User talk:Cool Hand Luke/Archive 9

Back from exams
Did not fare so well, I'm afraid, but thanks for the support! Cool Hand Luke 18:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats
Congratulations on the Arbcom vote. Looks like you'll get what you were wishing for. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The essence of judgment
In this interval between the close of Arbcom voting and whatever comes next, this could be a timely opportunity to share a bit of wisdom attributed to Tokugawa Ieyasu, the founder of Japan's Tokugawa shogunate. I modestly offer a translation of the calligraphy -- with an emphasis not in the original:
 * Life is like walking along a long road shouldering a heavy load; there is no need to hurry.
 * One who treats difficulties as the normal state of affairs will never be discontented.
 * Patience is the source of eternal peace; treat anger as an enemy.
 * Harm will befall one who knows only success and has never experienced failure.
 * Blame yourself rather than others.
 * It is better not to reach than to go too far. --Tokugawa Ieayasu, 1604

I hope this becomes helpful in the year ahead. --Tenmei (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Industry Crushing
Yeah, the edit was my mistake (for some reason I thought that the user added "industry-crushing" instead of removing it). Idag (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

South Korea
Thank you for dropping by the South Korea page and taking the time to look things over and give your comments. I am trying to get more people to drop by and stick around a while to help improve the page. (I feel a bit all alone, as only a handful of people have commented since the page was protected and nobody else has made any edit proposals.) I have been extra busy this week, and so haven't had the time to make any new edit proposals, as they usually take me about 30 minutes+ to decide on, type and give reasons for, but I am still dedicated to helping this page improve. If you have time, I would appreciate your input (and if you had an edit proposal or two, all the better!) Having the page protected has given a window of opportunity to begin a positive collaborative effort for this important page. KieferFL (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Farah

 * Hey Luke, can we chat about some questions I have on the Joseph Farah entry? I want to be fair to the subject and I have several queries.  Also, you sound like a student-- I went back to get my PhD after many years as a broadcaster and a media historian, and yesterday I just defended my Prospectus... 5 years of hard work!!! DevorahLeah (talk) 05:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello again Luke. Received your message and responded, but just in case you are busy, here are my queries.  I now have some early information we can use-- I verified Mr Farah's college, for example.  But again, it was verified by talking to the head of the Reference Dept. at his college library, who looked it up in the alumni directory-- none of which is online.  I have the year of the directory and the e-mail verification.  How do I cite?  Also, Farah has written many books, three of which I have, and numerous editorial pieces, in which he espouses his philosophy on many issues.  Are we allowed to quote from the person himself?  And finally, since I have an e-mail relationship with Mr Farah over the past few years (as I said, we disagree on many issues, but our discourse has been courteous), am I allowed to quote from anything he wrote to me, or is there a conflict due to the fact that I have been the "liberal" whose essay was published on his site in 2005? (There is no ambush here-- he is aware that several of us are trying to fix his bio and do an accurate job, and he is hopeful that this will in fact occur.) DevorahLeah (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Luke, when I finally got healthy enough to add material about Mr Farah, everything I added got deleted. Am I doing it wrong?  Here is what i started with, and if this is incorrect, please let me know, as I don't wanna continue adding stuff unless I know it's gonna be okay.

Joseph Farah was born in Paterson NJ on 6 July 1954. His father John was a schoolteacher. Joseph was a devoted sports fan as a child, and dreamed of playing professional baseball. But he realized he did not have sufficient skill for a professional career, so he decided to focus on the other thing he loved -- writing. After graduating from high school in 1972, he attended William Paterson University in Wayne New Jersey, and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Communication in 1977. While a student there, he pursued his interest in writing, becoming active on the student newspaper, the Beacon. 

That's what I added. Should I continue or not? DevorahLeah (talk) 03:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Eh?
How do you propose we stop IPs from breaking things? IPs are more likely to add violations than remove them. Cool Hand Luke 20:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there any evidence to support the claim that "IPs are more likely to add violations than remove them"? I've yet to see any evidence anywhere, so perhaps you have a link you'd like to share? :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 08:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that one of our coolest features, something that you can't really find anywhere else on the Web, is the ability to change pages in real time without the 'hassle' of making an account. Almost every longtime user I've ever talked to about this has told me that when they first started editing, they did so anonymously and only later registered an account. Obviously creating an account isn't particularly difficult (unless you're blind!), but it does present a barrier to entry that stops some people from participating. I also think our very, very shortsighted decision to raise the autoconfirmed limits to 4 days / 10 edits (from the previous only 4 days) was an incredibly bad idea. It was ill-conceived and should be reversed as soon as possible. As our site ages, I believe we need to continue to encourage as much participation as possible. That means keeping pages open to editing by registered users, brand new users, and anonymous users alike. The fact remains that anonymous users continue to provide our site with a great deal of good content. And the illusion that making all BLPs semi-protected or flagged or whatever will stop determined vandalism is simply silly. We may be able to reduce some obvious forms of vandalism by doing these things, but we'll also stop a lot of legitimate users and we'll kill a big part of the charm of our site. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We unfortunately have little statistical evidence on the proportion of anonymous accounts that introduce negative content against which proportion of registered editors do. That IPs are by volume more likely to do so, however, is a widely accepted sentiment. AGK 00:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day Of Winter!
Happy First Day of Winter! Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Winter 2008!

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Summer not Winter then I wish you a happy First Day of Summer 2008! To spread this message to others, add to their talk page with a friendly message.

Congrats on your appointment to the Arbcom and Best of Luck :)! --Mifter (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. I've been very occupied with kids and stuff and didn't follow the elections or vote. But I'm very pleased by some appointments, including yours, and I didn't see anything that struck me as Bad. Now, steady on, Cool Hand! --Abd (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI
Gurch edited your comment's contents here, I undid that. rootology ( C )( T ) 23:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons greetings
M E  R  R  Y  C  H  R  I  S  T  M  A  S  (or other winter holiday) AND A  H  A  P  P  Y  G  A  M  E  D  A  Y --B (talk) 20:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays


Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; I shall look forward to working with you on the Arbitration Committee in the coming year. Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement. Best, Risker (talk) 22:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)



Happy 's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

feedback requested at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Committees
Hi, if you have time, I'd appreciate any feedback on a slightly crazy idea I had at Wikipedia Committees. It's related to the Arbitration Committee. Thanks! rootology ( C )( T ) 18:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Tort reform in the United States
User:Ohnoitsjamie has threatened to block me because I added a link to the Towers Perrin report that he indiscriminately deleted because he didn't like the editor that added it, and is engaging in revert wars. Can you restore the legitimate cite, please? Thanks. THF (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As I've already noted, when a single purpose account adds links to their site to multiple articles, that's spam, regardless of your perception of the value of the link. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not a single-purpose account. If someone from the NY Times adds 200 links to the NY Times, do we delete every instance that we link to the NY Times?  Fine, warn the editor, but at least some of his edits were legitimate.  It's not a violation of COI to make neutral edits that improve articles.  It's one thing to delete that editor's edit; it's another to accuse a different editor of spamming and threaten to block him when he makes a good-faith edit.  You then went and started indiscriminately reverting legitimate edits I made elsewhere, as at Ernest.  You're being quick on the trigger. THF (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I immediately restored my errant reverts. I never said you were a single purpose account; I asked you not to re-add material added by an SPA. Twice. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 17:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * So is the material now permanently barred from Wikipedia? How do I add a cite to legitimate material that belongs in the article?  You've given no reason why it doesn't belong in the article; I've explained why I believe it belongs.  You're just blindly reverting because you disapprove of the motives of the original editor, even though the edit complied with Wikipedia policies.  THF (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Very little "content" is or can be banned per se from Wikipedia. However, if something is considered by some editors to be contentious, rather than warring re-add it, it should be discussed on the talk page. Whoever wants to add content, if it's disputed, needs to justify it's inclusion in the right venue (the article talk page at all times). rootology ( C )( T ) 17:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Maria Thayer case
Concerning your time traveling vote: is it a null vote until it becomes accept, or reject until it becomes accept?--Tznkai (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Quick answer, these are null votes until January 1, when they become effective and the case is accepted (or rejected). Cool Hand Luke 17:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikibreak
I'm sorry&mdash;I didn't realize how little internet access I would have before. Thank you for the kind comments, and I promise to look into the requests. I will be mostly gone until I return to Chicago on January 5. Cool Hand Luke 17:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year
Hope 2009 is a great year for you!--MONGO 15:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Dear Cool Hand Luke,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

