User talk:Cool Hand Luke/Archive 8

US-Airport Template
Please see the US-Airport Template's talk page. Thank you. - Neilh89 (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for promptly fixing the Media Lens copy/paste move. NSH001 (talk) 06:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

List of scientist opposing ....global warming..
Why was this article semi-protected and why can I not edit it? -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 17:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Kosha
Thankyou. Redheylin (talk) 04:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Flote Yor Bote...
is also a sockpuppet of Scibaby, per newly blocked User:Yidle's logs. Just wondering, are you watching Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Scibaby (I forget how to link categories right now) ? Jason Patton (talk) 03:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh! Blocked. I'm watching the global warming pages because I unprotected all of them. Don't have a lot of experience blocking users, but this looks like Scibaby. I didn't know such things would be publicly logged. Thanks! Cool Hand Luke 03:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I remember Raul mentioning that Scibaby often uses one account to create more accounts, so the logs of the suspected sockpuppets are always a good place to check. Jason Patton (talk) 04:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste move repair requests

 * In Cut and paste move repair holding pen, please move from section New requests to section Completed requests those requests which you have obeyed, and put the marker
 * at the end. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please. again. I had to move the Sawar Muhammad Hussain request to the "completed" section for you. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please. again. I had to move the Sawar Muhammad Hussain request to the "completed" section for you. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Your editing of William Gray article
Hi - I think you're mistaken on several issues regarding betting and Bill Gray. You said the sources aren't third-party, but they are. As to whether Gray made the bet offer, you can listen to him yourself at the link. As to whether an ad was placed accepting the offer, it's there in the newspaper. The ad is a RS as to whether an ad was placed in a newspaper accepting Gray's offer, and that is all the ad is used for in the section. You referred to Gray "refusing" to take bets and the section didn't say that - only that he offered and someone (me) accepted. And yes, if I had merely publicly accepted Gray's bet offer on my blog it would have been edited from the article, so while I think my blog would have been just a RS for showing someone had publicly accepted Gray's publicly-made offer, the inflexible rules of wikipedia as they are applied required a different approach that I was willing to take for other reasons.

And while I'm not allowed to document this by WP standards, I've been in email communication with Gray - he's serious about betting and I think we're close to an agreement. In other words, nothing about this section is controversial. So, I wish you would reconsider, since your saying that I am attempting to manipulate the system is not well-received on my end, either.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 05:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This should be discussed on the article talk page so that others can comment. I've posted it and my response there. Cool Hand Luke 06:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni di Stefano
You're an experienced editor and administrator - does this make sense, when there is no source to back it up? Especially considering Enric pointed out shortly afterwards that the "dismissal" if it occurred happened years later? Removing the name of the journalist when the article is linked doesn't allay the BLP concern. This article calls for an extreme level of care, please keep that in mind. Avruch 17:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Requests for comment/GoRight
Thanks for your kind words about my comments. I'd disagree, though. I'm not convinced that GoRight was, exactly, baiting WMC, he was, more accurately, confronting some clear double standards. The edits which got him blocked for harassment were echoes of what WMC had said, and which had been supported by, as I recall, Schulz. Whether it was true or not, those comments were set up, GoRight just noticed it and said it, violating User:Abd/Rule 0. I'd call it uncivil, but on a scale not worse than what had preceded it, and certainly, because of it's mirror nature, more just.

I've tried to reach out to Connolley, but he rejected it, which is sad. I suspect that he's a good man who has fallen into some bad company. (Maybe they are all good men who have fallen into a bad constellation, some pattern that reinforces the worst aspects of the way they are working here.) The incivility serves no obvious good purpose from any POV except one that would hate the project to be successful, and I'm sure that's not Connolley's POV.

In any case, I have not denied the uncivil aspects of GoRight's edits, I've merely noted that they are easily explainable as a natural response to what clearly appeared to him to be an abusive cabal, and what he was seeing confirmed what was in the Solomon source. I believe that he is now able to see beyond that, and that he's learned to not make accusations that involve assumptions of bad faith. I draw a distinction between noting a reasonable suspicion that something is off, and claiming that it is off. I might note that a user shows characteristics of a block-evading sock, but I won't claim that the user is a block-evading sock unless I'm prepared to back it up with sufficiently solid evidence. I'll only state the former, as well, the suspicion, if the suspicion is clearly reasonable, so I'd just be stating the obvious, which sometimes must be said.

