User talk:Jake Wartenberg/Archive 4

Clarify?
I wanted to clarify with you (as is advised), whether you are willing to use the default process for recall, or whether you may have specific criteria already outlined that I'm not seeing? user: J  aka justen (talk) 05:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right, I should have specified a process. I use this one. —  Jake   Wartenberg  11:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, to clarify: do you mean you intend to use that process going forward, or that you believe that process applies retroactively (rather than the default process)? user: J  aka justen (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The process I linked to is the one you should use. —  Jake   Wartenberg  21:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you agree that it is fair to say that the default process would have applied up until today, per your statement on the matter at your RfA? The process you have chosen to use from today forward specifically prescribes a two week grace period before any changes to its content (and presumably any switch to that process itself) take effect.  user: J  aka justen (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Recall is a voluntary process. If you wish to use it and have it actually go anywhere, you must respect Jake's wishes in this regard and use the criteria he linked to. NW ( Talk ) 01:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If an administrator has committed to the process, withdrawing from it or significantly altering the criteria would be widely viewed as problematic (made clear by the "grace period" present in the criteria User:Jake Wartenberg has asked to be used going forward). In any event, I have asked him to clarify a point that only he can clarify.  user: J  aka justen (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * NuclearWarfare is correct. —  Jake   Wartenberg  01:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Admin recall, really? Hell in a hand basket. That's where this place is going. Lara 17:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

