, so I don't have time to investigate or implement this. Try WP:RFPP for help. --Jayron32 05:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Block of Roux

Sure, Roux was the only one to technically break 3RR, but I was not a fan of the behavior of anyone involved in editing that section title. Can we unblock Roux or make things a little more equitable? NW (Talk) 05:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Roux can be unblocked when he agrees to behave differently than he was. --Jayron32 05:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

And as for the rest of the editors involved? NW (Talk) 05:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Involved in what? Something like 6-7 other editors each reverted once and told Roux to stop edit warring and modifying the comments of others. There was only one person edit warring... --Jayron32 05:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I dunno, I have an issue with people (e.g. Lothar von Richthofen, who barely missed 3RR) edit warring back to a section title that is also quite unsuitable for AN or ANI (and I would also take an issue with Lionel posting it in the first place). Regardless, this reminds me why I should keep these two pages off my watchlist and stick to taking another stab at improving articles like Roe v. Wade. Would you believe that the sum total of all disputes on that article this decade have been less than the last twenty four hours on ANI? NW (Talk) 05:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I was already in process of blocking Roux when Lothar reverted for his second time. I just checked the chronology, and hadn't realized that Roux had gotten off even more reverts before the block was finalized, or that Lothar had reverted more than once (he had only reverted once when I started the block process). Regardless, this is about Roux using the proper means to fix a problem. Whether or not the section title was appropriate or not before Roux modified it is less relevent than the method Roux chose to use to address that problem. Had Roux asked politely for the section title to be modified, it would have been, with a minimum of fuss. What Roux did was beyond rediculous, and he needed to cool his jets. It was not his objection to the section title that he got blocked for. He may have had a valid objection. It was the way he went about making his objection known (by modifying the section title, not to make it neutral, but to insert his own editorializing into it as well). When Roux agrees to change his approach, he can be unblocked. I have not yet seen any indication that he feels what he did wasn't warrented, so I haven't yet seen any reason to unblock him. --Jayron32 05:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I was in favor of unblocking until I saw this in the template talk history: [6]. It also appears he created a biased "straw poll" after the RFC to compete with the RFC. That was very confusing and that is what started the ANI thread in the first place. These tactics and his rank incivility are unacceptable and I request that you update his talk page so that he serves the entire 24 hours. – Lionel ^(talk) 05:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, I withdrew by support of Unblocking and struck my post. Unbelivably Roux reverted it. Could you please re-strike it since he has banned me from his talk. Thanks.!!!!– Lionel ^(talk) 06:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC tag was added [7], and the section you are calling a "straw poll" was already there. You need to clarify or modify what you are saying, if you want to say it again. And Jayron, since you reverted the section title without making it neutral [8], you are WP:INVOLVED in this dispute. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Reverting the section title was allowed under the "purely in an administrative role" exemption. And you are correct, the RFC tag was added after Roux's !vote section. Anyway I put a notice on the section so it may alleviate further confusion.– Lionel ^(talk) 06:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

If Jayron wishes to make that argument, then Jayron will need to make it. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Please don't restore deleted comments from user talk pages

When a user deletes a discussion from his own user talk page, do not restore it. See WP:BLANKING. --Jayron32 05:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Saw that and had already reverted myself. Thanks for the well meaning head's up. - jc37 05:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

All good. Toodles. --Jayron32 05:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Jayron32,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...

...and kudos for putting forward a concrete proposal. May I suggest supporting "as proposer" rather than "as nominator", however? It is a bit pedantic, I know, but there is no candidate editor (or article) here... Geometry guy 02:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Physics problem

Hi i have provided the problem i'm trying to solve in the "angular velocity" section. The formula in orbit period doesn't work for some reasons. Can you help me?Pendragon5 (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I think at this point I'm reaching the limit of my own physics ability. Its probably best to let someone else take a crack at it. --Jayron32 04:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding my concerns

Hi Jayron. I'm not sure how I managed it, but I did not see your post to my talk page until recently. I can clearly see you posted it several days ago, but for some reason, I failed to see it somehow. My apologies; I normally try to respond in a more timely fashion. I also normally try to respond like an adult who isn't missing his medication and I've failed at that as well. Your points are well considered and completely correct; regardless of whether your initial actions were right or wrong, there was no call for me to fly off the handle in that manner. I apologize completely. Matt Deres (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It's all good... --Jayron32 22:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Google references

Hello! I left you a message on the Entertainment Reference Desk. This is in regards to Nick Rodwell. I referred Google to you regarding that matter. I hope you got my message.24.90.204.234 (talk) 08:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse updates

Hi Jayron! A few updates for you about Wikipedia:Teahouse, since you're one of our awesome Teahouse hosts!:

• The host lounge is open! Please take time to review the materials in the space and start contributing to the how-to pages. Your input is valuable. Not only is it great practice to get our minds thinking like hosts, but, you can also provide easy to understand instructions and sound bites for fellow hosts!
• Join the conversation by participating on the host lounge talk pages[9][10]. We also have an IRC channel now for hosts to get to know one another, develop your skills, and eventually the channel will serve as an additional help space for new editors!

• To visit the IRC channel: #wikipedia-teahouse ^connect (Feel free to ask me for help if you're having trouble connecting!)

• Let new editors get to know you by creating your Teahouse profile. Contribute your profile on the host page at the Teahouse! This serves as a fun way for new editors to get to know the people behind the usernames. You can post a photograph of yourself or an avatar, add a quote about yourself or something you enjoy, and share projects and activities you participate on wiki (with wikilinks).