And that's how I've treated sock puppetry charges against me: if there was some reasonable basis, not matter how shallow, I didn't charge abusive SSP filing. GoRight clearly went too far, but he didn't keep it up. Meanwhile, he was blocked in outrageous violation of block policy, and I'm mulling over whether or not I should do anything about that. Baley has denied that there was any error in the block, and this is what actually might make it necessary to go for an RfC. It's pretty clear, it's not marginal. But, of course, RfC isn't the first step. The first step would be something like what I just did on User talk:William M. Connolley. The next step, for me, would be to attempt to identify someone Connolley might trust, to give him a friendly nudge. Has to be a friend, not merely an ally.--Abd (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, I'm very aware of the double standard. I was involved in an ArbCom where the right-wing equivalent of WMC was run out of town by then-arbitrator Raul, who justified his position by quoting 101 People Who Are Really Screwing America.
 * That said, do take a look at ATren's talk page; I agree with his remarks there. Some editors (and POVs) are more equal than others. If GoRight wants to affect change for the better, his behavior must be beyond reproach. It was not in this case, and I sincerely hope that he does better in the future.
 * It's true that the others might have been behaving "worse," but when edit-warring users lob credible-sounding claims of abuse at each other, the senior users usually win. GoRight should conduct himself more carefully, focused on the content, and never the contributer. If he does that, then the abuses around him might be given a closer look.
 * For what it's worth, I've found WMC to be a very reasonable editor. We've disagreed on BLPs (where I think editors have sometimes gone too far in denouncing "deniers"). However, I honestly agree with his POV on global warming, so have never bumped into him on straight-GW pages, or anywhere else. However, from what I've seen, he is willing to abide by consensus against him, and he is less likely that most editors to edit war. These are my opinions.
 * I also believe your observations here are perceptive and accurate. Keep up the good work. Cool Hand Luke 02:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Mostly done with construction of Latter Day Saint polygamy in the late 19th century, could use your help
Per the restructuring initiative, I have finished my first cut at the new article Latter Day Saint polygamy in the late 19th century, and could really use some help in filling out the content for things that I have missed, and general wiki style article revision. There are also two sections that I don't have as much info on right now, (you will see them towards the end of the article) which, again, I could use some help filling out. --Descartes1979 (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Weird
I've got to put the kids to bed, but something very strange just happened. Edit history for Naomi Orestes was mentioned in a new Solomon editorial at, so I decided to look at the article. Gone. Red link. Tried again in a couple of minutes, still gone, Talk page was still there. Then it suddenly reappeared. I'm suspecting somebody, admin or higher privilege, was scrubbing the history, deleting revisions. Got a clue? --Abd (talk) 23:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Did Solomon misspell it? Her name is Naomi Oreskes, the t version is a redirect - seems Uncle Ed misspelled it when he started the article back on 21 july '06. The correct k article was started the previous day by User:Sln3412, not sure why you got a red link? Nothing shows up in the page logs. Admin or higher ... scrubbing history... - gee, neat conspiracy theory fun :-) Vsmith (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC


 * No, he spelled it correctly. I mispelled it, and so when I put it above, I saw no redlink because of the redirect. I'm pretty sure why I got a red link. I was reading the Talk page and looked up and the article page was a redlink. Pretty striking, never saw that before except for a deleted article. So somebody deleted it, for at least a few minutes, and I'd loaded Talk from a search. I tried a couple of times, no page. Then it was back. Nothing in the page log. There might be legitimate reasons for scrubbing history, by the way. It's also something that WP critics claim to have documented, on occasion. It can be done, there are people with that level of database access. Question is, what edits was Solomon talking about? It may be time to search for a mirror copy. Yes. Conspiracy theory. Damn! I hate conspiracy theories. But if one bonks me over the head, what am I going to do? Pretend it's an acorn? --Abd (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The conflict Solomon refers to happened around April 11, 2008, if you want to find it in the history. ATren (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had googled "Connolley Peisers crap" coming up with nothing, but it turns out to be an edit summary: "(→Science and society essay: Peisers crap shouldn't be in here, and nor should the blatantly partisan "fact"-of-the-day)" It looks like the dispute is still there, but ... that article really did have problems! Full of OR or synthesis; seemed to alternate edits between biased one way and biased the other. Current article is biased, I'd say, because it gives content from the famous or infamous article, without noting criticism of it. Connolley's edit was problematic. Connolley, as an administrator, edited the article while protected to a preferred version. This, then, could be what Solomon meant when he wrote "used his authority."
 * 14:53, 12 April 2008 Article protected
 * 21:36, 12 April 2008 Connolley removes "Peisers crap"[]
 * 15:21, 13 April 2008.
 * I think what must be seen is that Solomon's criticism at isn't without any basis, there is reason for concern. It's complicated, I'm going to create a page on it, User:Abd/Solomon on Oreskes. I still don't have a clue what that redlink was about. It's just something to keep in mind as I look over the history.

