User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

→

Please help comment on the proposed links

Hello

The spamming radio station promo director

Since she went back to doing what she was doing after being blocked for it, continues to revert other editors (myself included), I will write her a personal warning that further such will lead to an indefinite block (and the implied community ban).

We should develop some sort of template for this, I agree. Daniel Case 18:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I sent her an email laying out her sins, warning her that I (or someone else) will block her indefinitely if she starts again, not to create sockpuppets, and promising to call her employer if she does. Let's see what happens. Daniel Case 18:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Dispute situation in John_Buscema

Thanks for taking the time to respond to the wikiquette alert. Much appreciated. --Skyelarke 19:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:PS again

Please check out this MFD. Your opinion is welcome and requested since you particiated in the original MFD. /Blaxthos 22:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:RN reply

I replied at RN, please note my update at the top of the section.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 11:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Your alternate account at 90.240.240.173

Hello Mark. Someone has nominated for deletion your redirect of the user talk of your IP account, 90.240.240.173 (talk · contribs) over to the Talk page of your regular logged-in account, which I believe is this page here. This leads to a puzzling situation. Though it is not forbidden to have multiple accounts, your creation of a redirect seems unusual. Is there a specific reason why you would want to use both accounts, instead of just using the logged-in account? If you were to just ignore the IP account and stop using it, nothing bad would happen. The RFD debate is here. EdJohnston 02:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I created the redirect because I kept forgetting to log in before editing and I dont check the talk page of my IP, so had anyone wanted to discuss any edits I made with my IP rather than my account, then they could add it on my account talk page and I would notice it. I have now removed it to avoid any unnecessary confrontation with other users. Thanks again. user talk:Mark bickley 18:25 22nd July '07

Sockpuppet help

Thank you for the note you left on my talk page about fixing up my sockpuppet report. The article where this has come into play is Herbert W. Armstrong. Thank you for your help on my WP:WQA. I hardly dare ask for more, but if you'd participate in the WQA on the article's talk page, maybe you'd be able to get through where I, as a novice to this kind of conflict, have failed. -- Lisasmall 21:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Armstrong discussion page and contention

I moved two postings that were left here by User:Jebbrady over to Talk:Herbert W. Armstrong because they concern that article, and other editors should have a chance to see them. EdJohnston 03:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

RfA?

You opposed my candidacy for adminship in my RfA that closed on April 6, 2007. As you're probably aware, I opened an RfC on myself to address the concerns raised during the RfA. In addition, since that time, I've resumed editing articles (detailed on my talk page) and participated in peer, A-class, and Good Article reviews. I was considering accepting a re-nomination for admin and was wondering if you still had any concerns of questions that I could try to address in advance? Cla68 21:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine that you opened an RfC, though I did not participate. If you were do try a second RfA I don't think I would participate there, either, due to lingering concerns that would not be easy to briefly summarize. It's possible that things might go better if you were to delay for a while. EdJohnston 21:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Georg Cantor FA

...looks like we made it! Ling.Nut 03:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! You set us all a good example. Though there are many mathematics articles that need improvement, figuring out where to start is non-trivial. EdJohnston 03:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Blackle.com

See Talk:Blackle.com for a few updates on the article. With these corrections will you remove the sentence "The article appears to establish that the power-saving is insignificant or negative, so why bother?" from the {{prod}} template that you placed on the article? Cheers. Alan Liefting 04:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to have a full deletion debate on this article, you are allowed to remove the prod banner yourself, and the article wil go to WP:AFD. I myself am not inclined to remove the banner because the energy savings seem vanishing. As someone pointed out in the techlogg.com posting, on an LCD monitor blackle uses somewhat MORE power. Also it was pointed out that the type face on blackle.com is not very readable on a CRT, so you are burning out your users' eyesight. That doesn't seem to be a worthwhile tradeoff. If people add more independent third-party sources to the article, that would strengthen the case for keeping it. It's good to have the newspaper article there, and the newspaper turns out to be surprisingly good on the technical issues. EdJohnston 04:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Worldwide Church of God article and possible conflict of interest

User:Jebbrady left me some comments here, which I transferred to Talk:Worldwide Church of God. EdJohnston 02:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Issue

Edjohnson, can you let me know what this posting (below) is all about. I understand what a sockpuppet is, bu I don't understand the controversy surrounding me: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jebbrady (talk • contribs) 3 August 2007

"Hello Lisasmall. I tried fixing the WP:SSP entry by moving the page, so that the report refers to 'Jebbrady' not 'jebbrady.' I fixed up the SSP category for Jebbrady so it is no longer a red link, and I changed the transclude to 'Jebbrady' on the main SSP page. Added a second SSP account to the report. If you see any remaining problems, please let me know." EdJohnston 17:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This refers to your use of IP accounts, while at the same time you also have a normal logged-in account. Though I'm unaware of a suggestion that you misused the multiple accounts, it does cause scrutiny. Your entry is at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jebbrady. The policy is at WP:SOCK. Also, please sign your posts using four tildes. Thanks, EdJohnston 17:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks. I'm trying to get into the habit of logging in every time I do edits, including at work during my lunch hour, which triggered the scrutiny I think.

Jebbrady 23:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Disney spammer

AIV is for current and active vandalism (see the green box). Someone who stopped a couple of hours ago after a last warning should be brought up at AN/I.

Naturally, if he starts again, he can and should be blocked immediately. Daniel Case 01:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --El on ka 01:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:SyndicatedNetwork

I don't know if you want to add anything to the discussion about the User:SyndicatedNetwork/Syndicated Network Television Association article, but the editor is asking how to move the article back to the mainspace and I suggested not doing that as in its current state it is nearly CSD-fodder.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ed - got your feedback. I will attempt to address your questions as thoroughly as possible. When you get a chance please let me know if any progress has been made...

- SNTA does not sell shows to advertisers. Through their own and secondary research, they speak to advertising agencies and their clients about the virtues and benefits of syndication. - Yes, they are a trade group. - They do not employ salesmen. However, members are involved in going out and speaking to agencies and their clients. - At present time, there is only one link in the article to the SNTA website. The rest have all been removed. - SNTA is not a corporation, but a not-for-profit organization with 7 employees. - You said you wanted links to the members. Do you want links to their Wikipedia pages, or direct links to their own sites? Below are some third-party sources that all mention SNTA and the research it has done. http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.san&s=61446&Nid=31047&p=363629 (2nd paragraph) http://www.medialifemagazine.com/ml/ac/ns072607.asp (5th paragraph down) http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6444792.html (popular trade magazine for those interested in syndication) Thanks! SyndicatedNetwork 20:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Response

Hello, thank you for your comments on my talk page. I use TWINKLE, its a script that adds buttons to make reverting vandalism and warning users easier. Hope that answers your questions, and happy editing! --_Hdt83 ^Chat 07:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Syndicated Network Television Association

Today I moved the main discussion thread over to the Talk page of the userfied article. So it is now in User talk:SyndicatedNetwork/Syndicated Network Television Association. Please continue the discussion there.

I think I've made all the points I wanted to about article notability. I'm still not convinced that the new article should be created, since it lacks third-party references that show the significance of the SNTA organization itself. If User:SyndicatedNetwork wants to move it back to main space, I imagine it will be nominated for deletion, and we can have a full debate using the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion process, that will bring in more opinions than just mine. EdJohnston 17:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Barcode

Please explain what change you had in mind for the Barcode article. You seem to be well-intentioned, but possibly inexperienced with Wikipedia. From your user name, I gather that you know something about bar codes. Please let me know in what direction you would like to take the article, or what problems you perceive. Thanks, EdJohnston 21:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Response: Someone with Wikipedia suggested that my article in "Barcode" and "UPC" sections should be merged. The two articles were initially the same because I thought it would be of interest in both areas. To merge them I placed a link in the "Barcode" area to the "UPC" area. I believe the article should reside in the "UPC' history section.

If you would like to help: The development of the UPC label was achieved by 3 engineers, me (Bill Crouse), Heard Baumeister, and George Laurer. We worked at the end of a hall where no one had any interest in our daily activities and so we where the only ones that knew what took place. The only documentation of our work was my patent on the Delta C code, used in the UPC label and the proposal document written by George Laurer which I do not believe was ever published to the general public. The only record of the history of the development effort and who did it resides in our three minds.

I thought this activity might be of interest to some and the information I found in Wikipedia and its links was somewhat flawed.

I have been challenged because I did not provide published references to prove my document, "if it is not on paper is should not be in Wikipedia". The only proof of what took place in the development effort is my patent and the eye witness of the three engineers that where there. My account is not a result of my research, it is a first hand account of what I observed and participated in. I am certain Baumeister would verify my account, if he would be willing to discuss it at all. I believe George Laurer would agree, at least if Baumeister or myself there present.

If the statement of a participent of a historical event (me) is not acceptable and my patent does not help my credentials then my contribution should be deleted but then other non documented claims should be reviewed also.

The three engineers are now 71 to 81 years old and the story may soon be lost if not documented. UPCMaker 16:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ideally you would gather your data and memories for publication in some venue like IEEE Annals of the History of Computing]. If your work were externally published, we would then be able to cite it. We are not a publisher of first instance. However, you must know the field well, and must know what references we should have, and you may know if any of the current statements in the article are wrong. EdJohnston 16:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I am certain my statements are correct. I doubt if the IEEE would be interested but I wish they would be. If anyone wanted to verify the account they probably could contact Heard K. Baumeister. I believe he now lives on a river near Charleston SC. I recently looked him up in the on-line White Pages. He may not be egar to talk about it because he has never been given any recognation for his contributions.

Another question if I may. I have some first hand knowledge of the Capacitive Keyboard technology to add to Wikipedia's artical. I thought I might add some detail about how it is implemented and a brief history of IBM's development. This subject is less contriversial and I would not use names. I proposed this technology and the IBM keyboard department developed it. It became the keyboard of choice from late 1969 till the 1990's. My question: would this be a good adddition for Wikipedia? UPCMaker 19:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Any topic is suitable for Wikipedia if it is notable and if sources are available to back up the statements in the article. Not sure what you meant about 'not using names.' Though we discourage adding any facts to an article that are not published elsewhere, you may well have the knowledge to fix our current articles in that area. Also some of our technical articles are badly written and don't reflect a good understanding of the topic area. Since you have a good understanding, you might help us out rewriting articles in the areas you know about. EdJohnston 19:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The article on Social change could be nominated for deletion?

Hi Ed. Social change as a term is fairly widely used in the academic political and social sciences arena so despite the fact that I think you are right that it can be a code word for a particular flavor of the left, and it can be quite nebulous, I still think it is a suitable subject for an article. I think it would be a great shame if the poor behavior of one editor led us to delete an entire article. But the article is unsourced and so of limited value to the encyclopedia. I certainly don't have the academic background to know what is significant and what isn't or to recognize truly appropriate sources. (I can find social science quite frustrating in this regard. There is clearly a strata of really good academic social science work, but there seems to be a huge amount of third and forth rate stuff that gets quoted all over the place without being debunked by the good guys. It's very difficult for a layperson like myself to work out what's good and what isn't.)

I think there are two possible approaches to try before nominating for deletion. We could stub the article and put an expert needed tag on it - then just watch like a hawk for any unsourced additions. This might convince the gsociology guy to give up since one of his complaints was that he started the article and much of the content is from his website, and without his link he feels he isn't being credited. So getting rid of the content might stop him from adding the link. Another approach is to see about getting the http://gsociology.icaap.org blacklisted. The guy has had plenty of notice and I think it is a clear case of acting in bad faith. This slow edit war over many months with multiple IPs might be enough to get a meta admin to blacklist, since semi-protecting the article for ever is a very poor solution. -- SiobhanHansa 22:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Armstrong page: Sarek summarizing my postings Against my request

Dear Edjohnson,

Just giving you a heads up that I plan to revert a unilateral summarization of what I've posted on the page. Please see my posting where I cut and pasted the brief dialog leading up to Sareks action.

Sarek is more experienced at Wikipedia than I, and I'm concerned about a revert war. I got involved with this article not as a seasoned Wikipedia contributor, but as a reader of Wikipedia--a regular joe off the street, but who was utterly shocked at the bias in the Armstrong article when I came upon it back in October.

P.S Someone told me his summary seemed very biased against me, and I read it and agreed.

Thanks

69.115.162.235 08:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Jeb, per WP:TALK changing anything already written on a Talk page should be done with consensus. Please don't revert without discussion. I have asked permission to archive the page; you can comment there. EdJohnston 11:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Jeb has removed content again, this time including the post in which I told him he should not remove content. Would you mind looking at it and consider reinserting what he's removed? He seems to think that only admins have the authority to disagree with him. 24.6.65.83 11:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi 24.6, I'm not an admin. Per WP:REFACTOR some liberties can be taken with older content on a Talk page, but Jeb seems to disagree with how we've done it. Though I don't see the logic of his objections, we should respect his qualms ("If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted".). I would try to get Sarek to move his summary down into a separate comment, rather than intersperse it, because some people seem to have trouble following what he did. (Me, for example :-). If Jeb undid one of your comments, just put it back. EdJohnston 11:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I apologize for removing the comment--it was an accident. This is a little complex right now, and it but will stabilize when Sarek and IP honor my request. Jebbrady 11:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

(edit conflict) :Jeb seems to think you are and is affording you the respect he gives admins. I agree that his qualms should be addressed, but not by him unilaterally removing Sarek's summaries. At this point they are part of the page and discussion should be about where they are best placed. Under other circumstances I would put my comments back, but at this point I've tried several times to reverse the blanking that he's done. I'd rather not have it come down to him removing content and me putting it back in an endless cycle. Hopefully somebody else correcting his mistakes would break that. If you don't I'm going to have to take it to AN/I and I'd rather not escalate it to that level if I don't have to. 24.6.65.83 11:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

According to the letter of WP:REFACTOR, if Jeb doesn't like what Sarek did, with his interspersed comments and the collapse boxes, the whole thing has to be reverted. If Sarek wanted to summarize Jeb's views in his own free-standing comment, then Jeb would not be able to complain. So I don't agree that Sarek's summaries are now part of the page. I hope Sarek will put back his thoughts in a more conventional manner, one that doesn't do any refactoring. EdJohnston 11:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Reporting Third Party Misconduct (not you!)

Besides the actions of Sarek in refactoring without discussion and then against my requests, there is something else that really bothers me in terms of his behavior as a third party:

When I was brushed aside, I confidently reverted, knowing instinctively he was in the wrong to go forward against my wishes, and he rapidly reverted (in seconds), obviously challenging me to a revert duel in so doing. What bothers me the most is that Sarek, after two reverts, bowed out of the duel (the limit is three reverts as you know) and "IP" almost immediately took over and did two more, as if they were banding together to skirt the intent of the revert rules while tripping me up into going over the limit with four reverts. Is that fair to say? They have been peas in a pod on every issue since the IP came into it, and even have ridiculed me without humor in unison (see the Goerge W. Bush wisecrack). At least one friend of mine has told me Sarek was recruited by Lisasmall, and that they think the IP address, who has an indistinguishable tone from her, and has a comparable knowledge of wikipedia policies, and who knows his way around technically like an old pro, may in fact be Lisasmall. I have no idea if it's true.

I should point out that Sarek makes comments in response to my arguments that are amazingly obtuse--like no effort is being made to hash out the issue, find common ground, nor has he found occasion even once to express agreement with a single sound aspect of any of my arguments--and outside observers have lauded the logic in those postings. Did you see my posting in response to you saying you wanted someone to boil down the real controversy? His response "negative facts about Armstrong are not exceptional" is a perfect example (please reread that posting). (As an aside, you did not express disagreement with what I said overall in that posting, and if that is the case, then I would appreciate you expressing agreement overtly in that section.)

The overall maturity level in the dialog the past five days has been disappointing. I've twice extended olive branches to him without qualification, and he has not replied with comments to either attempt (one is on his talk page at the bottom and the other is is on the Armstrong page, immediately prior to the refactoring controversy).

What do you suggest I do?

69.115.162.235 03:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

You play a somewhat lonely role on this article because you feel very keenly any criticism that anyone expresses against Armstrong. It is not surprising that you sometimes find yourself in a minority, since I don't perceive that the other editors have any particular connection to Armstrong's life or beliefs. They, like me, are general-purpose article writers. You might make up for that fact by being good at finding sources for the points you want to make. Please note that I am not an admin, and I have no special powers whatever on this article. I can only work by persuasion, which is something you should do as well. EdJohnston 15:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I appreciate constructive criticism believe me. Ironically, as far as me being a single account vs. them being general interest, I arrived at my views on Armstrong objectively and with caution over a period of time, whereas a general interest editor in some cases is much more likely to form a quick impression on a subject one way or another, and then stick with that impression no matter what--perhaps lacking flexibility because of the negative spirit of competition, or a built in bias or predisposition toward suspicion towards "certain kinds of people". Or they can be terrific.

My strength is that I'm a single account editor in many ways, if I conduct myself honorably. No one can say I'm dishonest or not sincere, or just out for a battle, or mired in a personal rivalry, and that a good clean article about a subject on religion isn't good for Wikipedia ultimately (Yes, I do sincerely think I can achieve that better that the editors involved now, judging from their comments and actions)

I somehow believe they are ultimately impaling themselves by their actions, and It could be helpful if, down the line, you make sure to avoid silently abiding their constant antagonistic actions and comments. They cite policy not constructively but incessantly, displaying no interest in the adhering to the very spirit of those policies: decency and cooperation, and honesty. You've witnessed their lack of cooperation, including the refactoring incident, and it seems they are not complying with the spirit of the letter of that policy. Persuasion is not working, nor are olive branches. They've opened up a vicious complaint against me, and it's simply not an honest description of events, by both commission and ommission. I cannot say or do anything with them without receiving stinging rebukes, even when trying to build on common ground. Because their is a lengthy report filed against me filled with spin and innacuaracy, I'm pursuaded that Sarek and IP think they now are in a position of power and that cooperation and politeness aren't necessary. He also can lean on his cache, experience, and technical knowledge, and spin the dialog through through a constant barrage of scathing, obtuse, unjust criticism which 'could quickly prejudice any third party dropping in right off the bat--and there is no evidence that it is not meant to do that: notice his light bulb request for outside comment, where he put a manifesto up against me that, again, was dishonest. Such atacks waste my time in forcing me to have to respond in detail and yet I didn't have enough space to dispel everything, and that works to his advantage and he knows it: Just launch six or seven salvos on my conduct and I'll have to spend half a page and half a day defending myself, or else look like the bad guy. Frankly it's disgraceful. If you can see something substantive and constructive in his dialog with me the past week, please bring it to my attention. I haven't seen it.

It gets worse and worse. I wrote a critical response to sarek two days ago, and decided to replace it with something without any criticism, and he went into the edit histroy and brought back the passage I removed. Doesn't any of his behavior leave a little bad taste in your mouth? Forget about good fatih and cooperation, how about also censorship and free speech. Of course I have every write to retract what I say. I'm not sure yet if he left up what I replaced it with--I don't put edit remarks in for postings--a technical thing and such also takes up time for a newcomer especially.

I'm not sure what I want from you, but I feel it worth while to further express my thoughts on what's going on.