Very exciting things are taking place, and we'll be opening the Teahouse no later than Monday. Feel free to ping me on or off wiki, and I can't wait to work with you to welcome new editors with a warm cup of tea :) SarahStierch (talk) 03:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Carl Wilson.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Carl Wilson.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Question about ban violation

This was an article to which I was hounded to leading to an interaction ban at ANI. That user has now nominated this article (to which I was a major contributor) for deletion to further escalate as per his talk page note he made before and acknowledging it on talk, is this a ban violation? [11]. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not involved in the interaction ban discussion, nor did I close it. I only closed the 1RR discussion. Please contact the admin who implemented that ban discussion. My advice is don't revert. But as far as the interaction ban, you'll have to ask the admin who implemented it. --Jayron32 04:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Carl Wilson.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Carl Wilson.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I took the liberty of replacing the highly-questionable image with this one, thus fixing this problem. That might result in the more-obviously-ripped-off image now getting zapped. These things happen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The Teahouse is Open!

Hi Jayron! Great news: The Teahouse is open for business! We're ready to start inviting new users, answering questions and inspiring one another. If you haven't already taken a look at the links provided in the most recent Teahouse update, posted on your talk page, please do! Don't forget to add yourself to the Host page if you haven't already. What's next? Inviting hosts and reporting your invitation information.

• Please familiarize yourself with this brief rundown of your responsibilities as a Teahouse host.
• Use the invitation guide to invite new users and report your invites.
• Make sure you have the Q&A page on your watch page and dive in when answers get asked! Feel free to ask your own questions - either seeking help or inspiring others to share their projects, ideas and inspiration for editing.

See you at the Teahouse! SarahStierch (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Jayron! Just dropping by to let the hosts know about some new suggestions I've made based on interactions at the Teahouse thus far. Please take a look when you can! Thanks and see you at the Teahouse. New suggestions regarding Q&A participation for hosts. SarahStierch (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

joining

would you like to join our diccuion at:User Talk:Worm That Turned/Adopt/Walter55024?--Walter55024 (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

No. --Jayron32 23:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

okay.--Walter55024 (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 February newsletter

Round 1 is already over! The 64 highest scorers have progressed to round 2. Our highest scorer was Grapple X (submissions), again thanks mostly to a swathe of good articles on The X-Files. In second place was Tigerboy1966 (submissions), thanks an impressive list of did you knows about racehorses. Both scored over 400 points. Following behind with over 300 points were Ruby2010 (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions), Miyagawa (submissions) and Casliber (submissions). February also saw the competition's first featured list: List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, from Ruby2010 (submissions). At the other end of the scale, 11 points was enough to secure a place in this round, and some contestants with 10 points made it into the round on a tiebreaker. This is higher than the 8 points that were needed last year, but lower than the 20 points required the year before. The number of points required to progress to round 3 will be significantly higher.

The remaining contestants have been split into 8 pools of 8, named A through H. Round two will finish in two months time on 28 April, when the two highest scorers in each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers, will progress to round 3. The pools were entirely random, so while some pools may end up being more competitive than others, this is by chance rather than design.

The judges would like to point out two quick rules reminders. First, any content promoted during the interim period (that is, on or after 27 February) is eligible for points in round 2. Second, any content worked on significantly this year is eligible for points if promoted in this round. On a related note, 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 would 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 (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply

Hello, Jayron32. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/COI.
You can remove this notice at any time.

Thanks for your queries ,hope I have clarified to you.I support retaining both WP:COI and WP:COIN in short .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

great response!

On the Teahouse about image uploads! It's amazing how much I can learn from you and other Hosts about teaching others. I was overwhelming myself on figuring out a response :) Thanks! SarahStierch (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I've been helping users on the Help Desk and Reference Desks for many years now. You get the same sort of questions a lot, so I have figured out how to send people to the correct place. The images question is perhaps one of the most asked questions on the Help Desk. --Jayron32 17:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Something sweet Ava Carrasco (talk) 06:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I hate kittens. They're freaky.

Ava Carrasco (talk) 06:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The editor page

What was the Teahouse for? I really didn't know where it was,and i was looking towards it. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ava Carrasco (talk • contribs) 06:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

See WP:TEAHOUSE. --Jayron32 19:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Great job today!

At the Teahouse. Thanks for helping us handle the swarm of new editor's! (A good kind of swarm!) Be sure to let new editor's know that you responded to them, I dropped off talkbacks for all the folks you answered. We have fancy Talkback for the Teahouse here: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host_lounge/Templates#Teahouse_talk_back. I've been using the headline "You have a response at the Teahouse!" when I post one. Thanks again...viva le Teahouse! Sarah (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Guidance Barnstar
		A barnstar for your efforts at Wikipedia:Teahouse to help people navigate Wikipedia! Northamerica1000(talk) 10:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Glad to be of service! --Jayron32 03:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue One - Recent news from the Teahouse

Hi! Welcome to the first edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!

Spring has sprung! Stop by the Teahouse for a cup of tea under the cherry blossoms.