Hope you don't mind...
I fixed this. :-) ATren (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of apartheid deletion notification
Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Chinese apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

David Berlinski
Luke, Thank you for taking the time to view the recent exchanges on the David Berlinski page and offering your comments. While I don't agree with your assessment, I do appreciate that you at least did what you could to offer a 3rd party view. Frankly, I am frustrated because, rather than having the spirit of cooperation that I expect from WP:Users, Hrafn is uncivil, rude and belittling in his comments. He simply deletes or reverts everything I write because he doesn't agree with it. I have repeatedly asked for his assistance to reword things in a manner that he would find acceptable, but rather than do that he hides behind the various various WP policies in a facade of upright behavior. Don't misunderstand, I am all for the WP policies. But they should be applied equally, which they are not on this page. Also, everything works better in a spirit of cooperation. Don't you agree? At any rate, thanks again for doing what you felt you could. - DannyMuse (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

My RFC
I was looking over my RFC and I noticed that you had made a comment while endorsing one of the views, here. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that so I was wondering if you might clarify it? --GoRight (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Even though you could have e-mailed a more subtle declaration, you are a smart guy and I recognize that you left a message on User:A Knavish Bonded that wasn't transmitted privately through e-mail on purpose. I will surmise my own ideas, but hopefully you and I are square. I do not think you are enemy, you are welcome to partake in issues contending with me, and I am glad I wrote that apology to you and User:THF. Cheers. David --David Shankbone  06:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yoo article reverts
Regarding your reversion of my edit on John Yoo, respectfully, I don't understand how something can be WP:SYN, especially straightforwardly so, when there are no conclusions drawn.

The rationale of the footnote was this: 1. The quotation obliquely refers ("acting within the scope of his or her authority") to the concept of the immunity of government personnel acting in their official capacity using a phrase only used in the statutory language of the Westfall Act. (If you want to look up the act, it's online at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/2679.html - specifically section D. 2.)

2. Due to the choice of the speaker using the actual language of the statute (for rhetorical reasons), the concept behind the quotation might not be apparent to readers who haven't had the opportunity to read the Westfall Act, or investigate the concept of "official capacity" vs. "individual capacity". (I'm sure Mr. Yoo, as well as other DOJ officials, have read the Westfall Act, and would understand the quote; that's probably why it was used.)

3. Rather than stating this in a drawn out footnote, which would definitely be WP:OR, I linked to other articles so that the reader could better understand the concept behind the phrase, and maybe learn what this means.

That's why I had the footnote there. If you still feel that it is SYN, I won't cause a scene, but I'd like to understand your rationale. Katana0182 (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikidea
It seems that Wikidea didn't take to heart your advice to cool down, since he continued to insult me using edit summaries (his latest – I wrote it you moron). He seems to have serious WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL issues, and I'm not sure how to proceed with this. -- Vision Thing -- 15:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

My comment for GoRight RfC
I have finished revising my comment at Requests for comment/GoRight. I promised that I would notify those who endorsed my comment so they would have an opportunity to revise their comments. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 03:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Re Gary Weiss unprotection
Sure, if it seems stable. I would comment that there was no evidence of edit warring because the article was effectively owned by a small group of editors who succesfully removed any other contributor from the community... allegedly. ;~) Do you wish me to do the sprotect, or will you handle it? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I note that after I commented here I got another message on my talkpage in respect of the above. Perhaps you would wish to discuss this with Janeyran? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Preemptive explanation of NOINDEX
MediaWiki now includes a feature to keep pages from being indexed by search engines. The magic word for doing this has been incorporated into Template:NOINDEX so that nonindexed pages can be tracked. Thousands of pages are now listed, but as of this moment, only three are from the article space, and I just added one of them myself.

