User talk:Apoc2400/Archive3

Pauli Rodriguez
I am proving a valuable point. Also I will take this to the civil courts in order to get my name removed from conflict of interest page. Wikipedia is getting to neutral for me...when are humans only neutral? How can I be neutral in emotion? I am expressing my points as neutrally as I can. I do use notable resources. I rather keep this conflict of interest small don't you think?

Please relist Pauli Rodriguez wikipedia article. If appeal democrat is notable then why did you accept a wikipedia article about them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal-Democrat. I was also noted in the Sacramento Bee several times, the capital newspaper of California and several times in the Appeal. I was also noted in several other newspapers in California. Please relist my article. Thank you!

maybe you should take the appeal democrat and sacramento bee articles down along with many others. Please remove me from the conflict of interest page, I want to add to my Pauli Rodriguez article. Pauli Rodriguez is a noteworthy person

Paulifan (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

information suppression
hi;

i think i understand what you are trying to do; & i appreciate the moral dilemmas involved, but i can in no way agree with this solution!

the quote that comes to mind:

"the road to hell is paved with good intentions"

i also feel that there are far too many weasel words in the draft; i'm sorry, please do not take it personally, but if we are going to have a proposal to authorize cencorship of wikipedia, we should be direct & truthful about what we are doing. such wording also needs to be very precise.

i haven't had time to process this whole situation properly yet; right now, i find my main desire is to vomit, preferably directly over jimmy whales' head.

but; if this goes ahead, it would destroy everything that wikipedia is supposed to be; & if it does go ahead, i won't be here for the fallout.

the lovely thing about open-source, you can always fork; i think a good half of the wikip community will leave, if this is where the project is headed, & if it can't be turned around.

i have nothing against you personally, you seem to do good work on wikip, but i strongly feel that, unless your primary intent in creating this proposal was to spark a strong reaction (against) & stimulate debate, this is very much the wrong way for wikipedia to go.

i'll stop now because, as i said, i need some time to digest this; it makes the whole michael jackson wikipedia-record thing seem incredibly trivial... ha

Lx 121 (talk) 00:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:News suppression
Dear Apoc

Your initiative, I believe, brings to a head just the tip of the iceberg for what should be WP's next great expansion. I'd like to talk it through at this preliminary stage. Got clients for 10 hours, though. :-(  Tony   (talk)  04:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Email
You have some. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Date de-linker RFC
I see you closed the RFC without stating the outcome. Are you still deliberating on it, or did you simply forget to say how it turned out? &mdash;harej (talk) (cool!) 05:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I will get on it. I had unfortunately little time on Wikipedia the last few days, but thought I should close the RFC in reasonable time anyway. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Full-date unlinking bot, if you weren't aware. I thought you might be able to post notifications, when you have time. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have seen it and it looks good. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Requests for comment/User page indexing
Please note Requests for comment/User page indexing has been repurposed from the standard RFC format it was using into a strraw poll format. Please re-visit the RFC to ensure that your previous endorsement(s) are represented in the various proposals and endorse accordingly.
 * Notice delivery by xenobot  13:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Icon Group International
Re this, good to know, thanks. :) -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 21:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks from me as well! -- Banj e  b oi   02:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletions
I know. Ah well. Anyway I've just started Daniella Weiss for you, perhaps you can expand it? Regards Dr. Blofeld       White cat 11:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have been planning to create that article when I have time but never seems to get around to it. There is a lot more to add. She is a very controversial figure, even in the settler movement. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I can see! Now you see why I think it is important to at least start articles and allow people to build upon them! I strongly believe people are more likely to build upon an existing article than start a new one!! Best of luck and thanks for your words. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 12:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject TRANSWIKI
Hi. In light of recent events and community concerns about the way in which content is transferred I have proposed a new wikiproject which would attempt to address any of the concerns and done in an environment where a major group of editors work together to transfer articles from other wikipedias in the most effective way possible without BLP or referencing problems. Please offer your thoughts at the proposal and whether or not you support or oppose the idea of a wikiproject dedicated to organizing a more efficient process of getting articles in different languages translated into English. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 12:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It looks very interesting and people are supportive. Now we just need the details of how it will actually work. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Anabuki Kosan
A tag has been placed on Anabuki Kosan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Anabuki Kosan
I have nominated Anabuki Kosan, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Anabuki Kosan. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you...
...for the kind words. They are greatly appreciated.