All due respect J, this is why I don't allow non-admins to vote for my recall (and why I also require a week-long wait before initiating a request). Take a step back and try to see the bigger picture, please. At the moment, it would appear you've lost all sense of perspective. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I regret we disagree. My "perspective" is that an administrator should not stake a very clear position in a deletion debate, modify relevant policy in the midst of that debate under an inaccurate edit summary, and then close that deletion debate without consensus (while relying heavily on the revised policy, but without mentioning the revision whatsoever).  All of this without any regard to their prior involvement in the debate.  The repercussions of this chain of events alone are serious and regrettable, but the unwillingness to answer any of the questions or concerns raised above, let alone take any sort of responsibility for the significant lapse in judgment, is just too serious to ignore.  Further, selecting criteria that apparently minimizes accountability to the community is not something in which you or he should take pride.  user: J  aka justen (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is completely untrue that I have been unwilling to address this. I commented at the DRV yesterday, admitted that I have been mistaken in some of my actions, and explained my reasoning in all of this.  The criteria I have chosen is more restrictive than the default, but less so than what many admins use.  —  Jake   Wartenberg  21:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The suggestion that Jake could be recalled over this (a suggestion implied if not overtly made, perhaps because its unlikely in the extreme) serves no other purpose than to be inflammatory. We don't recall administrators over a single ill-advised action, particularly when they admit their errors and undertake not to repeat them. Allow Jake (who is a relatively new administrator) to learn from his mistakes, like we all do. Nathan  T 22:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I could not more strongly reject your allegation that my only purpose in beginning the steps towards a recall petition "serves no other purpose than to be inflammatory," and I regret the tactics being employed here to attempt to quash such a petition. If you believe there is no merit in such a recall, then we disagree, but my motives are not in bad faith and they are not designed to be "inflammatory," your assertions otherwise notwithstanding.  Unfortunately, User:Jake Wartenberg made a series of escalating errors in judgment that have set a very dangerous and very unacceptable precedent: that administrators, in order to reach their intended result, can circumvent consensus and policy through an apparently deliberate lack of transparency, without any concrete accountability whatsoever.  I recognize that he has only been an administrator for two months, and I agree that everyone should be able to learn from their errors, but the lapses in judgment he made here, and his subsequent efforts to circumvent a community-driven recall petition, were not simple mistakes.  As evident at the deletion review and the relevant policy talk page, User:Jake Wartenberg has severely damaged the trust the community has placed in him, and that damage cannot be ignored.  user: J  aka justen (talk) 00:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you've gotten the idea that Jake's lost the community's trust. I'd very much like to see evidence to support this claim. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If he accepts that he has made a mistake, he would do well to reverse it. A single mistake that is corrected obviously would not lead to recall -- but when someone simply lets the cement dry it's rather hard to see that that person accepts that there was indeed a mistake.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think he admits he's made some mistakes with how he handled things. Unfortunately reversing them isn't as easy as hitting the undo button. For deletions, we have DRV. Other processes have similar mechanisms. Sometimes it is better to let the stone come to rest rather than trying to catch it as it falls.  Gazi moff  22:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * DRV became necessary only when Jake failed to heed calls to undo his close of the AfD. As evident here, this was a considered decision.  What exactly is the point of saying "I did it wrong but I'm not going to fix it"? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Recognizing a mistake doesn't necessarily lead directly to reversing it - in this case, reversing it would short-circuit an ongoing debate and require yet another close (and probably another DRV). Many people have commented (as has Jake) that he made some mistakes in how this was handled; many have also said they endorse the outcome despite those mistakes. Cure might be worse than the disease in this case. Nathan  T 23:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Calling a recall over a single bad close, even an egregiously bad close seems to be really pushing it. I disagree strongly with Jake's close but am fully confident in Jake's ability to continue as an admin. I have full faith in his ability to use the tools appropriately. Recalling over this is a really bad idea. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Nathan wrote, We don't recall administrators over a single ill-advised action, particularly when they admit their errors and undertake not to repeat them. That's not true, though it should be. Jake being recalled for this is unnecessary, however. Lara  03:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * He revised a policy, and pointed people to it without mentioning he had just made a very significant revision (under a very inaccurate edit summary). He closed a deletion debate he was inarguably involved in, one minute following the close of discussion.  These aren't minutiae.  If he were to say, clearly and without reservation: "In retrospect, there were serious flaws with my close, and I should not have been the one to make the close," then we all wouldn't be here, we would be at the deletion review.  Nowhere, that I see, has he acknowledged that he made any errors whatsoever here, and nowhere has he promised to review the decisions he made, determine what he should not have done, and said he will refrain from making those mistakes again.  If he were to have done these things, I wouldn't be here.  user: J  aka justen (talk) 03:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a valid point. Certainly this is close to the limit of what sort of behavior would be considered requiring a recall. Some further indication from Jake that he understands how egregious his actions were would be helpful. So far, we're not seeing that. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * He explicitly acknowledged his mistake; I'm not sure what more you could want. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This is no single action. Everyone can make a mistake, but nobody is fit to be an administrator who would make a bad faith change in a disputed policy--it's that, rather than the close, that we should focus one:  actually single handedly changing an important and much disputed policy to a version that had been rejected by the community, hiding it with a deceptive edit summary,  and then immediately using it to close an AfD in a way that supported his previous opinion. This may be a one time occurrence. But nobody who had done such a thing even once ever would be confirmed as an administrator. That you did it makes it difficult for us to trust you again. You are now quibbling over the details of what procedure to use. If you were honest about the use of recall, you would facilitate a vote, not try to evade it. I think you are making a bad situation worse. There may perhaps be some explanation adequate to this, but i have yet to hear it. I could imagine many, but none of them quite explain this. I hope you will think better about this tomorrow, and make recall unnecessary; there is only one honourable course at this point. Lara knows what it is, & since she was honourable, she followed it herself.  DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 1/ "rephrase" is not deceptive. That was the wording of the edit summary, no?
 * 2/ Who first made the claim that the edit summary was deceptive. Does anyone know? Lara  03:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, my recall criteria are good. If a recall is so important, people should be happy to use it. Furthermore, the more "honorable" admins we have stepping down, the fewer honorable admins we have doing work. Being on the other side of the glass, so to speak, that argument makes no sense to me anymore. Lara  03:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Lara, "rephrase" clearly implies a change in phrasing that would not have any meaningful effect on the intent or impact of the language. His change significantly modified the policy, the extent to which we can all see now on the talk page of that policy.  I'm not sure who first interpreted his edit summary as "deceptive," but I'd prefer to simply call it really inaccurate.  user: J  aka justen (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I believe I know who made the original claim, but because I'm not sure, I won't assert it. However, I'll research it and if I'm correct, the same editor who first made this claim has a history of making significant changes to pages (including policies) and using edit summaries that not only are 100% deceptive and wholly unrelated to the changes actually being made, but also marks them as minor. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I know. But there is a difference in being deceptive, attempting to cover what one has done and prevent others from seeing it, and using an edit summary that is not detailed enough. He changed the wording. In my opinion, "rephrase" is not deceptive, rather it is vague. I'm not defending what's he's done here with the policy and the DRV. Not something I would have done, but recall is extreme. Lara  03:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Lara, don't drag me into this in such an oblique way, using WR's criticism of me. Every single word you post here in Jake's defence, you dig him deeper into the hole. What started off looking as though he was badly advised on IRC, and was too young and naive to stand up to it, is now looking like something much worse. If you want to discuss me, do it on my talk page.