While I don't think that many pages should be noindexed, we should delist low-profile BLPs that have a history of abuse. To those ends, I am scouring the whole history of WP:BLP/N. All of the articles will be listed in my subpage /BLPs for NOINDEX, and I will link to and remove indexing from pages I deem low-profile. Feel free to challenge my categorizations, but I think that this is the only ethical choice when considering articles with a real history of abuse. Cool Hand Luke 23:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * NOINDEX doesn't work in the article namespace (see Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Technology report or look for the  tag in the HTML source). And IMHO there are good reasons for that.
 * However I think it's very useful for talk pages and I would like to encourage you in that respect. Btw on the German Wikipedia all article talk pages were noindexed in 2006, after a poll . Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's disappointing. I think it would be a good way to avoid causing living people damage while refusing to compromise our own editorial independence. Cool Hand Luke 18:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Brigham Young article protection
With respect, I think you moved a little too fast on locking down the article Brigham Young. The last revert by User:Jgstokes was not a true revert from the previous edit. Compare his last two reverts, and my comments on his talk page. Jgstokes is a little over zealous at times, but I think the editing is still civil at this point. But perhaps you know something I don't...--Descartes1979 (talk) 05:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

PDs1000
Thanks for blocking PDs1000. Judging by the edit to my user page, may be another account. —KCinDC (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the deletion of your talk page comments was just a mistake (he doesn't seem to be that familiar with Wikipedia custom, as his replying on my user page indicates), but the abusive language probably justifies a short-term block. —KCinDC (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

List of new Religous Movements
I'd like for you to take a look at the proposal I made for the list on it's talk page. Adding citations and changed the header section to more accurately reflect academia with citations for each entry. Thanks Groupsisxty (talk) 04:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin wheel war case request for evidence
Copying this to all admins who applied or extended protection on the Sarah Palin article.

To date there's been plenty of evidence pointing to discussions and otherwise offering commentary on the admin actions taken, but there's been little covering the circumstances prior to admin actions, namely the edits that the admins concerned based protection on. Newyorkbrad has put a question to the parties on this basis, but it seems to be only non-parties that have noticed that so far, so I'm putting this question to those involved directly.

Rootology has made a start here, and GRBerry has started drafting in his userspace. Ye might like to assist them in their efforts, or add a section of your own. This evidence will be vital in assisting the Committee's understanding of not only what happened and when, but why it happened. --bainer (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that this user has been banned as an apparent sockpuppet.
I'm having trouble understanding the comment that you left on the List of new religious movements talk page. Who does it refer to, and how does a banned sockpuppet manage to put comments on talk pages? Thanks. Mmyotis (^^o^^)  01:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Utah Wikipedia Meetup
--Admrb♉ltz (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC) via AWB

Using boxes in talk pages
Hi,

I think your use of the 'hat' boxes is inappropriate on the Deletionpedia talk pages. They're a matter of opinion (as there is no ban on re-nominating a page on AfD after it fails an AfD vote) and you're not signing them; and the use of the official-looking box makes it look like official policy. Please just write text and sign it like every other editor.

Regards, Tempshill (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand the motive, but the hat is still inappropriate - you could communicate the same message without the hat. Tempshill (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't see some riot of discussion that required clamping down on discussion. Please stop using hats for this purpose.  It's not just me complaining about it, as evidenced by that other user that inserted comments after each of your hats, explaining that they were inappropriate.  Tempshill (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If a half-dozen comments located on the wrong page are enough to tilt your personal meter into a need to self-appoint yourself as the Global Wikipedia Police, then at least please phrase the hat to be informational ("The recent vote ending September 20 was KEEP") rather than ordering people what to do under false color of authority ("The deletion discussion is CLOSED and this article is being KEPT, so there is NO REASON to continue supporting or opposing deletion."). Thanks - Tempshill (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Representation
With respect I don't agree. I not interested in personalities, Luke, I'm interested in the article improving. I'm still waiting for replies to my comments. You're just jumping on the bandwagon now, because you're not interested in the article either. Well done mate, you're a real trooper for improving Wikipedia. I restate, I think that Sandy is being a spoil sport because it did not pass with her explicit endorsement to begin with. I think it is unfair to post messages and then take no notice of the effort that people go to reply. You can shove your trout where the sun don't shine.  Wik idea  12:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Discourtesy
Your impudence is quite breathtaking.  Wik idea  10:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Marlins Ballpark
Thanks for history merging the Marlins Ballpark edits. It looks like one ended up in the wrong place though. The content moved to Marlins Stadium should be merged into Marlins Ballpark Thanks Cmjc80 (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom amendment request
I've opened a request for an amendment to the Mantanmoreland ArbCom case based on today's Register story. Cla68 (talk) 02:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind . Cla68 (talk) 03:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Unwatched pages
I replied at Wikipedia talk:Special:UnwatchedPages. To be honest, the Bugzilla stuff confuses me, so thanks for pointing this out. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Page history merge for Ástor Piazzola International Airport
Thanks for your speedy assistance with merging the page history of Brigadier General Bartolomé de la Colina International Airport into Ástor Piazzola International Airport. -- Zyxw (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks!
Just wanted to say thanks for your contributions on the September Six article. Your experience is appreciated and I'm impressed with how well you've been able to research that article. Tedder (talk) 00:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