I just needed a couple of days to back off and cool down. Though this really wasn't a spur-of-the-moment decision...it's been a while brewing, and things just came to a head with the ANI. Ah, well...I'm back, now, and don't intend leaving any time soon. :-)

Once again, many thanks. For what it's worth, I didn't really feel like I was "driven away"...as I said above, a few things came to a head at once, and I thought it was best to step away and cool off. Mainly because I was afraid that if I didn't, the break would be much more heated, and much more permanent. And I want no part of that. Still, your spirited defense was well-taken, thanks. :-) --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 02:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Tekserve
Hi, I'm curious about this edit and your edit summary. The summary is "of course it's privately-owned". Can you explain? Is there some reason a computer-repair company can't be publicly owned? Geeks on Call, for example, is publicly owned, and traded (thinly, it appears) OTC under the symbol GOCHE.

Apart from that, I think your edit reads more smoothly, and because the private ownership is indicated in the infobox, so I wouldn't want to revert it. I'm just curious about your reasoning. If the private ownership wasn't indicated elsewhere, I would probably suggest restoring it here. TJRC (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, I thought it meant private as opposed to government or municipally owned. Still, as you say, it is in the infobox anyway and the introduction flows better without it. --Apoc2400 (talk) 08:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC
Please see Requests for comment/Rorschach test images. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 16:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree
I agree that "redirected from" pages are useful being Website address. For more help, please leave me a message on a new section on my talk page.--*** ******* 00:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)User:Boyhere

User:Apoc2400/Pirate Party of the United Kingdom
I've put a copy of the page, as it was before it was deleted, at User:Apoc2400/Pirate Party of the United Kingdom. If you also want the history of the article, let me know and I can do that as well. -- Deville (Talk) 21:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Lunsford Lane
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.
 * Oh, I get a notification so I don't have to monitor the nominations page now. That's good. I have replied there. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Summer Wars Romaji
Thanks for fixing the Romaji title to Summer Wars. I don't understand Japanese, so I rely on online translators. :) Arsonal (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yaoi World and the Takenouchi Debate
I noticed my name came up, as did mention of Yaoi World quite extensively in the Articles For Deletion: Kira Takenouchi: 2nd Nomination I noticed that the day my name was brought up by this user Kxings, my own entry at Wikipedia came into question for being notable. Not here to split hairs on that, I've contacted the proper person DAJF. As for Yaoi World - I am not involved with them. They contacted me for an interview, I said yes, then I saw their opening page and sent an email off questioning the significance of Kira Takenouchi as a 'pioneer of yaoi'. The reply I got was to be accused of envy, and unprofessionalism because 'they were going to give me an award' and I shouldn't act so ungraciously. I also got a lesson on how Ms. Takenouchi's doujinshi is the reason why Ai No Kusabi is being made into a new anime. Needless to say, I have dealt with real publishers, and know the editors involved in bringing the Ai No Kusabi novels to America and THAT is the reason a new anime was made; NA interest reviving the brand. I ceased all communication with this 'Yaoi World'.