 * Jake, if you want to stop your reputation from being shredded any further, you might consider ditching the advice of your friends and speaking for yourself, because they are not helping your cause one bit. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 03:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for saving me the research. I didn't advise Jake to do anything, by the way, in case anyone is taking Slim's comments to be a reference to me. I was notified of both the policy change and the DRV close after the fact, playing no part in either. Lara  04:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, last time I checked, Requests for arbitration was not abbreviated WR. Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV. Lara  04:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You're not helping Jake by trying to undermine his critics, and by speaking for him when he should be speaking for himself. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 04:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's your opinion. And I'm not trying. When people want to rake someone over the coals for something, it's worth noting when they've made the same mistake, multiple times, and to a much harsher degree. You're pushing for his resignation, so maybe you should spend a little more time reflecting inward and a little less time trying to strong arm your opposition. Lara  06:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to let that stand, no matter how often you say it. I've written and helped to maintain several policies, and my editing there can in no way be compared to what he did, and then how he used what he did. Stop trying to undermine people who are criticizing him. If you care about him at all, you'll help him to see that his actions, and more importantly how he responded to the criticism, was quite wrong. So long as you behave like this, you're making him think it was okay, and that it's really his critics who're in the wrong. The other thing you're doing is helping to undermine the BLP position you support. You've even turned me against it, which took quite some doing. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 06:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Slim, there's a comment from Scott MacDonald above in need of your attention, if you would, please. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know Jake Wartenberg from Adam, but I know he screwed up here&mdash;basically twice (revising the policy page and closing the AfD), but they are part of the same broader mistake of not stepping back and seeing how bad what he was doing looked and in fact was. It was bad judgment, but no one has presented evidence that this was part of a pattern of bad judgments. If it was a one-off mistake, I don't think resigning adminship is necessary, and it seems unlikely Jake will be convinced to do that since there is hardly overwhelming consensus that this is worthy of desysop or resignation. Jake says his recall process is this, which requires the complainant to argue that Jake has abused admin privileges twice in six months. Those calling for Jake to step down or submit to recall should do one of two things, or both: 1) Investigate his past admin actions and see if he has made similar significant errors before (I gather he has not been an admin long so this should not be difficult); 2) Keep an eye on his activity in the months ahead, and if you see another major or even moderate screw up, initiate the recall process. If there is no evidence of past malfeasance, and if Jake does not make other significant errors in the next six months, that would suggest this was a one-time mistake, which human beings do make from time to time. This is a rather long way of saying that there's not much to talk about here on this user talk page. If you don't think Jake should retain adminship, you should probably start looking for past indiscretions or take the matter to ArbCom, though it's extremely unlikely they would take a case on this matter. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am willing to waive the "twice in six months" requirement. —  Jake   Wartenberg  04:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Recall requests made during the drama are meant as punishment for actions, not to prevent damage to the project. Reasoned requests are made after the dust has settled and the entire picture can be examined, including looking at past records and weighing all of it objectively. This is why many of the recall criteria have a mandatory breathe week. It's also why you find a lot of admins will suddenly go inactive when they find themselves in hot water. Rushing these things leads to the loss of good admins. Lara  04:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec with Lara) Well there you go. Anyone is now able to start a recall process if they so choose, I see a couple admins in this thread who are probably willing to do that, so if you find a crat and a couple of other users you're off and running. I think it was smart of Jake to loosen the requirements here (get rid of the requirement for a crat&mdash;which to me at least is far too restrictive&mdash;if you really want to "facilitate" a recall as DGG suggests above), and opening himself up more easily to recall should count for something in terms of administrator ethics and the like. I don't think he should fear a recall request since it strikes me as unlikely that a majority would support him losing the bit. Interestingly a couple of the admins who criticize Jake above (and don't get me wrong, I basically agree with their criticisms, if not their view that he should resign), do not seem to be in CAT:AOR themselves. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Opening himself up more easily to recall should count for something..." That would be true if he hadn't walled himself off to begin with.  The default process, which presumably he subscribed to before today, puts it succinctly: "...this [process] presents a default procedure and set of criteria which may be chosen as a fallback at recall time to reduce controversy."  user: J  aka justen (talk) 04:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As you undoubtedly know, most admins are not even in the recall category. I am, and my process is designed to be a lot less restrictive than the one Jake is using (which to me has far too many hoops to jump through before it really begins), but we should be glad he is using one at all, and that he has now loosened it significantly, making it possible for you to initiate a recall right now. No one is stopping you from doing that, and since you have a couple of admins in this thread who would probably support you I'm guessing you have a good chance of bringing the matter to a vote. Rather than leaving more comments here that further assume bad faith ("walled himself off to begin with"?--how on earth do you know that's what he was doing?), why not get to it with the recall business? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not quite. And we would probably all benefit from some time to cool down.  "If, after one week of discussion, the issue is not resolved to your satisfaction, you may submit a request for my recall on this page." —  Jake   Wartenberg  04:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