• Metrics are out from week one. Week one showed that the need for Teahouse hosts to invite new editors to the Teahouse is urgent for this pilot period. It also showed that emailing new users invitations is a powerful tool, with new editors responding more to emails than to talk page templates. We also learned that the customized database reports created for the Teahouse have the highest return rate of participation by invitees. Check out the metrics here and see how you can help with inviting in our Invitation Guide.
• A refreshed "Your hosts" page encourages experienced Wikipedians to learn about the Teahouse and participate. With community input, the Teahouse has updated the Your hosts page which details the host roles within the Teahouse pilot and the importance that hosts play in providing a friendly, special experience not always found on other welcome/help spaces on Wikipedia. It also explains how Teahouse hosts are important regarding metrics reporting during this pilot. Are you an experienced editor who wants to help out? Take a look at the new page today and start learning about the hosts tasks and how you can participate!
• Introduce yourself and meet new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. New & experienced editors to Wikipedia can add a brief infobox about themselves and get to know one another with direct links to userpages. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, they'll surely be happy to feel the wikilove!

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Strange autoblock

Have a look at User talk:Mauri96. Can you think of a reason why an autoblock would be firing for a user you blocked back in 2008? --Stephen 04:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

No clue. I don't have much memory of what Marcelopalaciosm was doing to get a block, but it was 4 years ago. Must be a glitch in the matrix. --Jayron32 19:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse question

Hey Jayron, Thanks for that. I'm a Teahouse host, too, and as I received a question through email, I just wanted to make sure that others with that question could see an answer, so I added it to the question page. Thanks, again.--Rosiestep (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply

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

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Nice work at the Teahouse Q&A page. Tony (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!!! --Jayron32 13:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

re Radiopathy

I don't know what to tell ya Jayron. I think it's great that you went and tried to talk to him - and the fact that his "fail" at communication is a reflection on him .. not you. I guess fall back to the S.O.P.. ... develop consensus on the talk page >> wp:3o >> RfC, etc. The account has a block log history for edit warring, .. so you're likely up against someone who is going to dig his heels in. He's obviously not here to edit in a collaborative manner, so perhaps an RfC/U is in his future. The MOS guidelines have always been a tough sell here, be it dash vs. hyphens, if birds get "caps", or the format and linking of dates is the issue ... it often leads to a long, almost pathetic, exercise in trying to find a common ground or common sense. Personally I agree with The Red Hot Chili Peppers are an American alternative rock band due to the nature of the "name" of the band being plural. I also understand that the "band" is considered a single entity - so I'm not sure how much I'd be willing to go to the mat on that individual item without some consensus building on the talk page. IMO - see what others have to say on the AN/I thread; but my red flag was the blatant attack on another editor. I understand that YOU personally don't get worked up over it, but it's simply not acceptable behavior, regardless of who the attack is on. (would you be so indifferent if he had responded to a new user that way?). Anyway - best of luck on it all, I'll watchlist a couple things for a few weeks and see how it goes. cheers. — Ched :  ?  20:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Radiopathy continues to edit war over the article Red Hot Chili Peppers as User:128.147.28.1 which appears to be the same as User:96.236.232.188 and User:72.95.200.55. Piriczki (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Another note

Regarding this,[12] the bottom line is that you've got it right and he's got it wrong. And his insults about your alleged "ignorance" of English makes me think he's channeling Cuddy. (Speaking of which, whatever happened to Cuddly?) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a question at the Teahouse you might have interest in...

Dear Jayron32, I just asked a question at the Teahouse that you might have interest in! I hope you'll stop by and participate! Sarah (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Jayron! Just a reminder - please don't forget to use the Teahouse Talkback for the editors you provide answers too. Most new editors don't know about the watchlist gadget or think about checking back, and it does show that leaving the template helps. It's mentioned Host tips page and also on a general template collection we have that features all of our templates, thus far! I hope you find value and use in these! Thanks :) Sarah (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams

find someone else to discuss this with. We are through interacting
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just look up the history of this article via user:fasttimes68 as far back as 2006 and you will see the abuse. I'm far from an expert on here and yes, I created an account today. I viewed but never signed on before until now because Wikipedia should not be used as a personal battleground for people who do not know the celebrities they are editing articles about, but have bizarre and frivolous issues regarding them. MikeHasIssues (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC) I don't believe that you have never once edited Wikipedia before today. That does not make sense given your knowledge of Wikipedia, which shows that you have interacted with it, rather than merely observed it. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to establish who you are. --Jayron32 18:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC) I've played with "sandboxes" and apparently they work. My username identifies my first name and that is more than other editors say for themselves. Is your name Jay? Did you read this user's long time history with the subject matter? If Wikipedia is to be taken seriously, users like that one need to be dealt with accordingly. MikeHasIssues (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC) If you are to be taken seriously, you need to stop hiding behind this new account as though you have no history at Wikipedia. I consider this conversation done. I am not interested in talking to someone so intent on masking their own past Wikipedia activity. --Jayron32 18:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC) ???? What is you email? I can email you directly if that is what you mean. MikeHasIssues (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Advice needed from Clemson

Jayron, I'm new to Wikipedia and would like some advice from an Admin. Please feel free to be as critical as possible as I'm sure all that you suggest will be very helpful. Thank you for your time in advance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Awc32/sandbox Awc32 (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, looking over your work, I'm not sure that the Clemson University Police Department is, itself, notable enough for its own stand-alone article, but the information may be a useful addition to the Clemson University article. Lots of Wikipedia articles can use extra information; there's lots of good ways to help Wikipedia by improving existing articles, indeed in many ways this is more important than creating new articles. I hope this brief advice is helpful. Good luck, and if you need anymore help, let me know! --Jayron32 02:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 March newsletter

We are over half way through the second round of this year's WikiCup and things are going well! Grapple X (submissions), of Pool B, is our highest overall scorer thanks to his prolific writings on television and film. In second place is Pool H's Cwmhiraeth (submissions), thanks primarily to work on biological articles, especially in marine biology and herpetology. Third place goes to Pool E's Casliber (submissions), who also writes primarily on biology (including ornithology and botany) and has already submitted two featured articles this round. Of the 63 contestants remaining, 15 (just under a quarter) have over 100 points this round. However, 25 are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly. 32 contestants, the top two from each pool and the 16 next-highest scorers, will advance to round 3.