 Majorly  talk  21:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Go Utes!
Any chance in the 2009 Sugar Bowl is going to require a leap of faith on my part (and if you have any knowledge of my editing philosophy around here, I don't rely on faith, just science). But if the U can do it, then there's one more reason I can trash talk every BYU alum I know. Of course, I don't know any these days, since I haven't lived in Utah for about a million years, give or take. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 06:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Up 14-0. ROFLMAO. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 01:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So did you go to Utah?  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 22:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
May your new year be without vexation, full only of happiness, success, prosperity, pleasantness and who are we kidding here -- may the good outnumber the bad, anyway, and may your memory blank out the bad relatively quickly (how's that?). And since this is Wikipedia, may you be able to break away from the computer this year. As this happy couple knows, there's a lot of living to enjoy out there, and only so much time to do it. And congrats on the arbcom thing! I think I'm very late in congratulating you -- but not by Julian calendar standards. -- Noroton (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Some men you just can't reach
It was very hard for me to not respond to this edit of yours with "what we've got here is..." Tan  &#124;  39  23:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Cool Hand Luke! Thank you for your efforts at the Arbcom, and congratulations for your new assignement! It seems that your main rationale for suggesting a topic-ban extension in areas related to the Crusaders and the Mongols is the facts that I made a few Talk Page comments during the last nine months (about ten of them altogether I guess). As you might know, I was specifically authorized by the Arbcom to make such Talk Page comments (besides being generally encouraged to continue with my contributions to Wikipedia), and I have always done so in a very cool and civil manner as requested. For example, when Elonka deleted large amounts of referenced material without explanations, I simply noted the material on the Talk Page, and asked a third party to evaluate the content. That's all, and I don't think this can fairly be used against me to block me from full rehabilitation: I specifically and very precisely followed the Arbcom ruling all along. If the Arbcom had requested that I don't even make Talk Page comments or suggestions, that would be a different matter, and you would be right to request an extension of my penalty. Best regards PHG (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Cool Hand Luke. I think you would be most welcome to monitor my edits to the Mongol and Crusaders areas after the ban has expired, to make sure indeed that things are well-sourced, balanced and non-POV (I am sure many people will gladly take that role anyway :)). However, prolongating a ban for no objective reason, after I have behaved so well throughout the period seems highly unfair: I don't think anybody could have behaved better then I did, appart from not contributing at all :) Best regards PHG (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Cool Hand Luke! Thank you for your responses. As far as I know, the Arbcom does not concern itself with content disputes, but only with perceived behavioural issues.
 * Content issues should be properly discussed through regular editing, and if there is a dispute, through the usual dispute resolution process. Elonka is claiming that if I return to Franco-Mongol pages, I will be pushing a particular POV and making UNDUE contributions. Well, it seems that historically the divergence between my views and those of Elonka are rooted in our differing geographical origins: Elonka tends to rely on English sources, which tend to be generally doubtful of the Franco-Mongol alliance (from what she has been reporting), and I tend to rely on French sources, which generally are quite positive about the alliance. For example, Elonka claims that I would again argue about the Mongols conquering Jerusalem in 1300. Well, this is not an invention or a “pet theory” of mine as she portrays, this is a view held by numerous scholars, such as the leading French Medievalist Alain Demurger: "In December 1299 he (Ghazan) vainquishes the Mamluks at the second battle of Homs and captures Damascus, and even Jerusalem" ("En décembre 12999, il [Ghazan] vainc les Mamelouks lors de la deuxième bataille d’Homs et s’empare de Damas, et même de Jerusalem" (Alain Demurger, 2007 Les Templiers, p.84)). I am only asking that these views be properly reflected on Wikipedia, and, if there are views to the contrary, that they be balanced, in accordance with Wikipedia’s NPOV policy. That’s very simple and that’s all!
 * Regarding behavioural issues, since its ruling in March, the Arbcom has stated that some sources may have been misrepresented, but kindly recognized that it was probably done in good faith. I can only confirm that such occurrences are due to variations in individual interpretations, and that I would never voluntarily misrepresent a source. Since then, I have amply demonstrated the quality of my contribution, the quality of my sourcing, and the high level of civility which I have maintained all along. Although I dispute the foundations of many of the Arbcom findings back in March, at least they have helped me become even more rigorous and selective in my sourcing, and even more civil in the way I interact. Since behavioural issues have been clearly improved on, to a level which I believe is among the highest on Wikipedia, I believe restrictions should now be discontinued as planned (mid-March), or, if possible, even earlier than planned (the origin of my request for this Arbcom proceeding). Some content disputes will remain, but this is a normal part of the Wikipedia editing process, and I don’t think their anticipation should be used as ground for a prolongation of Arbcom penalties. If content disputes occur, I will do my best so that the resolution process is handled nicely and smoothly. Cheers PHG (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Cool Hand Luke. I wrote a note about the decline in participation to Wikipedia . Reasons for the decline may vary, but I may not be the only one to be alarmed by the excessive atmosphere of litigations and repression of volunteer enthusiasm. I started in 2004 with the dream of sharing all knowledge with the rest of the world, and end-up in 2009 feeling like I am trying to contribute within the politics and proceedures of a police state. Cheers PHG (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Cool Hand Luke. You seem to be considering as a favor the narrowing of editorial restrictions in may case ("Rather than viewing it as a punishment, you should look at it as a positive sign of how you've improved" ), but this is disregarding the fact that all my edit restrictions are supposed to end altogether after one year, mid-March 2009, in two months: this is the Arbcom decision. Nullifying this decision and obtaining a prolongation of the restrictions (however narrowed) is anything but an "improvement", and on the contrary contitutes an aggravation of the restrictions that have been placed on me. Such actions would have at the very least to be justified by serious issues since March 2008, which I don't think is the case at all: my work since March 2008 has been quite undisputedly top-notch. The only reason why an extension is now being proposed (although for a narrower editorial area, as a compromise) is essentially because Elonka and a few others are still making the same old complaints about old edit wars and claiming hypothetical future issues. If the rule of law is to be followed and my rights are to be respected, such complaints should not be legitimate reasons to restrict me beyond the original ruling: after my 1-year restrictions end I believe I should be "presumed innocent" again and given the chance to resume normal editing. If content disputes arise, per Wikipedia's rules, they should be handled through the proper editorial channels and dispute-resolution procedures. If major "behavioural" issues arise, then Arbcom should play its role. I believe established facts and a sense of justice should guide Arbcom decisions, not the expression of lingering enimities by a few editors or unproven claims about hypothetical future issues, don't you think so? Cheers PHG (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I see congrats are in order!
Well, I am back after taking a break to let the dust settle after having the sanction imposed on me. Five months later and my antogonists haven't settled down one bit. I do see a ray of hope for this place though, having reviewed the Arbcom Elections for this year I see you are moving up around here. I am glad to see that you have been appointed because in my dealings with you in the past I always felt that you were fair, honest, and neutral in your assessments. That is the kind of leadership we need around here and I am confident you will do an excellent job.