← (Mostly in response to User:Bigtimepeace.) I don't care about "the right now." I care about the issues that remain to be addressed here. You're saying yourself that the process he selected earlier for this situation is more restrictive than yours, but it is, in fact, much more restrictive than the default process, and I don't think there's anything inaccurate about saying the effect (if not the intent) was to wall him off from the majority of this community. I'm well aware that recall is a voluntary process (as people keep pointing out here for whatever reason), but proclaiming your support for the process during your RfA but then imposing significant new hurdles when a recall petition becomes a reality is an issue. user: J  aka justen (talk) 05:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you say so, and obviously put that in as part of the problem when you try to recall him, which, as Jake points out, you'll have to wait a few more days to do (hardly a big deal). Surely Jake is sick of the yellow bar lighting up at the top of screen every 10 minutes, so I'll leave off commenting here again, which is probably a good idea for everyone. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Justen, may I humbly suggest that WP:RFC/U is that way. Otherwise, stop flogging the dead horse. It's getting tiresome. Jake's made some mistakes and he's admitted them. He's a two month old rookie admin that's still learning the ropes and he should be given the opportunity to learn from it. If you want to continue grinding your axe, I'd suggest that there are other ways to go about it instead of arguing here every five minutes. Many thanks,  Gazi moff  08:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This wasn't, by any stretch of the imagination, a "rookie" mistake. Further, if you were concerned by the frequency of the conversation, why post your message more than three hours (not "five minutes") after the last reply?  The continuous mischaracterization of these concerns is what's getting "tiresome."  user: J  aka justen (talk) 10:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

As an alternative to self-flagellation or a hair shirt, I have sentenced Jake Wartenberg to penance of hard labor restoring the scapegoat above for featured picture candidacy. Yes, it's encyclopedic...believe it or not... Let's get back to editing. David Shankbone's biography really isn't worth the fuss. Durova 349 04:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Question
How do I suggest that someone creates a page about a subject that I think should be covered by Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karriem14 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Try WP:RA or WP:AFC. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit War (Super Hero Squad)
Hello,

You recently reviewed an edit war on a toy page. See []

It appears the war is still going on, and now it's getting heated. I checked out the forum that's being deleted, and one of their mods is suggesting that the link is continuously removed in some evil plan and that XLinkBot is being manipulated into deleting a harmless forum. The IPs aren't participating in the discussion, just getting angry that their forum link gets removed. Can you offer any further insight or help? It's just ridiculously that there's this fight over a message board for toddler toys. Tomson elite (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

MC10
Hey there.

Could you explain your reasoning behind your unblocking of, please? &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can. Relevant discussion can be found here.  Granting this kind of unblock request is unusual because it is almost always impossible to know if the blocked user is telling the truth.  In this case, though, the user had a history of good contributions to vouch for them, as well as another established user who knows him in real life.  Three other users agreed that unblocking would be a good idea, so that is what I did.  I hope this makes things clear.  If you need me to elaborate further, don't hesitate to ask. —  Jake   Wartenberg  20:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, missing context. :-)  For what it's worth, I'm not sure I would have unblocked in that situation&mdash; I think there are a few two many crossing edits to make the brother story stick very well.  The question was raised because MC10 popped up to comment in an unrelated sock discussion, and the block history made it seem fishy.  Thanks for the explanation.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it worth lobbying a Wiki Administrator?
... or are your decisions guided by factual evidence? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.99.30 (talk) 22:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure I understand the question. Of course the answer to the latter question is "yes".  Is there anything specific I can help you with?  —  Jake   Wartenberg  22:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

When you step in to close down an ‘edit war’ over an article to what extent is the decision influenced by lobbying from one side rather than a close examination of the edit history which, let’s be honest, can be extremely boring? I'm talking about Earth Song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.99.30 (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The idea behind protection is to force users onto the talk page to discuss their edits, not to make judgment on what version is preferred. Of course, I did look at the diffs.  —  Jake   Wartenberg  22:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Got that. Thanks for the response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.99.30 (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

GAN
Did you have a chance to finish Talk:Fears in Solitude/GA1? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's done now. —  Jake   Wartenberg  00:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/Questions/General/List
I notice that you added some questions to this page. You might have missed the instruction stating that users are limited to asking a single question. In consideration of this, and of the huge burden on candidates to answer questions, please consider removing all but one question from your submission. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Jake; could I add that the organisers of the election will probably soon be deciding what to do about the large number of remaining questions. You may wish to raise the matter of the one-question rule at the Election Talk Page. Tony   (talk)  09:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

IP Ban for 99.144.252.126
Dear Mr. Wartenberg:

I recently found out that someone nearby me has an IP in my IP's range. 99.144.252.126, is mine. I live in Schaumburg, IL (may be seen as some other place) and I am not the person who interfered with the Roman Polanski article (althought I am Polish, Alexander Aleszczyk) and I am sometimes looking through WP and see something and want to edit without logging in (it's a drag to log in for me). The IP 99.144.252.126 should not be banned on WP for the next 3 months. Please remove the ban for that IP. That is all.