Jebbrady 02:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Bayesianism

Dear Ed

I added a reference to Howson & Urbach such as you requested on 11 August to demonstrate my point is not Wiki original research as you suggest. Hope that satisfies you pro tem. I shall add more references to this end asap. --Logicus 14:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Worldwide Church of God

I'd like your advice, if you don't mind, so that I can't be accused of pushing an agenda. I want to get rid of the overview section in this article because it essentially duplicates the purpose of the lead section and just feels awkward. It can't all be integrated up because that would overbalance the lead into criticism. I'm thinking of dropping the first sentence, moving the second sentence up to the lead ("For its first 50+ years..."), drop the third, move the 4th up ("However, within a few years..."), and drop the fifth. Thoughts? 24.6.65.83 02:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not offer a draft of the new overview section at Talk:Worldwide Church of God? Then ask for feedback on the Talk page. EdJohnston 15:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, my proposal actually eliminates the Overview section, moving some info up to the lead (where it belongs) and deleting what I think are the redundant bits, but I suppose I could put it on the talk page. 24.6.65.83 17:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC

Well, I didn't acually change the process, I merely cleaned up the instructions. A continual problem on Wikipedia is that instruction pages tend to accumulate needless exceptions and redundant warnings; these need occasionally be pruned to prevent the page from becoming illegible. A good example is WP:CSD - people keep adding things like "be careful when doing this" or "don't do this without thinking twice" everywhere, which if you think about it really doesn't help, especially as it's already noted at the top of the page. >Radiant< 08:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

immediately restore Time postings

Ed, You practically called for a vote, and you said so yourself said on this page that I'm all alone. At the same time, you didn't address the substance of what I posted, or my request for a grace period to provide counter balancing material. Also, can you explain what the rush is? Jebbrady 03:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see my response at Talk:Herbert W. Armstrong. EdJohnston 04:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Knock knock

Sideshow 1

I left a {{uw-delete1}} message for User talk:64.252.4.220. You've been doing a nice job on improving that article, and making the title sensible. (I've actually heard of that place, and have some old books by Alan Watts lying around somewhere). Lately I've noticed that SPAs don't have a lot of patience, and as time goes by the original POV impulses may give way to inaction. There are some decent Buddhism-related articles in WP, and there is a portal, though I didn't find a WikiProject we could appeal to for common sense. EdJohnston 03:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Your support of my "tedious insistance" [sic] much appreciated. — Athaenara ✉ 06:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sideshow 2

See Mark Dice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for a small COI SPA sideshow. I'm appalled sometimes at the lengths to which I've gone to meet such users halfway. If you've a bit of time and interest for it, I expect you'll have something unique to contribute. Feel free to reply on my own talk page if you prefer. — Athaenara ✉ 20:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ath. I added Mark Dice to my watch list. Looked at the WP:COIN posting, but it wasn't clear what action was being sought there, except to 'keep an eye.' In case you might have noticed Archimedes Plutonium some time back, a character who was also considered a wacky self-promoter, that one was elegantly resolved as a protected redirect to Notable Usenet personalities, a semi-protected article that lists a number of people with just a sentence or two for each. If you believe the Mark Dice article is more than is required for his current notability, something like the Archimedes Plutonium solution might be considered, though a different target article would be needed. Some of the previous versions of Mark Dice that you cleaned up are actually more entertaining than the current one. If improper edits continue, semi-protection might be considered. EdJohnston 20:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. How's it going with the COI/N archiving-by-bot proposal you mentioned last week? A few minutes ago it was over 230,000 bytes. — Athaenara ✉ 21:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Postscript. By entertaining, did you mean like this version? — Athaenara ✉ 21:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I took another look, and I think your new version is the best. Re archiving, I proposed at WT:BLPN that they should use a bot, but didn't get any response. Do you think silence gives consent? :-) EdJohnston 22:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I tempted to say yes, Ed, it does. COI/N near 240kb and BLP/N near 290kb are choking on their own mass. — Athaenara ✉ 10:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sideshow 3

I can assume no clue with the best, Ed, but I have very little patience lately for users like 189.169.24.93 (e.g. Talk:Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation‎#Policies, guidelines and tags. The clever lad changed his mind about posting this version though.) — Athaenara ✉ 00:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not that I want to bite newbies, I just wish I could bite them back. — Athaenara ✉ 00:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Just like spam-fighting tends to make a person snappish and trigger-happy, it sounds like the work you do on WP can cause the blood to boil. As for myself, I never lose my temper.. (/plays Twilight-Zone music..) EdJohnston 03:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Between the TREC webmaster/marketing advisor and assorted other users who think anyone who tries to make the TREC article encyclopedic must be in favour of global warming and/or totally ignorant of solar and wind technologies, and all their incivilities, I'm crying for some support from the sidelines. Help? — Athaenara ✉ 05:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

On the TREC issue, it's starting to look that you might need some admin help on the article Talk page. It's unfortunate that COIN has not had many patrollers lately. Maybe it's something about the vacation. Usually you get a few good blasts of indignation about the more inexcusable stuff, but it's been very quiet. (Except in some cases where people come to the noticeboard along with the issue). I've seen Jehochman around, but not too many other people. Even WP:RSN is rather dull these days. Maybe the TREC stuff will escalate up to a real noticeboard, and something will happen! Also the TREC issues seem to require very careful study of the references, which may discourage newcomers. The most blatant stuff is the behavior of the webmaster. EdJohnston 05:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sideshow 4

Talk:Jim Bob Duggar‎#Duggar family 2006 image may be getting extreme enough to end up on my comedy page. (Please feel free to delete this post if it annoys.) — Athaenara ✉ 23:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You were helpful over there, thank you. I'm wondering now if Lucid's "that I am actually drawn back… to try to drill this through your lead skull… should concern you" edit summary a threat or a garden variety incivil personal attack? — Athaenara ✉ 06:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Aaron Klein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, Ed—I've semi-protected the article and think I should bow out of reverting the COI POV anons have added for so long. I wonder if he/they know about wikinews. — Athaenara ✉ 22:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's fine to semi-protect it. You are forgiven for bowing out. If the article has any other fans, maybe they can step forward. EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. I thought you'd want to know, because we've both been at bat there awhile. — Athaenara ✉ 02:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration case involving Jebbrady

For your information, I have filed an arbitration case regarding Jebbrady's editing of the Armstrong-related articles.--SarekOfVulcan 16:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, though the arb remains open with three votes recorded, this RFC/U has been filed and certified by two users other than the initiator. Both the ARB and the RFC remain open for comment (if I understand the arb process correctly). -- LisaSmall ^T/C 08:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Isen

I added reasoning on the talk page. To answer your question I feel that a geographical feature of middle earth warrents an article when it meets the criteria set out in WP:NN and WP:FICT - having been the subject of several independant secondary sources and ideally having significant real world content. I don't know if Isen or any other articles meet this criteria - I am not a Tolkein expert but could see no evidence in the article - hence the tag. [[Guest9999 22:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]]

ISBN Tool

Hello,

Just responding to your request to discuss the recently proposed link to the ISBN validation tool on the wiki/ISBN page. I think it's a useful tool, not least because it converts both ways. It will also validate any reference provided; however, please let me know how best to proceed. Thanks. 74.9.45.67 18:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A Google search for 'ISBN conversion' gets 2.18 million hits, which is a huge number. An ISBN conversion tool does not provide a rare or hard-to-find service, and in any case Wikipedia is not a business directory. See WP:NOT and WP:EL. For my own use, I prefer http://www.isbn.org/converterpub.asp, because it will do the conversion and also hyphenate properly. EdJohnston 21:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think it's fair to say that 2.18 million hits does not equate to 2.18 million conversion tools, and though your preference may be for another tool, it may not be so for everyone. Having a choice, albeit in this case a limited one, I think is a good thing, but I appreciate your comments. 74.9.45.67 22:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Sinebot

Thanks for that, Ed. Problem is, of course, that I'm happy with alomst all that Sinebot does, just not with my comments on my own talk page. I'll definitely consider opting out, though. Grutness...wha? 00:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:

Hi, actually Danzig/Gdansk is not that case. Brno was and is the name of the city all the time. It was not "Brünn and not Brno" it's name was Brno and for german speaking population it was Brünn. Official name was always Brno and during the the period of Austria after the battle on White Mountain it was also (not only) Brünn and during the WW2 it was Brünn. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 09:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

UPC Patent

I just found your question about my patent. I answered it on my talk.UPCMaker 01:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Academic Journals project

Hi Ed, a project for journals has been started; here is the talk page in case you want to get involved. John Vandenberg 06:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

RSS History section

It just seems sprawling, includes events that may have little to no long-term historical significance (WP:NOT), has completely unnecessary external links within the text (WP:LINKS), etc. That's why I just put a general cleanup tag. I don't know how many times I have added cleanup tags or simply removed history sections (those with actually no historical content to speak of) of internet technology articles (especially articles about recent companies in the business with such sections).--Boffob 22:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

re:Wikification template shouldn't appear in the articles themselves?

Hello Thadman! Just now I moved a {{wikification}} template from The Monster Study to its Talk page. (Someone complained about The Monster Study at WP:VPA). Do you agree that the template doesn't belong in the articles themselves? Also, shouldn't this template be moved into the main template space? Having a redirect across spaces is sometimes frowned upon. EdJohnston 16:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

When I used the template I generally put it in the talk page to act as a record of its wikification. Also when I first put it together it was an experiment of sorts which is why I did it in my namespace. Later on there was a request to put it in template namespace, so I instead simply patched through a redirect. It might be about time to make the move permanent as so many people seem to use it now. אמר Steve Caruso 20:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you can be bold and move the template. If anyone doesn't like it there are many deletion procedures they could follow. EdJohnston 21:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I've copied it to template name space. Rich Farmbrough, 14:18 21 September 2007 (GMT).

Thanks! I don't know yet if it's a template I'd use myself, but it seemed curious that it was being brought in from User space. It looks better now. I may need to fix up some help links. EdJohnston 15:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		My RFA
		I thank you for participating in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 60 supports, no opposes, no neutrals, and one abstain. Edison 17:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Howard.

For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 08:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Re:Powerset

I agree with you completely about the potential for a good article about the Powerset search engine. The article we had was pretty lousy, but if you're interested, I can restore it in you user namespace. I wasn't the one who speedied the article, but my messing about made things rather confusing. When I first saw the article, I hoped it would be improved, and I slapped a {{notability}} template on it with that in mind. However, it was speedied shortly thereafter. It wasn't recreated, but I partially restored the article and merged it with powerset because I thought a couple of the old edits (one of which dated back to 2001) were worth preserving. I apologize for making a mess. - EurekaLott 02:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

SPAM drivin me nuts!!!

Hi. I just saw your edit over at Web operating system. I'm wondering how you feel about the table at Web desktop. I have been going round-and-round with a bunch of spa's over the inclusion of a couple of non-notable entries. Any thoughts? I'm feeling lonely and wondering if I'm doing the right thing. Thanks in advance. -- Ben 16:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been through some related debates. I went and looked at the table you mention in Web desktop, which includes some red links. Since the table doesn't provide direct external links to these systems that don't yet have articles, it annoys me less than it might otherwise. I would still argue that any entries that don't have references should be removed. So if some magazine article refers to one of these, I'd be OK with including it, even if it's not notable enough to have its own WP article. Otherwise, they should go. (It's unreferenced information). EdJohnston 17:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the look-see and the thoughts. I think I just need to keep taking my blood pressure meds. -- Ben 17:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Years

Hi Ed, this has been a bugbear for a long time. There is one user, who is highly placed in the community who has fought against de-linking years, blocking and using admin functions to revert, and stopping consensus at MOSNUM. We have lost good editors over this, which is why I am reluctant to press the point. Nonetheless I have de-linked many thousands of bare years, with maybe a couple of queries. The MoS has actually come on now saying

Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic. Piped links to pages that are more focused on a topic are possible ([[1997 in South African sport|1997]]), but cannot be used in full dates, where they break the date-linking function.

I would prefer it not to provide any support of Easter egg links (WikiPRoject albums deprecates these preferring the style "1999 (see 1999 in music). The discussions run to many pages. If you wish to de-link more efficiently, there is some good monobook code around, mine is passable, but not to good with links adjoining other links. Rich Farmbrough, 11:40 21 September 2007 (GMT).

Linking isolated years in Judith Jarvis Thomson

Hi, thanks for your remark. I'm not sure that we should only make links when they are relevant for the article in question. For instance, most articles on people have links for the country of their nationality, although most users wouldn't click on those links to U.S. or China if they wouldn't have a special reason for it. There are also aesthetical, readability and sheer conventional aspects to be taken into account when you decide to link or not to link. But please revert that part of my edit if you think it is for the best! Velho 16:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! I don't actually know how to proceed, but I am influenced by Rich Farmbrough (the operator of SmackBot) who, since he uses automated tools to fix page formatting problems, has had to give some thought to how isolated years should be treated. There is not currently a firm consensus about isolated years. EdJohnston 12:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Making sense

My apoligies:

I have a freind who happens to know my username and password. I didn't think he'd act in such a malevolent manner, I was only trying to introduce him to wikipedia. I'll make sure I change my password. He has admitted to me that he was in this matter. Please take this as the truth, for that is not the kind of person I am. Thank you for the vandalism revert, I promise never to let anyone, including myself, respond in kind. Thanks again. BurnMuffin ^{Word, bro.} 00:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Edokter RfA

Dear EdJohnston,

Thank you for your participation in my Request for Adminship, which ended succesfully with 26 supports, 3 opposes and 1 neutral. A special thanks goes to Rlevse for nominating me. I appreciate all the support and constructive criticism offered in my RfA. Please do not hesitate to point out any errors I will make (unintentionally of course), so I won't make them again. Please contact me if you need anything done, that's what I'm here for!
— Edokter • Talk • 12:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

WWB re-request for assistance with proposed entry

Hello, here's hoping you recall my request from August for assistance with my proposal of a page for my employer, User:WWB/New_Media_Strategies. It's substantially longer now, with more information about the company, its acquisition, ethics statement and current activities. This is definitely well beyond a stub now, although I haven't included the company infobox, I can add that shortly. I'm also going to post another request at the Village Pump, in case you're too busy. Thanks again. --WWB 17:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		My RFA
		Thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 58 supports, 1 opposes, and 1 neutral. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified. Addhoc 19:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

EB online

Sure, just do it. If someone objects I'm sure they'll raise the point. Richard001 23:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation

Thank you for leaving a message on my German discussion page. I left some sort of short reply over there for you. My major point was and still is that in my opinion the article has lost "too much" right now - this article as it is now is just not bringing home what it should bring home from my understanding of the German article. Again, the point is not that I basically do not accept the changes that have been made to the article, but I think that some of the edits that were meant to be improvements simply were not. Furthermore, you might just cross-check your "citation needed"-notices with other articles that already exist in WP (and that have not been written by Benderson). For example (this was the most obvious one that I noticed when I went through the text for the first time, so please apologize) take the notice before the very last one (about California) - you even have an article not only about the technology used there (Parabolic trough), but also about exactly this power plant (Solar Energy Generating Systems).

Imagine an uninformed reader (I would say I'm a bit above that level now, but that's what we are working for in here, aren't we?) - all facts that this person can get about the plan/project/... is located in the second paragraph, in one single sentence (actually the interesting part starts even later, at "by campaining"). And then, there's a lot of technical jargon - and we directly jump into this 2004/2005 conference issues. So this person reads on and on ... "what the heck is this project all about" etc. - but nothing but confusion because the basic idea is gone.

I had in mind that analysis when I contacted Athaenara and suggested some co-work _including_ (yes! I have had some good experience with that kind of co-work in de:) Benderson (because he undoubtedly is the expert on the topic). Of course, he is not working from a neutral perspective, but he will surely be more than cooperative if he sees a chance to come back into the editing process instead of being beaten away literally like it had happened recently (please keep in mind that he never made a secret of his work for the initiative). Of course, others would have to take care (f.ex. including a lengthy improvement process on the discussion page), but still, there should be some progress.

As I wrote on my German page, my timeframe is some kind of limited currently, but I will keep an eye on the article and the ongoing discussions in en:. Nevertheless, if you want me to react quickly, please do not hesitate to leave a short "ping" on my page in de:. --Nis Randers 21:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Misbehavior by User:Benderson2, the COI-affected editor, and his lecturing of those trying to enforce normal Wikipedia policies, led to the lengthy COI investigation. When this article first appeared it looked like advertising or promotion. I understand that the article may have been reduced as the result of the subsequent edits. The lingering concern is that this is a research project that seems to have no notable results, yet wants everyone in the world to know of its existence. We are of course receptive to the addition of solid, well-substantiated information to the article that is independent of the project itself. EdJohnston 22:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Social Parking

I have made changes to Social Parking. Please check it out. Perhaps you might change your mind about it. -IDNexpert —Preceding unsigned comment added by IDNexpert (talk • contribs) 00:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

books-by-isbn.com

FYI, see [1] and [2]. --A. B. ^(talk) 15:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks for the update. EdJohnston 15:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

signature

Sorry, my mom had an emergency and this is the first time I've been by. I see you managed to do the archive without my signature. Apologies for forgetting to sign. I was dashing by yesterday, so I just saw the rest of your note today. No, no videos. :) -Jmh123 02:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Raëlian history and beliefs

Hi, thanks for bringing this to attention. Sorry for the mistake, so I removed the COI2 tag. (I'm User:Bearian at a non-secure internet cafe.) Bearian'sBooties 16:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

FreeSWITCH

Ed, hello there. I can't post to the FreeSWITCH page because of the current lock (and my current issues with my vile account, different thread).. I have a COI - but is globeandmail.com from over a year ago worthy of note, considering age as another factor as well? Could you post this to the Talk page for me for other editors to discuss? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061016.gtfrontlines16/BNStory/ another cite that popped up was: http://www.informationweek.com/software/opensource/190500835 Thanks, matt vile 216.228.182.112 19:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC) ping 216.228.182.112 23:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks (a bit late) for helping out my RfA. Bearian 13:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support.

Hello EdJohnston,

Thank you very much for coming out in support of my RfA. In particular, I wanted to express my appreciation for the rather insightful analysis you provided in support of your position. I knew that my contributions would be under scrutiny, but you took the cake with the EAR reference. Your remarks really stood out, and I do believe that it made a difference.

Anyway, please feel free to contact me if you need help with actions requiring administrative access; I shall do my best to be of assistance to you. Cheers, --Aarktica 02:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Driver

I've retrieved the lost reference at Driver (film) from when I merged it per notability guidelines for films. Should be good now! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thank You Note from Jehochman

		Ready to swab the deck!
		Another motley scallawag has joined the crew. Thanks for your comments at my RFA. Arrrgh! - - Jehochman ^Talk 23:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA, which unfortunately didn't succeed. The majority of the opposes stated that I needed more experience in the main namespace and Wikipedia namespace, so that is what I will do. I will go for another RfA in two month's time and I hope you will be able to support me then as well. If you have any other comments for me or wish to be notified when I go for another RfA, please leave them on my talk page. If you wish to nominate me for my next RfA, please wait until it has been two months. Thanks again for participating in my RfA! -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 02:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

		With thanks!
		Thanks for participating in my RfA, which closed successfuly. I leave you with a picture of the real Blood Red Sandman! Note his 'mop' is slightly deadlier than mine! - - Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

I have serious concerns about Fredsmith2, the fellow who wants to delete the COI templates. There's more here than meets the eye. I've started a case, here. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Notability template

Thank you, at last someone who is being genuinely helpful. I will certainly not be tagging any further schools as I am in favour of having articles on schools but had been persuaded by many comments that my article on Hassocks Infant School, which was way more detailed than any I tagged, was utterly useless and against Wikipedia guidelines.Paste 17:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Query regarding online sources on Scipio Africanus

You mentioned WP:El. I looked this up, and the part that seems relevant is [3]. Could you tell me what is wrong? I added the online sources, as one of the contributors to the article, because a) not all of us, including me, currently have access to great libraries. b) online sources are not the best sources, but they are better than nothing. I also tried not to copy from those pages, but to use them as sources for more information. As it is, apart from a few biographies and loads of references to Scipio's campaigns, there is very little on Scipio.

