Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jayron32: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:59, 30 December 2009 editLar (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators29,168 edits ANI: I despair← Previous edit Revision as of 02:38, 30 December 2009 edit undoTedder (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators62,266 edits arbitration notification: new sectionNext edit →
Line 231: Line 231:
Well what I meant there was... I'll avoid commenting as much as I can. <tt>:)</tt>. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Well what I meant there was... I'll avoid commenting as much as I can. <tt>:)</tt>. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
:I understood what you meant. Methinks Jayron needs a nap, or maybe a vacation. He seems very irritable. A tag to indicate an editing dispute seems pretty reasonable to me when there is an editing dispute. :) But then I'm often in the minority in my viewpoints. ] (]) 01:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC) :I understood what you meant. Methinks Jayron needs a nap, or maybe a vacation. He seems very irritable. A tag to indicate an editing dispute seems pretty reasonable to me when there is an editing dispute. :) But then I'm often in the minority in my viewpoints. ] (]) 01:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

== arbitration notification ==

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at ] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
* ];
* ].

Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice -->
and please comment at the arbitration case or on my talk page- I'm notifying a large batch of editors. ] (]) 02:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:38, 30 December 2009

This is Jayron32's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Archives

/Archive for Sept-Dec 2006
/Archive2 for Jan-Apr 2007
/Archive3 for May-Aug 2007
/Archive4 for Sept-Dec 2007
/Archive5 for Jan-Feb 2008
/Archive6 for Mar-Apr 2008
/Archive7 for May-July 2008
/Archive8 for Aug-Nov 2008
/Archive9 for Nov 2008-Jan 2009
/Archive 10 for Feb-Apr 2009
/Archive11 for May-Jul 2009
/Archive12 for Aug 2009-Sept 2009
/Archive13 for October 2009-


Archiving

Hi, just a note that when I started typing the thread hadn't been archived, I certainly wouldn't have bothered if it was. -- Banjeboi 19:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It's all good. The arguements were just going in circles, and there was little else to be gained by the discussion. For the record, I did make a good faith effort to find an alternate solution, but there was clearly little support for it. I appreciate the sentiments of your statement, and I certainly agree to a point that we could, and should, have done more to stop the harassment. However, besides yourself and SlimVirgin and CofM, there was almost no support for any modification to the block in any form. Which is why I archived. It may be a better idea to let this settle for a month or two, and revisit the issue at a later date when emotions have waned a bit. --Jayron32 19:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
In theory I agree but from the invective thrown at him I doubt any time will matter to dissipate the zeal to bite in and tear. We can always hope though! -- Banjeboi 19:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The Wiki way seems to be handing out overly stiff penalties and then revisiting them after things have settled down. After some time, if the punished want to return, they usually need only indicate they are sufficiently chastened and remorseful, and an unblock is likely. I would prefer resolutions that favor compromise and extend respect and consideration even to those who've messed up. I think this would be a better way of encouraging good faith and respect in return, but until my meat puppets are elected to Arbcom I won't be able to reconfigure Misplaced Pages to my liking. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I did attempt a compromise. No one liked it. Oh well. --Jayron32 21:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I liked it Jayron. It was very reasonable, appropriate and well suited to the interests of the encyclopedia. Hence it was roundly rejected. :) Didn't you see where I referred to you as one of the "cooler heads" as opposed to those calling for heads on spikes? That's as close as I get to flattering anyone besides myself. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong. Please reopen thread

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&username=Slrubenstein

I agree with dixie. This is completely inappropriate behaviour for an admin to behave like that in a discussion.--Crossmr (talk) 05:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The above requests were from a while ago, in regard to your original closing of the thread, which has remained closed. It doesn't refer to this latest close, which was done when editors agreed on a resolution method that no longer involved ANI. Equazcion (talk) 17:55, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC)
ARGH. Sorry about that. Look, either close it or don't. I can't decide any more what people want. --Jayron32 17:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey don't worry about it, honest mistake. I re-closed it and added an explanation underneath, directing people here. Equazcion (talk) 18:09, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC)
I just remembered that I hadn't given you an update before I left before so just came now to do that and well...yeah...it seems I'm a bit late, huh? :\ I'm sorry Jayron!! Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm just wondering if someone could point me to any continued discussion on this, as I'd like the opportunity to follow up on it. Is there a particular RfC discussion I should be looking for? Thanks. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
The ANI discussion appears to have been reopened yet again, though who knows for how long. There's no RFC yet, we're still waiting for the user in question to respond to the request for striking his comments and declaring he learned his lesson. Aside from ANI, there are also ongoing discussions on my talk page, User talk:Stephan Schulz#ANI closing, and User talk:Wehwalt#Suggested resolution. Equazcion (talk) 19:22, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Equaz. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


Cool

well played... --BozMo talk 21:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you sir! --Jayron32 21:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation!