Congratulations to Matthewedwards (submissions), whose impressive File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg became the competition's first featured picture. Also, congratulations to 12george1 (submissions), who claimed good topic points, our first contestant this year to do so, for his work on Wikipedia:Featured topics/1982 Atlantic hurricane season. This leaves featured topics and featured portals as the only sources of points not yet utilised. However, as recent statistics from Miyagawa (submissions) show, no source has yet been utilised this competition to the same extent it has been previously!

It has been observed that the backlogs at good article candidates are building up again. While the points for good article reviews will be remaining constant, any help that can be offered keeping the backlog down would be appreciated. On a related note, 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. 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 (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Sarah's Choice for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sarah's Choice is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah's Choice (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Bravo!

Jayron, I'm impressed with your knowledge of 19th-century European diplomatic history. Marco polo (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Why thank you! I minored in History in college, was only like 2 classes away from a History degree... --Jayron32 23:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

A big NPT update

Hey! Big update on what the developers have been working on, and what is coming up:

coding

• Fixes for the "moved pages do not show up in Special:NewPages" and "pages created from redirects do not show up in Special:NewPages" bugs have been completed and signed off on. Unfortunately we won't be able to integrate them into the existing version, but they will be worked into the Page Triage interface.
• Coding has been completed on three elements; the API for displaying metadata about the article in the "list view", the ability to keep the "patrol" button visible if you edit an article before patrolling it, and the automatic removal of deleted pages from the queue. All three are awaiting testing but otherwise complete.

All other elements are either undergoing research, or about to have development started. I appreciate this sounds like we've not got through much work, and truthfully we're a bit disappointed with it as well; we thought we'd be going at a faster pace :(. Unfortunately there seems to be some 24-72 hour bug sweeping the San Francisco office at the moment, and at one time or another we've had several devs out of it. It's kind of messed with workflow.

Stuff to look at

We've got a pair of new mockups to comment on that deal with the filtering mechanism; this is a slightly updated mockup of the list view, and this is what the filtering tab is going to look like. All thoughts, comments and suggestions welcome on the NPT talkpage :). I'd also like to thank the people who came to our last two office hours sessions; the logs will be shortly available here.

I've also just heard that the first functional prototype for enwiki will be deployed mid-April! Really, really stoked to see this happening :). We're finding out if we can stick something up a bit sooner on prototype.wiki or something.

I appreciate there may be questions or suggestions where I've said "I'll find out and get back to you" and then, uh. not ;p. I sincerely apologise for that: things have been a bit hectic at this end over the last few weeks. But if you've got anything I've missed, drop me a line and I'll deal with it! Further questions or issues to the usual address. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Block me!!!!

Hey Jayron32,
I dare you to block me indefinitely and revoked talk page access as well! Also while you are here, get MuZemike to indefinitely block my IP address as well! —Preceding undated comment added 02:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC).

 Done --Jayron32 02:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Requst for help at Allied Artists International

Would you be able to help at Allied Artists International? You appear to have familiarity with the problem. The article as it was "developed" by COI Warriorboy55, aka Kimball Dean Richards, gave a false impression that it had anything to do with Monogram Pictures and Allied Artists Pictures Corppration. It does not. This was all corrected, but Warrioboy55 simply used an anon IP to revert construction tags and every Los Angeles Times source in the reference section here[13], replacing the sources with self promoting web pages. I put a notice about it here[14], but I do have never posted at the Admin notice board before, and I do not know if this is the place I should ask for help. I have not had this kind of thing arise before. The behavior of Warriorboy55 and his proxy anon IP is exactly the same as the behavior of Allied Artists Kimball Dean RiIchards in the LA TiImes news stories in the properly sourced version here[15]. It might be helpful to read the quotes in the sources and you will understand what is going on. Thank you. PPdd (talk) 06:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If this becomes a problem, please try to sort this out at WP:DRN or WP:COIN. There's no need to involve administrators here. --Jayron32 21:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Two

Hi! Welcome to the second edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!

• Teahouse celebrates one month of being open! This first month has drawn a lot of community interest to the Teahouse. Hosts & community members have been working with the project team to improve the project in many ways including creating scripts to make inviting easier, exploring mediation processes for troubling guests, and best practices regarding mentoring for new editors who visit the Teahouse.

Springtime means fresh tea leaves...