User:Wikibiohistory 11:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments on the Talk:Scipio Africanus page.

Thank you.

wikibiohistory 11:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

closed afd

I hope this is the right place to send you a return message. I am new to this site so I am not sure if I wrote my comments on the "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine" page correctly. However, once I wrote my initial comments, I did not edit them or anyone elses comments in any way. Plus, when i wrote my comments, there was nothing written (like there is now) about the page being closed. Also, although u apologized for a vandalism comment, I have no idea where you placed that comment (shows how much of a newbie I am). Please help me out and make it a little clearer what I am did wrong and what I was supposed to have done. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevemackey (talk • contribs) 20:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

closed afd

ok, I just figured it out and NO, I did not make that edit at all, someone pretended to be me. If you read the difference in what I wrote and what came after, you can see there are almost exact opposite!! Wow, I am amazed people can do that on this site. Security does not seem to be very good at all. --Stevemackey 20:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, since Ed reverted the change within ten minutes, and then double-checked with you just to make sure, it seems our "security" seems to be working pretty darn well. ;) -- Satori Son 21:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Good Faith

Please do not assume I was acting in bad faith when I made the Archimedes Plutonium edits. It isn't true--- I was disturbed by the fact that this obviously notable personality does not have a page. It seems like web-2.0 shooting web-0.0 in the foot.Likebox 22:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"If the police did not think he could have been involved in the murders, why would they question him?". This statement reflects a dangerously naive view of how eccentric people are treated by society at large. Please be conscious of the fact that the police harass non-conformist individuals (and members of ethnic minorities) on a daily basis for no reason other than that they stand out in a crowd.Likebox 22:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm still patiently awaiting your reliable source on this matter. We are discussing whether a specific individual was unfairly investigated. EdJohnston 01:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You may find this funny, but I don't. I am not making a personal attack. I just want you to be aware of what you have done.Likebox 23:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologized to both you and Artie-poo on the AN/I page. It is clear that you were not purposefully smearing AP, but trying to get my goat. It would have been nice to send me an email about the adminstrative status of the page before I sweated so much. However, I still am unhappy about this whole mess.Likebox 02:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thanks, Archive 9!
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was a success, and I look forward to getting started! Hiberniantears 18:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sybian

I'm very concerned by User:Buttysquirrel's behavior around and since Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_18#Sybian. Do you think I should reopen the COIN case, or just pursue it separately? --Ronz 17:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you still unhappy with the current contents of the Sybian article? I helped out with the COI issue about the Michael Lucas (porn star) article, but the editing that had been going on there was a bit nastier than what you've encountered above, and there were BLP issues. From what I can tell, the most you could argue re Sybian is that he was removing images that he had no right to remove, under our policies. Is that the situation? Unless misbehavior spreads to other articles, if it were my issue I would probably not try to pursue this. The reason is that it's easier to get support for enforcement when violations are blatant and conspicuous than where they need a lot of explanation. Also the yuck factor is involved, and needs to be explained while telling the story. EdJohnston 18:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll take it up elsewhere. --Ronz 19:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thee (2007 film) AfD

I happened to notice your question for Universal Hero, and while I am not trying to pre-empt him, I can answer the question - I was the AfD nominator, and I did not notify. I was doing task force tagging and came across a fair number of articles which I subsequently AfD'd as I was doing the tagging task, all around the same time period, and I neglected to get around to notification for any of them, I must confess. Girolamo Savonarola 02:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. My very limited survey of one day's worth of AfDs seems to show that few article creators participate in AfD discussions of 'their' articles, and since I'm not enthusiastic about introducing bot notification, I was trying a very unscientific survey of how many creators knew about the nomination. Then I noticed it might be considered canvassing, since these nominations are still open, so I stopped. EdJohnston 02:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you have intention of getting involved in the actual AfDs themselves, I don't see how it could be construed as canvassing instead of surveying. If you're just compiling statistics. Girolamo Savonarola 03:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments!

Thanks for the kind words on my talk page! I plan to try to help out with a lot of the behind the scenes "machinery" like that, that keeps Wikipedia running smoothly. I look forward to working with you further! Arakunem 22:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks

I wanted to thank you for stopping in at Mike Huckabee and voicing support for wikipedia's policies. The offsite conversation's getting into the realms of name-calling 'liberal elitists' and such tripe, and on-site, there's extortion attempts, so I'm probably going to have to short-cut BIO for a straight post on AN/I. ThuranX 22:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Good luck! Let me know if I can help with anything. EdJohnston 23:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I took it to AN/I. ThuranX 23:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA

I notice you asked a few opposers for ideas on what could be done differently, so perhaps this info is of interest. I considered voting in your RfA but did not. I'd just mention a couple of reasons why I didn't support:

Edit summaries: I might have supported if you had indicated you would consistently use edit summaries
Image policy: This was totally baffling. I couldn't sort out what happens when an admin has differences with image policy but still has to carry out admin tasks according to the rules. Maybe you could have pointed out some other admin who has the same views, but can do his duties anyway.

Since you didn't ask for this feedback, it's fine if you want to delete my comment after you read it. EdJohnston 16:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've enabled prompted edit summaries in my preferences, and I would of course provide edit summaries for every administrative action that I take.

I see now that it was a mistake to allow the RfA to degrade into a debate of my personal views of the purpose behind the non-free content policy. It seems that I was not clear enough that as an administrator, I would have to obey the community's wishes, no matter now much I disagree with them. It would be wrong of me to force my personal opinion on others. In cases where my personal opinion differs from the community's opinion, I will not take any administrative action, but rather leave that to others. This is why I refuse to get involved in most deletion "discussions" revolving around WP:NFCC#10c. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider your view on edit summaries to be adequate for administrators. Anti-vandalism tools look for edit summaries, and I think that administrators ought to show the way for others. EdJohnston 18:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not once been reverted by an anti-vandalism tool, and like I said, I enabled prompted edit summaries and will be using them more often. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Superfruit

Thanks for the comment. I wasn't even aware of WP:NEO, and hadn't yet taken the step of looking through the list of references for independent sources. I've been trying to be very cautious with this SPA, as he's put a lot of time and energy into the article, all in good faith as far as I can tell. --Ronz 01:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:COIN

User:Chella123 has been blocked. Bearian 13:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Vishu123 has been blocked, but for only 24 hours, in case the probale cause is unfounded. That should cool him/her/them off. Bearian 13:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Phylogenetic systematics

I don't really understand the difference myself, I just noted that phylogenetic systematics redirected there so I assumed they meant roughly the same thing. If this term is going to remain a redirect we should have the word in boldface and spell out the similarities and differences. Richard001 22:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. I didn't know it had been made into a redirect. Maybe a stubby article instead? Needs further thought. You are right that the redirect shouldn't go there unless the title of the redirect is fully explained at the destination. EdJohnston 23:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

3meandEr

I've posted a request for a block or community ban at WP:AN/I#User:3meandEr and Northern Cyprus - your comments as an editor of the Northern Cyprus article would be appreciated. -- ChrisO 11:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Link to UST Global leadership team

Dear EdJohnston,

Please find UST Global leadership team in the link http://www.ust-global.com/leadership.aspx

Do you really want to have external links that have outdated/wrong info about an article in Wikipedia? Wiki is an Encyclopedia which is most popular in the world and widely used for collecting accurate information about anything under the sun. Anyway Business Week has updated the content to the actual facts about the leadership team of UST Global. FYI the link to the same http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=4298931. I think now you might have understood why I was removing this link before.

Can I ask you to check few pages in Wikipedia itself regarding UST Global content and find what i am trying to say here? This is very important. Could you please check the link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UST_Global&limit=500&action=history.

This link takes you to the earliest revision history page of UST Global. Please find when this page was initially drafted and when did the user Steve Ross started editing the page. This wikipedia page was started in 2005 and Steve came in to picture by 2007. The most interesting thing here you can find is the first few edits by Steve Ross. He added himself as co-founder of UST where right now he wants to mention himself as founder of the company. Don’t you find that this user is inconsistent with his edits and this proves that his intention is to advertise himslef? Also could you please check whether this user has contributed anything else in this Wiki page other than adding his name in different roles of UST Global?

All you want to know about UST Global is available in their website (www.ust-global.com). Also I want to repeat here that I am not here to violate any rules or policies of Wikipedia. I just want to point out the anomalies in this Wiki page. Could you please listen to my request. This is genuine.

Chella123 05:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Founder post - UST Global

Dear EdJohnston,

I would greatly appreciate your help and guidance regarding the "founder of company" post on UST Global Wikipedia page.

There are 2 documents which prove that I was the founder of the company, but I have not had them published yet out of respect for the privacy of UST Global:

The 1998 Tax Records of US Technology Resources, L.L.C which show I was the sole owner of the company in 1998.
The 2007 AAA Arbitration final ruling which states that I started the company in 1998.

I assume that UST Global would prefer to not have this Arbitration Final Ruling document posted as the Arbitrators ruled in my favor. Likewise, I believe tax filings are typically kept private.

Ed, can I ask you for your guidance on the below questions:

Can we set-up a private link where I could share the above 2 documents with you and the Administrators of Wikipedia? These will provide conclusive and verifiable proof as to who started the company in 1998. It will be easy to prove that these documents are authentic as this was a multi-million dollar legal proceeding taken up with the American Arbitration Association that ruled in my favor against US Technology Resources, L.L.C.

Can this posting be resolved without Wikipedia Arbitration as I would prefer to see it resolved in a simply fashion? Thanks for your advise on this point, as I am willing to proceed this way if necessary.

Would a press release on the internet be sufficient for you and the Administrators of Wikipedia?

Thank you for your guidance and input to the above 3 questions.

Sincerely,

Steve Ross Stevejross 17:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Steve, and thanks for your post. On Wikipedia we are encouraged *not* to use primary documents, except in unusual cases. If this page presents a serious problem to anyone our only recourse may be to delete it. This step would only be taken if it is clear that someone believes their personal or company information is being seriously mis-stated. Since your name was removed, the page as it stands does *not* indicate anything about your relationship to the company, favorable or otherwise. So please explain why the current state of the page would be a concern. Naturally if you can find any published sources that tell the story of your relationship to the company, we could put the information back. EdJohnston 18:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - UST Global

Dear EdJohnston,

Thanks much for taking care of my request. Definitely you have taken the right step in resolving the issues in the UST Global Wiki page. Hope that this is sorted out completely.

In case if needed in future, to support my argument I can point several instances from Wikipedia itself that Steve is confused about the edits that he has made in UST Wiki page as well as some other related Wiki pages. I have tracked several instances where he has deliberately attacked one company which is UST Global.

Chella123 10:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I see no evidence of any problems with User:Stevejross's editing on Wikipedia. He has respected our policies and listened to other editors' views. We are only guided here by what the sources say. If more published accounts are found, then we will need to update the article to reflect that. Please be careful with on-wiki criticism of other editors' behavior, since personal attacks are frowned upon. EdJohnston 14:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Robert Young (longevity claims researcher)

In regards to your below comments:

Delete. This expert's qualifications are on the border of what we might consider notable, but I believe that AfD voters are allowed to take into account combative and self-promotional editing during the AfD itself, as well as violations of the conflict of interest guideline, which suggests you should not edit your own biography. (This AfD debate was noticed at WP:ANI, and not without reason). A little humility goes a long way. By a set of standards in Wikipedia whereby most full professors at major universities would be notable, someone this early in his career would not normally be considered notable in a scientific field unless he had made unusual discoveries. I don't believe this has been shown. EdJohnston 01:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

First, I do agree with you that 'a little humility goes a long way.' However, some background information must be noted. First, the current dispute began with the nomination of

Category:supercentenarian trackers for deletion. During that discussion, I attempted to suggest compromises, including making this a subcategory of a larger section. Indeed, user BHG initially made comments such as:

Sounds like you have the makings of an article, so why not write the article? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Which to me sounds like she recognized I was knowledgeable in the subject. However, it soon became:

(masses of irrelevant text deleted). Please read WP:TPG, and please don't use CfD to discuss sources for an article. Thanks --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

To me, the real issue here is: IS WIKIPEDIA A MEANS UNTO ITSELF? For many Wikipedia editors, admins, and even higher, this has become their raison d'etre, their 'claim to fame'. What matters more is the process, not the result. Thus, rather than operate in a cordial, polite, reasonable manner, activity by 'BHG' began with negative comments and continued with deleting information pertinent to the CFD discussion, not responding personally to 'talk' requests except in a 'talk-down-to' manner. 'Talking down to' includes:

A. Never admitting fault or giving ground, even when the other person does B. Ignoring the other person's suggestions C. Citing alleged 'policy' violations D. Making threats of future consequences

I note that User BHG suggested that she was 'not interested' in this subject, which makes it a blase at best, negative bias. Expecting others to 'do as I say, not as I do' is not the example Wikipedia wants to set. There is some evidence of 'canvassing' and 'votestacking' on her part, including one admission. Not what one would expect from an admin.

In short, the AFD for my personal article came as a result of the CFD dispute...this after I had politely suggested that, since BHG claimed to have a 110-year-old relative, she tell me about this person and we could add her to the worldwide database. This request was NOT responded to; she nominated my article for deletion instead.

Note, in terms of 'promotion': the article as written only links to those other articles where it is relevant: claims to extreme age. This is not mass-advertising. This is not spamming. There is no link to a commercial website that makes money. The article links only to those pages where it is relevant.

Have a nice day. 72.158.38.41 02:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussions should not be pursued in multiple locations. I prefer that you confine the AfD debate to the page set aside for it. I don't intend to respond here. EdJohnston 02:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No one expects a Pigman admin!

		Wallowing in my RfA: This time it's personal...
		My sincere thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 51 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. Doubtless it was an error to put one of the government-bred race of pigmen in any position of authority, but I hope your confidence in me proves justified. Even a man pure of heart and who says his prayers at night can become a were-boar when the moon is full and sweet. Fortunately, I'm neither a were-pig nor pure of heart so this doesn't appear to be an imminent danger to Wikipedia for the moment. Fortunate as well because were-pig hooves are hell on keyboards and none too dexterous with computer mice. If ever I should offend, act uncivil, misstep, overstep, annoy, violate policy, or attempt to topple the fascist leadership of Wikipedia, please let me know so I can improve my behaviour and/or my aim. I am not an animal; I am an admin. And, of course, if there is any way in which I can help you on Wikipedia, please do not hesitate to ask me. Despite my japes, I am indeed dedicated to protecting and serving Wikipedia to the best of my foppish and impudent abilities. I will strive to be an admirable admin, shiny and cool, reasonable and beatific. Pigman^what?/trail 05:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Post Scriptum: I believe my collaged graphic at left, which incorporates the WP globe and mop image, falls under the rubric of parody for my purposes here. Or is it satire? Regardless, it's a legitimate and legally protected First Amendment usage under US law. Complaints and allegations that this is an improper "fair use" image will be entertained on my talk page, probably with fruit juice, finger food and exotic coffees.

My RfA

Thanks. I've responded to your question. :-) Nightscream 05:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Metric space aimed at its subspace

Hi Ed,

you have written:

The creation of this article by the writer of the only paper cited looks to be a violation of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline. If I did the search correctly, there are no citations found by MathSciNet to this paper at all. The creator of this article has authored a number of real math papers published in western journals, so to choose such an obscure topic for a new article seems likely to cause difficulty. Notability of this topic can't be established in the conventional way, due to lack of citations to the only reference, so I suggest that it be considered for deletion. EdJohnston 06:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

What wrong interest could I have in bringing my paper, published in an obscure journal, to the attention of some of the mathematical public? It looks that you did your research and recognized that I have publications in more recognized journals. Thus my reason is not to gain more recognition. I know what the authentic achievement means and I wouldn't care for a phony one. Thus what else? At the present time I remember only three stages of life: old, ancient and archeological. I am at the archeological stage. I am not competing for any academic or research or, say, AMS positions, or grants or whatever. At my stage, I am active mathematically simply because I like mathematics. OK, so much for the conflict of interests.

Thus why I have decided to write Metric space aimed at its subspace? I gave part of the answer in the article and in its talk. Since the basic topic of injective (hyperconvex) metric spaces was presented at wikipedia, it's logical and nearly necessary to present also the Aim(X) functor. At wikipedia there is a tendency to iterate the edition of an article. I might consider a more complete functorial description of the topic.

Besides being an essential part and an illustration of the injective metric spaces theme, it also has a distinct elegance and geometric appeal. (Yes, I should do a better job presenting it).

There is a didactic reason for articles about the metric spaces, the category of metric spaces and metric maps, isometric embeddings, ...

On one hand it is an easy to grasp theory. On the other hand it is a very pleasing illustration of the workings of the theory of categories, e.g. the connection between the injective metric and Banach spaces. The theory of isometric embeddings, besides being attractive by itself, is just one step removed from the approximation theory. When you go in this direction then finally you get into deep, profound problems.

So, yes, the metric theory of metric spaces is mostly easy, while it is a healthy, juicy, geometry, which can be combined with the group theory (then you may run into hard mathematical problems) but it has a great didactic value for students, starting with high school, and for high school teachers too. In particular, the theory of metric spaces contains in a most natural way the graph theory, and, independently, some of the theorems on isometric embeddings have a strong graph-theoretic element in their background.

You may remove my article, but by doing so you will distort and cripple the presentation of metric spaces on wikipedia. It is ironic that for you the obscurity of the journal is the reason to remove the article from wikipedia. It should be the merit that counts. Thus it should be just the opposite to what you state: the obscurity of the original source is an extra urgent reason to have its valuable research presented and saved from obscurity by wikipedia.

(One more remark about Aim(X): it gives the most natural context for the classical Kuratowski-Wojdysławski isometric embedding).

Sorry for this long and chaotic comment. (It takes long to write a short one) -- Wlod 07:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Cladistics Article

Thanks for your note to me on the Cladistics article. I understand your point 100%. I agree it needs many more citations. Im new to Wikipedia, and I have very little time to devote to it. I am a Computer Engineer, with a strong amateur interest in Evolution, hence my boldness in venturing to improve the Cladistics article. As much as I hate adding a fact to an article without a citation, I think that adding an un-cited fact (that I'm 99.99% sure is accepted by 99.99% of the experts) is better than omitting the fact entirely. That said, I'll make an effort to get some citations in the near future. Maybe next week I'll try to get to the library and get some textbooks so I can start on the citations ... at the moment I have no Evolution/Cladistics books on hand, so Im not in much of a position to do citations.

Noleander 05:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

northern Cyprus

Hi Ed, what did you mean by this. Why? is there a dispute as to the law/International community/UN/EU/ECHR? you can see thisthanks3meandEr 17:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA

I considered not spamming talk pages but not saying "thanks" just isn't me. The support was remarkable and appreciated. I only hope that I am able to help a little on here. Please let me know if I can help you or equally if you find any of my actions questionable. Thanks & regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Isearch

Where do you get the idea that Isearch was "just an experiment". Does anything of significance need a web site?

[*] It is still routinely distributed as part of the ports collection of BSD (textproc/isearch).

[*] It has had a large number of users and has been at the search core of many well known sites (including the Open Directory Project which started as NewHoo).

[*] Is hidden in several commercial software packages.

[*] Still has a significant scientific installed base of users in the Geospatial Clearinghouse. Most sites under http://registry.gsdi.org/serverstatus/ are running the public Isearch code! http://registry.gsdi.org/serverstatus/ shows 427 nodes in the network. That software is maintained by http://www.awcubed.com

[*] It continues to be developed, maintained and supported by several organizations.

[*] It forms the basis of numerous split-off developments including the patent search of the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) and the US PTO.