To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:

  • Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
  • Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
  • Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
  • Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
  • Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
  • Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
  • Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
  • Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
  • Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
  • In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges, iMatthew  at 03:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Membership of the Family

I see that you've reverted my inclusion of several prominent members of the Family and initiated a discussion of this issue here and here. You may not be aware of widespread media coverage about the Family -- I suggest you begin with these sources:

A list of prominent members of the Family listed in WP:CITE sources available at The Fellowship (Christian organization)#List of prominent Family members. Also see Category talk:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship#Rationale for category. I do not wish to engage in revert-warring with you or other editors, so I will wait a day or so for your response before I add these facts back to the appropriate pages, which I believe have been deleted in error. Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, I strongly object to your tendentious wording in your proposal to delete Category:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship. This is a valid category, not "created as part of a spree of questionable BLP-violating categorization of politicians." Please remove these unfair and inappropriate mischaracterizations. Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk) 06:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

See my comments at the talk page of The Family. Being "reportedly" anything is NOT a strong enough connection, moreso, some of these people "reportedly attended a meeting" which is even MORE of a tenuous connection. If you really want to find people who are members, find confirmation that someone self-identifies as a member, or get a published membership list released by the organization itself. Attending a prayer meeting or a bible study, or being "reportedly" anything is NOT positive verification of anything. --Jayron32 17:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Kils & 500 types of excitement

First, I'll say that I agree with your logic that despite the massive canvassing, a case could be made he was accidentally baited to it this time. I am going to reserve the right to look over the even more expansive list of users contacted, I'm afraid.

However, there are a lot of editors that have put in several full evenings of work trying to control him, after 3, 4, 5 ANIs, countless talk page warnings, countless talk page messages, a full SPI with very specific restrictions given and agreed to every term of them as a condition for an unblock. Being oblivious to policy isn't an endless means of avoiding sanctions when the pattern of continued disruptive actions has been endless... so, how far would the user need to go and push things even further? How much precedent is there for this much forgiveness for a user who has been perpetually lying about other users, hounding any editor even remotely suggesting he look over the situation again, etc etc etc.? I just want it to end. If by some miracle there's absolutely no further concerns, I'll gladly give you credit for deity-level evaluation of 'when the scales tip', so to speak, but this degree of disruption has been very demoralizing. Hopefully I'll learn something great from this in the end, but I will warn you... if I crack my head open on my desk from further bashing and need stitches, I might inquire about where to send the bill :) ...Fantastic restraint, truly, and though my view of the case as a whole is no different, it's having me turn my brain over on a different angle at some things. Thanks. daTheisen(talk) 23:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I hear ya... --Jayron32 02:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Building consensus on copyright issue

You were involved in a discussion regarding the use of copyrighted architectural designs on Misplaced Pages pages and I'm trying to find community consensus on a gray area. If you can, please let me know at what point you feel these images should be replaced here. Thank you so much! DR04 (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MikeBloomfield.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:MikeBloomfield.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ZooFari 06:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. For some unknown reason, this image had been removed two days ago from the article it was in. I have rectified the situation. --Jayron32 06:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sock

He's back, as you can see in his contribution log. Blockworthy? He may have just waited for the investigation to die. --ThejadefalconThe bird's seeds 01:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You do what you gotta do... --Jayron32 04:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/173.21.221.97

You know who is back from his block and doing the same things as before, I already requested it get blocked at AIV yet again. Momo san 05:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

See above. Go ahead and take care of it. --Jayron32 05:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I didn't realize the one above was the same thing, but anyway it's been reblocked for 3 months. Momo san 05:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

--Jayron32 05:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:ArackBobama

Would you like to take a look here? I'm concerned because this username is clearly similar to Barack Obama. Interestingly enough, their debut was to edit Poverty and add the "African-American" race (Obama's race) as a see-also.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 09:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd wait to see where he goes next. If he keeps editing under the current name, I'd block him. Leave him unblocked for now and leave instructions to use WP:CHU to change it. That's how I would handle it. If he starts behaving poorly, or if he refuses to acknowledge your request to change is name, its blockin' time... --Jayron32 01:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

File:Father Winter Solstice.jpg

Sky Attacker the legend reborn... is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 02:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of IOBridge

Hi, I am trying to create a page for ioBridge which is a company that creates web enabled IO control. But you deleted the page. Could you please tell me what do I need to do/write to get your approval? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noelportugal (talkcontribs) 05:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 Dramaout?