I also noticed that someone cited Erica Friedman as a 'yaoi' source. She is extremely influential in yuri, not yaoi. Third party contacts about the genre and it's creators and publishers should be Dru Pagliasotti, Miranda Grouse , or Lissa Patillo. These women through their sites, cover all aspects of yaoi related subjects like fandom, creators, Japanese mangaka, and original and Japanese title reviews. Perhaps they can shed a more objective light on this matter. -Tina Anderson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gynocrat (talk • contribs) 21:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion and poll on reviewer usergroup criteria
You may be interested in a discussion and poll I've started to decide the criteria that will be used for promoting users to the reviewer group at Wikipedia talk:Reviewers - please put your comments there. AndrewRT(Talk) 17:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Already done :) --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

File:US_incarceration_timeline-clean.svg
This graph is misleading at best without any comparison to the population growth. Even better would be a graph of the rate of incarceration: ideally separate plots for the rates of several age brackets. 216.80.135.50 (talk) 06:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, that was some time ago. I didn't actually make the graph, I just cleaned up from File:US incarceration timeline.gif, which was directly connecting it to the "War on Drugs". I don't mind if you change it, replace it or remove it from the article all together. Graphs can be very misleading. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

AWB regexes
That looks to work. With comics, I think we'd rather use issue over No., so I assume I'd just change NO. to issue in the script. AWB has a regex find and replace that I'll look at, but this system looks snazzy enough for the minute. Thank you. Hiding T 09:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll check with Tony as to what style is better, but thank you ever so much. Hiding T 11:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Seriously
You want to RfC an administrator from that thread? Go ahead; I'll certify. Durova 320 20:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think if administrator(s) are found to have abused their trust to help someone deceive the community, then it warrants looking into. I have never seen user RFCs used for anything other than preparing for an arbitration request, and I'm not planning to file one. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Then it's unhelpful to suggest at ANI that a collapsed thread swept something under the rug. Either you're willing to help the system work or not, but implications of preferential treatment are pointless if you refuse to take any step to correct the perceived propblem.  Durova  320 20:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So a formal RFC is the only way to discuss something? Shouldn't there be a more detailed complaint and evidence before starting an RFC? Btw, was your initial message here supposed to be sarcastic or not? I am unsure when i look at it again. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Normally one begins at user talk; three user talk histories are worth reading from today. The offer is perfectly serious.  See where else it's posted.  And I'm not one for bureaucracy.  If RfC were merely a stepping stone to RFAR then a stepping stone to the stepping stone would be too many frog leaps.  Durova  320 21:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I misunderstood you at first. I will keep an eye on this. Perhaps I should start keeping files on people here so have the evidence ready when it's needed... --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts..
The other side of the issue.. how do we deal with the non-admin disruptors who rack up hundreds of socks? How do we nail shut the revolving door? SirFozzie (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Do we want Wikipedia to be editable by the public? Then we will just have to deal with the problems and mitigate them if we can. It's worked for years and I see no sign of it getting worse, on the contrary I never stumble across vandalism any more. Also, non-insider serial disruptors are not really related to the Law/Undertow case. Actually, I'm open to automatically letting any blocked or banned user back in after six months. I'd rather deal with them twice per year than randomly under new names. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Finell's statement at the Law case
Although I certainly wasn't happy to hear about it, thank you for pointing out my blunder. I corrected my statement in the RfAr and posted a notice on the talk page. Finell (Talk) 22:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Boba Phat
Hi Apoc2400,

You question the notability of Boba Phat, (and yes I have 3rd party links I can reference, albeit the links are nobody of significance, just some YouTube convention attendees referring to him as an A-List Cosplayer, which he is.)

EVERY single reference provided is ACCURATE and expresses his notability among common cosplayers alike as well as a multitude of celebrities. Additionally, this past week alone he was featured in 2 print publications - Long Beach Press Telegram as well as the Daily Titan, along side his numerous online media sources. He is recognized at EVERY Comic Con & Star Wars event. His links are NOT just FICKR, Facebook & YouTube - there are a myriad of first-rate news sources who additionally address him as notable, including the LA Times, LB Post, Long Beach Press Telegram, SeattlePI, Metromix, Casey Pugh (creator of Vimeo), The Daily Titan, The Craig Ferguson Show, + more.