[*] Lives on as part of the IB XML++ engine: http://www.ibu.de/node/52 and several OEM embeded "private label" search engine applications.

Edward Zimmermann (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

My RFA (Random832)

Thank you, EdJohnston, for participating in my RFA, which passed 35/1/0. I look forward to helping out. If you have any concerns or suggestions/advice, my talk page is always open.—Random832 14:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael Lucas (porn star)

Editor Lucasent has five times vandalized the Michael Lucas article over a three-day period, as seen here: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. This editor has a history of shenanigans in this article, and now seems intent on removing any reference to Lucas being a male prostitute and founding his company with money he earned in prostitution, facts well-sourced in the article. Other editors have reverted the vandalism but the last incident has gone un-reverted, leaving the references out. Think you can give it a look? --72.76.2.59 (talk) 12:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

my vandalism post on assistance page

hi. i just posted a response to you over there. thanks!66.235.9.15 17:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Editing request

Closed discussion of NotJustBrowsing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi EdJohnston, Is it possible for you to advice regarding my subpage to enable it to be an article? Thanks. Ebbee 20:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC) NotJustBrowsing might deserve an article if it were commented on favorably by a number of reliable sources. The only sources I see in your draft article so far are a web forum comment and a mention at http://www.onekit.com. My guess is that Onekit would not be considered to be a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. The review of NotJustBrowsing is unsigned, so we don't know who reviewed it, and it's not clear if the site has a reporting staff or editorial standards. I'd be willing to look at other sources if you can find more. EdJohnston 20:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC) What about myopera under "Resources" heading? It is in Russian though, and I pasted its google translation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebbee (talk • contribs) 23:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Could this be one of them reliable/independent? Ebbee 00:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Or this review cnet --Ebbee 00:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Or on the cover disc of "PC Utilities" magazine. -- Ebbee 00:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Thanks for making a search for sources. The best one so far is probably the one at downloads.cnet.co.uk, although it's a rather lukewarm review. It gives the product 6 out of 10, and says it has an unappealing design. The Secunia site reports that the program has a security weakness, which is surely not a selling point. At PC Utilities magazine, it is one of about 25,000 programs available for download, which is such a large group it can't be an elite selection of the best of anything. (Maybe every program that is submitted is accepted?). EdJohnston 04:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC) EdJohnson, free reviews are to be lukewarm besides cnet review commented on the wieredness of first page that appears after installation, which is "help" from user guide. At PC utilities magazine, it is included in their cover CD of Issue 90 and of their own choice and not by author's submission. CD in Issue 90 of this magazine contains only a handful of programs at the cost of nearly six pounds sterling. Question should be about resource and not quality of browser otherwise there are plenty of web browsers in List of web browsers which are not even in use by a few people. EdJohnson, this is very strange comment as if NotJustBrowsing article is included in Wikipedia (which I doubt) it will be one of 2,113,952 articles, will this that make NotJustBrowsing useless? What can be better than Google search, you will find author of NotJustBrowsing searched in a better place than some of those famous occupying more space in wikipedia. Ebbee 09:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Have you been involuntarily sent on holidays too like Elkman? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebbee (talk • contribs) 01:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC) No, I'm still here! Please be cautious about removing discussions from other people's Talk pages. It violates the Talk page rules, which don't allow for changing (or removing) anyone else's comments. See WP:TALK for details. EdJohnston (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC) OK thanks for info. I removed it in good faith. I was of the opinion that talk is between two individuals about something common to both. If one of them wanted to remove that specific post then it should not be problem for the second and the rest. May I suggest that "Talk" should be renamed to "public talk" or "stage talk" to avoid confusion. The second thing is that when an editor blamed me for using wiki as billboard ([[9]]), so it was my responsibility to make sure that my writing do not serve "billboard" purpose too. --Ebbee (talk) 12:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC) The 'billboard' comment applies to articles, not talk. Good faith questions don't count as advertising. In your recent set of exchanges you posted the same question to a lot of people, which might have been over the top, since there is one common policy on article notability and as you see there was basically the same answer given. If you ask a question on a talk page, the question (and the answers) will normally remain there until the page is archived. Some users are known to remove posts from their user talk without archiving, but the choice of when to remove is up to the owner of the user talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC) I quote "Wikipedia is not a billboard.", that is what is said, to be precisely. Four people are not a lot of people that I asked the same questions. These four people are connected to a particular article somehow and not chosen randomly to be bothered. I am doing a little research about Wikipedia and so asking four people the same question should not be a threat to the working practices of Wikipedia. The only thing that I found common in response from each of the four editors is their superiority and dictatorial complex. For your information, 'billboard' comment is for Talk page too. I give you an example of how to make Wikipedia a billboard using Talk pages. Take 100 editor's talk pages and start a topic say "NotJustBrowsing" and ask each editor the same question. Is it not a cut&paste job? Now a day later you search for "NotJustBrowsing Wikipedia" in google and you will see 100 user pages indexed very decently. Please remove above sentence from your talk page, if followed it may ruine Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebbee (talk • contribs) 9 December 2007.

Closed discussion of NotJustBrowsing

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi EdJohnston,
Is it possible for you to advice regarding my subpage to enable it to be an article? Thanks. Ebbee 20:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

NotJustBrowsing might deserve an article if it were commented on favorably by a number of reliable sources. The only sources I see in your draft article so far are a web forum comment and a mention at http://www.onekit.com. My guess is that Onekit would not be considered to be a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. The review of NotJustBrowsing is unsigned, so we don't know who reviewed it, and it's not clear if the site has a reporting staff or editorial standards. I'd be willing to look at other sources if you can find more. EdJohnston 20:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What about myopera under "Resources" heading? It is in Russian though, and I pasted its google translation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebbee (talk • contribs) 23:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Could this be one of them reliable/independent? Ebbee 00:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Or this review cnet --Ebbee 00:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Or on the cover disc of "PC Utilities" magazine. -- Ebbee 00:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making a search for sources. The best one so far is probably the one at downloads.cnet.co.uk, although it's a rather lukewarm review. It gives the product 6 out of 10, and says it has an unappealing design. The Secunia site reports that the program has a security weakness, which is surely not a selling point. At PC Utilities magazine, it is one of about 25,000 programs available for download, which is such a large group it can't be an elite selection of the best of anything. (Maybe every program that is submitted is accepted?). EdJohnston 04:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

EdJohnson, free reviews are to be lukewarm besides cnet review commented on the wieredness of first page that appears after installation, which is "help" from user guide.

At PC utilities magazine, it is included in their cover CD of Issue 90 and of their own choice and not by author's submission. CD in Issue 90 of this magazine contains only a handful of programs at the cost of nearly six pounds sterling. Question should be about resource and not quality of browser otherwise there are plenty of web browsers in List of web browsers which are not even in use by a few people. EdJohnson, this is very strange comment as if NotJustBrowsing article is included in Wikipedia (which I doubt) it will be one of 2,113,952 articles, will this that make NotJustBrowsing useless?

What can be better than Google search, you will find author of NotJustBrowsing searched in a better place than some of those famous occupying more space in wikipedia. Ebbee 09:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you been involuntarily sent on holidays too like Elkman? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebbee (talk • contribs) 01:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm still here! Please be cautious about removing discussions from other people's Talk pages. It violates the Talk page rules, which don't allow for changing (or removing) anyone else's comments. See WP:TALK for details. EdJohnston (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks for info. I removed it in good faith. I was of the opinion that talk is between two individuals about something common to both. If one of them wanted to remove that specific post then it should not be problem for the second and the rest. May I suggest that "Talk" should be renamed to "public talk" or "stage talk" to avoid confusion. The second thing is that when an editor blamed me for using wiki as billboard ([[9]]), so it was my responsibility to make sure that my writing do not serve "billboard" purpose too. --Ebbee (talk) 12:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The 'billboard' comment applies to articles, not talk. Good faith questions don't count as advertising. In your recent set of exchanges you posted the same question to a lot of people, which might have been over the top, since there is one common policy on article notability and as you see there was basically the same answer given. If you ask a question on a talk page, the question (and the answers) will normally remain there until the page is archived. Some users are known to remove posts from their user talk without archiving, but the choice of when to remove is up to the owner of the user talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I quote "Wikipedia is not a billboard.", that is what is said, to be precisely.

Four people are not a lot of people that I asked the same questions. These four people are connected to a particular article somehow and not chosen randomly to be bothered. I am doing a little research about Wikipedia and so asking four people the same question should not be a threat to the working practices of Wikipedia.

The only thing that I found common in response from each of the four editors is their superiority and dictatorial complex. For your information, 'billboard' comment is for Talk page too. I give you an example of how to make Wikipedia a billboard using Talk pages. Take 100 editor's talk pages and start a topic say "NotJustBrowsing" and ask each editor the same question. Is it not a cut&paste job? Now a day later you search for "NotJustBrowsing Wikipedia" in google and you will see 100 user pages indexed very decently. Please remove above sentence from your talk page, if followed it may ruine Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebbee (talk • contribs) 9 December 2007.

The list you came across

Ed -

The list you saw was something I put up in order to use the "Related changes" page to find articles where a "prod" had been removed. I did find one (for a book I'm writing); I've just been a bit slow in housekeeping (deleting the list).

The list came from User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary. I think it's used by Wikipedia:WikiProject proposed deletion patrolling, which I mention in case you're unfamiliar with that.

So, no, I don't plan to do anything further with the entries on the page. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, and the pointer to WP:WPPDP. EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Disruption

I just want to be clear. You did use the word disruption, didn't you. I'm just looking through Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and I'd appreciate you clarifying what you meant, especially the use of the quote marks. Thanks, Hiding T 23:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I see now that you were quoting from m:RTV. Can I also quote from there the following:

Change references to your former username to be referenced to your replacement username (you can do this yourself). Hope that clarifies. Hiding T 00:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you were doing some version of the User:White Cat thing, but the thread you started at WP:ANI seems to explain things well. Having real-world trouble is no fun. EdJohnston (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Had you clarified that was the issue, I could have swiftly pointed out the difference, as I did with other users. Hiding T 14:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Really, really bad haiku from a new admin

Setting new lows in thank-you spam:

Click there for my RfA spam haikus! → → →

Janitor's new tools
Spam must stop -- will new mop act?
Ooops, .com blocked

New admin, new tools
Earnest newbie furrows brow
Fare thee well Main Page

New mess all about
Sorcerer's Apprentice mop
Not supporter's fault

A. B. so grateful
Wikipedia trembles
Watch out DRV

A. B. wonders why
Copyright always confused
Fair use, farewell, bye

Dear RfA friend,
I will learn, chaos will fade
Thanks so much ... A. B.

This RfA thank you card is based on a card originally done by Phaedriel

I was so flattered when you described me as "patient and judicious" -- you don't know just how hard I have to work at that since it doesn't always come naturally. Good thing new admins don't get an "electric shock" button.

Thank you so much for your support,
--A. B. ^(talk) 17:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Can I interest you in standing for admin yourself?

Glad you made it! Sounds like you may have been too cautious in judging your chances of success. I believe that anti-spam work has a good reputation, except when it becomes too draconian, which is not something that you yourself are in any danger of. You must be disappointed about the lack of Oppose votes, thus the absence of all drama! I do think of becoming an admin, and might be persuaded. EdJohnston (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I put the presently nonexistent page Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EdJohnston on my watchlist so I won't miss it when it appears. Strong support! — Athaenara ✉ 02:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Greenwald and Klein

Thanks for your comments in Greenwald. Do you have any thoughts on the dispute over similar wording in Joe Klein? The current version is my edit of an earlier version which is in the recent page history.--Samiharris (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Joe Klein himself is not a current event, and it is not one of Wikipedia's missions to keep up with everything that is said in the blogosphere. It appears this issue may be more important to you personally than it is to the reliable sources that we usually quote from.

I will be the first to admit that Klein's "little" stunt pissed me off big time; and it is precisely because I'm pissed off that I've refrained from reverting the articles. Quite frankly, I was hoping that Samiharris would do the reverts himself. I'm still not happy, but I'll keep my edits to a minimum if that's what it takes to avoid an edit war.<br. />--Nbahn (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hellenistic art

I think those three IP vandals might be the same person. Are you able to block them yourself, or does it need to go through AIV? I know that 137.89.228.215 (talk · contribs) has received a final warning. EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ed, thanks for the note. Yep, I can block'em if they're vandalizing and have been warned or are obviously socks - bring'em right to me and I'll be happy to take care of it! Dreadstar † 20:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The stuff of life

I'm with you, all human genes are inherently notable. But in the interest of expediency, we can stir up that pot when we get to it... ;) AndrewGNF (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Oliver Kamm article

I'm not sure about how to fix the article; I don't know enough about the controversy although I may read some of the sources if I have the time. The {{clarifyme}} was because I was unsure what 'this' referred to. From the rest of the paragraph I would guess it refers to the interview (although it appears to refer to the references to Diana Johnstone, or her complaints), but it is quite confusing. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 23:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my RFA

<font=3> Thanks for your support, my request for adminship passed 62/0/0 yesterday!

I want to thank Snowolf and Dincher for nominating me, those who updated the RfA tally, and everyone for their support and many kind words. I will do my best to use the new tools carefully and responsibly (and since you are reading this, I haven't yet deleted your talk page by accident!). Please let me know if there is anything I can do to be of assistance, and keep an eye out for a little green fish with a mop on the road to an even better encyclopedia.

Thanks again and take care, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Situationist International

Thanks very much! Most of these are changes I have been intending to make for a long time, and never got around to doing. There is still quite a bit of work left to do, but I am in no particular hurry, to be honest. Any time you want to pitch in, please do. And, of course, if I can ever be of any help, please do not hesitate to ask. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Follow up on COI & WP:AFD

I have shown that I don't have a COI issue and between myself and a couple helpful editors we have cleaned up my article. What needs to happen next to close the COI case? And is there anything you would suggest for my article? And in your opinion, is it a conflict for me to help the other editors on their articles listed on the COI?HollywoodFan1 (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems fine if you want to add references to the articles. I'm glad that some regular editors who normally work in the film area have also helped out. It is arguable that you yourself don't have a COI, though other editors named in the complaint do have one. So long as they work in cooperation with regular editors, I don't see a problem (for now) in their editing the articles. EdJohnston (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

AtTask

Thank you for the props. Is a user canvassing for a DRV? Bearian (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bearian. I figured there might be a DRV for AtTask, but I haven't seen one, so the next best thing for me is to orate over at your talk page. I have a watch set on your Talk because of the last time we conversed about some COI thing. Also I'm interested in the general issue of how software articles are sourced (yes, badly is the norm..). While you're here, see if you want to think about Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#MetaphorEnt. It's not a crisis of any kind, but it would be nice to have someone besides me decide if we can mark it resolved. EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Judge Rotenberg Educational Center

I moved a detailed comment on this article that was left here by 74.140.181.180 (talk · contribs) over to Talk:Judge Rotenberg Educational Center. EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Isabel Morgan

Hi EdJohnston, You remember your questions on my talk page concerning Isabel Morgan. Meanwhile I have put her into both the English and the German Wikipedia. Could you have a look at the English article, please? I didn't find out much more about her mother.I picked a photograph of her bronze bust at Warm Springs, since that is clearly in my copyright. Best wishes and merry xmas from Germany.--Hans555 (talk) 10:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Articles tagged for COI that need to be cleaned up

I'm saving the instructions for clearing out {{COI}} tags. Jehochman created this extra section for the WP:COIN in late November, but the archiving bot cleared it out. (Not sure why). I'm saving it here on my talk page for future reference.

Category:Wikipedia articles with possible conflicts of interest - Please pick an article from this category and decide whether it satisfies WP:N. If not, nominate it for deletion via one of the articles for deletion, speedy deletion or proposed deletion processes. If you believe the article should be kept, review the text to ensure that it complies with neutral point of view. After you have made any necessary edits, remove the {{COI}} template.

EdJohnston (talk) 05:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Product Development and Management Association (PDMA)

Thanks for your very nice note. But at this point, I frankly don't give a rat's ass if Wikipedia has a PDMA Wikipedia page or not. I'm done with wasting any more time to try to make a little tiny improvement in the Wikipedia world. I'm tired.

Just how stupid is the COI policy, in a case like this?? Someone who happens to know something is absolutely excluded from adding content?? And only people who know nothing whatsoever about the organization are allowed to post information about it?? Does that make any sense???? That is just insanely STUPID. Wikipedia is worse than dealing with the US Government, for Christ's sake.

PDMA IS A GOD DAMNED NON PROFIT ORGANIZATION. It is not making lots of money. There is NO conflict of interest. Where is the conflict??? I care (slightly) that this organization continue to exist, that's it. That's my conflict, that I care about the god damned subject??? Honest to God, that's just incredibly stupid... do you see this?

I'm tired. I don't care any more. If Wikipedia doesn't want a PDMA page, that's wonderful, dandy. Play in your own sandbox if y'all wish. Let JzG enjoy his moronic onanistic power trip. From what I see, he's what controls Wikipedia, him and his ilk. You're in the minority there, people with some degree of reason.

If you do want to do something with the page, fine, whatever. But believe me, I'm ready to let this go and get on with my life. I'm done ever contributing anything ever again to Wikipedia, and hope it decays under its own weight of stupid bureaucracy. --Davolson (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ed: Thanks for the note. I could try to locate some of that info, but if the PDMA Wikipedia page is going to disappear in the next two days, it's not worth my trying. I thought the RfA is over today or tomorrow. All I wanted to do was to keep the page alive, so that it can be improved over time and this sort of stuff added. Yes, there's far more that can be stated about the organization's mission... this is on the web site under "About PDMA":

The Product Development and Management Association (PDMA) is the premier global advocate for product development and management professionals. Our mission is to improve the effectiveness of individuals and organizations in product development and management. This is accomplished by providing resources for professional development, information, collaboration and promotion of new product development and management.

The development of new products and services involves an integrated set of unique activities. PDMA is the only organization that focuses on addressing this challenge by providing the following opportunities for professional development, education, experience, networking and recognition.

"Connecting Innovators Worldwide" is their new dumb slogan, invented by an image consultant, ugh. So yeah, there's plenty that could be added. But if I'm not allowed, because it's a COI, to post new stuff, then we're kind of stuck, aren't we? So let me know if you still want more info (i.e., if the page is going to survive), and what I'm supposed to do with it if not put it on the page myself because it's a COI to do so.

--Davolson (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC Orthomolecular psychiatry

FYI, I've put in a request for comment on the section we were discussing in December, on the Orthomolecular psychiatry page. It's on Talk:Orthomolecular psychiatry. You and I discussed it on my talk page, we didn't talk about it on T:OmP. For clarification. What? WLU (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm

Thanks for your help on RDS. However, when you wrote

"BozMo is a former employee of the company and should not edit the article," I am not sure that WP:COI extends quite that far. Personally despite being an admin I don't really want to get involved in it and am happy not touching it. However I think many of the contributers to company pages are former employees (embittered or not), I could certainly name a few dozen. Donovan's marketing company was used by and sued Shell long ago :). --BozMo talk 20:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you suggest a revised statement of which formerly-affiliated people should edit the article (on either side)? Now JD is saying at COIN that he was a *former* legal antagonist of Shell, so he no longer has a COI. Since I see you as having better policy awareness than JD, I was going to propose that, if you have time, you could draft up article revisions for RDS on the Talk page and then propose them at COIN. It seems like people close to the issue would be more motivated to spend time there, and sort everything out correctly. The average COIN-patroller has a limited attention span and could either (a) gut well-founded criticism, or (b) blow up the significance of minor matters. EdJohnston (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well (1) Donovan shouldn't edit Royaldutchshellplc.com as it is an article about his own website. This article has virtually been entirely written by him, and he keeps editing it. He should only add content to the talk page. However, I think that the description of his website the article makes is a good basis for concluding that the owner of the website is "involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area" in that the website engages in anti-Shell Advocacy. It deliberating publishes material critical of Shell management etc (which is advocacy). Then there's the subjective part. Someone neutral needs to turn around look at the edits and and eith rule "stop" editing the relevant pages (and let him appeal at Admin noticeboard) or say "no issue". I am not the right person to do that. --BozMo talk 21:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you the case against JD editing Royaldutchshellplc.com is strong. And I see the point of you not wanting to raise the flag at WP:AN over articles that you have this amount of personal connection with. I'd welcome it if you can add any more policy thinking to the thread that you initiated at COIN, over whether JD should recuse from RDS as well as the Controversies page. We could always wait around for unconnected people to opine on this thread, but there is often no response. If we can't get a crisp decision over JD's COI situation, we'll be stuck with giving a banal reminder that people should watchlist RDS. EdJohnston (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Public-access television

See my suggestion here. This is the best choice for now, and abides by policy and MOS. I've created a redlink in the see also section. --Hu12 (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Product Development and Management Association

Ed: First, did you see my comment added in the entry above? I wasn't sure if you did or not.