3RR
You said removing my block was convincing, except for this edit:

(Modified article so that the words "artscroll" and "sect of Judaism" and its related content are not found in this version at all to help end disputes. Please explain if unacceptable. Thanks! :))

I ask you out of all sincerity: since when is it an edit war to make a change that ACQUIESCES to the demands of the other party in a dispute and change the article that is acceptable to THEM (which they kept reverting without cause until I asked them to actually READ the change - even going so far as to make a note that my reverts were meeting their demand, and then when they finally did read the change they were blindly reverting, they actually agreed with it)? For that is what you said was "unconvincing" that this was not an edit war?!? What logic are you using friend? I thought making changes to reach consensus, to end a dispute, was what was constructive. Instead I get revert warned (without cause) and you declined my unban request for this same reason? Please help me understand what on earth I did wrong to prevent this from happening again. If an editor doesn't like a change, and I make a change back removing the disputed content in order to appease them, and they revert that change blindly without reading it until the third time, do you and other admins have to lay the law down hard and fast and punish those trying to make an effort at building consensus? This whole thing has left a bad taste in my mouth for working with wikipedia on disputed articles again. inigmatus (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, "I should have started talking well before (my) fourth revert?" Ok, so what is: ,,,, and, all of this "talk" which is well after (which has a wonderful note to the other editors as well), and very much well before what you call my "fourth revert" here:  (to which after talking on talk, her user talk, and another user's talk, did I finally get the bright idea that she's only reading the article history log, so I wrote "edited out Artscroll" in an attempt that the other editor would actually read what all these "reverts" are which was nothing less than a total appeasement of the situation to her demand that "artscroll" be removed - which it was from the very beginning but assumed it wasn't - in other words, she wasn't READING talk, so I did the next best thing: make a "revert" with a NOTE that she would actually read? Since when is this wrong? Or did all this miss the admin's attention when they banned me, and miss your attention as well when you declined unbanning? inigmatus (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism
Frequent disputes over the article lead have left me wondering how best to approach the situation. For example, a source called "Artscroll" and a phrase "sect of Judaism" were removed by another editor according to consensus in Talk, but one editor assumes I am simply reverting to a disputed version without reading my changes which had nothing to do with the disputed source and phrase. I leave messages on her talk page, and in the article talk and revert back her removal telling her no such disputed content is found in the changes to the article and for her to point it out. She reverts the first revert and a second with an explanation that has nothing to do with the reverted material, and posts a threat for 3RR and then just posts a 3RR warning on my discussion page, leaving no message as to what her dispute is. I then get this big idea that she is not even reading her talk page or other talk pages, and I decide to "edit" the article again making note in the edit summary (again) that the phrase "sect of Judaism" is NOT found anywhere in edit at all. She gets banned, and I get banned for "edit warring."

Then today, I post in the article's talk page requesting feedback to correct a source's quoted paragraph (actually its my fourth such request by now without response) by copy-pasting it from the Google books source. I then edit and correct the article's quoted source to match the exact Google book source, and yet a different editor reverts my change, assuming I'm "edit warring" without actually reading the edit I made, nor even bothering to respond to my post for feedback on the article's talk page. He assumes I'm edit warring and reverts all my changes, then totally ignores my objections to the inaccuracy of the source and just posts a new section saying he's tired of "Edit warring!" In fact, both of these editors are doing this to me, leaving me without a way to constructively add or correct content to the article - EVEN WHEN I POST IN TALK. I feel as if I am being harassed and railroaded by these non-Messianic Jewish editors into not being able to contribute to the article constructively, and I need advice on how best to garner support for constructive editing of the article without violating WP policies, and maintaining good faith both of these other editors. inigmatus (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!
For this comment. I just noticed it, and really appreciate it.

