User talk:Jayron32

WikiCup 2013 February newsletter

Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:

1. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), primarily for an array of warship GAs.
2. Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
3. Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:

• Sven Manguard (submissions), whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
• Sasata (submissions), whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year.
• Muboshgu (submissions) and Wizardman (submissions), who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition.
• Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), who claimed for the first full good topic with the Casting Crowns studio albums topic.

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by The C of E (submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. 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) J Milburn (talk) 11:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyediting request on FIFA Club World Cup

Hello. I have been editing a page that I believe deserves to be upgraded to a FA status. That page is the FIFA Club World Cup. However, it seems there are a few errors that I am not seeing and more than one editor suggested that I have someone copyedit the article. I looked up who did anything with sports and you seem to be the more active member of the two I found.

I would like to request that you copyedit the article. The FA nomination is still open pending that. If so, let me know when you will start. The article is detailed but easy to understand as I have provided detailed information in a balanced manner. I look forward to hearing your reply. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 12:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Yo! Thanks a lot for your copyedit. It allowed me to see many things that needed fixing i.e. making sure every reference followed the same, exact model, removing a lot of the footnotes that were cluttering the article, ALT texted every image, translated every foreign reference, simplifying a lot of the sentences in the article itself and caught two references typed twice by accident.

Could I ask for one last copyedit from you? I want to hear your opinion of how it is now and I would like a reply after it. I feel there is absolutely nothing left for it and it could easily be a FA now. If so, could you lend your support on the nomination? Thanks for everything and I can't wait to hear your replies. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your insight. I have just finished adding the dates of publication, authors, editors and formats of each reference provided the information was around. By going through each reference one by one, I saw a few more double-links and a handful of dead ones. Could you give your support to the nomination of the article to a FA? Thanks again. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

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.

---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 04:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Canoe1967 block

Heads-up about a discussion to up this to indef. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know that I have anything to add, but thanks for the heads up. If you have any specific questions, let me know! --Jayron32 23:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The Mentalist season five

Can we please have The Mentalist (season 5) page unprotected? New episode and ratings information will be available soon after the airing of last night's episode. The content dispute in question is pretty one sided. User:Aeusetereleiea continuously adds the titles of upcoming episodes and refuses to provide any kind of source to back up the claims. Per Wikipedia's verification rules this is totally unacceptable. Any addition of upcoming episode titles or dates must be accompanied by a source, which Aeusetereleiea clearly doesn't care about. They have consistently flouted the rules, personally insulted me and demonstrated a pattern of disrespect toward the site. They clearly have no interest in learning the rules or co-operating with other editors. My hope in speaking out was that action would be taken against the user and not the page. A protection will do nothing to discourage Aeusetereleiea from further vandalism. I respectfully disagree with your decision to protect the page and would like to request that it be unprotected and that steps be taken to prevent further disruption by Aeusetereleiea. Thank you. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, just get a consensus established on the article talk page among uninvolved editors, and when that happens then someone can unprotect the page. Also, please don't use the word vandalism unless you can demonstrate that someone else is deliberately trying to make a Wikipedia article worse. Aeusetereleiea may (or may not, I don't make any judgements in that regard) be wrong, but it appears they are trying to, in their mind, make the article better. They may be edit warring, they may not be citing their sources, but none of that is vandalism. So, please start a discussion, use WP:DR methods if needed, and establish consensus and we'll see about unprotecting the article--Jayron32 11:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I just set up a talk of The Mentalist (season 5) in discussion about new episode infomation. So we need to get the article unprotected real soon so we get the new episode and ratings infomation on that article. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like to make a request to unprotect The Mentalist (season 5) so we can update the episode ratings, plot summaries and such. BattleshipMan (talk) 07:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It's been a few weeks. We'll try it out. Don't edit war, or you can expect to be blocked instead. --Jayron32 13:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I was not involved in that edit war in the past. It just Aeusetereleiea and SchrutedIt08 who we're. In any case, Aeusetereleiea is the one that should be blocked in case the edit war happens again. SchrutedIt08 was right that Aeusetereleiea did edit some future episode titles without referencing them for confirmation. I was not involved in that edit war in anyway, so you don't have to block me. I just thought you should know that before you start having a reason to block me. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not here to pick winners. If there's a dispute, solve it using the prescribed ways. --Jayron32 17:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll be keeping an eye on this article and if there is dispute that may happen, you will be notified. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Twin cities

As the article says,

Twin cities are a special case of two cities or urban centres that are founded in close geographic proximity and then grow into each other over time.