Congrats all around! :)

--GoRight (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, some things come above the encyclopedia
here you said that IAR applies to anonimity. I believe, and the MWF has taken a similar view, that there are some things with have to take precedence over content. This is basically outlined here and those things are:


 * Protection of anonimity
 * Protection from defamation
 * Protection of creative rights (copyright)

While ignoring these might better the encyclopedia and contentl, wikipedia lives in the real world and what we do here can have consequences beyond our server racks. So I ask you to remember Cary Bass and not have people screaming to OTRS. In the United States, people are very angry over loss of privacy under George Bush and the NSA, unsatifactory handling of anonimity could paralell that resentment, and here, impeachment is far easier. Wikipedians have shown they want change with a wide perception that many processes have become drama shows and/or soap operas and they need to become firm and just (see WP:CLUE). However, there are some things that the community still cherishes, and the ability to edit anonomously with no one knowing who you actually are, something worthwhile. Arbitrators are essentially elected leaders and we hold them accountable as such. The dice have been thrown, but you must use your numbers wisly or be thrown from the table.--Ipatrol (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment at User talk:Oren0
I have made a comment that is in response to your discussion there. FYI. --GoRight (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

René Grousset
Hi Cool Hand Luke. Thank you for your message! I don't know about the page page numbers of the older edition you are mentionning ("Paris : Librairie Jules Tallandier, c1981," Call No.: D182.G88 1981), but I can sure give the Chapter and paragraph names for each quote. The text these notes are taken from is Talk:Armeno-Mongol_relations. Cheers
 * NOTE 1: Grousset, p.574, mentionning the account of Kirakos, Kirakos, #12
 * The precise quote is "Par ailleurs nous savons par Kirakos que parmi les troupes de Hulagu figuraient sous Baghdad des contingents géorgiens commandés par Hasan Brosh, prince arméno-géorgien de Khatshên, de qui Kirakos tenait précisément le récit du massacre." in Chapitre VIII: La "Croisade Mongole"/ Régime de faveur accordé aux églises chrétiennes par les Mongols. Meaning: "Besides, we know from Kirakos that among the troops of Hulagu were at Baghdad Georgian contingents commanded by Hasan Brosh, Armeno-Georgian prince of Khatshen, from whom Kirakos obtained a precise description of the massacre."


 * NOTE 10: Grousset-p.581
 * The precise quote is: "Enfin la grande armée Mongole, commandée par Hulagu en personne et renforcée par les Arméniens du roi Héthoum et par les chevaliers Francs du prince d'Antioche Bohémond VI, arriva devant Alep..." and subsequent material in Chapitre VIII: La "Croisade Mongole"/ Invasion de la Syrie musulmane par les Mongols. Conquête d'Alep Meaning: "Finally, the great Mongol army, commanded by Hulagu in person and reinforced by the Armenians of king Hetoum and by the knights of Bohemond VI of Antioch, arrived in front of Alep..." etc...


 * NOTE 11: Grousset, p.586: "We known from Le Templier de Tyr that the king of Armenia Hetoum I and the Prince of Antioch Bohemond VI accompanied Kitbuqa in this offensive: "The king of Armenia and the Prince of Antioch went to the army of the Tartars and went to take Damas"
 * This is in Chapitre VIII: La "Croisade Mongole"/ Occupation de Damas par les Mongols: "Nous savons par le Templier de Tyr que le roi d'Armenie Hethoum Ier et le prince d'Antioche Bohemond VI accompagnerent Kitbuqa dans cette chevauchee: "Le roy d'Arménie et le Prince d'Antioche alèrent en l'ost des Tatars et furent à prendre Domas""


 * NOTE 19: "Le roy d'Arménie et le Prince d'Antioche alèrent en l'ost des Tatars et furent à prendre Damas...". Quoted in "Histoire des Croisades III", Rene Grousset, p586
 * This is in Chapitre VIII: La "Croisade Mongole"/ Occupation de Damas par les Mongols. Meaning: "The king of Armenia and the Prince of Antioch went to the camp of the Tatars and went to take Damascus..."


 * NOTE 29: "Antioch was only saved (...) by the intervention of Hethoum who called the Mongols to intervene in favour of Bohemond. Les Gestes des Chiprois even seems to say that the Armenia monarch went in person to fetch the nearest Mongol troops". Grousset, p.609 "Antioche ne fut sauvée que par l'intervention du roi d'Arménie Hetoum I qui était, on s'en souvient, le beau-père de Bohémond VI, ou plutôt par l'appel que Hetoum adressa à ses amis les Mongols en faveur de Bohemond. Les Gestes des Chiprois semblent même dire que le monarque alla en personne chercher les forces mongoles les plus voisines -sans doute du côté d'Edesse ou de Qoniya- et qu'il les conduisit en toute hâte vers Antioche"
 * This is in Chapitre VIII: La "Croisade Mongole"/ Premières attaques de Baibars contre Antioche. Antioche sauvee par les Mongols


 * NOTE 30: Mentioned in Grousset, p.609 + relevant quote from Gestes des Chiprois
 * This is in Chapitre VIII: La "Croisade Mongole"/ Premières attaques de Baibars contre Antioche. Antioche sauvee par les Mongols. Grousset's text reads: "Antioche ne fut sauvée que par l'intervention du roi d'Arménie Hetoum I qui était, on s'en souvient, le beau-père de Bohémond VI, ou plutôt par l'appel que Hetoum adressa à ses amis les Mongols en faveur de Bohemond. Les Gestes des Chiprois semblent même dire que le monarque alla en personne chercher les forces mongoles les plus voisines -sans doute du côté d'Edesse ou de Qoniya- et qu'il les conduisit en toute hâte vers Antioche". Meaning: "Antioch was only saved by the intervention of the king of Armenia Hetoum I who was, we remember, the father-in-law of Bohemond VI, or rather by the appeal Hetoum made to his friends the Mongols in favour of Bohemond. The Gestes des Chiprois even seems to say that the king went in person to fetch the closest Mongol forces -probably around Edessa or Qoniya- and that he guided them to Antioch."


 * NOTE 32:Quoted in Grousset, p.565
 * This is a quote of Vartan made by Grousset, describing the reception by Hulagu of various Christian rulers of the Levant. The text mentionned is in Chapitre VIII: La "Croisade Mongole"/ Sympathies du khan mongol Hulagu pour le Christianisme. Rôle de son épouse Doquz-Khatun.