By the way, re your mention of SPOV on your user page: You may be right. However, determining for which things SPOV is NPOV, and determining what exactly SPOV is for some things, is not always simple. Greetings from another scientist, ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I agree with you on both points. I guess I have a particular interpretation on SPOV. We don't tolerate Star Wars articles written as if they were history. In a similar way, we shouldn't write articles on fringe scientific views as if they were fact. However, it's important to give an NPOV perspective of fringe science, with identifiable proponents. Views shouldn't be excluded or railed against; they should just be put into the proper context. We say "in the Star Wars universe," and we should similarly say "according to homeopaths." Cool Hand Luke 23:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Your RFAR responses
Here, I presume you meant "steward" rather than "'crat" (and if you meant the latter, you probably need to elaborate). As well, was the omission of any voter qualification in your recall criteria intentional? Generally, though, I like what I see. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Before Lar pointed it out to me, my admin recall criteria had the result of a "successful" recall bid being a request for a 'crat to desysop me. Which would have been an excellent loophole - makes me wish I'd kept it.  As for voter qualification, anything you come up with is going to be arbitrary - I'd say yours is fine.  Maybe a little higher than it needs to be solely to keep out SPAs, but there might be merit to that. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi. Most of my edits now are minor fixes. I don't have that much time to do stuff on wikipedia anymore. I wish I did. Student days are over :). BigBen212 (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Retrospective support for adminship
Thank you very much for your comment on my talk page. I appreciate it very much and I will continue to work to further gain your trust in my role as administrator. Cirt (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure
No problem. Thanks for looking into it also. Mackan79 (talk) 04:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
I am very grateful that you corrected the cut and paste move of the Nyx article. Thanks for taking the time to perform that rather annoying-looking procedure. Blue Danube (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Your candidacy
The committee and the elections are not usually an interest of mine, but I agree 100% with your assessment of what needs doing at ArbCom. You've got my vote friend. Thanks for clear and concise thinking on the matter. Steven Walling (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you running for ArbCom? You have my vote as well.  --David Shankbone  01:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Mine also... but while I'm here, could you clarify what kind of copyvios we oversight... I wasn't aware that this is done. ("Oversight is an important function to protect privacy and flagrant copyright violations..."). Thanks, Giggy (talk) 03:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, hadn't seen that third bullet point. *shrugs* I would prefer it if all arbitrators had oversight, but I'm not going to oppose you over that. Giggy (talk) 03:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest being a little more tentative about the Oversight pledge? Arbitrator Newyorkbrad was recently granted the Oversight flag because, although he initially—at the time of the Election—did not plan to request it due to a lack of any need for the flag, he came to find that his work as an Arbitrator required access to the Oversight log, and therefore access to the flag itself. Your Election pledge (specifically, the pledge to resign if you break any pledge—one such pledge being never requesting Oversight) will render you unable to fill this (clearly—or Brad would not have requested it, knowing him to be very honest... For a lawyer ;) important role. Thoughts? AGK 17:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Several people have raised this concern. Perhaps I underestimate how important it is for an Arbitrator to have oversight. I was initially reluctant because some have been accused of abusing the tool, and because it didn't seem like much hassle for other Arbitrators to rely the information. I'll ask NYB about it. Cool Hand Luke 18:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you mediate on Rush Limbaugh?
CHL, could you please mediate the current dispute on the Limbaugh article? There is a vast amount of blog chatter, fueled by Limbaugh and several other conservative commentators, that the Democrats are planning on taking people's 401(k)s away and dumping them into Social Security. There would be bipartisan resistance to such a proposal (including by me). However, there is no such proposal. It simply does not exist. There is testimony before a Congressional committee chaired by Representative George Miller by Teresa Ghilarducci. Her proposal has many facets, one of which is to put 401(k)s into some kind of retirement account that pays out an annuity. There has been no support for this proposal, at least not on record. But Limbaugh has seized upon this and is flatly stating that this is what the Democrats are planning to do. In his article, under "Questions about accuracy" I added one sentence with citations. It has now grown to a paragraph. In the end, there is no federal Democratic politician stating this is their desire, Ghilaruducci herself said that Rep. Miller does not support it. I've also asked User:Pete Forsyth. Mediators are needed. --David Shankbone  00:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am consistently impressed by your desire, above any political feelings you may have, for this encyclopedia to be accurate, and to find common ground. Additionally, I have a feeling that, like me, you find the distortion, rage and lies on both sides of the political spectrum about the other side to be hurtful to our national discourse.  So, your agreement makes the honor all mine.  An RfC has also begun, and I added what I think is a concise statement, with diffs to mainstream sources, of the issue. --David Shankbone  01:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Recorded debates and discussions
Candidates and the community,

Wikivoices (formally NotTheWikipediaWeekly) would be interested in making several podcasts with candidates running in the 2008 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election. Given the high number of candidates likely to be signing up during the nomination stage (likely to be around 45) it will be a very busy 2 weeks. These shows typically last about one and a half hours to record, taking into account setup time, and are recorded using the free, downloadable programme, Skype. The programme can be used on Windows, Mac OS and Linux operating systems and is also available on some mobile platforms. If any candidates have problems with installing or running the program please contact either myself at my talk page or by email

There will be 2 formats being run over the next 2 weeks. The first will be general discussion with a small number candidates at a time with several experienced hosts from Wikivoices. Each candidate will be given 2-3 minutes to introduce themselves then the main body of the cast will begin. The topics discussed will vary in each recording to ensure fairness however the atmosphere will be generally free flowing. These will be running throughout the two weeks starting tomorrow. Specific signup times can be found here at our meta page.