Additionally, he has been interviewed & will be a feature in Lucasfilm's upcoming Star Wars fan movie, as well as is presently featured in a documentary called Crashing the Con which is available for purchase through Amazon. Boba Phat makes NO MONEY off of this; he was featured simply due to his notability as an underground icon. He is also scheduled to be featured in the next issue of Star Wars Insider as he was interviewed & photographed at the latest Long Beach Comic Con for the article due to his recognizability among the copsplayer scene. Every single reference cited will take you to a link expressing his notability. There should be no issue here whatsoever. As soon as that issue hits stands, it will be referenced here.

As far as his relationship to Miss Clit, the same person worked on both Wikis, and she (myself - though I had a subjective 3rd party write the wiki) is notable as well, perhaps to a lesser degree, but still worthy of publicity, as she attracts crowds to Blowfly shows. Headlining with the the original inventor of rap music & multiple award-winning artist, as well as being a fixture on several of his top albums should easily convey her notability as well.

If there is anything specific you require - links or photos of the print articles or what not, please advise & I will gladly provide. Thank you for taking the time to address this. SheighZam (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SheighZam (talk • contribs) 07:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, after a response by Vyvyan Basterd, I agreed with his questionability as Miss Clit leaving the page open for vandalism & defamation. I will not fight that should you deem it worthy of deletion, although I AM noteworthy in that sense. However, I am adamant about Boba Phat's notoriety; and if you are familiar in any way with the Star Wars, Comics or Cosplayer scene, it is crystal clear that he is a recognized fixture. I have uploaded 3 additional 3rd party media sources to help validate. Additionally when Star Wars Insider & the Lucasfilm movie debuts, there will be no question whatsoever regarding his notability among that scene, albeit a niche scene. I simply ask for you to please review the recent changes & remove the deletion tag in the public spectrum. If you Google Boba Phat (or pimp boba, leisure suit boba, ettc) you will see that besides Wiki, Boba Phat does come up on 7 of the top 10 organic links from ndependent sources from both media as well as celebrities mentioning that they are excited to have met HIM!

Please reconsider removal of the deletion tag based on what I have just uploaded & until the newest articles/films are released.

Very Best, Shannnon SheighZam (talk) 09:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Kari Ferrell (2nd nomination)
Hi, Apoc2400. Because you participated in Articles for deletion/Kari Ferrell, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Kari Ferrell (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 08:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC
Thanks for the comment! Would it be possible to specify which proposal you're opposed to? The RfC was intended to determine whether Benjiboi's version should be retained or whether work should continue on Paid editing (policy). Any thoughts are welcome. --TeaDrinker (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I clarified that I meant Paid editing (policy). Thanks. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I appreciate it.  --TeaDrinker (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

David O. Carter
Hi. I have answered your intervention at. I you find the time, please confirm whether you also believe there are more problems with this list than what I felt I had to mention at first. This problem may even have to be brought to the attention of the Obama Article Watchdog, as both Taitz and Kreep seem to be envisaging more law suits, with potential fall-outs like this. Obviously, nothing can now be done for this fellow at the moment (talking about blogs, on non-birther blogs it has already been said that he will have to change his name) and the "US Marshals" will probably be extra careful now in the wake of Carter's decision, but we need some clear policy on this kind of lists, to ensure that the possible advantages of just spreading information weigh up to the risk of ever increasing lists of possible targets as more and more of these suits get dismissed for lack of standing or justiciability. Thanks for your attention, anyway. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 13:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

DJ Heavygrinder
Thank you! At least one person has favorable consideration with the article that I made. I wish the others would give it a chance.(LonerXL (talk) 01:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC))