• First month metrics report an average of 30 new editors visiting the Teahouse each week. Approximately 30 new editors participate in the Teahouse each week, by way of asking questions and making guest profiles. An average of six new questions and four new profiles are made each day. We'd love to hear your ideas about how we can spread the word about the Teahouse to more new editors.
• Teahouse has many regulars. Like any great teahouse, our Teahouse has a 61% return rate of guests, who come back to ask additional questions and to also help answer others' questions. Return guests cite the speedy response rate of hosts and the friendly, easy to understand responses by the hosts and other participants as the main reasons for coming back for another cup o' tea!
• Early metrics on retention. It's still too early to draw conclusions about the Teahouse's impact on new editor retention, but, early data shows that 38% of new editors who participate at the Teahouse are still actively editing Wikipedia 2-4 weeks later, this is compared with 7% from a control group of uninvited new editors who showed similar first day editing activity. Additional metrics can be found on the Teahouse metrics page.
• Nine new hosts welcomed to the Teahouse. Nine new hosts have been welcomed to the Teahouse during month one: Chicocvenancio, Cullen328, Hallows AG, Jeffwang, Mono, Tony1, Worm That Turned, Writ Keeper, and Nathan2055. Welcome to the Teahouse gang, folks!
• Say hello to the new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, as being welcomed by experienced editors is a really nice way to make new editors feel welcome.

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. -- Sarah (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Jayron32. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dandruff and eyes

Kind of an odd question. I would have said that there is plenty of advice out there to never rub or otherwise touch your eyes without washing your hands first. Easier said than done, obviously. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

People who have adverse reactions to anything should ask doctors, and not me, what to do about it. --Jayron32 01:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Yup. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse..ping!

Hi Jayron32, just pinging you from the land of the Teahouse to say hi and that we haven't seen you for a while! We'd still love to have you participate as a host, but I also understand that we (Wikipedians!) do get busy sometimes with other things, on and off-wiki. If you'd like to still participate, great! We'd love your help answering questions and inviting editors to the Teahouse. If you don't think you have the time to participate right now, no problem, just please let me know! Thanks Jayron32! Sarah (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Reopened ANI discussion

Back on 28 March I closed a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, which I thought was finished with. You were one of the contributors to the discussion. Another editor later posted a further comment below the closed section, and, having read that comment, I decided that the issue was perhaps not as unambiguously finished as I had thought, so I reverted my closure. Nobody posted any more comments to the section, and it is now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive744#Wiki user:Fasttimes68 is vandalizing pages referencing celebrity model Stephanie_Adams. However, an editor has now suggested that I should have informed those who contributed to the discussion that it had been reopened, so I am doing so. It is very likely that nobody had any more to add, but if you would have done so then I apologise for not informing you at the time. If you do wish to say any more about it then it will be necessary to open a new section at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, since the old one is archived. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

DR

Hey Jayron, I left you a note at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Katie_piper_discussion. BTW, you've been here since dinosaurs roamed the earth, and your "32" confirms that. Don't you think it's time to upgrade, to at least 128 bits? I understand there's already a 512-bit Era! Get with it! Drmies (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I know, it feels like it. I knew I was old when the music I used to listen to migrated from the Alternative Rock station to the Classic Rock station. --Jayron32 17:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Vice president

Well i just want to discuss with you individual for convenient. I have long known that electoral college is the one that count. I know how it works. Each state has its own amount of electoral college votes. Popular vote from each state will determine the electoral college votes from each state toward the president. I still confused on the results of 12th amendment. Before 12th amendment, the one who got the most electoral vote became president and the second runner up became VP. What you said is confusing: "the twelfth amendment seperated the elections for President and Vice President, so that each elector selects one person for President and another person for Vice President." This should says each elector selects both P and VP in a pair. "You vote for a President and his/her running mate together. That essentially assures that the electoral college will do so as well, however that isn't a product of the 12th amendment." Why isn't it part of 12th amendment? To keep it simple, the 12 amendment basically allow president and VP to run as a pair and voters have to vote for them in pair, right? (just respond on this page)65.128.159.201 (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

No, the electors do not select the President and the VP together. You might, but you are not an elector. The electors are a group of 538 people who show up in their state capital cities in December every 4 years and on one piece of paper they vote for a President, and on a different piece of paper they vote for a Vice President. This is different than what you do when you go to vote on the second tuesday after the first monday in November. You vote for the two together as running mates because the system is designed to prevent you from splitting your vote. Why can they do that, when the Constitution requires, in the 12th amendment, that each is elected on a different ballot? Because you don't vote for the President or Vice President. You are not an elector. What the state is doing is asking you during the presidential election, essentially "Who should our electors vote for when they go vote for President and Vice President". Since the major political parties basically run the thing, they design the ballots to force you to choose a pair of running mates together, so the electoral college will later make the same selection. This has nothing to do with the 12th Amendment. The 12th amendment merely outlines the procedure the 538 electors follow when they gather to cast their ballots for President and Vice President. Your participation in that process is something that is organized by your own state's law, and has nothing to do with the Constitution. Your state has decided to allow you to have a voice in who the electors from your state vote for.