Sincerely,

Alexander Aleszczyk Founder of Team Rex www.teamrex.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexpja (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately this is needed to prevent abuse. You can refer your friend to WP:ACC.  —  Jake   Wartenberg  22:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Fortresslinux/Archive
Please, I am seeking the process instructions to re-open the investigation cited in the section title. I'm not finding the instructions on how to do this. I asked the other admin involved in the SPI, but haven't received a reply. The suspected sock has started in on personal attacks now as justification for putting the entry in the article. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction for re-opening the investigation. &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 14:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We rarely reopen cases. Instead, follow the directions to create a new one.  I hope this helps. —  Jake   Wartenberg  21:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. Thanks.  &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

CJ
Hi - I like the centijimbo template (although I'm not a userbox guy myself). However as I was looking through it I noticed that there seems to be a cached version of the centijimbo page which shows using popups when hovering over the word "tool" in the centijimbo bluelink which includes the old (broken) link to the toolserver as if it were a wikipedia article (link here) rather than than the toolserver link which correctly shows when you are actually viewing the article (correct link). I've taken the opportunity to update the jimbo denominator, and hoped that would purge the cache - but no change. Actually, not sure if it's a cache issue or a weakness in the popups script not being able to correctly parse the "tools:" namespace link... Any thoughts? 7 01:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you clear your cashe? Otherwise I got nothing.  —  Jake   Wartenberg
 * Yep - and I've tried on both IE and Firefox. To be specific, if I go to your userpage and mouseover the word centijimbo in the CJ userbox, and the text preview popups up if I mouse over the word "tool" it actually shows the correct CGI code - but if I click on the word "tool" it takes me to the broken page mentioned above.  Do you see something different if you click on the word tool?  Maybe it's a popup error.    7  03:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That is odd indeed. —  Jake   Wartenberg  03:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * JFYI - not anything wrong with your code... just not gonna work.  7  06:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Thomas Ricciardi
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Thomas Ricciardi. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ted87 (talk) 02:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Not even bothering to respond?
Stifle and I have both posted queries above about your questions to arbitration candidates. Tony  (talk)  10:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notices. I have been following the discussion taking place, and I plan on contributing to it.  The questions I contributed to that page relate to an important issue that needs to be addressed.  Questions should be assessed based on their content, not who contributed.  I would be more than happy to help merge similar questions or remove unnecessary ones.  To echo Durova, anyone overwhelmed by these questions is probably not arb material.  —  Jake   Wartenberg  21:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Editix xml editor
Hi, as you were the closing admin for WP:Articles for deletion/Editix xml editor on 29 August 2009, I'm bringing to you some concerns that have emerged in the last few days as you may be able resolve the problem without a deletion review.

The result of the closure was "redirect to List of XML editors". The redirect was reverted yesterday by an IP, but I've undone that so that the redirect stands. However the IP is now involved in an edit war at List of XML editors, trying to insert "Editix xml editor" as an item on the list, but being reverted on notability grounds. The comment on the talk page is: "In the meantime, as long as the article remains deleted, I'll keep removing the links."

The problem is that the criterion for inclusion in a stand-alone list article is this: "Each entry on a list should have its own non-redirect article in English Wikipedia, but this is not required if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." - from WP:LSC. So you can't have an entry in the list for "Editix xml editor" since it is not notable enough for its own article and there can be no expectation of an article in the future (because of the AfD). That means we now have a redirect for an item that can't exist in the (list) article that it redirects to!

I have some sympathy for the IP editor who must feel they are in a catch-22: the AfD said make a redirect, but it can't be mentioned in the list it's redirected to, because it was redirected, not kept.

I'm not sure I've explained all this clearly enough, but I'd ask you to reconsider the result of the AfD closure and decide on a delete or a keep, as redirection to a list just causes the problems above. I have "no dog in this race", but I do feel the present situation is unsatisfactory and some action is needed to cut short the edit-warring. --RexxS (talk) 02:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have relisted this. Cheers, —  Jake   Wartenberg  02:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not normal and redirection is added and the article is deleted. I have added references on it (except for Laurent that don't see any references) at the bottom. editix xml editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.88.99.20 (talk) 11:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Please semi protect an article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroko_Mima

Please semi protect this article as it is being edited to reflect a situation which is untrue re: sex tapes. Thank you, if more information is needed kindly email me at.