Hope this help! And thank you for taking the time to make this inquiry! Best regards PHG (talk) 06:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
I just wanted to thank you for your feedback concerning the Edward Weidenfeld article. I appreciate your responses to my questions.WackoJacko (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

For your files

 * William Spade
 * Peter Knecht
 * Tim Heaphy
 * Mark M. Baker (attorney)

Apologies for disturbing you
Sorry about your exams. If I can briefly trouble you, there's an editor who is becoming convinced that the fact I'm correcting his spelling and grammar and wikilinking errors on BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant is a neo-con conspiracy against him, though multiple other editors have raised his disruptive editing with this guy. I'd really like to avoid harassment before it gets out of control (he's already followed me to other articles), and it's clearly futile for me to reason with the guy. THF (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Global_War_on_Terror_captives'_habeas_corpus_petitions
There are 116 articles in this category, and as best I can tell, about 100-110 of them are simply lists of filings in non-notable cases that can be merged with existing articles. Would appreciate advice on how best to proceed. THF (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've started a discussion at Administrators'_noticeboard THF (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL
Jinx! THF (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

subcategorize Tamil terrorists under Sri Lankan terrorists
Hi Luke, only a minority of Tamils are found in Sri Lanka. 90% of all Tamils live in India. That is precisely the problem. If you want Tamil_terrorists to be under Sri_Lankan_terrorists, what do you do with terrorists of Tamil ethnicity who are Indian, fighting for something in India? You cannot subcat them under Sri_Lankan_terrorists. That is the whole point of the CfD. But I would definitely be interested in finding a good subcat scheme, so if you have one, let me know. Jasy jatere (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

RFAR rejection for FR & Jimmy
If you hadn't seen my reply to Luke's rejection and similar, would you mind reading that and replying with your thoughts on the RFAR proposal? My scope proposal is significantly different than Will's. rootology ( C )( T ) 16:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Cool Hand Luke. Thank you for your research regarding my case! Your independent review of the evidence (here) clearly shows that my sourcing is exact, and that my contributions are not Undue, contrary to what Elonka has been claiming. Isn't that something: an Administrator making false claims at Arbcom against a powerless contributor such as me? With your analysis of Grousset coming up, you will find more of the same results. However, inspite of these essential findings, your Proposed Decisions still seem to broadly reflect my critics's proposals on the Workshop page (extension of restrictions etc...). For the sake of justice, I think this should be challenged. My behaviour under restrictions has been examplary, I have made Talk page suggestions as encouraged by Arbcom (although this is now being used against me, something I should be protected from), my sourcing and weighing of subjects is proving to be quite proper, and my critics are making demonstrably false claims against me: I suggest that this should be spelled out, and that, as a consequence of these findings, a rehabilitation and a motion freeing me of restrictions as scheduled (March 2009) should be proposed for arbitrators to debate and vote on. Feedback appreciated. PHG (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I also don't understand how voting can start without the independent review of the evidence being completed. Isn't that totally against proper procedure? Cheers PHG (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cool Hand Luke. The involvement of Jacques de Molay and the Templars with the Mongols is well documented in numerous other sources, it is not just a position held by Demurger. The aim of the occupation of Arwad by the Templars and Cypriots was to link up with the Mongol troops of Ghazan (The Trial of the Templars By Malcolm Barber, Page 22 The Mongols and the West, 1221-1410: 1221-1410 By Peter Jackson, Page 171 The Kingdom of Cyprus and the Crusades, 1191-1374: 1191-1374 By Peter W. Edbury, Page 105 The Knights Hospitaller By Helen Nicholson Page 45). The Cypriots prepared a land-based force of approximately 600 men: 300 under Amalric of Lusigan, son of Hugh III of Cyprus, and similar contingents from the Templars and Hospitallers (The Trial of the Templars By Malcolm Barber, Page 22). These efforts were led by the Master of the Knights Templar Jacques de Molay and the brother of the king of Cyprus, Amalric of Lusigan (The Trial of the Templars By Malcolm Barber, Page 22). This was not a small operation, but actually represented a considerable commitment by the forces from Cyprus and the Templars (The Kingdom of Cyprus and the Crusades, 1191-1374: 1191-1374 By Peter W. Edbury, Page 105). According to historian Malcom Barber, this suggests a considerable effort on the part of the Templars, as the manpower being engaged corresponds to "close to half the size of the normal complement for the twelfth-century Kingdom of Jerusalem".(Malcom Barber, The New Knighthood, p. 294). In February 1301, the Mongols finally made and advance into Syria. General Kutlushka went to Cilicia to fetch Armenian troops and moved south through Antioch. He was also accompanied by Guy of Ibelin, Count of Jaffa, and John, lord of Giblet (The Kingdom of Cyprus and the Crusades, 1191-1374: 1191-1374 By Peter W. Edbury, Page 105). He had a force of 60,000, but could do little else than engage in some raids around Syria. Elonka's position that Demurger's account would be marginal is simply wrong. Cheers PHG (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

For other massive deletions of referenced material by Elonka, here's a sampling:    PHG (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Need Help
I see that you are an administrator here. I needed some help on how to go ahead with a particular situation.

One of the articles that I am interested in has been deleted and on repeated contacts with the administrator responsible for the deletion, for the last 3 weeks, I have not got a reply yet. What can I do about this. Please help. --Ashlypat (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Luke.--Ashlypat (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Standing Offer/Request
Given our past interactions on various topics I thought I would make the following offer.

If you ever have something you want me to offer an opinion on or that you feel I might personally be interested in anywhere on wikipedia, its talk pages, or within any of the official forums such as noticeboards, RfCs, RfAs, and the like, please contact me directly on my talk page and feel free to reference this standing request. I trust your judgment in deciding which topics might be of interest to me, and please keep me informed of any topics in general as well as items specifically involving you personally. --GoRight (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Justice
Hi Cool Hand Luke. Thank you so much for all your work in making an independent review of the evidence! But isn't it highly unfair to ask for continued restrictions on someone whose contributions have shown to be based on proper sourcing and are not even "undue weight", contrary to what he has been accused of? It would be a shame if the Arbcom followed (and encouraged) the lingering enimities and unwarranted accusations of a few critics, and I strongly appeal to your sense of justice in this matter. PHG (talk) 06:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review comment
Am I reading this wrong or are you suggesting a tag-team of sort use their admin powers to force through changes and stop community discussion you don't like? --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer. While I am already bothering you, do you have any comment on my suggested Trial 13: Three month trial of all BLPs + flagged protection? --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * About "View drat": see here. It is because the current draft might be different from the displayed version and the user would be confused is clicking "edit" and getting different text. I added when there is an unsighted revision. For the automatic timeout I can imagine two situations: 1) The sighters cannot keep up. 2) A large edit that noone is willing to revert or sight. In the second case I think it is better to let the edit go though and revert later if needed. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Cool Hand Luke. Please note that Shell Kinney has (probably inadvertanly) deleted your statement at Arbcom. You might wish to reinstate it. You might note however that most of the evidence you have reviewed is actually pre-March 2008 evidence, since I have not edited these articles since then due to Arbcom restrictions (I only brought to the Talk Page some of the portions Elonka deleted). The pre-March 2008 material in question is: This is why your independent review of the evidence actually covers pre-March 2008 material as well as post-March 2008 and is therefore relevant to my contributions in general, not just since March 2008 (and I am grateful to you for that). And, by the way, the March 2008 Arbcom never has found something like "When PHG's editing was unrestricted, the user caused extensive damage, which resulted in strong bias being introduced into dozens of articles related to medieval history of the Mongol Empire and related events in Europe and the Middle East. Cleanup efforts are still ongoing.". Best regards. PHG (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Talk:Armeno-Mongol alliance
 * Talk:Guy of Ibelin (died 1304)
 * Talk:Jacques de Molay

Time
Am I reading you correct, File:John254 and Kristen Eriksen.png seems to show they always edit at the same time of day, but never at the same time on the same day?  MBisanz  talk 16:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Give it
I want my account "Mr Rogers Loves You" back. It was banned unfairly by a power hungry admin and as such I have declared a jihad on Wikipedia until things are restored. I have manipulated your system on at least five occasions to get new accounts and each time I am banned, I can get back in within a few days. You cannot stop me, I will suceed. Now, gimme my account back!--JerryIsThePosterChild (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Cool Hand Luke. I strongly object to the wording of one of the proposed decisions:

This statement was not present in the previous findings, and has been disproved by your independent review of the evidence. It is essentially a copy-paste of Elonka's claims. The review shows and states that my representation of the sources is essentially proper and my contributions are not undue weight. Elonka's claims of POV-pushing, Undue weight or "massive damage" are therefore unwarranted, and there is no justification for the Arbcom to repeat them. Since the Arbcom March 2008, Elonka has set up her own interpretation of the Arbcom findings, establishing a supposed "cleaning list", from which supposed "POVs" had to be eliminated in order to repair alleged "damages" that would have been made, but this is absolutely not grounded in the 2008 Arbcom finding, and certainly not the application of an Arbcom mandate. It seems Elonka has been using the Arbcom as a pretext to set up her very own policing operation, and has been using it to constantly misrepresent my contributions: especially, insinuatory list-building seems to be one of Elonka's favourite techniques and has already encountered huge opposition on Wikipedia. The actual perusal of Elonka's interventions shows massive deletions of properly referenced material, which you have kindly qualified as being faithfull to sources and not undue weight. In many cases, valuable, referenced, not undue weight information is thus altogether eradicated from Wikipedia. Please kindly consider proposed decisions that are actually established by impartial inquiry, rather than a simple repeat of inexact claims made by critics. Best regards PHG (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Neat graph
How did you do this? Is there some sort of csv output you can get from the server for the edits and times? Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Puppetry advice
I'm starting to understand why sock puppet investigations are not undertaken lightly, and why there needs to be compelling reason before it's looked into - it's bloody laborious. ^_^

Do you have any advice wrt tools or techniques that could make the process faster for a non-admin? When I happened to see your graph wrt John and Kristen, it turned on a light inside my head that I might be going about my check into a possible sock farmer the hard way. Several hours so far and it seems that the more I dig up, the more digging becomes necessary. No tools; I'm just comparing edit histories and searching for incidences of usernames. arimareiji (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Butting in while I'm here, but if you want a quick-and-easy way to spot patterns, running two accounts through Wikichecker and looking for similarities is often a good place to start. Be aware that it's very easy to get false positives, though. – iride scent  22:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, very much. ^_^ arimareiji (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

are youi going to answer my question or are tou just ogingt o kid me?

 * i have a legitiamte qestion about wikipedia procedure here and i am getting nowhere with my questions. since you seem to have fre time to come on my talkpage and give me friendly acdvice, i will driect this questions to you: (1) the initial caomplaint filed by Krimpet mentions a fake user USER:Crimp it that may hvave been created by user:kirsten erikesen to defame him; kirsten eriksen has been tagged as a suspected sock and sould user crimp it also be tagged or would that be bad because of the simliarites to user:krimpet? and my next question is whether or not kristen eriksens rollback rights were revoked recently due to the sockpuppet allegation or si whether or not she never actually had rollbacked rights?
 * thank you for time and thank for your askigng? Smith Jones (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer
it was much arppreciated. it wasnt clear to me at first form the list of rollbackers page whether or not these users had evenr been there to begin with. thanks for having the patients to deal with me and for givng me a striaghtofrward awnswer. Smith Jones (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

PHG
I've responded to your comment on proposed remedy 1b in RfAr/PHG. Just mentioning it here so it doesn't get overlooked, as I know you're editing the page. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Or any uninvolved admin, after consulting with PHG's mentor, may expand PHG's editing restriction to a page where PHG's edits are causing controversy. I don't want this to be done lightly (hence may; I trust the mentor will have enough sense to let an ordinary edit dispute work itself out), but an admin could block PHG for enough obstreperousness, even without any finding from ArbCom; this offers an alternative. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Justice please
Hi Cool Hand Luke. Justice please! Cheers PHG (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

When you have a minute ...
Could you please weigh in on Talk:Fred_Singer? I am reluctant to remove the material myself as WP:BLP says I should, so I am asking for a second opinion. --GoRight (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Since you seem to be on BLP cleanup duty today, could I please get your opinion on whether the RealClimate reference added here is valid and appropriate given the consensus apparently formed here? I have been arguing against it but decided tonight to at least "fix it up a bit" as you will see.  I would still prefer to see it gone but I think it is at least somewhat more acceptable in its current form, assuming it will be allowed to stay that way.  --GoRight (talk) 03:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi
I think I am leaving. Cheers PHG (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration request
Hey Luke! There is a controversy over the ordering of the sections in the Spokane, Washington article. I would like an arbitration so we can do what is best for the article. If you would like to help out, I would be greatful. Anon134 (talk)

Theon
I'm rather confused at your reinsertion of material that is suspect under BLP? With a (albeit stalled) discussion active on BLP/N.

I agree on the head of the atmos/rad branch. It confirms what i've read elsewhere. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

John Yoo
Why did you remove the section about the suggested origin of legal opinions? That was written by Horton, not the wikipedia article author. I'm not quite sure how these things work, but it looks like WP:SYN is meant for when the wikipedia article author combines sources to reach new conclusions, which didn't happen in this case. I'm also not sure why you removed the bits from the torture section. Could you explain your changes? --80.202.23.174 (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Nescio's back at it. and Carl Schmitt.  The vandalism accusation violates WP:CIVIL, but that's the least of my concerns here. THF (talk) 14:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you just said. Could you dumb it down a bit? I'm not really familiar with these things. Is the reason that Horton isn't considered a good enough source, or something like that, and that's why the section shouldn't be there? Is there currently an ongoing editor conflict with people trying to influence this and related articles in one direction or another? --80.202.23.174 (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Just looked at the page history on GII - I had assumed Jimbo was doing the blanking - Paranoia is never wasted - thanks for the heads up! Sarah777 (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Tort reform
If Wikidea wants to WP:OWN the tort reform article, undoing the extensive work of User:Questionic, that's fine. However, I would like the tags I placed on his personal essay returned. The article is a POV mess, and he's done nothing to resolve the legitimate issues I raised on the talk page.

Since Wikidea has been warned about NPA in the past, I think he should be blocked for his intimidation efforts on the talk page and at COIN. That's ludicrous trolling. THF (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't have to be ANI. Just ask Newyorkbrad or a similarly sensible admin.  The NPA and OUT violations alone merits a week block, not to mention the fact that he's still whining on COIN.  THF (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't even understand why he needs a warning: User_talk:Wikidea/Archive_05 -- he's a repeat offender, and falsely represented he wouldn't do it again. THF (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Tags on tort reform
Luke, does the article really deal predominantly with the UK? Isn't quite a lot of reference made to US, NZ and Australia? And if you see the talk page, the "neutrality" concerns were addressed: I never found out what was wrong with it, except that THF did not like it, and was the only one.  Wik idea  21:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * On my alleged "original research" by the way, surely you can see it was well referenced - certainly more needed, but I think again, it's the tactic of putting up those tags whatever is there, whether it's a valid criticism or not; and there was nothing on the talk page saying what should be done different except the perennial screech "complete rewrite!".  Wik idea  22:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, sure, but if you read this book referred to by PS Atiyah, these are precisely the questions raised. The reason I moved the page to US tort reform and inserted the text on what has been going on in Australia, NZ and the UK is precisely because the issues are much wider than may be apparent from the political discourse of the US. Remember, these issues were never raised on the talk page; if they had been I would've done something! But THF wasn't interested in doing that, just blanking the thing, putting up something he'd done about the States, and that was it.  Wik idea  22:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Luke, the appropriate merger was the previous content that THF put in, when the merger was suggested. There is a need for a separate US page precisely because the issues are very different and the tort system is very different. Mike Huckabee was talking about health care costs, one of which is paying out large sums of money for medical negligence claims, in his view.  Wik idea  22:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My two cents: the article's main problem is not giving undue weight to UK when it's a "bigger issue" in the U.S. I mean, how can we verify a claim like that? "My tort reform movement is a bigger problem than your tort reform movement?" I mean, the "tort reform" movement in the US is obviously a big problem, and the article doesn't cover it well, but I don't consider capable of judging how great the problem is in the UK, nor to make comparisons. "My rule of law has more problems than yours?" Why not just cover the issues adequately?