AfD nomination of Bose wave systems
An article that you have been involved in editing, Bose wave systems, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Symbols of Oregon
Would you care to follow up on this nomination by nominating the other 49+ categories? It's been months since this one was deleted and it's the only state without such a category. You said something like "mass AfD's are messy", but it makes no sense to delete just the one. I may ask for a deletion review rather than initiate the mass AfD myself, if you don't want to. I agree that having the cat on "Pear", "Milk", etc. was overkill, which might be why it came to your attention in the first place, so I think the community should reexamine this. Cheers, Katr67 (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Bump. Katr67 (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

re : Heartless Bitches International
History restored as per request! :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 11:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Kayendo
Hi Apoc,

Looks like a great start to the article to me. I'm glad you wrote it; I had thought about doing it, but had never gotten around to it. There is some information on the Carabane article which could be included on the Kajandu article as well; feel free to use the same citation information. I'd also recommend adding the article to categories, such as Category:Mechanical hand tools, Category:Agriculture in Senegal, and Category:Rice production. Out of curiosity, if you didn't find out about the kayendo via the Carabane article, what caused you to write an article about it? There aren't any other articles that link to it at present.

Neelix (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Admins and a "free life"
Saw your comment regarding the above in the Shankbone thread on AN. Amen, and amen. I've always noticed that if an admin does something that would get a regular editor blocked or banned, the worst that would happen is he loses the bit. Doing both is considered "double jeopardy." Seeing Chillum casually confirm it irked me. This situation seems to have gotten much worse in the past year, or maybe I'm just paying more attention lately. What do you think? Auntie E. 18:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it has been like this for long, but I also only really followed the past year. I think we are seeing a lot of conflicts involving admins this year, largely because the various factions are taking on each other. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Rules, appellate jurisdiction, and power
Who said anything about rules? Certainly not me, I use the terms "judgment" and "discretion" frequently for a reason. The problem you describe is the problem with every decision making system involving human beings. Even science journals. From what I hear, especially science journals. "Power" as you mention above, that combination of prestige, respect, likability, inertia, is inevitable, and is not destroyed by any system, however cleverly designed. It is also seldom insurmountable, especially if those with power don't have weapons. (Literal weapons, like guns, and bombs, or even a sharpened stick) On Wikipedia all "power" is, is another hurdle to overcome with sufficient persuasion, a power your yourself have. Changing the system will not change that basic fact, it can only shift power in varying directions. That is sometimes a good thing, certainly, but it isn't a panacea.

As for the "lower" court, here we are, I'm the judge. You and the other community members who show up make up the appellate division. Creating and formalizing structures and only creates more power - that of position. Who do you think will benefit?

As for the punishment/prevention thing, someone, I believe it was User:Chicken Wing once pointed out that the non-Wikipedia jargon use of the term "punishment" includes prevention as one of its utilitarian goals, and our policy reflects the utilitarian theory of punishment in calling it "prevention." Be careful what you suggest too: it sounds great and theory, but how is it executed, or if need be enforced? Since the comparison with actual real life courts is inevitable, lets point out what Wikipedia does not, should not, and cannot have: power, or more accurately, a form, legitimate or otherwise, of violence. We do not, for example, have the power of a subpoena, to compel truthful testimony on pain of incarceration. A decision, even one found with the genuine and full consensus of the community cannot force any administrator to do anything. We have no final judgments to bind courts of law, nor can we order the sheriff of a county to sieze property to execute judgments, nor order the executive branch to imprison or execute felons. All we have are a bunch of website users with different levels of access to that website's functions and data. There is a reason that Wikipedia is not an experiment in governance other than the fact its an encyclopedia: its also an impossible task to do as a website.--Tznkai (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking it here. No system of people is ever perfect, but that shouldn't stop us making it as good as possible. There are certainly more or less bad decision making systems, and Wikipedia is not the first large organization in history. A good system is designed to minimized the problems caused by people putting cliqishness and bigotry over doing what is right.


 * Of course, any power in Wikipedia only applies here. Anyone is always free to just walk away forget about it all.