I sent a note to the professors who edited the books. Ken Kahn is moving to Purdue from University of Tennessee, and is in transition and not reachable until the start of the school term in a few weeks. Abbie Griffin wrote back and said she only knew of the review of the books in JPIM, plus this one shown on amazon.com: "...authoritative book edited by respected authors...a worthwhile addition to the NPD field..." (R & D Management, Vol 33(4), 2003).

To answer your direct question: Yes, absolutely, of course, PDMA is well-known in business schools who teach new product development. But frankly I don't know how to document that for you. The irony here is that PDMA DOESN'T market itself well, the exact thing we're accused of doing by the Wikipedia cops. That's why it isn't all over the place. The fact is that business schools who teach new product development use PDMA as a reference ALL THE TIME.

If you Google "PDMA Handbook of New Product Development", you find there are 10,400 pages that turn up. I'm not looking through 10,400 pages to try to find examples of reviews from prestigious academic institutions. The FACT that there ARE 10,400 pages ought to be sufficient, shouldn't it?

I had nothing to do with the Wikipedia article. I would never have put "Connecting Innovators Worldwide" in there. I guess it was written by some student or something who just looked at the web site for a minute and stuck it there.

I just frankly don't know what you want. I can't go around to try to drum up testimonials from Wharton, MIT, Northwestern, etc. all of whom use PDMA as a source guide all the time, just for one damned Wikipedia page that about 150 people a year will ever see. I thought that the JPIM information, that it is ONE OF THE TOP 10 BUSINESS JOURNALS IN THE WORLD, would have been enough for the Wikipedia police. Of course, that fact got wiped off the page because of my COI nonsense.

Isn't the fact that the journal is highly, highly influential in the academic world sufficient? That ranking is based on citation cross-references, which is THE STANDARD used to assess credibility of the journal?

I could find a lot of reference to JPIM articles, obviously, given the influence of the journal. Isn't that enough proof of the organization's legitmacy??

We established the ONLY professional certification program in the world in new product development. About 650 people have received it so far. Is that few, or a lot?

Is Wikipedia worried about HAVING TOO MANY WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES? I still can't figure out at all what the damned issue here is. With all the ridiculous Wikipedia entries out there, I can't believe we are continuing to have a debate here about whether PDMA merits having an entry or not. The commercialization issues are different, I understand, but not this question of whether PDMA merits, based on its history and influence, an entry among the 150 gazillion Wikipedia articles out there.

HTH. Whatever. --Davolson (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. We don't have to drum up testimonials, we just need to find published writings of any kind that describe or evaluate what PDMA does, in sources that are independent of PDMA. I believe that the JPIM 'top ten' finding you mention was published in Visions Magazine, which makes it not independent. (The Visions article doesn't give a link to where the place where that ranking was established). However I listed out some of the references at Talk:Product Development and Management Association and hope I'll be able to get something more specific about the status of JPIM. I found an article that may be usable: Vasilis Theoharakis and Andrew Hirst, Perceptual differences of marketing journals: a worldwide perspective. Marketing Letters 13(4), 389-402 (2002). EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

TM COI tag

Thanks Ed. No responses, so I've removed the tag. Appreciate the help! Dreadstar † 09:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Cladistics

I agree the article needs work. But in what way is Linnean taxonomy "historical" if it is still in use by some sources? There are many random examples of current researchers using traditional taxonomy as well as phylogenetic taxonomy. Unwin 2003 (in his book The Pterosaurs), for example. I don't understand what is pejorative about the use of traditional here, either. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, actually checked on this and it's not in the index... though he does present cladograms in the book and certainly uses them in journal articles! ;) The taxonomy is presented as it's a book meant for a more general audience, but it's updated after his cladistic studies from the same year. I'd add the full reference to the article. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Orthomolecular psychiatry

EJ, while I can understand how you have come to believe that only recently published scientific work is valid, I'll have to disagree, emphatically. In fields were controversy don't exist, or where there is free debate, it's quite reasonable to assume that silence implies unanimity. In fields where controversy does exist, the science was never conclusively disproved, and funding to reexplore the science is all but nonexistent, a dearth of recent sources proves nothing. By this logic, a citizen of the Soviet Union could have decided that democracy and capitalism were proved to be fallacious. Look, however, for Abram Hoffer's "Adventures in Psychiatry."--Alterrabe (talk) 07:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael Parenti

Yes, supper was ready so I stopped before I had fixed all of the citations. Jbowler (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Alleged conflict of interest

Grateful to have your views on Talk:Patrick Haseldine#Alleged conflict of interest and on the "suggested improvements" section. Thanks.PJHaseldine (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I did the first one, and left an update for User:Squeakbox about the work needed. I'll try to look at your other suggestions later. EdJohnston (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for some precision editing. I've made a few more suggestions which you might like to consider at Talk:Patrick Haseldine#Letters to The Guardian. PJHaseldine (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holiday season and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --El on ka 07:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance

Hey there. I'd appreciate it if you helped me with some tips on how to get some editors to investigate this article (as per your suggestion) and provide some feedback as to whether some additional information regarding critique is valid, as I certainly think so. I've included some information on the talk page of it as per your suggestion. Thanks! --SirDecius (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello SirDecius. I look forward to your new posting at Talk:Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance, which I don't see yet. One of my concerns is that editors will be personally afraid to look into this because of the legal issues, which could involve them being sued. Any info you can give to clarify your role in this issue would be helpful. If you are not one of the participants, can you give us an idea of why you are so concerned? EdJohnston (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston. Thanks for the quick response. I've added it (it took me some time to compile) so I'd appreciate your feedback on the talk page itself if you'd like. I believe most of your questions would be answered there. I have also posted a request for help from editors linking to the talk page. Anything else you can suggest? --SirDecius (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

EdJohnston, thank you for giving me a heads up regarding my name being mentioned in the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.--Monshuai (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		To EdJohnston Many thanks for your tireless efforts in keeping articles clear of spam and other nonsense. Hu12 (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you!--Hu12 (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Lindsay MacFarland

Hello, EdJohnston ... we seem to be tracking the same articles that all have Image:Brien Perry Elle Travis2.jpg in common:

Brien Perry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Elle Travis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lindsay MacFarland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At the risk of violating WP:CANVAS, perhaps you would care to add a {{Prod-2}} to the Lindsay MacFarland article? ... I've already weighed in at the AfDs for the other two. :-) Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 21:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

MetaphorEnt meatpuppet

It looks like MetaphorEnt has a new meatpuppet/sockpuppet. Jigaram0 was just created a few days ago and made an edit to Lindsay MacFarland article. They added more of the same poor references and added the same Daily Variety reference that was included in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lindsay_MacFarland. I have left message on the talk page of article detailing issues with the references added. Unless they provide some better references, I will nominate the article for deletion based on the fact that there is not enough reliable source material to make an article. BlueAzure (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If this editor continues to add reference links that don't satisfy WP:RS and if they don't respond on their user talk, I think we are getting closer to WP:ANI territory. It is too complex an issue for WP:AIV. But I'm crossing the bridge before we come to it, since maybe they WILL respond on their user talk. It's not a given that it's Metaphor Entertainment. I looked for a list of everybody that Metaphor Ent represents, but didn't find a list on line. EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that it is MetaphorEnt, particularly their response to my issues with their edit showed that they were very familiar with Lindsay MacFarland. Also, after responding to my message they stopped editing and then Linzmac78, a definite MetaphorEnt account, posted a message on my talk page shortly afterward. I also couldn’t find a list of whom Metaphor Entertainment represents. The best I could do if the check the people listed on Metaphor Entertainment’s Myspace page to see if they listed Metaphor Entertainment as their management on their own website. In addition to the people listed in the COI case, there were a few more people that they represent. I can pass those along if your interested. BlueAzure (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

RE:Brittanica

That article discussed Brittanica and its history and impact on the history of encyclopedias. Thanks for the note, I will edit that article to make it more appropriate. Marlith ^T/C 19:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for Mediation: Howard family copra interests

A new Request for Mediation has been initiated for the John Howard article regarding the Howard family interests in Copra plantations in New Guinea. Initially, a small number of editors were listed as 'interested parties'. However, the Committee Chair has indicated that a wider group may now be invited to participate. An invitation will now be sent to everyone who has previously commented on the John Howard talk page regarding this subject. If you would like to participate, please place your name at: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Howard. There is also a discussion page regarding this RfM. Regards, Lester 22:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of outsourcing companies

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of outsourcing companies, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of outsourcing companies. Thank you. User A1 (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

UST Global - Request for you to offer your Thoughts and Advise

Collapse a lengthy message to save space
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dear Ed, In November you had written to me regarding the UST Global page on Wikipedia. You had suggested to me that my entry stating that I was the Founder of UST Global needs to be verifiable. I have spent a bit of time to make sure this information was verifiable. After accomplishing this, and updating the UST Global page with this information, the previous user that was banned from making edits to this page has requested user: Bearian to consider removing these entries (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bearian). I would appreciate if you would review the Talk page of Bearian, and my below points that I wrote to Bearian today. If you would consider voicing your opinion to Bearian, I would be very grateful. Below is what I wrote to Bearian today: UST Global Page - Appreciate Your Help & Assistance Dear Bearian, I have from the beginning taken the advise of personnel associated with Wikipedia very seriously. In November of 2007, the advise given to me by user EdJohnson was to make sure that my founding of US Technology Resources, L.L.C. (dba UST Global) was verifiable by another website. As a result of this advise, I have since worked to make sure this information is supportable, and verifiable. On November 21 of 2007, my lawyer went before the Supreme Court of California. On December 3, 2007 the Supreme Court of California ordered that "The Final Arbitration Award be, and hereby is, confirmed in all respects; ...." - The Arbitration is now a California public record. The Arbitration panel, in their Interim Arbtration Award to Steve Ross, and their Final Arbitration Award document stated the following in the paragraph labeled BACKGROUND: "Steve Ross founded USTR to engage in the business of providing Internet Technology ("IT") outsourcing services to US-based companies through the use predominantly of less expensive IT labor in India. USTR formally came into existence as an LLC in October 1998. Until June 1999, USTR was 100% Owned by Ross." The above paragraph is part of the Final Arbitration Award, and has been confirmed by the California Supreme Court in "All Respects." The law firm, Holland & Knight, as officers of the Law took careful steps with the statements that were published as part of their January 2008 press release: http://www.hklaw.com/id24660/PublicationId5/ReturnId37/contentid50197 The edits added to the section called CONTROVERSIES was already existing on Wikipedia's UST Global page. Thank you for your careful consideration of the above. Respectfully, Stevejross (talk) 04:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bearian" Thank you, Stevejross (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Collapse a lengthy message to save space

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Dear Ed,

In November you had written to me regarding the UST Global page on Wikipedia. You had suggested to me that my entry stating that I was the Founder of UST Global needs to be verifiable.

I have spent a bit of time to make sure this information was verifiable. After accomplishing this, and updating the UST Global page with this information, the previous user that was banned from making edits to this page has requested user: Bearian to consider removing these entries (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bearian).

I would appreciate if you would review the Talk page of Bearian, and my below points that I wrote to Bearian today. If you would consider voicing your opinion to Bearian, I would be very grateful.

Below is what I wrote to Bearian today:

UST Global Page - Appreciate Your Help & Assistance

Dear Bearian,

I have from the beginning taken the advise of personnel associated with Wikipedia very seriously. In November of 2007, the advise given to me by user EdJohnson was to make sure that my founding of US Technology Resources, L.L.C. (dba UST Global) was verifiable by another website. As a result of this advise, I have since worked to make sure this information is supportable, and verifiable.

On November 21 of 2007, my lawyer went before the Supreme Court of California. On December 3, 2007 the Supreme Court of California ordered that "The Final Arbitration Award be, and hereby is, confirmed in all respects; ...."

- The Arbitration is now a California public record.

The Arbitration panel, in their Interim Arbtration Award to Steve Ross, and their Final Arbitration Award document stated the following in the paragraph labeled BACKGROUND:

"Steve Ross founded USTR to engage in the business of providing Internet Technology ("IT") outsourcing services to US-based companies through the use predominantly of less expensive IT labor in India. USTR formally came into existence as an LLC in October 1998. Until June 1999, USTR was 100% Owned by Ross."

The above paragraph is part of the Final Arbitration Award, and has been confirmed by the California Supreme Court in "All Respects."

The law firm, Holland & Knight, as officers of the Law took careful steps with the statements that were published as part of their January 2008 press release: http://www.hklaw.com/id24660/PublicationId5/ReturnId37/contentid50197

The edits added to the section called CONTROVERSIES was already existing on Wikipedia's UST Global page.

Thank you for your careful consideration of the above.

Respectfully,

Stevejross (talk) 04:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bearian"

Thank you,

Stevejross (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Article rewrite

Hi, I was wondering if you'd had time to review my proposed rewrite at User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance yet? If so, could you please weigh in at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Article rewrite? So far the comments appear to be positive (except of course for PHG), but I'd like to ensure that there's a clear consensus before doing a full implementation. Thanks, El on ka 19:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, we are discussing the rewrite again, at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Consensus poll. I thought I'd let you know in case you would like to participate. --El on ka 16:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for tagging 163.153.187.94. The district has identified the student involved and will be taking appropriate action. --NERIC-Security (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA

I am not one for sending round pretty pictures, but after my recent RfA, which passed 68/1/7, I am now relaxed and this is to thank you for your support. I will take on board all the comments made and look forward to wielding the mop with alacrity. Or two lacrities. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Award

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		In recognition of your tireless and honorable work at WP:COIN. MBisanz ^talk 05:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Testing the Handbook of Texas template

White Rock Lake from the Handbook of Texas Online.

This example relates to a discussion at WT:EL whereby 3,000 links to a Texas state historical site might have to be converted to a new form, or possibly removed if too spammy. EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The upshot was that we don't have to convert all the links, but this template is better than what is currently used to link to the Handbook. I don't know of any data on whether the Handbook has been spammed inappropriately. (I see well-meaning linkers who might have got carried away). EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks from Happy-melon

I just wanted to say thanks for your support for my RfA, which closed (74/2/0) this morning. Your comment and support was very much appreciated. Happy‑melon 15:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Question about Tomatoes

In regards to your comment on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard‎ I am wondering if you could expand on your opinion for my personal understanding of your thoughts on the website - since these are done by "critics", who express opinion, are any of the statements listed by them actually verifiable? If they cite a source directly, then I can understand that, but when its just them making a claim, would that fail to meet the guidelines? Your comment seemed a little ambiguous on the issue and I am asking for future clarification (if someone actually cites a critic directly from their site). Ottava Rima (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand the question. I'm aware that Rotten Tomatoes includes both edited content and user-submitted content, and I had the impression it was easy to separate these. The page that contains the pointer to the production notes document (which we were discussing) seemed to me that it was edited content, and that's what I was commenting on. I know that Jeff Giles is a person whose opinions are hosted at Rotten Tomatoes periodically, and I'm not entirely clear about his material, though I believe that when RT publishes Jeff Giles' commentary it qualifies as 'edited content.' (Jeff Giles is not a random forum contributor, he is a person who acts like a columnist on Rotten Tomatoes). Can you say more? EdJohnston (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify on the above - Rotten Tomatoes is a criticism cite. Criticism is opinion. To quote from them would be the same as quoting from a newspaper's editorial section. Does this help clarify what I am asking about above? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Cuban contemporary artists

Hello again, EdJohnston ... regarding the NN Cuban contemporary artists created by WP:SPA ArleArt (talk · contribs) a few weeks ago (see Category:Cuban contemporary artists), the first batch that I PRODed (some went to AfD) have been deleted ... should the WP:COI/N be reopened, or should I do a group AfD for a bunch more, or just keep doing PRODs on groups of 20 at a time? Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rubén Torres Llorca —72.75.72.63 (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be OK to PROD in groups. I notice you created a Talk page section to discuss this issue, which is good. When you make further deletion nominations, if you give people a pointer to that list, it will help to focus their thinking. EdJohnston (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Copy that ... I'll do another batch after the ones currently at AfD are resolved ... I've created a boilerplate message that I'm sending to the Keep voters, and will add them to the list of COI/N participants ... I think that the discussion should be moved/archived on the Cuban contemporary artists talk page. —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 00:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Osho COI

Thanks for your response, I'll get back to you asap. I misunderstood the 200 word limit, the initial filing was short, the rest got unduly verbose in response to the requests for supporting evidence, and editors making accusations, I copy and pasted rather than simply linking to edits, my mistake. Semitransgenic (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Michael Lucas (porn star)...once again

Michael Lucas is editing his own bio article by proxy. It appears he has succeeded in having David Shankbone edit his article for him the way he wants it, i.e., removal of any reference to his being a prostitute and founding his production company with money he earned as a prostitute. Astonishingly, he's acheived this through the edits of Shankbone, whose edits to remove the prostitute reference in this article have been reported to COIN, as seen here, [10].

--72.68.114.55 (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"Cuban artists" checklist

OK, none of these editors

have contributed to this "Cuban artists" checklist (although there have been limited dialogs on some talk pages) ... some of them either initiated or declined PRODs, and I have asked them politely to record their actions on the checklist (like renaming/merging articles) … I mean, declining a seconded PROD without even an edit summary? What's up with that?

Well, I'm sick of playing Sisyphus and cleaning up after them, so I have deleted these articles from my watchlist, and Some Other Editor can maintain/update it … or not.

In any event, it is time for me to MOVE ON. :-)

Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) _{03:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)}

Hello, EdJohnston ... please see this talk page and tell me what you think of my newly created Template:Oldprodfull ... would you use it, or update it if you encountered it?

Also, what are your thoughts on my proposed WP:FLAG-BIO protocol?

Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) _{14:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)}

Recruitment RFA

Has anyone talked to you seriously about getting sysopped? I'd like to have that discussion with you if you're interested. You've demonstrated you'd be excellent at it. I would be honored to go ahead and nominate you. --Hu12 (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Here you are. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EdJohnston. Take your time.;)--Hu12 (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Go to your RfA subpage, and accept or decline your nomination. If you decline, be sure to inform your nominator.
After you accept your nomination, answer the standard questions for all candidates.
At the top of your RfA page, change the time when your RfA will expire to exactly seven days after your edit accepting the nomination.
Edit this page and add the following text above the most recent nomination (replacing USERNAME with your name): (This is also known as transclusion)
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EdJohnston}}

--Hu12 (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox

Looks good to me. You have my support, of course. Rich Farmbrough, 20:27 12 February 2008 (GMT).