Ian M.S. Royer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian M.S. Royer (talk • contribs) 17:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done this. —  Jake   Wartenberg  18:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Link for protection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyatt_gallery —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian M.S. Royer (talk • contribs) 19:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help
Its much appriciated :) Any chance of a crash course in wiki writing? --Ian M.S. Royer (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, most of this stuff you just gotta pick up as you go along. I am not sure what advice to give you, but please let me know if you have any questions.  —  Jake   Wartenberg  21:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Username
Per concerns you raised here, the question about the username has been raised here .radek (talk) 06:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

stop chaging my edit penwortham is in preston —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.246.183 (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Multiple accounts abuse
Greetings Jake, i noticed that on the 16th of August you blocked a user called Laantada for having multiple socks like Runta and Hotissue, he was then unblocked by another admin because he believed these accounts with the same edits could belong to seperate individuals editing from the same computer, which in my opinion doesn't sound convincing at all. It has come to my attention that a new account by the name of Southie4life - with the exact same edits on the exact same articles - is pushing Laantada's POV:


 * Laantada's contribs
 * Hotissue's contribs
 * Runta's contribs
 * Southie4life's contribs

This is clearly a case of "If it looks like a duck..." I would like to hear your opinion on this because it's highly unlikely these 4 accounts with the same style of writing that focus on the same 'two articles' are 4 different 'individuals' and not a single person with multiple accounts--Scoobycentric (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you file an SPI case? This case probably needs checkuser evidence, and that would be the proper venue as I am not a checkuser.  Please include specific examples of how the accounts' editing patterns intersect.  Thanks for you work here.  —  Jake   Wartenberg  17:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright i will do that then, thank you for your advice!--Scoobycentric (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

CSD farming berbers
Hi Jake, you just declined my request for speedy deletion of the article farming berbers. User:SOPHIAN created the article. However the user is known for making nonsensical edits all over wikipedia and that is what resulted in his indefinite block. A list of some his nonsensical edits can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive554#user:SOPHIAN_-_copy_of_Obama.27s_birth_certificate_on_user_page_and_talk_page_.28and_the_file_itself.29. here]. I will have to go for an AFD, but it would require many users to expend considerable energy, and time( 1 week) for the AFD process, for which the outcome is fairly predictable. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Jake, I was about to speedy close this AFD as wp:csd G5, then I saw that you had already declined to do so. I'm curious why.  It looks pretty straight-forward to me.  Am I missing something?  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is the user banned? If that is the case it should probably be indicated on that user's userpage.  —  Jake   Wartenberg  18:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, unless you want to draw some subtle distinction between banned and blocked indefinitely as a confirmed sockpuppet, then I have to say the answer is yes. I'm going to nuke the article.  -- RoySmith (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Isofox speedy deletion
Ah yes, when I first read it, it appeared to just be promoting the feed, but after reading it again I see that is not true. Is there a way to reply to messages posted on my talk page without starting a new one on your page? Isofox (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

the kurt thing
G'day all (copied to Durova, Jake 'n Coffee :-) - I wondered if you chaps would mind taking a look at the RfC and seeing if you think withdrawing it would be a good idea at this point? Seems to me like that's the way the wind blows, and I also had a question about the certification bit - I don't really know how that works, but right now only Durova has certified as 'trying and failing', right? - I think there are supposed to be two for the RfC to continue? (don't bash me with a policy stick if this is wrong - I'm rubbish at this side of the wiki).

Either ways, I can see where it was coming from, but I don't think, at this stage, it's a good idea for the RfC to continue - so I thought you might like to take a look... Privatemusings (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Audio chats for arbcom
as you can see from the right, I'm out of the gate on this one! hooray :-) - that means it's your cue to somehow approach one (or more!) of the ever growing lists of candidates, and start trying to line something up! - after I uploaded the file to commons, I used the existing wiki voices template to make a page at wikipedia:wikivoices/arb09/jhoch - so you could just change the candidate name to fit with that model - I (think) I then 'transcluded' it onto the candidate statements page (like I did here too) - see here for the finished thing.

It's been my experience that these things take up to (or more than) a week to line up and get done, so I reckon it could be a good idea to line something up whilst you're grappling with any further technical gremlins, or getting to know how it works technically etc. I can do my best to answer any questions you might have, but have found bumbling through with a problem-solving hat on generally gets the job done (have a listen to the file on the right for a model of question / answer / chat which, whilst definitely improvable, sort of works....)

I'm copying this message to both Dan, and Jake, who have signed up to help, though spread the word, and any lurkers should feel free to head over to WP:Wikivoices if they're interested in getting on board. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 07:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Jake, if you feel up to it I am more than willing to be interviewed for wikivoices. Send me an email or the like. Best, Unomi (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

New Page Needed
How does one contact Wikipedia and suggest that a new page is needed? In this case specifically about a group of producers named the Phantom Boyz who are mentioned in a few articles in Wikipedia but there is not article about them.
 * Try WP:RA. Best of luck.  —  Jake   Wartenberg  01:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

New MyPaint page?
Hi, I noted that the earlier MyPaint page is deleted (for notably promoting FOSS?), would you mind if I started an article on the subject? (I'm new here so I though it was best to ask). Seems like the French page is currently the only other article about the painting program, and I'd like to make an English one. If the discussing of the page should be done somewhere else, please excuse this post. Thanks. ArTorP (talk) 09:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there. The problem here is that this topic needs to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject in order to merit an article, and the people reviewing the page couldn't find any (see discussion).  If you find some I can restore the article for you.  Best, —  Jake   Wartenberg  21:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer. For the third Blender Open Movie, the artist David Revoy uses MyPaint extensively as a part of the concept art creation workflow, as seen in these links. Would that serve as a reliable source of its use? Thanks. ArTorP (talk) 06:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * PS still awaiting a decision. Best, ArTorP (talk) 07:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

tb
SpitfireTally-ho! 11:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your work at SPI!