To simplify it a bit more: The 12th amendment makes it a requirement for the president and vice president to be elected independent of one another (i.e. by two seperate and unrelated votes). The reason why running mates exist is because state laws of the various states have constrained how members of the Electoral College are chosen such that, when you cast a ballot in the General Election, you are forced to vote for the two as a pair. But this is a product of the laws of the individual states which determine how a state chooses and instructs its electors, NOT the federal rules as mandated by the 12th amendment. Capice? --Jayron32 04:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

If I'm reading it correctly, the same set of 538 guys vote for both the President and the Vice-President. If that's the case, then when you pull the lever or punch the card for "so-and-so for President and such-and-such for Vice-President", what you're actually doing is casting a vote for a single elector who is pledged to vote for that pair of candidates. Am I right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Close. In 48/50 states (Maine and Nebraska work a bit differently) what you vote for is a slate of electors who has already pledged to a specific candidate. Basically, if you live in, say, Massachusetts, your state has like 13 electors. So, prior to the election (usually at the state party convention) the Democrats select 13 people to be their electors, and the Republicans select 13 people to be their electors (and so do the Libertarians, and Greens, and etc. But seriously?) and when in 2008 you selected, say "Obama/Biden" on the ballot, who you are really electing is that group of 13 electors already selected by the Democrat party. If you instead voted "McCain/Palin", you'd be voting for the Republican's group of 13 electors. In December, those 13 electors go into a room in Boston and are handed a piece of paper, on which the write down their selection for president. Then they are handed another sheet of paper, on which they write down their selection for VP. Since these candidates were chosen before the general election by the parties, you can be reasonably sure (though they cannot be strictly forced to do so) that they will select their party's specific candidate for each office. This system was set up to make the electoral college vote itself a mere formality; but this isn't the result of the U.S. Constitution, which only mandates the procedure for the voting once those 13 Massachusetts electors get to Boston. How those 13 electors get selected and sent to Boston is entirely up to state law. In 48/50 states it runs rougly identical to what I have outlined (tho each state has little quirks to it). Maine and Nebraska divy up their electors by congressional district instead of state-wide, so it is possible for those groups of electors to be pledged to different parties. However, the procedure still runs very similarly even there. --Jayron32 04:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. You're not voting for one elector, you're voting for a set of them, "at large" as it were. And there have been "faithless electors", like the clowns who voted for Harry Byrd in 1960. (There was also the potential crisis cooked up by the Dixiecrats in 1948.) I don't think that kind of tinkering has made the difference in an election yet, but if it ever does, it could be big trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Party discipline is a lot stronger today than 50 years ago. For a long time, the North/South divide was a lot more important than the Red/Blue divide in America (see Solid South). In one of those strange bedfellows quirks, historically Southern Republicans and Northern Democrats were closely aligned and visa-versa. There was very little interstate party discipline, and Southern Democrats often did their own thing different from the Northern Democrats (as noted in the 1948 Dixiecrat election). It may seem a bit odd, but there was a brief time in 1960 when major Civil Rights leaders considered endorsing Nixon in 1960, expecially since Eisenhower, a Republican, had come to the defense of the Little Rock High School situation. The fact that the Democratic Party ended up becoming more closely associated with Civil Rights over the Republicans goes more to the specific personality of Nixon, and the cold reception that Nixon had for Civil Rights issues in 1960 than anything. By the end of the 1960s/early 1970s the familiar modern Red/Blue divide (at least over social isses like civilo rights and law-and-order and that sort of stuff) was in the process of forming, and by the 1980s you had concepts like the Reagan Democrats which represented yet another major shift in party alignment, where Labor basically abandoned the Democratic Party (or, if you prefer, it was perceived that the Democratic Party had abaondoned labor). That's what caused the midwest to shift to the Republican party (it was a former Democratic stronghold) and changed the map from "North Republican/South Democrat" to "Coasts Democrat/Middle Republican". There's an illusion that the "Democrat-progressive / Republican-conservative" divide has existed since all eternity in America, except that is really an illusion: the Democratic Party hasn't really been that progressive, historically, nor have the Republicans always been dominated by the neocons and teabaggers. --Jayron32 12:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Obama Presidency article yo

Hey, just a friendly notice. Please don't edit war to restore comments to talk pages that others have deleted as unhelpful, as you do here.[16] There's no reasonable way that this line of discussion on that page is going to lead to a change in the article or anything else productive. You're an admin so you're probably aware of the tension in WP:TALK between the caution about deleting comments, and another caution about using talk pages to make accusations against other editors. You may also be aware of article probation on the Obama pages here: WP:GS/BO. That balance has fallen, many times on the Obama pages, in favor of aggressively channeling talk page discussion in a productive direction. Whereas deleting comments is disfavored and controversial, contentiously reinserting deleted comments is often a bad idea too. There's a lot of history behind that including a rather botched arbcomm case, so it's best not to become WP:INVOLVED in that fray. I've been leaving friendly reminders on everybody's talk page, urging any editors who are there in good faith to take a step back and choose the least inflammatory thing to do rather than escalating things. Cheers, - Wikidemon (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Then undo what I did. I don't care much one way or the other. I don't have a dog in this race. Interestingly, that's the first edit I have made to that page, so it is kinda hard to edit war. But whatever. Go ahead and revert me as though I didn't care much, cuz I don't. --Jayron32 01:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Na, thanks for the reply but I'm not going to get involved myself. Trying to be a peacemaker. Either I'll succeed or else everybody's going to pile on me next. Well, maybe I've got my definition of edit warring wrong but you restored something that other people had deleted. There have been lotsa reverts on that page over this user's complaint about it looking like a supposed Obama campaign piece. Cheers, - Wikidemon (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

No, restoring something that was incorrectly deleted isn't edit warring. It would be very hard to correct any mistakes anyone made if you were never allowed to undo anything. If you are confused, please read WP:EW. Still, I have never been acused of edit warring with my very first edit. That's a new concept to me... --Jayron32 02:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Opening bass lines