Thanks! EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree w/Rich.--Hu12 (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Jorge Ferreira at WP:COIN

Hello RicDod. Your COI report is not complete without one or more names of editors you believe have a conflict. COI normally requires its own evidence; mere lack of neutrality doesn't show COI. If you think it is several people you could add all of them to the header of the report at WP:COIN#Jorge Ferreira with the {{userlinks}} template. People are not always pleased to be identified in this way, so it is good to get this straight. Have you just tried editing the article to remove the information you think is excessive? If others revert your improvements, then it will become more appropriate to post about them on the noticeboards. If there is no-one you feel you can cite specifically as a COI editor, it might be better to withdraw the report until it's more clear what's going on. Consider discussing the article on Talk:Jorge Ferreira, because there seem to be several concerned editors there you might collaborate with to make improvements. EdJohnston (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate that my original report was a little short. All I was trying to do was to get a few more eyes to look at the article. Given the current length of the article it is clearly going to be a long task to rewrite the article which I simply don't have at the moment. Additionally, I never said the The Ogre (talk · contribs) was the editor with the conflict of interest. All I said was that he had posted to the WP:BLPN about the article. Furthermore please can you explain why you edited my comments at WP:COIN [11] and [12]? Surely it would have been more appropriate to have added a note beneath my comment? I thought it was against policy to edit the comments of others on non-encyclopaedia pages except in exceptional circumstances? --RicDod (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Though it is accepted that people can make a COI posting that includes just an article name, as you did, that leaves it up to other editors to investigate who might be doing the COI edits. As evidence is found, the complaint header is usually altered and even reformatted to include the names of the editors who may have a conflict. (Sometimes the templates used to present the article and user names may be fiddled with as well). If you look back through the archives of COIN you'll seem some long-running disputes where the header went through many additions and strikethroughs in the course of a debate, plus marginal notes added to the right of the names, and occasionally some signatures of whoever made the changes). I should have tried harder to not to touch your opening sentence though. Reformatting the header as information is found is just the usual practice, but views on its correctness may differ. EdJohnston (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

PDC book

You're not helping me out much by your general statement that it isn't NPOV. Give me some specifics to look at. Also, to which entry are you referring? If you are looking at the The Purpose Driven Church then that is not the article I'm working on. Rather, I'm drafting one on User:CarverM/Workshop that I'll post as an update. I would appreciate specific comments on that draft. Thanks. CarverM (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm done with the article and have posted it. If and when you get some time I'd appreciate your review. I am biased and I want to ensure it's Wiki-appropriate. Thanks. CarverM (talk) 03:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. The Purpose Driven Church Please start with my entry on the discussion page. Thanks. CarverM (talk) 04:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 58 supporting, 0 opposing, and 2 neutral. I hope to demonstrate that your trust in me is rightly placed and am always open to critiques and suggestions. Cheers. MBisanz ^talk 03:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

re John Leach

By reference to the committee of the ACS or by contacting the Peter Wynne Thomas at Notts CCC, the potential libelous nature of Mr Leach's communication can be sampled. He mentions Keith Warsop in one article. he is a good friend of mine and has a different few. He remarks on the Journal are fiction and can be verified. I published his article in 3 parts(see Journals for 2006 for confirmation). He also misquotes Stephen Draper, claiming he had commended his article. I am told this was not the case. I intend to let this rest now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Daft (talk • contribs) 15:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

Hurrah! Athaenara ✉ 02:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

A consensus has been reached by your peers that you should be an admin. I have made it so. Please review Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list and keep up the great work. Sincerely, Kingturtle (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats!!

--Hu12 (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Good luck! Malinaccier Public (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Kingturtle for the promotion, to Hu12 for the nomination, to Athaenara for being the first voter, to Malinaccier and to everyone who participated! One commenter in the RfA made me promise not to send out a mass thank-you message, so this will have to do. Please send me your advice on mistakes to avoid. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get to the RfA, but nice to see it was unanimous. Rich Farmbrough, 22:58 20 February 2008 (GMT).

Congratulations! And thank you for helping with Hellenistic Art, and generally helping me get oriented when I was new! Wow, unanimous support -- that's great! But from your contribs it looks as if you already know what you're doing. If you just move slowly with any new areas you're not familiar with you'll probably do just fine. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Requested edits

Nope, watching it only looks for edits to the cat description. There is some way to "watch" unblock reqs, so I'll ask around and see how its done. MBisanz ^talk 02:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Requests for unblock is the second one. — Athaenara ✉ 14:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Proof by intimidation

Thanks for including the origin of the term. Whether Rota's story is true or not, who knows, but the anecdote is pure gold. Pichpich (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Least squares

Done. Redirecting talk pages is optional anyway, so if you come across it again feel free to revert it yourself. Black Kite 20:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

New mailing list

There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the New York metropolitan area (list: Wikimedia NYC). Please consider joining it! Cbrown1023 talk 21:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Research on the RFA process

Hello, I am an anthropology student researching the Wikipedia Requests for adminship procedure. As you recently completed this process, I was wondering if you would be willing to answer a few quick questions.

Do you believe that the current RFA process is an effective way of selecting admins?
Do you notice a difference between users who are nominated vs selfnoms?
Is a week an appropriate length for process? Should it perhaps be longer or shorter?
Do you think the user's status in the community changes while the user is undergoing the RFA process? How about after the RFA process is over?

If you are willing, please leave your answers on my talk page or e-mail them to me.

This research will not be published academically, as this research is primarily to demonstrate the feasibility of doing online ethnography in online only communities such as Wikipedia, though I intend to make my findings available on Wiki. Your name will not be associated with any information you provide in any published work. If you have any questions please let me know. Thank you. --Cspurrier (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The Hall Monitors

Just wondering if we can get a full delete on The Hall Monitors? It's been a week since the deletion was proposed with votes for deletion, but someone deleted the template for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whistlesgowhoo (talk • contribs) 23:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the five days have run, but since I voted in the AfD, I can't close it. Better wait for someone to get around to it. It may have to be relisted since there were so few votes. EdJohnston (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Art in Ruins

That's weird because I could have sworn I found this article via the Deletion log, but checking the log there isn't one. Perhaps I mixed up my Newpages patrol with my Deletion log one. D: JuJube (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
No, all I did was check the two protagonists are redlinks - they are. I'm awaiting the arrival of Tyrenius otherwise! This link [13] was a trip down memory lane for me though! Article much better now. Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy

Interesting question. It definitely wasn't A7 nn, but it could have qualified for G11, which is not based on notability, but promotion requiring rewrite. I sometimes use the latter, if I feel it's not right to keep something which requires a lot of work on it. Once it's at AfD, the G11 doesn't apply, but notability does. Well, it's notable, so we keep it and end up expecting someone to clean it up. I think it was a good outcome in this case though. I hope that makes sense. Tyrenius (talk) 04:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response! You do seem to have a well-organized project. (I remember that you guys helped out with the Cuban Artists issue as well). EdJohnston (talk) 04:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't tell anyone, but it's a completely disorganised project! There is only a small group of editors involved, so standard project things like putting boxes everywhere don't tend to get done. The resources get directed to article improvement—which is no bad thing. Certainly there is a good pool of knowledge to draw on covering most areas of visual arts. A great collaboration was on contemporary artists shown at the Saatchi Gallery, now archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts/Infoart articles. Another was on the now-featured article Las Meninas. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts is a good place to post to get specialist attention and feedback (see Talk:Mark_Vallen#Expert_review, for example): the editors have a good "eye" for notability issues. Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts works well. Tyrenius (talk) 04:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

COI edit

Another editor asked about adding some info to a page I've editted, and given the COI I have with it, I think the info he's asking to add would be a COI for both of us. Could you do the honors at Talk:Frank G. Zarb School of Business? MBisanz ^talk 04:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, your suggestions on adding comparative sources are just the kind of reason your so good at COIN. MBisanz ^talk 18:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Lite reading

Here is some general reading, saw your discussion on Athaenara's page.

When a situations comes up, tackle them. You've shown you have good judgement, and if a good faith error happens (and they do) it can be fixed. If you have questions about a specific admin task/action, ask an experienced admin in that "area" or one you've seen do it before. Special:Log can be very useful. The catagories in the drop down menu, such as "Block log", "Deletion log" and "Protection log" are a good place to see what admin action was done and the edit summary reason why it was done.. (use it). No need to focus on all admin only areas from the get-go, start with what you know, COIN will give you plenty oportunities to start expanding into other areas. Hope this helps some--Hu12 (talk) 07:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your good advice. Obviously it would be logical to have admin resources available for use in WP:COIN cases, but I do worry about the rules regarding involved admins. I see that admins do patrol WP:BLP/N and they also take enforcement actions there, but the rules are simpler for defamation. You can jump in and remove defamatory material from an article under WP:BLP and (from what I have heard) that doesn't make you an involved admin. Over at WP:COIN, the patrollers often do try to fix up articles to make them neutral, so the clear line of what makes you an involved person is not so easy to see there. EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I see you reasoning and its a valid concern. However unless you initiate the COIN case or are in a content dispute (previously) with one of the involved parties that leads to a WP:COIN case , you probably are not an "involved admin". Thats the best way to delimit the line for now, obviously all situations are not the same, but those will become clearer over time. Remember you are a sysop now, if there is a spill on isle 9, you've got a mop. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Your talking about Enterprise architect? If you check the dates, I did the admin action 2 days before I commented at the COIN (and before I knew there was a COIN report on it). And Bamford was more an intransigent vandal whose blocked I checked on ANI. Last week someone referred to an Arbcom that could be interpreted as saying Admins shouldn't use admin powers in disputes their involved with through another means. I'd say if I'm the first responder to a COI, I shouldn't do the block, but if another responder presents a good argument or there is a strong consensus of abuse (Bamford), then go for it. MBisanz ^talk 03:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi MBisanz, thanks for joining this thread. You must be talking about the Matthew Hoffman arbcom that included this finding of fact:

Vanished user (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edited Irreducible Complexity and other evolution-related articles with specific content goals for these articles in mind. Based on the frequency and the type of participation with these articles, there is evidence that Vanished user was too involved to use his administrative tools in an unbiased manner.

I certainly follow that logic, and it doesn't seem like a very big restriction concerning typical COIN issues. EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it was a different one, worded more generally. I'll take a look through the cases. MBisanz ^talk 04:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I can't find it, so it might've been a proposed arbcom. In that case, I'd say as long as your not originally involved outside of COIN in an issue, then feel free to act (within reason). MBisanz ^talk 05:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You might have been thinking of this language, from an arbcom that finished on 19 January. My reading is that the decision applies to the Palestine-Israel articles, and I assume that it's not binding on admins who work in other areas. EdJohnston (talk) 18:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Display mode for templates

Howdy, Happy-melon suggested a very clever, very natural way to solve the problem. I have implemented it on some of the not-protected templates on the page you mentioned, but many are protected, and there are still many left (I did from the bottom up to plain old fair-use).

The solution is to wrap any automatic-category tags with

{{{category|

and

}}}

This {{{category|stuff}}} notation is a parameter expansion. If the category parameter is set, then it expands as the value of the parameter. So if the template was called like {{myTemplate|category=lala}}, then {{{category|stuff}}} would expand to just "lala". If it was called like {{myTemplate|category=}}, then it would expand to "", nothing at all. However, if the template was called completely without the category parameter, like {{myTemplate}}, then {{{category|stuff}}} would expand to the explicit default value given after the pipe, "stuff".

So a simple template would be:

{{ambox|text=This is a sample template.
It will add the article {{FULLPAGENAME}} to the 
category [[:Category:Even-toed ungulate stubs]], 
unless otherwise overridden.}}
{{{category|[[Category:Even-toed ungulate stubs]]}}}

If it was called as {{myTemplate}} it will be the same as:

{{ambox|text=This is a sample template.
It will add the article {{FULLPAGENAME}} to the
category [[:Category:Even-toed ungulate stubs]],
unless otherwise overridden.}}
[[Category:Even-toed ungulate stubs]]

but if it is called as{{myTemplate|category=}} it will be the same as:

{{ambox|text=This is a sample template.
It will add the article {{FULLPAGENAME}} to the
category [[:Category:Even-toed ungulate stubs]],
unless otherwise overridden.}}

without the category being added to the article.

Now someone else mentioned some very good namespace detectors, but the code for them is a little longer, so I wanted to wait until I was more familiar with the template policies on wikipedia before making hard(er) to read changes. Basically the namespace detectors say that we only add categories if the namespace is 0 (articles) or 1 (article talk). So the page you mentioned, being in the wikipedia namespace, would not have the categories added. JackSchmidt (talk) 04:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Howdy, I fixed the category= thing on the template itself, and on the way it was called from your sandbox. Your sandbox is currently using the template, but is not in the category for deletion. I'll look into a clean way to do the namespace detection, so people do not have to change the way they call the template. Luckily {{tlrow}} is already calling the templates with category= so most of the page you mentioned are nearly immediately fixed. JackSchmidt (talk) 07:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

ISBNs

Hi Ed,

Re: "is GIC attested"? I actually wondered about this while researching this. google search reveals no results other than Wikipedia (and mirrors), so I've changed it, and removed "code": it's just "group identifier" now.

Thanks for pointing this out!

BTW, as you may have noticed, I'm a fellow mathematician. I'm sure there's no connection to interest in ISBNs (^.-)v.

Nbarth (email) (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested edit

Thank you for looking at my requested edit for the colligative page. I do not know whether you were able to judge the science but if you can find such a comprehensive resource elsewhere I would (seriously) be very interested. The page actually has 40 reference links to the peer-reviewed literature, although a number of these are duplicated there still are about 20 different papers cited (the links are the numbers in the square brackets). My site as a whole has many page citations from WP, none of which I put there. I thought that this page really did need some serious reference but recognise my COI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.148.1.142 (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Naveen Jain

Thank you for intervening. I have replied at Talk:Naveen Jain and hope you can offer suggestions. ClaudeReigns (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarified this. ClaudeReigns (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Giulio Clovio et al

Agreed - I have suggested this to the editor who deleted them. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

COI news FYI

I just saw this Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#Jimbo.2C_Rachel_Marsden.2C_and_all_that. Given that your our resident COI expert, you might want to chime in on the article (or interevene in what I'm sure is gonna be a fun debate). MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wiley thanks

Hi Ed,

Thanks for the change to the Wiley Protocol page and discussing with Neil, I'm not putting in my due dilligence there for a variety of reasons despite being the one holding the stick over his head. WLU (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You are invited!

	New York City Meetup Next: Sunday March 16th, Columbia University area Last: 1/13/2008 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

You're also invited to subscribe to the public Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates.
This has been an automated delivery because you were on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyright Information Regarding UST Global arbitration in the Los Angeles Daily Journal article

Dear Ed,

Thank you for your very helpful input regarding the copyright information for the Arbitration summary article. Per your advise in your post (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bearian#UST_Global_Page_-_Founder_of_the_Company), I have updated the copyright information of the Arbitration Summary article including article date, and page number:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Daily_Journal_Verdicts_and_Settlements_-_Feb_22%2C_2008.jpg

>> You had mentioned that after this information was updated, you might consider updating the UST Global site with this reference article.

Thank you again for your help, and consideration of adding this post.

Sincerely,

Stevejross (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Steve, I updated the UST Global article with the new reference. We won't be able to keep the JPG under Fair Use, but at least we have the reference to the paper publication. EdJohnston (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Howard.

For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 19:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Rivet: response

Hi Ed, no problem whatsoever with your edit. References are good! I cruised into the rivet article from somewhere else, saw the double-asterisk thing and mindlessly fixed it, not really thinking at the moment what the real intent of the note was. I've added it to my watchlist to help keep an eye on it Thanks for helping keep the spam under control. Have a good weekend. Cheers, Doonhamer (talk) 03:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Cladistics

Hi Ed,

Re: my recent edit at Cladistics, notably adding:

The cladistics/Linnaean distinction roughly accords with the genotype/phenotype distinction: cladistics strictly follows genotype, while Linnaean taxa are defined based on observable characteristics (phenotype).

I don't have a reference for this, and I don't know how specialists actually think of these matters. I was trying to summarize the "strict ancestry" vs. "observable characteristics" distinction, as in the tables in the article, which I found rather long and overwhelming.

Primary goal is to reflect actual process of evolution
Primary goal is to group species based on morphological similarities

Difficult to understand the essence of a clade, because clade definitions emphasize ancestry at the expense of meaningful characteristics
Taxa definitions based on tangible characteristics

I used genotype-phenotype b/c I was familiar with it, and it seemed applicable.

On reflection, the better distinction is phylogeny vs. morphology; these are both "gene/shape" distinctions, but (afaict), the former is individual expression, while the latter is applicable to classification.

Here's the change; I'm also going to try showing a brief example illustrating the differences.

Nbarth (email) (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I agree that your new version is better, but in my view the claim still needs a reference. If you are trying to summarize the long tables already in the article, you have my sympathy. The entire Cladistics article resembles a personal essay, and it tends to reflect the point of view of the person who visited last. For my previous unavailing complaint about the lack of sources, see Talk:Cladistics#Linnaean taxonomy often makes use of cladistic techniques?. EdJohnston (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow which claim needs a reference; I'm trying to summarize the long tables, which are referenced. A simple summary can surely be written, no? (And fixed if found lacking.)

Agreed that the article could stand much improvement; mostly it's a long introduction to a subject, and should instead be a short summary, with links to more detailed information. I've left a number of thoughts on the talk page Talk:Cladistics.

I added an example of the distinction between cladistics and Linnaean taxonomy at: Cladistics#Example: tetrapoda, with talk at: Talk:Cladistics#Example of Linnaean.2FCladistic distinction.

Hope these help; given how much needs doing, I don't think I have the time now to help fix it beyond this—I was just dropping by and helping out (or not). Good luck!

Nbarth (email) (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explanation. The tables do have references, but they are the very references which I put there a long time ago, and I don't believe that the references justify what is asserted in the tables. Part of the annoyance of the Mayr/Hennig debate was that it was so difficult to decide what separated them. The difficulty was more on the side of Hennig, because he never seemed to give a direct and crisp summary of his views. I kept hoping that the two protagonists would draw different trees based on the same set of data, so we could learn what they thought, but that never happened. Hennig was an insect taxonomist, and I kept hoping that some later expositor would comment (from an outside viewpoint) on what was novel about how Hennig classified insects, as opposed to the traditional system. But my literature search never went that far.

Mayr would never have agreed that there was a Linnaean/Cladistic distinction, and I don't believe Hennig every used that antithesis either. Yet that's how the article currently summarizes them. EdJohnston (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

OIC: the issue is more basically "is there such a binary distinction at all"?

Here's how I understand it:

It seems there are two issues:

how you determine the classification (cladistics or morphology)
how you name species

AFAICT, no-one takes an essentialist view of species anymore, and all take a phylogenic view. The term "cladistics" is commonly used broadly as a synonym for phylogenic systematics, and narrowly for a specific set of techniques.

What is controversial, AFAICT, is nomenclature. Phylogenetic nomenclature, which is the theoretically correct nomenclature (list the branchings), is unwieldy (long), unstable (trees are being revised), and not standardized (pace initiatives such as Phylocode).

Rank-based taxonomy, by contrast, has standardized naming, but:

in the past especially was not monophylic
implies a hierarchy of ranks where none objectively exists
doesn't reflect all branchings

It may be a useful approximation to approximate a tree, given unknown branchings, or it may be misleading.