(See WT:The Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout#2010 Dramaout?) --___A. di M. 12:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


HectorMayhem and I, Clarkadrumage, are by no means the same person

HectorMayhem is a collegue of mine, we attended grad school at Xavier University together. The page that we were both editing at the same time contained information that each of us added individually. HectorMayhem created the page, let me know that it was being formed, and I added the information that I was aware of. We have a legitimate controbution to make and everything on the page was accurate. We were given almost no time to finish the page and you immediately accused my friend of being me for some reason and blocked his account.

Is this the way that Misplaced Pages is being run now? By administrators who use personal feelings to decide whether a page is legit or whether a person is who he says he is? I mean, the page on Brian Clark had more information, was written more eloquently and with fewer grammatical, typographical, and structural errors, and was about a more noteworthy person than several articles that have stayed on the site, without wantan molestation of their creators.

So, I first request that you reactivate my colleague's account, and I also request that you review the page "Brian Clark (American Writer & Academic) 1987-" and reconsider the previous decision to delete it.

Clarkadrummage (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I apologize if I offended you at all. That was not my intent. I simply meant to say that if the policy of this website is going to be to delete posts withing seconds of their creation and then block users based on incorrect information, there will be very little content added. The fact that the page that we were attempting to make did not even get a chance and that Hector was blocked makes it impossible for anyone to find out who the person that we were writing the page for is. For example, if someone saw his band play, or read a journal article by him, he would not be able to find Brian Clark on Misplaced Pages. On the other hand, if I look up George Washington, I can find him anywhere. It seems to me that it follows that minor, but still significant, figures have more of a place on a user content site like this one than major ones. If that's not the point of the site, that's fine, I clearly did not understand that and Hector and I screwed up.

Again, I wasn't trying to be, only to inform you of the mistake that you made, and why I thought that the treatment of our page was unfair. Although I thought that Hector was blocked because of the misinformation and that our page was deleted based on this same misinformation, you have made it clear that it was an objective decision, so my bad for accusing you or any other Admin of bias.

Finally, thanks for the information, but I doubt I(or many other new users) will be trying to create or edit any pages on this site, as I do not have the time or patience to read all of the rules.

Clarkadrummage (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout

Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Misplaced Pages:The Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Got it. That was fast! --Jayron32 04:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarification at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Rama

Now clearer, I hope. Jheald (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Somerset Spectator (2nd nomination)

You may want to look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Somerset Spectator (2nd nomination) since you participated in the previous AfD. - Eastmain (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jayron32. You have new messages at MLauba's talk page.
Message added 01:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MLauba (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't make me break out the trout...

Watch those small tags, mister! Matt Deres (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't bring up the subject... --Jayron32 00:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but at least Mr. 98 used the </small> tag correctly. ;-) Matt Deres (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, pshaw. Well, at least I now know that you've never made a typographical error in your lifetime. Its good to know there's one perfect person in the world! --Jayron32 00:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stoan!" Matt Deres (talk) 11:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
LOL. --Jayron32 15:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback msg

Please see appreciation msg in my talk page. Thanks --Kgwu24 (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)KG

Repeat Sockpuppet is Repeating

66.168.211.37 has vandalized two pages so far (one ALOT), but have been reverted. The user is a suspected sockpuppet of ever annoying indef blocked user Dingbat2007, a known and CONSTANTLY repeating vandal in the radio and TV station world. Could you block this new IP of Dingbat2007 before he causes anymore problems please? Thanks...NeutralHomerTalk03:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

i'd like to help, but I need more background. Can you post a few diffs that would help me distinguish Dingbat2007 from a good-faith editor. What evidence is there that definitively makes THIS IP Dingbat2007 beyond editing a TV station article? --Jayron32 04:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Sure. Tonight's edit from the anon was this edit. Another Dingbat sock, 24.196.232.201, added the same false information. That anon was blocked repeatedly. Please let me know if you need other diffs. - NeutralHomerTalk04:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 Done --Jayron32 04:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Many Thanks :) An early Merry Christmas :) - NeutralHomerTalk04:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Email