In none of those cases does this apply. None of these are multipolar cities. They are single cities that happen to be bisected by a state line. If we're not careful, this list will quickly devolve into a list of all cities, since virtually all cities have more than one municipal government district, and these districts tend to be called "cities" in English. The rest of the list needs significant pruning as well, but I'm only confident enough to be bold with the North American ones... — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

OK. You do what you gotta do. --Jayron32 23:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice pic

Jayron32's self-portrait

Yep. It really fits with my impression of a person who likes football. I am trying to imagine this person in a Southern Baptist church, wearing a Protestant clergyman garb. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! There is no Southern Baptist clergy garb, BTW. Suit and tie, usually. That's about it. And I'm definitely not "clergy". Never been to seminary, never taken a single theology class. --Jayron32 02:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh. What do you dress yourself to church then? 75.185.79.52 (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Dress shirt & slacks. --Jayron32 23:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk page comments

Hi there Jayron32. i edited Kai445's comment because it was his own personal opinion of the company and not a critic of the article in question. i don't mind genuine concerns over what i have written, these seem to stem from notation issues,but i do mind Kai445's own crusade against EnGeniux, i feel he overstepped the mark with what he wrote in the talk page. cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony flaxman (talk • contribs) 20:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

You're quite free to say exactly that after their comments. What you may not do is to edit their comments to change what they have said. A person's words should not be changed to alter what they have said. If you disagree with someone, do so, but don't make it seem like they said something different than what they said. --Jayron32 21:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Good Article Nominations Request For Comment

A 'Request For Comment' for Good Article Nominations is currently being held. We are asking that you please take five to ten minutes to review all seven proposals that will affect Good Article Nominations if approved. Full details of each proposal can be found here. Please comment on each proposal (or as many as you can) here. At this time, Proposal 1, 3, and 5 have received full (or close to) support. If you have questions of anything general (not related to one specif proposal), please leave a message under the General discussion thread. Please note that Proposal 2 has been withdrawn and no further comments are needed. Also, please disregard Proposal 9 as it was never an actual proposal.

MailL Chemistry procedure from Jethro B

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.

If you could get me a reply as soon as possible (about 15 hours), that'd be really great! I'm so sorry for the short notice, but this is crucial.

Thank you,

--Jethro B 04:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the intrusion again. I emailed you again with a different email address to use, as my current one isn't functioning proerly right now. Thanks. --Jethro B 04:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you thank you again so much! I understood your procedure - I pretty much just didn't realize to do the first part, but thank you for your assistance. I really do appreciate it. --Jethro B 05:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	For truly having a brilliant idea! Jethro B 05:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Social market economy unprotect

We came to an agreement on the last version lead in Talk:Social_market_economy#working_on_Lead_consensus. Five Users accepted that version, one User (Mr. Mustard ) still disagrees, one other users (Qyerro) made a single recommendation that was solved in the last version. So i guess we are good to go and hereby ask you kindly to unprotect the article Social market economy if and when you see fit. --Kharon (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Oton

The user Gaming&Computing has removed a large portion of the ad-drivel, but I still believe GNG is not met. If you still support your initial !vote, please reiterate your support on the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Oton page. Thanks! -Kai445 (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Making an ass out of Ming...

Flash Gorden....is that you? LOL! (I kid...and couldn't resist!)--Amadscientist (talk) 08:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Isn't that what assuming does? --Jayron32 12:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jayron

You blocked me for 31 hours for what? disruptive question on the ref desk? I am sorry. But can I ask a question that I have on the ref desk now? 186.130.74.115 (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

very old block appealed

At User talk:NXTguru. I've placed it on hold for the moment. The request is a bit thin on details but presuming they are a young person four years is a pretty long time. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Go for it, per WP:ROPE. Blocks are cheap, and if they vandalize again, they can be quickly reblocked. I have no objections to you unblocking if you wish to do so. --Jayron32 17:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I dunno, the guy who wrote that ROPE essay is a bit of a nut [1] but I guess we can risk it... Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, wisdom can still come from the mouths of lunatics. --Jayron32 17:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

More 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.

--Jethro B 21:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)