So:

everyone uses phylogenic/cladistic taxonomy
people debate nomenclature

How I'd suggest writing this is:

taxonomy was originally morphological and pre-evolutionary, and went from morphology to phylogeny (link: all the problems with morphology)

...but apomorphy remains a useful way of discussing clades

nomenclature: while cladistics suggests phylogenetic nomenclature, this has not caught on, and people still use rank-based nomenclature, adapted from Linnaean names, ranks defined by ICZN and ICBN, though:
cladists reject ranks
the ranks are unstable

If this sounds reasonable, you're welcome to take a shot at it, else I can put it on my back-burner.

Nbarth (email) (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Some Googling away reveals that there is (at least in the minds of some) an active controversy: [14], and that professionals do conflate the distinctions we're trying to tease out. (In the reference, the author argues that most all systematists subscribe to phylogeny and monophyly (despite "Linnaeans" being tarred as essentialists), and that this issue is separate from nomenclature, with PhyloCode a poor solution.)

Nbarth (email) (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Section break

Yes, that's an interesting paper! In fact it suggests that WP should have a good article on the PhyloCode.

Following up on your earlier comment: you've gone into the issue more deeply than most. If 'cladistics' is truly being used these days as a synonym for phylogenetic systematics then Ernst Mayr must be rolling in his grave, since he is thought by some to be the founder of a school that was called (at least by him and his colleagues) phylogenetic systematics. I think the most historically accurate summary of what cladistics is is the one that I put in the opening sentence in early 2007 (and note that it even has a citation):

Cladistics is a philosophy of classification that arranges organisms only by their order of branching in an evolutionary tree and not by their morphological similarity, in the words of Luria et al. (1981).

My opening was replaced later by one that has no citation, declaring that Cladistics is the hierarchical classification of species based on evolutionary ancestry. This is what most taxonomists thought they were doing in the late 19th century. Cladists wouldn't respond well to being accused of holding 19th century views, since cladists thought their view was a dramatic break with the past (Search in the cladistics article for the quote about 'vague and slippery ideas').

My version of the lead argued that the distinctive feature of cladistics was that it recognized ONLY the order of branching as being important when classifying species. (The article by Luria (1981) that I used as a citation for the lead makes this clear). Cladists declare that all change occurs at binary branch points; they do not recognize what Mayr and others have called anagenesis (an organism changes its characteristics in straight-line descent without splitting off any independent species). This subtlety is explained in a very accessible 1982 book by Mayr, "The Growth of Biological Thought." EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a very good and important distinction (anagenesis vs. cladogenesis), which the present article does not make.

Another good distinction (discussed at Systematics) is phenetic vs. phylogenetic.

I think the issue is that people are assuming a simple "pre-Darwinian = Linnaean, post-Darwinian = Cladistics" division, when it's actually trickier than that: early post-Darwinian taxonomy had notions of adaptation, while cladistics said "only study branching".

Also, here's a German page (in English) that remarks that equating phylogenetic systematics with cladistics is an Anglo-American usage, and draws a sharp distinction: [15]

I'll see if I can make some sense and coherent articles; I'll try writing Cladistics compared with other taxonomic systems to give a specialized place for these distinctions, so they don't get buried in main article edits.

Nbarth (email) (talk) 12:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please take another look

Many thanks for your mediation efforts and editing on the Patrick Haseldine article. I'd be grateful if you'd take another look at Talk:Patrick Haseldine#Lockerbie bomber's second appeal against conviction to see if further improvements can be made.PJHaseldine (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the semi-protect of WP:Cleanup

makes life a bit easier and hopefully they'll get bored in the interim TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If it recurs after two weeks, let me know. You were starting to make a case that IPs hardly ever make good-faith edits there, and that could lead to a case for longer protection, if the issue has to be considered again. (But it might take more data to show that). EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep that was what I realised --- that the recent month of IP nonsense might not translate across the history, I'm going to go back through the IP edits and see which, if any, are constructive. I'm also curious how the IPs find that one, it's not an obvious page. I'll let you know what I turn up, as well as keep you posted after two weeks TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

My reason for using AWB

Hello FrozenPurpleCube. If you become an AWB user, you will need to communicate with other editors on the articles you are changing. (There could be many such articles). If you don't want people to leave you Talk messages, how will you do this? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Since you did ask, I'm only using AWB to remove the obsolete references to my old username so they don't show up on casual searches. I had hopes for somebody else doing it, but since that doesn't seem to be happening, I'm trying to figure out a method to do it automatically myself. After that, I'll make no more edits to Wikipedia at all and I really don't see much need to communicate with anyone about the change, since it's not going to any article pages, and is just going to affect me. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

TStolper and hydrino theory

Hello Michaelbusch. Can you say whether there are still problems with this article? I've only seen the discussion at WP:COIN, and I have noted the new article restriction imposed on editor TStolper by MastCell, but besides that I don't know if the article itself has issues that other editors could address. I can imagine that some people might prefer a shorter article, and I notice some direct quotes are given in full, but other than that I don't know what is amiss. The article seems to clearly make the point that Mills' theories aren't accepted by mainstream scientists. I notice that the references might be tidied up and put into citation templates. EdJohnston (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ed, there aren't any serious problems with the current version of the article. The problem is that Stolpher doesn't like the article the way it is, and keeps replacing it with nonsense. The pattern for the last week has been that Stolper puts up his version, which meets the requirements for bollocks, and that another editor removes it completely a few hours later. Stolper then puts back his version a day or so later, and claims that the editor who removed it is part of an organized campaign against Randell Mills. Now, Stolper's COI and POV issues are obvious, and given his unwillingness to cooperate and lack of any contributions elsewhere on the encyclopedia, he will eventually be banned completely. If you examine the article history, you can view the version of the article he would like. Stylistically, it is quite bad. Scientifically, it is bogus - it includes a flat statement that quantum mechanics is wrong. This is what Stolper keeps putting in place. Fortunately, other editors are savvy and remove it. Michaelbusch (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Vanishing

You can verify Ryan Postlethwaite's membership at OTRS using this link [1]. It is hard to reconcile your desire for privacy with your extremely conspicuous changing of your old signatures, which defeats the possibility of leaving inconspicuously, and by the very change reminds thousands of Wikipedia editors of your old username. (I didn't even know your old username until I saw it popping up repeatedly on my watchlist). This type of an exit suggests we need to change the language of WP:RTV. EdJohnston (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, you may be correct that there is a need for changes, but I don't intend to take part of it, and I don't wish to discuss this further publicly. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Exercise Robin Sage listing at ARS

Hello Fosnez. The listing at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Examples is becoming more useful as further examples are added. The only item whose entry I think could be improved is the one for Exercise Robin Sage. I know nothing about this article, but observe that Prime Example of an article that should never have been put through an AfD is not a neutral comment. (There is no rule calling for neutrality; this one just stands out from the rest, since everything else on that page is neutral). Is it possible that the Robin Sage comment could be replaced with a line that is merely informative? EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Greetings, I have updated the comment to put a little more context. Feel free to edit it how you please :-) Fosnez (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I think the entry looks better now. Regarding the table as a whole, I see that some items are included there which never had the {{rescue}} template put on them, for example the first two in the list: Action Medical Research and Aldermaston Soke. Was that your intention? EdJohnston (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC).

To clarify, this is not a complaint! I just wondered if guidance might be given as to the sorts of new issues that qualify for adding to the list. I rescue a few things here and there that seem headed for a bad end but don't usually make a list. What types of case should people be watching out for, for future list additions? EdJohnston (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

So that we can make this discussion more public and involve other people if they would like to join in, I have replied on the project sub talkpage.Fosnez (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

ping

Comment requested here. Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 18:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Princess Theresa of Leiningen

Isnt the site that was referring the wrong facts also a self publish site? So why the discrimination here? I guess you didnt bother to check before you hit out? for your information, the original source page , http://pages.prodigy.net/ptheroff/gotha/leiningen.html, is published by a user name "Paul Theroff" - so why not remove that too? or is it a bias thing?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.165.224.166 (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Admin Noticeboard

Sorry EdJohnston I've been out for few days, I couldn't see my username in the noticeboard, Is is archived somewhere?

--Mhsb (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I accessed the page but archived contents are not editable. I read the discussion and I totally disagree with that. Someone has portrayed a very harmful image about myself. As I said, I've been out for few days but I just saw yourself inviting me to present my defence. --Mhsb (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not copy the ANI thread onto your own User_talk page and offer your reply there? That way if any editors have concern about your work in the future, they'll come to your Talk page and be able to read what you have to say. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Riana's request for bureaucratship

Dear Ed, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight.
I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community.
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Business-Education Partnerships

Hi there, could I get some feedback and specifics. I'm I have improved the article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborative_Partnerships:_Business/Industry-Education. I'd also like to change the title of the page to read Business-Education Partnerships but don't know how. Thanks. Sandra —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanhealy (talk • contribs) 14:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Mmbabies

To know the case, go here: Long term abuse/Mmbabies. To see the list of sockpuppets, go here: List of Mmbabies sockpuppets. Momusufan (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I find the case rather confusing. If you think there hasn't been enough response to this editor's activities, consider posting at WP:AN and asking for an overall remedy for all the suspected socks. Either that, or work with one of the admins who has already been blocking the Mmbabies socks. EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Universal Health Care Foundation of Connecticut

Thanks for chiming in, Ed. The guy seems to have a little trouble distinguishing between "noteworthy" and "notable". I'm trying to offer some advice on his talk page; you're welcome to join the party. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

HR - Talk - Semi-P

In general, sysops are loathe to semi-protect talk pages because the collateral damage is too great. My suggestiion is to bring the IP address up on WP:ANI and request an anon/anon range block, if you can bring diffs that this IP is disruptive. -- Avi (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Michelle Ferguson-Cohen Editorial Assistance

Seeking your expertise. While I'm not disputing the Military Brat article has been spammed as you suggest or making any judgement on its use of the term Military Brat and its references, I'm unsure how that relates to the authors bio in question Michelle Ferguson-Cohen. The reference from the American Forces Press Service you cited is from the Military Brat article and not found anywhere on Michelle Ferguson-Cohen. Michelle Ferguson-Cohen does link to the Military Brat article however. Is that considered "spamming" by the author as indicated in the request for deletion? Also, I found a reference to the author and the books in the Military Brats article. --JSane (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It is up to the editors at Michelle Ferguson-Cohen as to whether the See also is justified. However if the article on Ferguson-Cohen is to be kept at all the See Also seems logical to me.

It's appropriate to mention the spam issue in the WP:EAR discussion because the ~~subject~~ creator of the article is the person who asked for the assistance, and also seems to be over-promoting ~~her own work~~ the work of Ferguson-Cohen at Military brat. She does not seem to acknowledge in any way that she's gone against our policies by using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion. Her complaint in that very thread about the bona fides of User:Balloonman, who has behaved quite well, does seem to be testing our patience. EdJohnston (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC). Updated later since I was wrong about the identity of the original editor. EdJohnston (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Moves

After completing the move, just remove the request from the list mentioning whether it was a supported move, no consensus or a failed request in the edit summary. If you have any other questions, just let me know. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

COIN/RFAR

Just an FYI that this Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Prem_Rawat was accepted. Since we've covered it a lot at COIN, is it worth one of us submitting links to all the archived conversations hashing this out? Good meeting you yesterday, didn't think we'd be getting real barnstars! MBisanz ^talk 08:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Matt, I didn't know that barnstars were real either! I'm not aware that the various debates of the Prem Rawat issue at COIN added any illumination. I had imagined that COIN was just one of many venues where the various participants made known their usual arguments. Do you think that Arbcom would be missing out on any special insights if they didn't know about our debates? Or are you proposing the links just for completeness? To get perspective, do a 'Whatlinkshere' on Prem Rawat and limit the search to Wikipedia space. (You'll need to increase the limit to 500 edits). I have this new inspiration that there are many controversial issues that will get along just fine without my participation :-) In fact, my impression is that Arbcom is pretty good at sorting out COI issues. EdJohnston (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You mentiont hat good point that most of the COIN stuff was "Jossi is evil" so maybe unless there is some discussion there like "Did Jossi know this was controversial" and he says he didn't. Since I'm already over there for Betacommand (fun times), I'll just keep a third eye on it. MBisanz ^talk 23:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ed, if your ever looking to flag downt he Dev we were talking to about the ipblockexempt stuff, he's at Gmaxwell (talk · contribs). That does sound like a significant security issue and after having dinner with him, he seems to know as much about the system as anyone I've ever run into. MBisanz ^talk 14:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Block request

I am requesting a block for Wikipedia user Thegingerone. This user has been making nonsense in the Rudolph Valentino page, and has been very rude to me in discussions. The has been blocked before for vandalism, and has had many complaints from other users, as you can see from the person's talk page. I'll admit I have had complaints as well, but I have managed to find a compromise with these articles as well. The user continues to do vandalism on the Valentino pageKevin j (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

From a quick look, neither of you has been totally calm throughout this interaction, which seems to have led to some stress. There is even a a thread at WP:AN about this. One option for you is just to avoid this editor for a while. If he's as troublesome as you believe, his activities may be noticed by others. In any event, avoiding personal attacks would be a good idea for both of you. EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sir, I have noticed the same user vandalized the Anna May Wong recently. All I want to do is put my facts in. Also, I just want a fair block put in effect for this vandalismKevin j (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism? This seems to be a content dispute between you and the other editor. You both have something to contribute, since you both have detailed information about Valentino. Consider making a compromise with him as to what information should go in the article. So far the only new message I see over at Talk:Rudolph Valentino is one from you, it doesn't appear to be signed, and it's not very diplomatic. Please remember to sign your comments on Talk pages using four tildes before you hit 'Save page.' No one person has the right to get their preferred information into Wikipedia. If you're not willing to negotiate, you probably should go and work on a less popular article that you can have all to yourself. EdJohnston (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

In Response

Thank you Mr. Johnston, and I will try to do this. It's just the urge I have to type in facts will probably continue to be a huge factor of distraction.Kevin j (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Valentin Radu

An editor has nominated Valentin Radu, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valentin Radu and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Darn It

Really? I thought I signed. :P Oh well, I signed it now. Thanks for letting me know! -WarthogDemon 00:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sir, the user Thegingerone deserves to be blocked

If you take a colse look at some of the content on the Rudolph Valentino page this user has typed, it is written like a fan site as well. I knew about the four tiles thing too, I just forgot to use them on this occassion. I have seen nothing wrong with a compromise either, but this user apparently does not want to. The user also has written facts that are not backed by sources.Kevin j (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The CAMERA complaint at WP:COIN

Attempt at implementing your suggestion made. Thanks, Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 00:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Redthoreau

Please look at the article history. He reverts tenaciously so that no one will edit it, even though it is in FAR. He templated me for a Personal Attack for giving him a 3RR warning and for saying, once again, that I was not going to edit the article anymore. Another admin removed the template from my page. Please look at the edit histor and look at his edits with Kate's tool. He started editing the article in December 2006 and has been almost the sole editor since he started. Although the article is something like four years old, and was brought to FA status by some dedicated editors, his edits dwarf in number all the other edits over the past year. Look at the article stats. stats -- rhia link uaws to work!

Further, I have never successfully filed a 3RR report because I do not understand the directions. Please help! Mattisse (Talk) 02:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mattisse. I see that Coppertwig has already made a comment about your report at the 3RR noticeboard. I agree with him! I don't see four actual reverts, so I don't believe this shows a violation of the 3RR rule. Even if the report were formatted correctly, I think the answer would be the same. EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about the Daniel Boey article

Hi Ed, I just wanted to address a point you made about the article I wrote on Daniel Boey. The credentials that I listed were due to the advice I received from other administrators to enable this article to be more notable. as far as reading like an advertisement, can you give me more information that brought you to that conclusion?

Thanks Succisa75 (talk) 05:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's an example of a designer article, not wonderfully-written but adequate: John Saldivar. This is about a fashion designer, and it reads like an exposition. It has a small selection of references in good online publications that actually have pictures of the clothes, so you can tell what kind of a designer he is. It also has a few words of how he got his experience and the names of some well-known fashion people who helped him.

By comparison, here is a section of the old Daniel Boey article that I believe wasn't helpful:

Daniel's international portfolio for fashion shows include work in London, Edinburgh, Berlin, Manchester, Bangkok, Ho Chi Minh City and Kuala Lumpur. He has produced shows for such companies as Christian Dior, Louis Vuitton, Loewe, Valentino, Celine, Armani, Lanvin, Tiffany, Donna Karan, and MAC Cosmetics.

This tells us almost nothing about the kind of clothes he produces. It sounds like a trip itinerary. Do we know why his work impresses people? What are his clothes like? If you can do more work on improving this article, I wouldn't mind taking a look at another version. EdJohnston (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. Great points. I definitely see where you are coming from. Will definitely make these changes.

Succisa75 (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Update Hi Ed, here is a rough draft of the article On Daniel Boey. If you could look at it and give me your feedback that would be great. Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Succisa75/Sandbox#Revised_Draft_for_Article_on_Daniel_Boey Succisa75 (talk) 05:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Rudolph Valentino

Im pleading with you as an admin to help on the case of the article Rudolph Valentino. Im glad its locked; but Im very annoyed its locked on the troll's version. If you check out the last version I edited you'll see I used verifiable good sources. User: Kevin_j has not. He has also left me several harassing messages which are viewable on my talk page. I did my best to keep my cool; but I must say I dont think very highly of him after his actions (the whole edit war started when I reverted one of his 100s of edits; because it was written unencyclopediacly. He took that as a challenge and has been bugging me since).

My reason for wanting my version? First his sources (Noel Botham, "Valentino: The First Superstar", and Spring Asher, "Wooing and Winning Business" are not reliable for the article. Emily Leider's biography "Valentino: Dark Lover" is considered the most reliable Valentino source and it is what I have used.

My other complaints are he has removed information that is relevant and sourced for no apparent reason: such as deleting the fact Valentino wasted all his money upon his arrival in New York (revelant because its what drove him to dancing; then movies). He also seems offended by the Fairbanks/Valentino comparisons though this is again sourced by many books and sites (I'll add more if wished). He also removed a line about Hayakawa and Wong though there is no apparent reason why. Its relevant because they were both ethnic actors; who expierenced trouble like Valentino. This is again cited but now removed because of his edits.

And my BIGGEST complaint is his line about talkies which he keeps putting in quite literally to spite me. I find this something hard to make 'encyclopediac' as Valentino never recorded sound on film; and never most likely intended to as he died the year The Jazz Singer (the film that brought on the talkie revolution) was released. So to really say which way or the other (talkies would have killed or helped his career) is extremely difficult. And the line 'he had a squeaky voice' makes me maddest of all as I can prove myself this was not true. Valentino made 2 song recordings in his life, "Kashmiri Love Song" and "El Relicaro". You can hear them yourself at: http://cdbaby.com/cd/rudolphvalentino . He did not have a squeaky voice; he in fact had a deep baritone with a heavy Italian accent. So whether this would have went all Garbo or not is really unknown and why I feel at the LEAST that sentence needs to go. Its source isnt even a book about Valentino!!!

So please; sort this out thanks. --Thegingerone (talk) 06:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Johnston, singing voices do not determine one's natural voice. One perfect example is Jim Nabors. Also, it is only the user's opinion that these sources are not reliableKevin j (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Tags added with Advisor?