 * Thanks. —  Jake   Wartenberg  19:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

igloo
Hi Jake Wartenberg, and thanks for your interest in igloo. Before using the program, please read the following information carefully - failure to do so may result in your test access being revoked.

igloo is a JavaScript-powered, browser-based anti-vandalism tool, which means you do not have to download or install anything on your computer and it will work on multiple operating systems. However, it does mean that the performance relies on that of your browser and it may operate more slowly than downloaded programs. You must have either Mozilla Firefox 3+ or Google Chrome to use igloo, as it is currently incompatible with other browsers.

igloo relies on a system called iglooNet to assist you in finding and reverting vandalism. It is this system that transforms the program from a pretty version of recent changes to an actual anti-vandalism tool. Naturally, this is beyond the power of a client-side program, and igloo will regularly communicate with an external, non-Wikimedia server. Because of things like server logs, and the iglooNet abuse tracker, this may allow your IP address to be attached to your username - something which is otherwise impossible on Wikipedia. If you do not want this to happen, you MUST NOT USE IGLOO.

If you decide that you do want to test igloo, please keep in mind that it not wholly stable, and you may experience problems where it performs an invalid edit, or other unwanted action. If this happens, fix any mistakes you've made, apologise to anyone you've offended, and let me know. I don't take any responsibility for your use of the program - if you aren't willing to fix any errors, don't use it.

igloo is already quite powerful. The following is a simple guide to using the program:


 * The igloo interface is similar to that of other software, including huggle. Recent changes appear on the left, and diffs appear on the right.
 * igloo sorts diffs based on iglooNet data so that edits most likely to be vandalism are displayed first. You can press spacebar to view the top diff, or click on any diff to view it directly.
 * When you find vandalism, press 'Q' or click the revert button to revert the change, and issue a warning to the user. igloo automatically issues the correct warning. It will ignore existing warnings that are more than 5 days old, and restart from the beginning.
 * The iglooNet assertion system tags clean and dirty edits with colour coding - if it suspects an edit is vandalism, it will be flagged as red, and if it believes it to be clean, it will tag it green.
 * At any time, you can re-review diffs you have already seen by pressing backspace or using the icons to move through the diff history.

If you have any questions, comments, suggestions or other feedback, I'd love to know. If you hate it, and won't be using it again, please let me know why - and I'll remove you from the test whitelist. If you now try and use igloo, you should find that it will allow you to use the program. Thanks, and good luck! A le_Jrb talk 19:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Request
Hello Jake Wartenberg, I believe that this is the first time that I have had the pleasure of inter-acting with you. Mercy11 is confused as to your actions logged here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/rights where you changed his/her rights from (none) to Autoreviewers. This was the message on my talk page User talk:Marine 69-71. Since it was your call, I am requesting that you please get in touch with the User and answer any question which the user may have. Thank you and take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I left a note here. —  Jake   Wartenberg  00:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for your understanding. —  Jake   Wartenberg  02:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

thierry Henry
Kevinharte:I'd say your sick of hearing about this.But in the article about Thierry henry and the handball incident,can I add the fact that time magazine has nominated him as the biggest cheat in the history of sport? They're a pretty reliable source.

--Kevinharte (talk) 03:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how I can be of service here. ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  03:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * well i thought you might lift the protection for me so i can make a change?Kevinharte (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Trolling on today's FA
Hi, I noticed that there were some issues with trolling on today's Featured Article (Werner Mölders) so I whipped up edit filter 266 to help prevent such edits. I figured you might appreciate the knowledge. :) Cheers, {&#123; Nihiltres &#124;talk&#124;edits}&#125; 04:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome. I briefly considered that option before coming to the conclusion that I lacked the expertise to implement it.  ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  04:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

please protect
please protect Werner Mölders there is an inbound /b/ attack inbound andyzweb (talk) 05:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We are fully aware and dealing with this via the abuse filter. Thanks.  ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  05:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool man, yay for administrators!! andyzweb (talk) 05:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)



andyzweb (talk) haz givn u Cheezburgr! Cheezburgrs promot WikiLovez and hoapfuly thiz one haz made yore day bettr. Spreadd teh WikiLovez by givin sumone else Cheezburgr, whethr it be sumeone youz hav had disagreementz with in teh past or a gud frend. Hapy munchins!