 * As an uninvolved here, I would like to suggest that both CHL and Wikidea voluntarily avoid squabbling over the article. It just seems to get out of hand too easily, too quickly, and over too small stakes. I am not taking sides or making accusations on this. I just don't want to see two good editors lose their cool. Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see CHL doing anything wrong. If anything, he's been overly solicitous of Wikidea. THF (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

ANI
Please see this. -- Vision Thing -- 18:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Do you have a gadget that automatically adds your edits to the edit summaries, or are you doing that manually? THF (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for an opinion
If its appropriate to request this and you have time, would you please check out comments made at Talk:Python_reticulatus and Talk:Python_reticulatus. It is my position that I've endured days of personal attacks and incivility from User:Mokele and User:Jwinius. I've lost count of how many times I've encouraged courtesy in these users. Perhaps encouragement of good behavior coming from someone other than myself and User:Cygnis insignis might have effect. User:Cygnis insignis's comments on our discussion begin as follows “I've waded through the incivility, bold assumptions, uncited assertions, expletives and other obstruction to this good faith contribution. However this is not the place for identifying this obnoxious pattern of behavior...” (see hidden comments at Ultimately, this dispute is about a claim made by [[User:Mokele] and User:Jwinius to allow certain content at Python_reticulatus that they deem unencyclopedic. Thanks for considering my comments. --Boston (talk) 06:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Mokele has told me "Cry me a river. I see absolutely no reason to listen to a mere amateur. Come back when you have a graduate degree in herpetology. Until then, stop wasting our time" and represents his editorial standpoints as "I don't give a crap if the news articles meet some overly-vague WP rule...we should stick to peer-reviewed scientific journal sources ONLY" and has referred to my good faith edits as "unencyclopedic crap" (all comments at ).
 * User:Jwinius has informed me that I am "silly",, "petulant" , "irritable", "thin-skinned", etc.

WP:LDS
Given that you originated the WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, you may be interested in the following discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement. -- 71.223.119.31 (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The U (University of Miami)
I have nominated The U (University of Miami), 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/The U (University of Miami). 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. Pichpich (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Question
Hi Cool Hand Luke, can you explain this edit you made here? If you're looking for the invite list, it's linked in the above paragraph. :-) Sam  Blab 12:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppets? Your graph needed
Hi there, I saw your impressive graph of the non-intersecting editing times of John254 and Kristen Eriksen earlier this month! I don't know if you actually counted all the edits or used some handy software, but either way, I'm guessing, you are faster at doing this than I am. Could you please take a look at a possible similar case on Talk:British India? (It involves user:Xn4 and user:Strawless). Thanks. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  04:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have moved the post to this subpage of my user page, where I'm compiling some stats as well.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the graph! And for posting on the Sockpuppets page.  Will await their independent confirmation.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your help, especially for the graph! I'm both amazed and saddened at this entire saga, amazed that editors can create such plausible sockpuppets who all seem to have different personalities and saddened that so much time was wasted not only by the sockpuppeteer in his different guises, but by his interlocutors, which included three admins (user:Nichalp, user:Philip Baird Shearer, user:RegentsPark), me, and a few other editors.  Anyway, thanks a million!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Strawless and Xn4.png
Thanks for uploading File:Strawless and Xn4.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

RFAR
Saw your latest edit to the RFAR page. Not asking you to recuse, though. Perhaps have a read of a post at my blog from last night? It explains my thinking here. Durova Charge! 21:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Cool Hand Luke/Secret page question
You've probably got better things to do, but I noticed this well put together table on that page and wondered if there is some sort of import or automation tool used to make or populate tables like that. I can't imagine doing it manually. Is there a tool somewhere that will take a csv table and make it into a wikitable (or something equivalent)? Thanks. Protonk (talk) 04:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

NOINDEX in mainspace categories
I see you are adding the NOINDEX template to many mainspace categories. This seems like a bad idea. Finding categories like Israeli fraudsters by Google could certainly be useful to readers. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (replying to answer on my talk page) If it is a BLP violation, then the article or category should be deleted, or the the article removed from the category.
 * There is no technical separation between types of categories (yet), but I would say that categories (and templates) are either part of the encyclopedia or project/maintenance. This that are part of the encyclopedia should be treated similar to mainspace articles. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Categories can not be watched for articles added to them, but it will show up for anyone watching the article. I do not really see how a category is worse than text in the article.
 * NOINDEX not working in articles is not a missing feature in the software, it is a limitaiton put there because it should not be used on content pages. You can of course disagree with that.
 * I disagree with your weighting of the problem. I think you over-estimate the risk or severence of articles wrongly added to these categories or underestimate the usefullness of searching.
 * For a free content project, all content should be freely accessible, with no restrictions of things like indexing. Project pages are an other thing. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You cannot, because it would go against consensus. The technical inability is only a sign of how NOINDEX is intended to be used. I would actually prefer to remove the technical restriction and instead have a policy on when it can be used. Articles considered for deletion as attack pages for example seems reasonable.
 * I still do not see what harm categories on Google is actually supposed to do. Always prioritising remotely possible harm to living people over everything else would lead to closing Wikipedia along with the rest of the Internet. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe the consensus is against NOINDEX on content pages, but is has not been discussed enough. Neither this nor this rather pro-NOINDEX proposals suggest using it on content pages. I will bring it up on the Village Pump.
 * We cannot certify that any pages are free from BLP violations. I don't think that in itself is a reason to stop search engine indexing. NOINDEXing the category has no effect on the BLP article itself anyway.
 * On a side one, I am surprised after the whole Flagged Revisions debate that nobody seems to bother working on the proposed trials. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not. It's much easier to opine than actually do work.  That's not a slight on either side of the debate (I support the abuse filter strongly, but I wouldn't have the first clue in bug testing it), just a human nature element. Protonk (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I brought it up at the Village Pump and copied our discussion there. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That guy at MSG
You probably know who I'm talking about. I'm venturing a guess that it's the same person using two accounts, possibly from different places because they never post at the same time, but they surely flame with the same intensity. Based on their IP address, which I'm guessing a checkuser can see, can the geolocation of the two accounts be determined? Xasodfuih (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * They appear to be unrelated. Cool Hand Luke 00:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Arb stuff - re: MZMcBride request
Mr.Z-man has voiced some concern on you not recusing on this request in his statement. Although I'm not sure of the details, for now, I think it's best if you reverted your vote back to recusal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I wish he raised it on my talk page, but I've recused. Cool Hand Luke 19:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