 * There are huge differences between a "lower court" and the court of whoever cares to show up comment.
 * Any kind of court has to allow the parties to state their positions. On noticeboards, unpopular points are frequently shouted down, threads closed arbitrarily etc.
 * A court has to look at evidence. At ANI, unpopular users can be banned over almost nothing, can fully legitimate complaints against "higher" users are often brushed off if they fail to ignite outrage and drama.
 * A lower court would judge similarly to the higher court or it would get overturned often. Noticeboard discussions often reach very different results than an ArbCom case would. ANI tends to punish those who have made many angry and have few friends willing to defend them. ArbCom on the other hand is much more strict about evidence and consistency.
 * Court members feel a responsibility to be impartial and reach the right result. If ArbCom makes bad judgments they will be criticized for it. Nobody gets in trouble for being partisan an a noticeboard.
 * Members of any kind of court are permanent or chosen randomly. Your enemies cannot easily stuff ArbCom to have you banned, like they can on ANI.
 * Court members are expected to recuse from cases involving people they on good or bad terms with. Not so on noticeboards.


 * Formalized power if often much better than informal power, because those with formal power can be held responsible. There is a good essay about it, The Tyranny of Structurelessness, that I think has been discussed on Wikipedia before. In my opinion, Wikipedia's unwillingness to formalize what already exists informally and admit that some original principles have failed is what prevents us from improving. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Apoc, your criticism holds a measure of merit. In some ways it dovetails with things I tried to do years ago.  Please take this as constructive criticism: it makes the opinion appear lightweight rather than serious to express as witty sound bites in the middle of a long and difficult discussion.  The three situations that were under discussion were only superficially comparable, and there have been instances (Eyrian comes to mind) where admin socking does cause both desysop and siteban at the same time.  A closer look into these matters and a willingness to seek and accept counterexamples would become your intelligence better; you're a smart cookie.  Durova  371 19:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, Durova, I understand you didn't appreaciate a snide comment in the middle of a discussion.--Apoc2400 (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think bad formalization is far worse than the informal power structure we have here. Your bullet point list is full of statements that I am sad to say, are not actually true. "Any kind of court has to allow the parties to state their positions." they don't. Often, they should, because we have a broad expectation they do, but there is nothing that forces them to do so. Not to mention courts can do things like outright dismiss cases they're uninterested in. Or courts that are considerably less concerned with due process than the (I believe) common law courts that you are familiar with.
 * I do however, broadly agree with your criticisms of ANI and its culture, I just disagree that formalization (and what seems to be formalization of some sort of due process model) is the solution. If anything, what we need to do is create a culture and then formalize it, not the other way around. I'd rather give the power where it already lies, with administrators, but also shackle them with responsibility for their judgement, instead of letting them push it off on the community. I've written some thoughts on the matter at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava_Rima_restrictions/Workshop, you might want to add yours.--Tznkai (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, bad formalization is bad. As you said, the court analogy can only be carried so far. A court can dismiss a case, but at least then their members can be criticized for it. I still think that sometimes formalized procedure leads to culture, not the other way around. When is comes to sanctions against a person with many enemies and/or friend, then free-for-all "discussion" will never have good results. I will read your proposal. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Boiling down to brass tacks then, I think you're suggesting that the flaw with the AN, ANI system is that no one becomes responsible and criticized for bad decisions?--Tznkai (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, is is at least a major point. That and the complete lack of safeguards against playing favors, old grudges, and applying the rules that give the result one wants rather than fairly. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  Zoo Fari  05:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Fatost
Hej, dina bilder på fatost ser onekligen läckra ut! Om du ville dela med dig av just ditt recept vore jag mycket tacksam, då de recept jag använt mig av inte alls resulterat i lika fina ostar. Maila mig gärna på [filtered] Tack på förhand!

Hälsningar, Jonathan i Huddinge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.160.111 (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Tackar! Jag skickade receptet. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing on image File:Jätten Vist copy.JPG
The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking this :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)