The second format will be based on a similar style to election debates. Questions will be suggested here by the community. A selection of these will then be put to a panel of larger panel candidates with short and concise 1-2 minute responses. Other than an introduction and hello from each candidate, there will be no opportunity for a lengthier introductions. Specific signup times can be found here at our meta page.

It is recommended that candidates attend both formats of casts and we will try to be as flexible as possible. We are looking for the greatest participation but also for shows with enough members to keep it interesting but not too many that it causes bandwidth and general running issues. I look forward to working with all candidates in the coming weeks.

01:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiVoices

Sedd&sigma;n talk Editor Review


 * Could you indicate which scheduled show youd be able to attend from the list here. There are a wide range of times available so hopefully one will suit you. Sedd&sigma;n talk Editor Review 20:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Bala railway station
Thanks for your admin work on my rather ham-fisted attempt at providing separate articles for the five stations on three sites here. I think I took on more work in the early hours than I should have done. Sorry about that. Britmax (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom Candidate Template
Hello, fellow candidate! Just so you know, in an effort to announce our candidacies and raise further awareness of the election, I have created the template ACE2008Candidate, which I would invite you to place on your user and user talk pages. The template is designed to direct users to your Questions and Discussion pages, as well as to further information about the election. Best of luck in the election! Hers fold  (t/a/c) 16:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was going to make a box, and this is very convenient. Cool Hand Luke 18:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Beangrowers.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:Beangrowers.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. , and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:
 * state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
 * add the relevant copyright tag.

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  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. &mdash; neuro(talk) 23:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As a note, this is due to your description, which has led me to believe that the permission to use this file only extends to Wikipedia. <font face="Trebuchet MS">&mdash; neuro(talk) 23:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ignore me, didn't read the upload date correctly. Sorry for the inconvienience, <font face="Trebuchet MS">&mdash; neuro(talk) 23:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

CongLinks/GovLinks
As one of those involved in Template:CongLinks, please see the discussion on Template:GovLinks (which I created to use for U.S. governors) at Templates_for_deletion. I didn't expect there to be a controversy over its existence, as I based it on CongLinks. Flatterworld (talk) 04:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Bill Wardell taken to AfD
I have removed the prod tag from Bill Wardell, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. I have nominated the article for deletion instead; the debate may be found at Articles for deletion/Bill Wardell, which overrides the need for a prod tag. I have explained my reasons for doing this in my nomination. Thanks! • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom Election - Questions
Good morning. I've posted three General Questions to your Questions for the Candidate page. With those, you now have all of the General Questions; nothing else was transcluded or moved around. Good luck with your candidacy, UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 14:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Heads up
Your plate is probably full right now with your election, but I thought I'd let you know that your good faith is being called into question by the editor in question at the Temple Lot ANI thread. Just in case you aren't following it. :) Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom questions
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article this week, and your response is requested.


 * 1) What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?
 * 2) Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
 * 3) Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
 * 4) How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year?  Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why?  Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?
 * 5) What is your opinion on confidentiality?  If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case?  Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?
 * 6) Why do you think users should vote for you?
 * 1) How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year?  Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why?  Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?
 * 2) What is your opinion on confidentiality?  If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case?  Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?
 * 3) Why do you think users should vote for you?
 * 1) Why do you think users should vote for you?
 * 1) Why do you think users should vote for you?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press on Tuesday, but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

uContribs
I moved your note up. The BIG problem with edit-counting is that it doesn't show quality. Also, the structure of my tool means that if you arrange your minor edits properly, your top articles will all be featured ;) I'll try to address that in version 0.7 (two from now), where I want to look at the actual edits - bytes-added, was-a-revert, was-reverted, links added, etc.