MSG Chemistry
I don't mean to be cranky with a fellow Runnin' Ute, but dude, my inorganic chemistry was taught by Ted Eyring. Two years. Then there's P-chem, and Biochemistry and Organic Chemistry (Morrison and Boyd still lives in my nightmares). I re-read my numerous comments trying to teach FFN something about chemistry, and I don't think I'm wrong. Unless Eyring is wrong. Then, I've got a problem. (Actually, I was taught by Henry and Ted, which dates me, so I'd rather no one knows....LOL). Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 23:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible sock puppetry
FORWARD of messages, asking for help on possible sock puppetry. Procedure is new to me so I don't know what to do (proper steps, etc). Please, could you help me on this. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell talk 13:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I have never done this before, so I believe I may need some help on the procedure. See one year timetable and further on this. User:Wareh would be the puppetmaster. I'll look for your reply back HERE. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell talk 23:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If a CheckUser could be done for Wareh and RandomCritic it will show that BOTH are in the United States in the EasternTime Zone. It will also show the same thing that my time table chart is showing for their edits, that basically when one edits several times the other "rests." This is shown in the way the numbers flip-flop in the edit counts under their names. Also several times they are off exactly the same days (2, 3, or 4) several times throughout the year, which would be impossible to happen if one were in the U.S. and the other in England. This alone shows it is just one person with two "personalities" editing different style articles. They edit however some common articles related to Renaissance and Medieval. The question is, how is it that when one edits then the other takes the day off. This has happened several times! According to the conversation they left me they "never heard of him (or her) before" denying they never heard of each other until I brought it up. My timetable proves otherwise, unless there are several coincidences that could happen between two strangers in two different parts of the world throughout a year year period. Greater than a million to one odds. Could a UserCheck be done? It will prove beyond a doubt what I am saying and showing on my timetable of their contributions - these two "personalities" are really just one person.--Doug Coldwell talk 12:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not the person to whom this should be address, as I have no checkuser access, and I am not very experienced in this area. Please see my reply to F&F.
 * I suggest you have a look at User:Fowler&fowler/Xn4-Strawless-Editing-Histories and ask advise from CHL who created the graph, or open a check user request yourself (see Sockpuppet investigations). Please let me know if I can help further and please let me know the outcome as it will allow me to gain experience. --PBS (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for running chart Cool Hand Luke. I'll keep an eye out and if I find more evidence I do as you suggest. --Doug Coldwell talk 15:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just as your best guess, do you think this is one person -OR- two people using the same computer -OR- two people on two different computers sharing the same IP address? Going along with this, they deny knowing each other (IF they are two different people) - what do you think (if you had to guess)? In the past they have BOTH edited the same articles that I happen to have edited. They then supported each other, which I believe brings down integrity - if they are in fact the SAME person. I added a second paragraph to the top of the chart pertaining to I believe they (Wareh) is now on "vacation." I believe they will BOTH show up in a few days, and start editing on the same day. I don't think they (Wareh) has been tipped off on these conversations, so we will see what happens. IF they start editing again on the same day, I believe this AGAIN shows they are the same person. IF they are sharing the same computer, THEN they know each other - which so far they deny! IF they are two different people at two different locations and they don't know each other - THEN they shouldn't show up again in a few days and start editing on the same day (maybe within hours of each other). It will be interesting to see what happens in a few days. If you care not to answer IF you think they are one person or two, that is alright. I am just asking "if" you were to guess. Not holding you to anything. IF they are two different people sharing the same IP address, that would put them VERY close to each other - likely they then would know each other, I would think. If you care to respond, I'll look back HERE on your Talk page. This way all parts are on the same page. And thanks again for the chart, its a good start.--Doug Coldwell talk 16:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer. I'll sit on it until I have more compelling evidence. Excellent idea! I needed help from an expert. --Doug Coldwell talk 18:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Articles with Wikipuffery
For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs.

Note that I am a human being, not a bot. You may contact me if you have questions. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 02:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Accidental rollback, sorry
Hi, sorry for accidentally rolling back your edit at Talk:Anti-copyright: I think I was going through my watchlist trying to see the diff, but must have hit rollback by mistake. Shreevatsa (talk) 03:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

For your list on WR
Interesting read on WR about WP:BLPFAIL/WP:WESUCK. Another entry for your list?: This edit on Dallas Smith:. I mean, hooray for removing the vandalism at the top, but seriously... Just got removed today. Soooo... only about 17 months. WE SUCK indeed. Thanks. --Ali'i 16:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

off-wiki canvassing
Mr. Johnson is no Mr. Moore. I somehow doubt there is going to be a groundswell of support to restore Mr. Johnson's biography, and there doesn't appear to be anyone showing up to rescue his self-promotional Commonweal Institute article from its inevitable AFD nomination. THF (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

hey there
you have a very cool screename, loved that newman movie.Troyster87 (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah mine too. I like the film where he is a selfish alcoholic cowboy even better. the egg scene is ridiculous to me and in retrospect the antagonist fellow inmates are really really timid, and it wasn't very realistic nor does it show to me that they were treated that badly, however i really enjoyed that it seemed to take me back into a time when subject matter such as this was really shocking to a lot of people and that such what i find to be a subtle depiction of the alleged abuse of those in chain gangs was able to effect public opinion in such a manner. plus you get to see his butt and he is so cute.Troyster87 (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Will be off for a while
Exams. Cool Hand Luke 00:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Have a good break and ace those exams. Also, come back refreshed. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Flagged revisions proposal
Hi. I am working on a minimal flagged revisions proposal focused on BLPs. FR may seem dead, but I think we can gain consensus on something small and focused. If you have time, any comments are appreciated. Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_revisions --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

AGF?
Come on, man. Every single time DG gets into trouble, its always someone else's fault - 'blind-revert' this, and 'conspiracy' that. Every time he cocks up, anyone who's dealt negatively with him before is stalking him - he's directed such a  claim against me on at least two occasions. Now, I don't care if he opposes in AfD; he has, as he said, been nom'ing tons of articles for deletion and voting there. But DG takes the extra step of going to a related article - an article he has never before set foot in, and reverted against existing consensus my edit. And without a hint of discussion, mind you. Maybe you could tell me how exactly I am misinterpreting the situation here. I am keen to learn. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Still waiting. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  04:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Infobox
Do you have any suggestions on how we can reach a consensus on the info box discussion currently raging in Captain Kirk? Erikeltic (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for semiprotection
Thom Yorke. Thank you,  Enigma msg  21:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I got it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/James_T_Kirk, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Marfoir (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Scientology remedies
As a consolidated version of #4 and #5, you might want to consider some variant of Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2. There, again, we had a wide-ranging conflict where naming names would have been difficult and necessarily incomplete. Instead of granular findings we handed the administrators a stick (even if Brad was the only one who used it). I agree that the presence of discretionary sanctions makes #5 redundant. Mackensen (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
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.

I thought you should know, an editor whose affiliated himself with Arcyane is now championing the fan portrayal cause in Spock over the placement of an image. Other than that, I just wanted to say thanks. You're one of the good guys and definately a voice of reason around here. So on behalf of those that read more than they write, you rule. Erikeltic (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I've replied to your message on my talk page. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  16:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The battle is apparently now on over at Spock. Erikeltic (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't a battle, Erikeltic, and I find it disturbing in the extreme that you consider it such. Using that metaphor, it would appear that you were the one to start shooting by removing it, probably as a precursor to commenting in Kirk that 'hey, it isn't there, why should it be here?' sort of comment. Sorry, the forum-shopping thing pretty much has deprived you of good faith from me. Lateral methods like that will end up costing you lot. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not alter or reframe my posts
People get blocked for that sort of crap. If you think my post would be better headed under something else, you come and talk to me about it. You do not get to reframe my comments under something that serves you. I don't want to revisit this topic with you. Thanks in advance. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  16:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Scientology case
Noticed this thread and a comment by Bishonen there does need a followup. She says that she trusts Justa's honesty. Here's why I don't:

From Requests_for_arbitration/COFS/Evidence:

Some of Justanother's assertions are impossible to reconcile. Compare the following:


 * Posted to four different talk pages as self-description: "I am an ex-Scientologist and though I am not great supporter of the CoS, I recognize a slant when I see one."