Hi, I responded on my talk page. Cheers, --Cameltrader (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sir, I want to preserve the NPOV Policy, but it seems the Thegingerone doesn't

Mr. Johnston, singing voices do not determine one's natural voice. One perfect example is Jim Nabors. Also, it is only the user's opinion that these sources are not reliable, or that Valentino was a better lover than Fairbanks. Thus the user violates the neutral point of view policies. One more question. Are you going to let this user continuously violate these policies?Kevin j (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Administrators are not supposed to intervene in content disputes. I'm glad to see some discussion is happening at Talk:Rudolph Valentino, and I encourage you to say more about the specific issues that concern you. I haven't had any time to study the content issues, but if I do so, it will be just as a regular editor and not as an administrator. It seems that the quality of the sources is one of the issues that needs to be considered. Thegingerone is unhappy with one of your sources, and I don't know enough to say if his objection is well-taken. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I know administrators are not supposed to get involved in content disputes, but they are supposed to prevent vandalism as well

Please, Mr. Johnston, prevent the vandalism that this user has given on the Rudolph Valentino page. The user has typed in many biased information like: hyping the article like a fan page by adding unproven content, like that Valentino was a better lover than Fairbanks onscreen; that Valentino came to America with $20,000.00 in his pockets; that only Dark Lover is a reliable source; that Valentino was the only leading male in The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, and again hyping like a fan would by adding that many facts from books about his criminal record are rumors. Read our versions carefully and please, do your job as an administrator and prevent vandalism. Thank youKevin j (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No-one is a vandal unless he is consciously attempting to make the encyclopedia worse. See WP:VANDAL. You and the other guy just have different views about how to make the Valentino article better. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I Beg to Differ Mr. Johnston

The user has been one-sided, and if you take a better look at the Rudolph Valentino page's history, the user has been constently trying to make it worse for others by hyping the page with POV accusations. I do know the vandalism policies as well and yes there has been vandalism. On the talk pages the user wrote egomaniac-like content saying he/she is always writing accurate. So my advice, ignore the user's accusations against me at best, because I see nothing but ego-related accusations. Also the user recently vandalized the Pollyanna page with an accusation that the film was the major turning point in Mary Pickford's career. Kevin j (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA and Gni again

Gni has relaunched his contentious edit warring and spamming for CAMERA. I did try to remind him of the advice from admins to step away, to no avail. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Coining words

Because of your delightful comment at User talk:Smerus about coining words, I've started a tradition (whether you like it or not). Every barnstar awarded by me will involve the coining of a new word. These are all the barnstars I've ever awarded:

Barnstar to Seraphimblade 16 Feb 2008 "adminliness"
Barnstar to Smerus 19 March 2008, and later comment which coined a(nother) word, for good measure; "exemplitude" and "myriadinous"
Barnstar to Coren 22 March 2008 "watchabilitywise"

--Coppertwig (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Stan Locke

If Stan Locke starts his edit activities again, some of us have no alternative but to react. We agree things are fine at this point.

Best Regards,

Lockezachman (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

3RR issue on Minorities in Greece

Hello, thanks for your notice. With respect to that particular issue, I'm too much involved to take admin action (there was a related conflict over a different but related map which I made myself just a few weeks ago). I must say I had half a mind of reporting Kapnisma myself this morning, until I saw JedJ had already done it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Re the 3RR noticeboard: I've replied on my talk page to your note, and you may also be interested in another admin's perspective here. Re the above message: Interesting; it may actually be better if 3RR and editwarring is enforced by someone with no knowledge of the subject matter of the article or involvement in editing it. Regards, --Coppertwig (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Valentino

Thank you for backing me up on the Rudolph Valentino talk page. I appreciate it very much. At this point it seems like a futile fight trying to get them to work together or to even stop editing the article as soon as it's unlocked. Pinkadelica (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Photos in Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC

Re: I have no doubt that your intentions are good, but please consider for a moment that many of these editors are subject to some hot debates at external sites. This by itself is not a problem, however some of these debates are specifically aimed at outing them. Some editors may prefer to edit anonymously, but nevertheless, because of natural social dynamics, they may not feel comfortable making a big deal out of public display of their pictures. This may be called somewhat hypocritical by strict standards, but it's not out job to make judgments here on such a matter.

Therefore, it is a better idea to have photo identification based on the opt-in rather than an opt-out system. Let's not pressure fellow editors, not even by off-line communication. Certainly everyone knows about the page and can add themselves as and when they feel willing, if indeed they ever wanna at all.

Some people say that outing people, particularly those they consider "abusive", is a legitimate - nay morallty worthy - activity aimed at holding everyone to account. I can see a wee bit of logic in this view, but it is not our job to argue for or against this position, especially as most of the editors who attend meetups haven't done anything objectionable. I hope we can agree here. Bluelight.

I'm adding my own signature here. Bluelight2b deleted his signature, and I don't wish the archiving bot to be confused. EdJohnston (talk) 12:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you much for your note. It's a bit easier to be patient when one isn't directly involved. I just want to try and back up Pinkadelica, who has been trying to resolve this issue. She'd be be tickled...err... pink to get a pat on the back, as well, I think. Thanks again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat

Hi, EdJohnston. I'd like to encourage you to edit the header at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Boodlesthecat reported by User:Gni (Result: ) to say "(Result: No action)", which seems to be your decision. I might have done it for you except that I wasn't sure if you intended to make a definitive decision. (And perhaps leaving the report hanging is actually the most effective way to deter further reverts! :-) Thanks for your reply on the talk page. Those editors are not currently reverting the article, so I think I'll leave the header saying "no action" after all. I think the way it usually works is that just putting the report on the 3RR page stops the reverting. :-) It's easy to swing through the 3RR page and click on the "history" link for each page listed there, so further reverts are risky, whether it says "No action" or not. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I need to stay out of the decision process on 3RR for that case, because it's still pending a serious evaluation at WP:COIN. I just wanted the admin who decides it to be aware of the COI background. Otherwise I'd see the logic of your suggestion. Plus I keep being surprised by things the more experienced admins do at 3RR, so I'll wait to see if someone else wants to weigh in. (Once the header is changed, I assume they just skip over the case). EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone has now closed it. It's fine, no problem. In future you might like to begin your comments with Comment: to avoid having them misinterpreted as final decisions. (Maybe I need to do that too.) Good catch on Gni's reversion of the report. I suppose people should be watching for actual nefarious reversions (not that Gni's was such). --Coppertwig (talk) 02:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've struck out part of my message at User talk:Coppertwig#Puzzling 3RR noticeboard and added some more comments. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

3rr and boodles

Hi EdJohnston,

Thanks for informing me about the 3RR; I mistakenly thought that the 3rd revert was the problem. I'm also curious -- are you a personal friend of Boodlesthecat? I ask because, though he is basically reverting any edits I make (making it near impossible for me to edit Wikipedia) and accusing me in every forum of COI even after his COIN gained no traction, you respond to his complaints against me by giving him advice on his talk page; and he responds to my complaints by going straight to your talk page, after which you seem to come to his defense. Also, when you explained on the 3RRN that my complaint was premature, you yourself thought that that was the appropriate forum to rehash Boodlesthecat's allegation of COI. It doesn't seem that this is the appropriate forum; and in fact it doesn't seem like there is any appropriate forum other than COIN, and that came to naught -- because I'm not violating COI. If you indeed are a friend of Boodlesthecat, would you please take a moment before weighing in on our dispute, in which I feel I'm being wronged and being made unable to edit, to focus on the dispute in an objective way? Thanks for your consideration. Gni (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Your behavior at WP:COIN doesn't inspire confidence. Normally we assume that editors who may possibly have a COI will express a desire to cooperate, and want to learn more about how to work within policies. Your approach has been to vociferously deny that any possible problem with your edits could exist. I had no connection to whichever admins looked into your previous editing, and your above attempt to portray me as somehow arrayed against you can't explain your block log so far. I have been working at the 3RR board for some time, so when I saw your complaint show up there, my ears perked up. One would assume that someone who had ever heard the phrase 'conflict of interest' would understand you shouldn't remove information critical of yourself from an administrative noticeboard. When you post at 3RR you are putting your own reputation on the line, and you should understand that any previous problems (particularly on that very article) are going to be scrutinized. EdJohnston (talk) 14:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm not sure what you are referring to when you cite "[my] block log so far." As far as I know, I've been blocked based on only one violation of 3RR (plus associated blocks that occurred because I made edits where I forgot to log in, and the fact that I forgot to log in means I was not yet aware of the 3RR block at that time). After this one incident and the few blocks associated with it, I learned about 3RR, I learned that forgetting to log in opens you up to accusation of sock-puppetry, at which and made obvious efforts to avoid violating it (to the effect, I should add, that my edits on the CAMERA article are practically barred by an editor with a clear animus toward CAMERA; this unilaterally imposed virtual "banning" of me by an editor is most certainly not in line with Wikipedia policy or guidelines).

As to my removal of my 3RR notification, I did so solely because I was discovered, thanks to your comment on the 3RR notification page, that this was not an actual 3RR violation. Having understood that, I attempted to withdraw the complaint so as not to waste people's time. If that is construed as a problem (and unfortunately, with what seems to be an assumption of bad faith, it's apparently construed as some nefarious move by me) then by all means, I welcome the reinserting of my premature 3RR notification onto the board. Frankly, though, I would think that editors and admins should thoughtfully consider whether the almost-automatic reverts of my legitimate edits by Boodlesthecat should nonetheless be considered disruptive. Gni (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to think that anyone construed your removal of your report as "nefarious". It seems like a reasonable mistake to me. It might have been OK to remove your report if there had been no replies to it, but in removing your report you also removed EdJohnston's comment, for which you probably would have needed his permission at least; and removing just your part and leaving his comment there would remove the context for his comment, which isn't good either. So now you know that rule, too (more or less; it may be an unwritten rule.) --Coppertwig (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Camera

I can probably tackle this tonight or tomorrow night. But this is something I'd have the time and be interested in looking into. MBisanz ^talk 16:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

email

Email is now set up... I'm happy to discuss issues that way. Gni (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

List Mad

I'm unable to figure out what Collectonian wants. Can you give me a clue? If so, thanks. Pepso2 (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and...

_{copied from WP:AN3 in case you miss to see it}

Thank you for reviewing the request. Well, the report is rather motivated by Amagase (talk · contribs)'s highly uncivil threats and bad assumption, so I re-acknowledge of the 3RR rule here. (maybe ANI is a better place to report his rudeness) His first revert did happen several days ago without rationale for his removal of the part. After his revert was challenged today, then he declared to contestants to accept either his inclusion of other cases or exclusion of Fujimura. In my point of view, that is a very unwise way to cooperate with others who disagree with his edit because he can't own the article and demand others to follow his own rule. In the ongoing dispute, I got several inappropriate threats by him, and he even lied about my edit. So, I want admins at least give him a proper warning. If Amagase keeps to degrade my dignity and fact, he should deal with the consequence anyhow. --Appletrees (talk) 03:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Licensing for Image:Advisor-js-screenshot.png

I responded on my talk page. Please, take another look and tell me if you have any comments. --Cameltrader (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate comment

Hi, there, EdJohnston, nice to see you again. Your comment at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:88.110.183.132 reported by User:Gusworld (Result: ) appears to have been accidentally duplicated, though. I would perhaps have removed one except that the two versions of your comment are not quite identical. (I don't know why the section link doesn't work in that link. Nobody's edited the result yet.) --Coppertwig (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I believe my comment is fixed. We had simultaneous Aha! experiences on the two IPs; I guess we're in agreement! I don't know the story on those darn section links. Try this one. Somebody should overhaul the system of section links there. Often they fail since they include template brackets, but there are none in this case. EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

MassResistance

It's not like it's undergoing a massive edit war. If that happens, when can re-address it, I don't think we need to leave the 3RR notice open. Corvus cornix_talk 01:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverting

Is there a clear consensus to revert all the the bot edits at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#ANI_is_locked? I have a script now that will do it, but I want to make sure. MBisanz ^talk 17:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for this problem, I'm the owner of User:AkhtaBot, i checked it, and i found it known problem, here and here, i will not run python bot on templates until fixing this bug, soory again. i noticed that all the editing are reverting, so i don't think there is any thing i can do. can you unblock my bot now! --Bassem JARKAS (talk) 07:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank You :-) --Bassem JARKAS (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

childrens rights

its really a minor issue that i noticed when looking ato ne of a user's diffs [16]. it was intended to be a joke, but i was just warning the user not to make offense like that just in case someone gets upset since we dont want to have a row over something sily like that. Smith Jones (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

the comment was made toward the subject of the COI case, and the diff was one of the ones cited in the firs t initial posting on the COI case Smith Jones (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think FreeChild created a diff across too many versions of Dougs Tech's talk page. How about: [17]. Is that one OK? EdJohnston (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

yes i agree that one is much better, while the initial one was offensive and semingly irrelevent. Smith Jones (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, yeah, thanks for catching that. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know what happened there, but thanks for fixing it. This process is already messy enough without tech glitches that make me look bad. Thanks again for the fix. • Freechild'sup? 20:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Recently unblocked User talk:Clarkerst is still puzzling

Hello Stifle. Recently you acceded to a request to lift this user's indefinite block, after I responded to his request at WP:RPP to unprotect his Talk page. Since that time he has got his account renamed to User:I Love Editing, per a request at WP:CHU. His further activities since then appear to include repeated attempts to delete his (successful) name change request from WP:CHU (for example [18], and later as an IP) and to blank various warnings that people leave him on his Talk. Do you think that our hopes of his reform could have been too optimistic? EdJohnston (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's no rule against blanking warnings. (It's considered as an acknowledgement of having read the warning.) I'd watch for a while to see if he's interested in serious contributions. Stifle (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

BLP

I've just started paying attention to the WP:BLP/N after something came up at 3RR that led me there. The BLP/N looked as if it could use more help. --Coppertwig (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Richard Tylman

Re the WP:COIN closure: I'm not sure editors below are satisfied with the neutrality of the current version of the article is strictly accurate. I took the consensus to be that some cleanup in that area remains to be done. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ed

and I hope you're good! - I know you posted in the recent 'policy question' thread at the CoI noticeboard - and I wonder if you might have time or energy to take a look here for related discussion - your input would probably be very helpful - and would certainly be appreciated! thanks, Privatemusings (talk) 01:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

American Apparel

Hey Ed,

Thanks for the note, really appreciate you noticing my work. I would love to give it another look. There were still some sections I thought could be expanded on and others that needed to be cut. The thing about their own material is that when I was googling for American Apparel articles I noticed that they hosted reprints of many pieces that otherwise would have been stuck behind paywalls. Clearly there is some COI there but since many of them included negative press I thought it was an ok balance.

As for the investigation, I went through and pretty thoroughly sponged out all the edits by the people that Wikidemo tagged in the report. I may have missed some though, I can't be sure. With this Woody Allen lawsuit I imagine that they are laying low but they could be back any time. In my opinion, the SSP has served its purpose.

Before I get into it, what do you think needs to be messed with?

I was going to track down some royalty-free pictures but I don't know how

TheRegicider (talk) 03:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice response you gave on noticeboard

That was a very nice response you gave to Reenactorjohn at 3RR. You managed to shift things from confrontation to friendly helping. Well done. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Sir Arthur Clarke Award

Well, there is Amateur Achievement Award of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, which is a Featured List. That award only has one prize, though. I think that other than that one, the articles on science/engineering awards are in a pretty poor state at the moment. Even Nobel Prize in Physics has lots of tags scattered around the article. Mike Peel (talk) 08:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

my bot Vina-iwbot

Hi, could you unblock my bot User:Vina-iwbot? I narrowed the problem down to the bot removing links between pages that are/seems-to-be in different namespaces, i.e. regular pages linking to categories, or a page linking to another page with ":" in the name. I'm talking with the developer of the m:interwiki.py about this. I'm a little surprised that other interwiki both operators haven't ran into this yet. I'm using the standard version without any local modifications. In the mean time, I'll run the bot without the "-force" mode so it will not remove any links. Thanks. --Vina (talk) 05:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Vina, I have unblocked the bot. Do you have a method of restoring the interwikis that were incorrectly removed? Another bot recently encountered a bug in interwiki.py, and it was discussed here. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing that can be done now besides manually checking and reverting changes which is what I did with my edits. I just go through the bot's contributions and look at entries which are removal of links. The problems seems to be concentrated in 3 languages: eo - which has a lot of math related topics in the wikipedia namespace, es & pt which has all of their list of xyz with title "Anexo:". The es/pt change seems to be fairly recent, where a lot of links that used to direct to something like "Lista xzy" is now a redirect. I contacted one of the main developers for the bot, yurik. Hopefully he can come up with something. At the mean time, the operators can run the bot without the "-force" option so it does not remove any links. --Vina (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Definition of "stale"

I just thought of a definition of "stale" with respect to 3RR reports, for example this one. If enough time has passed such that if the user were to revert once more now then that revert would not, in combination with previous reverts, constitute a 3RR violation, then the report is "stale" according to this definition. One could argue that in that case no block or page-protection is necessary; since the next revert (if any) would not be a violation, there is no reason to prevent it. I don't know whether anyone else uses this definition. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and ...

Thanks for the tip off and, just out of interest, why did you give me the info? Is there a group of admins (I assume you are one) who patrol 3rr accusations and give helpful hints or was it just a happy chance? Either way I am grateful for a friendly face. :) Abtract (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up

I appreciate it. I am always nervous having to report an admin, and this is the second time with this particular admin's behavior. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

More thanks - MigrationWatch UK

Thank you for the positive response about my posting, this is an extremely challenging article to balance. Regretably I'm going to lose my internet connection for some time in the very near future so I'm hoping others will look a bit closer at this organisation and add a pinch of salt accordingly. I was pleased with this news [19], even if in itself I couldn't see how you could work it into the article directly. Mighty Antar (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Jacques Marchais

in the event you didn't watchlist it, I responded TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the quick response on the awb approval! Prashanthns (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Eric Greif

I wanted to thank you for your words of encouragement. I find it incredible that, minutes after Dissolve made his warning on my talk page (and then creating the inquiry into 'Eric Greif'), Single-purpose account Jackmantas was created and began taking apart the Eric Greif article line-by-line. This whole thing seems like some sort of bizarre vendetta and not proper Wiki good faith. Thanks again, A Sniper (talk) 10:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for the update on Blist 14 It is me i think (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

browsers

you removed the info I added for the epiphany web-browser. The source is reliable - its the official ANNOUNCE maillist which is used by the maintainers of the project to report news to the users. It cannot get more reliable than that. Plus it was covered already by some websites. Never mind that the date of the letter is the first of april - it wasn't a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.199.148 (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't usually accept Usenet or forum postings as evidence. If nobody else has seen fit to comment yet, we can wait for something more definite. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Jodhaa Akbar

Hello EdJohnson. I removed my previous message cause I thought you were already done for today.

I will definitely do that and ask Blg. But he was blocked for sockpuppeting, not edit warring. Once he is back today, he will surely revert to his own version, a version which is incohorent, full of errors, POV. I had copyedited this version (see my long analysis on the talk page), neutrlised it, but he came back and started reverting again, despite being aware of two other editors who agree with me. I'll definitely try to solve this issue, but before that, please protect the article, because there will be no end to that. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I would wait to hear back from Blnguyen. I informed him about the situation. At a minimum, I think that an admin should warn this editor but my brain is not clear enough this morning to figure out exactly what that admin should say. Since the dispute has been running since 18 February, I don't see how a short period of full protection would change things much. The article is quite active, so a long period of full protection would be unwise. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well that's exactly the problem! Blnguyen is not really familiar with the dispute itself. I asked him to use his checkbuster and find out whether it was indeed him. It was clearly him. Now he is back, and as I already experienced back in time, he will be reverting it constantly. The block is important right now, regardless of what Blnguyen's reply is. Please protect it as of now. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The war continues!! And very interesting who this Hindhawk (talk · contribs) is, whose only edits on Wikipedia include edits to Jodhaa Akbar, reverting my edits! Please protect it. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll have to ask some second party opinions for the matter. Posted the above message to Blng as well. Thanks again, Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there Ed. Also, I think Hindhawk is Itihaaskar. See my report at my talk. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)