Hey Jayron. Please can you forward me the email sent to you by ottava so that I can review it as to whether talk page and email access removal was neccessary. In addition, by adding talk page and email restriction, you inadvertantly reset the block which will need correcting. Many thanks. Seddon | 03:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 14#Category:International Christian Leadership

You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 14#Category:International Christian Leadership. The category is similar to Category:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship which you recently commented on. --Kevinkor2 (talk) 09:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Misplaced Pages:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax 20:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy holidays

File:Father Winter Solstice.jpg

Caspian blue is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

--Caspian blue 22:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Drawn Some

I see that you looked over the abovelinked SPI case. I was wondering if you considered the evidence between Drawn Some and the other two accounts strong enough to conclusively link them together? If so, I have a bit of retagging to do :) NW (Talk) 03:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusions so far that there isn't enough evidence on Drawn Some. The kicker for me was the similar usage of language on the other two. Its close, but not compelling on Drawn Some. If he tries to edit again, he may get caught by the autoblock, which would nail it... --Jayron32 03:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If either of you learn more ping me will ya, so I can take another look. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 01:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

on orgo questions

My profs are away for the holidays ... but my curiosity isn't. And I do ask my profs -- I often ask on the RD when all my other resources are asleep or flooded with 50 other students (in the same accelerated class) asking questions. John Riemann Soong (talk) 05:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for helping on Adam Smith University. Even more importantly, I really appreciate the belly laugh that your edit comment gave me ("I have a semi pp. And yes, it is small") Regards, TallMagic (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

We aim to please. --Jayron32 00:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI

While I'd be happy to be "sent to the article talk page to discuss the matter civily ", I'd prefer you not use "Prodego is hearby sent to bed without dinner" as your closing summary. That implies that I did something wrong, which I don't believe is the case, if I had thought it were wrong, I would not have done it (or would have undone it). I also don't believe the thread shows consensus that I acted improperly, although there is certainly a point of view that I have. Prodego 01:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You did nothing wrong. Let it drop. For real. Just don't make any more comments on the matter, and find something else to do. --Jayron32 01:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I will avoid exacerbating the situation by commenting as much as I can. Prodego 01:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I've tried "commenting as much as I can" and I find it doesn't always work as exacerbation avoidance. :) ++Lar: t/c 01:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
You know what? Fuck it. Just keep going around in circles, and making people more pissed off unneccesarily. Leave the thread open. Waste more time. Seriously, does anyone TRULY believe that there is any hope of a worthwhile resolution in that thread? Nothing useful is to be done except the exact same people will say "Prodego is the worst admin ever and should have his bit removed" and the other half will say "Prodego did nothing wrong". And the two sides will repeat the exact same fucking arguements over and fucking over again, with no resolution in sight, but sure, just leave it open longer. Great fucking idea... --Jayron32 01:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with closing it, I just felt that the summary was unfair. I'm sure you didn't intend it to be that way. I agree it isn't going to be very productive, at this point. But what can I do, really? Prodego 01:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
You can do nothing. Lar could have not reopened the thread. But whatever. If Lar is having fun watching the shitstorm, who am I to ruin his good time for him. --Jayron32 01:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm absolutely NOT "having fun watching the shitstorm". I despair, because this is apparently a part of WP that isn't working well... if you read the discussion at the article itself, things have broken down. Sparring over a tag is symptomatic. What really ought to be done is more serious discussion of the suggestion to restore order by introducing a tighter edit regime at the article itself. I;'m sorry if my reopen annoyed you. ++Lar: t/c 01:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well what I meant there was... I'll avoid commenting as much as I can. :). Prodego 01:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I understood what you meant. Methinks Jayron needs a nap, or maybe a vacation. He seems very irritable. A tag to indicate an editing dispute seems pretty reasonable to me when there is an editing dispute. :) But then I'm often in the minority in my viewpoints. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

arbitration notification

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Climate Change and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, and please comment at the arbitration case or on my talk page- I'm notifying a large batch of editors. tedder (talk) 02:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)