 * Subsequently posted to User:Justanother/writeup/outline as self-description: I am a Scientologist in good standing with the Church of Scientology and have been a Scientologist for over 30 years.

For these reasons I do not trust Justanother's assertions. I leave it to the Committee to determine the significance of these findings. Durova Charge! 06:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

In two years neither Justa nor Bish has addressed this discrepancy. Certainly looks like an important one, under the circumstances. As you may have noticed, I offered to withdraw the workshop proposal to siteban him if additional checkuser evidence disproved the initial findings. I did not trust his own protestations, and this is why. Durova Charge! 18:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * CHL, in case you didn't see it yet, just to let you know that I've made a request here. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Erikeltic
Regardling Erikeltic and his misguided 3RR warnings - I'd already informed him of this earlier, but apparently he believes this to be either wikihounding and stalking. He made a point of deleting any warning/comment on his page that cast him in a bad light. I'm sure you've noticed his ham-handed attempts at making a point with his recent userpage images, as well. FWIW. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I just love kids who think they're being cute. Oh well - he's only damaging himself. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 02:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I just love people who assume too much and don't know when to walk away and leave well enough alone.  I fixed my page up pretty well this time.  So please (for the 5th time now) stop harassing me and making endless edits to my user page.  How many requests does it actually take for you to ignore before it's officially harassment?  I'm just curious because I don't want you to damange yourself.  Erikeltic (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A discussion on another page (since you asked me to stay off yours) is hardly harrassment. Since you switched to public domain images, I have not touched your page. When I did edit it, however, I was well within Wikipedia guidelines, removing content that did not belong there - I wasn't aware that two edits to your user page qualifies as "endless", tho - Silly me. I'm sorry you feel the need to childishly lash out at those who disagree with you, especially when you have been in the wrong about procedures so many times in the last few days, but hey, them's the breaks. Grow up. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes you did. Here is the edit you made after I switched to a public domain image. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Erikeltic&oldid=278241620  You rudely included the caption, "very funny - quit violating guidelines, kid."  You also made changes to my talk page after I asked you to stop.  You are not as innocent as you claim and all I am asking you to do is leave me alone.  Erikeltic (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Context is important, Erikeltic. Based on your previous history, it was an easy assumption at that point that your were continuing in your attempts to make a point with any image you could find. Once you informed me the image was public domain, I left it alone, even though it was borderline violation, as CoolHandLuke pointed out to you. As to the other point, it's very hard to have a conversation with someone unless it's on their talk page, especially when you were doing nothing but leaving snarky and untrue comments in your edit summaries. By quoting them there, this way, they will be established in the edit history - because, your personal perferences aside, you were being warned about making false allegations which came directly from you (again) not knowing or caring about proper procedures here. After my last post explaining your mistaken assumption and false allegations, I have left your talk page alone as well. However, as I stated them, I will state again here - should the need for further warnings arise, I will be leaving them on your talk page, per Wikipedia guidelines. Had you not tried to game the system, you might have found other editors more willing to work with you. As it is now, you're simply poisoning the well. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 03:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

CHL, I left a request that the attack page be restructured to be less offensive by morning. We don't allow those here. As I fully expect him to disregard the notice, I think you know what will come next. Alongside the SPI, I imagine the fallout will be somewhat pointed. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  06:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I waited well beyond the time I had advised him, so it was reported. He has only himself to blame now. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI, Arcayne apparently has some questions about consensus in Spock. I have put some notes to this in Kirk since that's where the most recent debate took place, but I guess we have to do the whole thing over again in Spock. Erikeltic (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate some guidance on how to address the following
Timothy Ball. Do you have any opinion? Am I off base on this point? --GoRight (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Scientology workshop
commented that current conduct was the issue in this case. 

Curious what your concerns are regarding these diffs about me:

These are all 1-2 years old, and the most recent occurred about the time that my mentorship with Durova started.

Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a great question - the Daily Mail is probably a source of questionable reliability and could perhaps be taken to WP:RSN to sort that out - but on the other hand it is a direct interview with a prominent attorney for the organization - and yet it is information in the lede that does not yet appear later in the article - so yes there are a few issues to address with regard to that material. Could probably be addressed at WP:RSN, and also at the article's talk page. What is your assessment of it? Cirt (talk) 05:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Luke, when you posted those diffs I brought them to Cirt's attention and asked him to look into them. We hadn't had a chat about that before because the most recent occasion happened shortly before mentorship began. February 2008 was an eventful month. Reviewing the events to get a fresh recollection of the chronology, this thread turned up, which is worth a chuckle. No matter who I defend--from Cirt to Jossi--someone comes along to accuse me of being an apologist. But I digress. :)

It wouldn't be proper to repeat Cirt's words from our chat, but a couple excerpts from my own:
 * That's a content question. I wouldn't be qualified to discuss it.
 * How has your thinking on that changed in the last 13 months, and why? And if that's your opinion now, why didn't you remove it yourself?

Basically Cirt reached his own analysis of the source itself, and offered to remove it. The only reason he hasn't done so already is because he's waiting as a courtesy for me to complete this post. If there are other lingering content concerns of this nature, I'd be glad to address them. Best regards, Durova Charge! 05:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed it, and made a comment on the talk page . Cirt (talk) 05:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Point made. While I wipe that trout off my cheek, will do a cleanup survey for other old POV edits that remain live. Bear in mind that I've made over 80,000 edits, so it can be tough to recall all the old ones. If something else comes to your attention, please bring it to mine. Cirt (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 6 Dec 2008. Jayen 466 18:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

An update on work at David Miscavige - I did some cleanup, tagged some sources missing page numbers with page number, removed some questionable external linking in sources per WP:COPYLINKS, and removed some unsourced bits. I also posted to WP:BLPN to hopefully bring in some fresh eyes. Any further input would be most welcome at the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for Durova, who you addressed specifically, but I can't imagine anyone else blaming you for anything on this Scientology Arbitration. It's not exactly the easiest things to cut your teeth on, y'know? You've done a fine job so far; keep it up. And you have my sincere thanks for being willing to take on one of the toughest, generally most thankless duties we've got, being an Arbitrator. John Carter (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

New WikiProject
Hi, I've seen you around on the Wiki as someone who seems interested in the statistical trends. I've started a WikiProject at WikiProject Editing trends to help catalog the various types of user research that have been created. If you would like to sign up and help fill in our files, it would be most appreciated.  MBisanz  talk 05:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Need Some Administration
Can you please advise me. I am being personally insulted at the Obama discussion page. My discussions are deleted or marginalized. Most recently the "Photo Agenda" section I made was first deleted then labeled a "rant' and archived.  However, i was also personally insulted by several people there.  Seeing how I was banned for calling some ones actions "juvenile" I think calling my comments "stupid" and by another "lusting" and "lunatic" deserves that these people be cited or blocked for personal attacks.  In addition, after i was blocked for saying "juvenile" I was blocked again by a guy named Tarc from even writing on my Talk page or appealing my block.  His reason was he said I 'ranted" on my talk page. The piece was simply about the pitfalls and potential for abuse at the discussion page. that was it. Can you help me or find someone who will? thank you. JohnHistory (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Check User
Hope this is the right place. User:Cutlerownsagain is a sockpuppet, he has admitted to having more accounts than this on a sock puppet. Would you mind "checking" the user to see if there are any more accounts that can be found? Thanks! Sheepeh (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)