I did write some notes at the main page - but who reads notes anyway? :( Feel free to undo the way I moved the addition you made. Franamax (talk) 07:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom question
Replied! I'd be interested in your feedback and if you would like to ask any follow up questions. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#28c">fish &amp;<u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#D33">karate 09:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Metaguide
Thank you for the visit and the fair evaluation unlike User:Ameliorate!'s one: the incompetent and lazy voter, drama maker. I'm trying to summarize every comments from existent guides, not including mine. I have no willingness to be partial about "any candidate" but the user might've thought that the initial progressing (including only negative comments) is biased to him. But I don't know whom he is even referring to. As for the JayHenry's guide, I think I may misput a vote image. Thanks.--Caspian blue 19:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

first :-)
for what it's worth - I see you grabbed the gold as first voter this year! - I hope that's a good sign of how your election goes! I'm competing for a rather different prize, but managed to get Silver anywhoo..... good luck, and hope you're well :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Email
I left you a little note. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I left you another note. Looks like ArbCom is about to close and you are 4th. Haha, that's great. :) I thought you would be on the edge, but you surely managed to pull it off without any problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Invention promotion firm
You may wish to have a look at Talk:Invention promotion firm/Archives/2012 (after your edit last July). This comment (not especially directed to you):
 * "If you self-censor Wikipedia based on such generic allegations and threats from a person who cannot be located online, in any legal directory, or even the phone book, I would suggest that Wikipedia has little or no use to anyone. Someone posts a message and puts "Esq." after their name and you fall all over yourselves trying to "correct the record"? Be more skeptical, please!"

may deserve some considerations. Let's reintroduce the names? Cheers, --Edcolins (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Never mind the parking meters - here comes the beer

 * I think perhaps some don't realize that you don't drink :). Cla68 (talk) 00:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Late vote
I wanted to wish you luck with your candidacy. I don't think we've crossed paths, so I felt the need to do quite a bit of due diligence before voting (I've been burned in past elections). Anyhow, having done the legwork, I thought your answers to the questions were great - thoughtful and clear without stooping to pandering. The WR stuff is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. Actually, if I'd realized upfront that you'd created the Dead Milkmen article, I'd have stopped researching right there and supported you. :) Good luck. MastCell Talk 23:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Query
Your campaign literature specifically mentions being open to calls for recusal. That's highly commendable, and your proviso that you will not automatically accept calls for recusal is very sensible. A followup, if I may: If you were elected to Arbcom, would you recuse yourself from any case involving regular WR participants or critics of that site? I'm not anti-WR and do not find any of the opposes that have mentioned WR to be at all persuasive, but I'm a little concerned about the potential for favoritism or the appearance of favoritism. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to respond to my question. I appreciate it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Page lock
Sure thing, - but you understand its semi-protected, right?--Tznkai (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarification on one of your questions
In your response to Lar you list as one of the criteria for deleting BLPs on subject request as "No other encyclopedia article exists for subject (sometimes DEADTREES or "no original biographies")". I'm a bit confused by this. The DEADTREES standard is existence of a biography in a paper encyclopedia. "No original biographies" does not make the distinction of medium. Which did you intend? JoshuaZ (talk) 02:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the medium is important. Reliable online publications should certainly count. I was citing all of the names that this concept has been invoked by, and "DEADTREES" is one slogan animated by a similar goal. To me, the essential concept is that an individual is notable enough that a reliable third-party publication has written an overview of their life. Such biographies demonstrate significant notability, and they can serve as a guiding templates so that Wikipedia avoids undue weight.


 * Thanks for scrutinizing candidate questions: they take time to answer, and I'm glad they help guide voters. Cool Hand Luke 02:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * CHL, thank you for both your support, and your comment on the talk pages. It is great to know that win or lose, we all win due to the calibre of the candidates.  Good luck for the coming week. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was going to give you a barnstar for this reason. Good show. Sceptre (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom vote
You're right, I completely misunderstood your views on secrecy. The summary page I read seems to have got a few such details completely wrong, judging from the number of related messages on my talkpage! Cynical (talk) 06:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Lexus Nexus
Two articles I was using as sources for USS Iowa turret explosion have disappeared from the web. Would it be possible to see if they're available from Lexus Nexus? They are:


 * Associated Press. "Defamation suit over USS Iowa book settled", Feb 2007.
 * Vogel, Steve (2001-03-25). "I knew it was horrible", Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Cla68 (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Awsome! Thanks! If you could email me the Vogel article that would be very helpful.  Thanks again. Cla68 (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks also for the recent helpful edits to the article about the lawsuit. Cla68 (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Short wiki-vacation
I will be mostly offline until Tuesday. See my note here. Thanks for stoppin' by! Cool Hand Luke 17:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Good luck
On both the finals and the elections.  Enigma  message 04:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * and congratulations! I took the liberty of removing the ACE template, as the elections are now over.  Enigma  message 08:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)