Speaking of good bass lines, I've thought for a while that if it were possible to bottle the bass line from the opening of Bob Marley's "Could You Be Loved", then the coffee business would go bankrupt. It sounds great first thing in the AM! Dismas|^(talk) 02:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

If you like good bass guitar, go right now and download/rip/stream a song called "You look like Rain" from the band Morphine. I have yet to find a woman who didn't swoon at hearing it. Keep it in your back pocket for one of those special nites. --Jayron32 02:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Good song! Not what I was expecting considering the nature of the other two songs we were discussing. I'll be looking for it on iTunes when I get home. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 04:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I have a wide range of interest in music. --Jayron32 04:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Bowel huang 2

I notice you recently gave User:Bowei Huang 2 a final warning about some disruptive editing. He recently made a similar edit at Rights, and I thought you might like that brought to your attention. Nothing too harsh, but strange enough for me to look him up, and it seems like you're tracking a pattern, so... head up. --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 April newsletter

Round 2 of this year's WikiCup is over, and so we are down to our final 32, in what could be called our quarter-finals. The two highest scorers from each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers overall, have entered round 3, while 30 participants have been eliminated. Pool B's Grapple X (submissions) remains our top scorer with over 700 points; he continues to gain high numbers of points for his good articles on The X-Files, but also Millennium and other subjects. He has also gained points for a good topic, a featured list, multiple good article reviews and several did you knows. Pool E's Casliber (submissions) was second, thanks primarily to his biology articles, with Pool H's Muboshgu (submissions) coming in third, with an impressive 46 did you knows, mostly on the subject of baseball. Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both scored over 600 points. Pools E and H proved our most successful, with each seeing 5 members qualify for round 3, while Pools C and D were the least, with each seeing only 3 reach round 3. However, it was Pool G which saw the lowest scoring, with a little under 400 points combined; Pool H, the highest scoring group, saw over triple that score.

65 points was the lowest qualifying score for round 3; significantly higher than the 11 required to enter round 2, and also higher than the 41 required to reach round 3 last year. However, in 2010, 100 points were needed to secure a place in round 3. 16 will progress to round 4. In round 3, 150 points was the 16th highest score, though, statistically, people tend to up their game a little in later rounds. Last year, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 points were needed. Guessing how many points will be required is not easy. We still have not seen any featured portals or topics this year, but, on the subject of less common content types, a small correction needs to be made to the previous newsletter: File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg, our first featured picture, was the work of both Matthewedwards (submissions) and Grandiose (submissions), the latter of whom has also gone on to score with File:Map of the Battle of Guam, 1944.svg. Bonus points also continue to roll in; this round, Ealdgyth (submissions) earned triple points for her good articles on William the Conqueror and the Middle Ages, Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both earned triple points for their work on Western Jackdaw, now a good article, Dana Boomer (submissions) earned triple points for her work on lettuce and work by Stone (submissions) to ready antimony for good article status earned him triple points. Jarry1250 (submissions) managed to expand Vitus Bering far enough for a did you know, which was also worth triple points. All of these highly important topics featured on 50 or more Wikipedias at the start of the year.

An article on the WikiCup in the Wikimedia Blog, "Improving Wikipedia with friendly competition", was posted at the end of April. This may be of interest to those who are signed up to this newsletter, as well as serving as another way to draw attention to our project. Also, we would again like to thank Jarry1250 (submissions) and Stone (submissions), for continued help behind the scenes. As ever, 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. 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 (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

USRD WikiProject Newsletter, Spring 2012

Volume 5, Issue 2 • Spring 2012 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features Paving a path forward with KML Down and dirty with KML SPSs in need of removal from articles Maple Syrup Report	State and national updates Project news Task force reports for CA, DE, and MI
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—Imzadi 1979 → 00:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

New Pages update

Hey Jayron32/Archive22 :). A quick update on how things are going with the New Page Triage/New Pages Feed project. As the enwiki page notes, the project is divided into two chunks: the "list view" (essentially an updated version of Special:NewPages) and the "article view", a view you'll be presented with when you open up individual articles that contains a toolbar with lots of options to interact with the page - patrolling it, adding maintenance tags, nominating it for deletion, so on.

On the list view front, we're pretty much done! We tried deploying it to enwiki, in line with our Engagement Strategy on Wednesday, but ran into bugs and had to reschedule - the same happened on Thursday :(. We've queued a new deployment for Monday PST, and hopefully that one will go better. If it does, the software will be ready to play around with and test by the following week! :).

On the article view front, the developers are doing some fantastic work designing the toolbar, which we're calling the "curation bar"; you can see a mockup here. A stripped-down version of this should be ready to deploy fairly soon after the list view is; I'm afraid I don't have precise dates yet. When I have more info, or can unleash everyone to test the list view, I'll let you know :). As always, any questions to the talkpage for the project or mine. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, darling. --Jayron32 23:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Be gentle. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

"Darling" is not gentle? Also, just where did you run into me on Wednesday? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Damn, I really need that like button in Mediawiki. Are the devs working on that? --Jayron32 00:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha, Bugs. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Kindly...

Keep comments such as the one you left me on ITN/c to yourself. I don't claim to be an expert in grammar usage, and for your information I am dyslexic and have always had trouble with my grammar. --Τασουλα (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I'll say them aloud, if its all the same to you. Getting someone's gender incorrect isn't a dyslexia issue. --Jayron32 17:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Wait what...? I thought he was a she. Seriously. - I get it now :) sorry. --Τασουλα (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It's all good. My comment was merely an attempt to gently correct you using humor. Sorry if I caused offense... --Jayron32 17:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually it was entirely my fault! And my lack of sense of humour for a moment. It's cooool :) --Τασουλα (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage prototype released

Hey Jayron32! We've finally finished the NPT prototype and deployed it on enwiki. We'll be holding an office hours session on the 16th at 21:00 in #wikimedia-office to show it off, get feedback and plot future developments - hope to see you there! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Bitchin.... --Jayron32 03:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, yes I am. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 04:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Three

Hi! Welcome to the third edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!

• Teahouse reaches two month mark. The Teahouse has been live on English Wikipedia for two months now and evidence of the project's impact is beginning to show. Thank you to the hosts and Wikipedians who have helped make the Teahouse the valuable place for new editor's to seek help and feel welcome.
• April metrics report has been posted on meta! Some relevant metrics from April’s report include:

• In April, Teahouse averaged 45 questions per week.
• An average of 20 new editors visiting for the first time were served at the Teahouse, in addition to repeat guests.

Wikipedia Teahouse always keeps it classy!

• Many guests are repeat visitors: the average guest asks 1.5 questions and 22% of guests ask more than one question.

• Reports show that the Teahouse is having a positive impact on editor engagement! Comparing a sample of 75 new editors who participate in the Teahouse with a control group (of equivalent size and similar first-day editing activity) shows:

• New editors who participate in the Teahouse edit 10x the number of articles than the uninvited control group.
• New editor participants also make an average six times more global edits.
• Average Teahouse participants add 26 times more bytes of content that survive on Wikipedia (meaning content that isn't reverted or deleted) than the uninvited control group.

• More Teahouse participants remain active on Wikipedia at least 10 days later. Among the 224 editors in our three experimental groups, 28 percent of new editors who participate in the Teahouse were still active on Wikipedia at least ten days later, compared with 12 percent who received an invitation but didn't actively participate in the Teahouse, and only 5 percent from a similar uninvited control group.
• Teahouse visibility is a challenge, as we try to make the Teahouse visible to new editors, invitation has been the the main way of informing new editors about the Teahouse, and while that is a powerful tool, many new editors go uninvited. Input on Teahouse link placement is welcome! (Join in on the conversation here.)
• Want to know how you can lend a hand at the Teahouse? Become a host! Learn more about what makes the Teahouse different than other help spaces on Wikipedia and see how you can help new editors by visiting here.
• Say hello to the new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, as being welcomed by experienced editors is a really nice way to make new editors feel welcome.

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

sepArate

Separate. S-E-P-A-R-A-T-E. With a f*cking A. Got it now? God damn. --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Of separate concern, you misspelled fucking. It has a "u" and not an * in the proper spelling. You really need to work on your spelling and grammar. --Jayron32 21:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey

Teahouse logo

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback!

We have created a brief survey intended to help us understand the experiences and impressions of veteran editors who have participated on the Teahouse. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages some time during the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 15 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 01:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage/New Pages Feed

Hey all :). A notification that the prototype for the New Pages Feed is now live on enwiki! We had to briefly take it down after an unfortunate bug started showing up, but it's now live and we will continue developing it on-site.

The page can be found at Special:NewPagesFeed. Please, please, please test it and tell us what you think! Note that as a prototype it will inevitably have bugs - if you find one not already mentioned at the talkpage, bring it up and I'm happy to carry it through to the devs. The same is true of any additions you can think of to the software, or any questions you might have - let me know and I'll respond.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you!

Vibhabamba (talk) 06:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Host feedback needed at the Teahouse!

Hi! We're seeking your feedback as a current or formal host at the Teahouse about the project. Please stop by and lend your voice at your convenience, here. Thanks :) Sarah (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

External links to commercial sites

Thanks, Jayron! If I interpret the guidelines correctly, the links are permissible. They do have a direct relevance to the substance of the article. I'm a newbie to Wikipedia (although not to writing), so I'm going to be asking lots of questions! Shandong44 (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 May newsletter

We're halfway through round 3 (or the quarter finals, if you prefer) and things are running smoothly. We're seeing very high scoring; as of the time of writing, the top 16 all have over 90 points. This has already proved to be more competative than this time last year- in 2011, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 was the lowest qualifying score. People have also upped their game slightly from last round, which is to be expected as we approach the end of the competition. Leading Pool A is Cwmhiraeth (submissions), whose points have mostly come from a large number of did you knows on marine biology. Pool B's leader, Grapple X (submissions), is for the first time not our highest scorer at the time of newsletter publication, but his good articles on The X-Files and Millenium keep him in second place overall. Miyagawa (submissions) leads Pool C, our quietest pool, with content in a variety of areas on a variety of topics. Pool D is led by Casliber (submissions), our current overall leader. Nearly half of Casliber's points come from his triple-scored Western Jackdaw, which is now a featured article.

This round has seen an unusually high number of featured lists, with nearly one in five remaining participants claiming one, and one user, Muboshgu (submissions), claiming two. Miyagawa's featured list, 1936 Summer Olympics medal table, was even awarded double points. By comparison, good article reviews seem to be playing a smaller part, and featured topics portals remain two content-types still unutilised in this competition. Other than that, there isn't much to say! Things are coming along smoothly. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)