Spredd teh goudnesz of Cheezburgerz to all lolcat buddiez by addin {{subst:Cheezburgr}} to their talk paj with friendly messuj to all.

Block of 82.18.186.151
Hi Jake, I was looking at the AIV report for 82.18.186.151, and I couldn't find any edits that were vandalism. Some were edits that I would have reverted for being sensationalist, but none of them seemed to be deliberate vandalism. Could you have another look, and indicate which of the edits you thought were vandalism? Thanks! PhilKnight (talk) 17:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My decision was based on this diff, and I think you're right in that I would have done well to look further. I'll unblock and keep an eye on it.  ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  17:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Cathar11 irregular activity
After a series of "editions" performed by the alleged "editor" named cathar11 I have detected not only slander, libel and felony attempts but a pattern on this person behavior. If somebody has an specific ideology that is fine but using wikipedia as a vehicle for tainting, smearing or attacking pople and institutions because I support a certain political agenda is not under wikipedia principles. Check HRF article, Eduardo rozsa article, Evo morales article, Martin dwyer article and a number of others. POV cannot be disguised and reputable sources should be respected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a single topic editor who is now engaging in the same vandalism and the same edits on Human Rights Foundation that the page got semi protected for. I edit and have created pages over a wide range of topics. This editor has got a POV and a COI.Cathar11 (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * PS I have never edited or read the Evo Morales article until now. I fixed a wikilink while I was there.Cathar11 (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * PPS The edit and BBC reference he removed Eduardo Rózsa-Flores wasn't added by me see . It is a day later than the sources he used and BBC are WP:RS more so than Fox news or the other secondary sources he quotes.Cathar11 (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Cathar11 is not only engaged in distorting wikipedia content, check his comments and slander in http://www.politics.ie/foreign-affairs regarding this same topics (And I have more evidence), I'm a single topic editor? no, but Cathar11 is a single sided felon. He has performed not only POV but libel and slander and has failed to complain with wikipedia policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for temporarily protecting my talk page! & I like your restoration work! Nice Job, keep it up! NoFlyingCars (talk) 05:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome, and thanks. ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  23:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

ACE questions
Hey there, about your ArbCom questions, I was wondering if you had a link to the statements by MZM and Iridescent about their involvement in the Law/undertow thing. I can't seem to locate them, and would like to read through them so I can answer your question in more detail. Thanks. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 04:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For Iridescent it's here. Still looking for MZM's. ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  00:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Here. Cheers, ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  00:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Julia Goss DYK hook
I've restored that hook at T:TDYK, which you pulled from the queue, and invite you to comment at T:TDYK. The original hook of that nom is perfectly legitimate. The dark-humor version you pulled out is borderline but catchy, and a discussion might arise on that. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 01:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was about to restore it to the suggestions page myself. ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  01:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

fixed term?
You commented on ANI. One problem with indef blocking is that if the person comes to their senses and edits productively, they can be blocked on sight for block evasion. Isn't it better to block for a fixed term? Or exempt block evasion for indef blocked users after 90 days? I am not trying to empty out the jails but I do believe in supporting our rules and find it hard to support a defacto lifetime ban.

I don't have a problem with indef of Wikiwoman (Barnard College) but shouldn't we allow account creation after several months? I don't think we should wink and say "if you change, you can sneak and come back later". Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with a block that automatically expires is that the blocked user often perceives that they need to simply "serve their time" and they then return to the same editing patterns when they block expires. Thus we have another ANI thread in two weeks.  The indef block doesn't necessarily mean "forever", just that the user needs to convince us that they understand what they were doing wrong and that they will endeavor to edit productively before they resume editing.  I would more than happy to unblock if the users post a convincing unblock request.  Hope this helps to explain my reasoning.  I am absolutely in favor of second chances for reformed users.  ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  20:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we could just rename the block from "indefinite" to "for the near future"? Or put a provision somewhere (WP:BLOCK ?) where users can recreate accounts after 90 days if, and only if, the new account edits constructively and improves Wikipedia. I've seen the unblock request board and most requests are denied, sometimes with rude or snappy comments. I prefer courtesy in life. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The blocking policy makes it pretty clear that an indef block isn't necessarily forever. "An indefinite block is a block that does not have a fixed duration. Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy. In such cases an open-ended block may be appropriate to prevent further problems until the matter can be resolved by discussion."  If you see any unblock requests handled badly approaching the admin in question or taking the issue to ANI might be a good idea.  ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  20:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Green Pine DYK
Thanks! Flayer (talk) 09:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thank you for your work.  ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  19:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

blocked user
Hi Jake. A few days ago you blocked Lisch1314 (User talk:Lisch1314).. it looks like he/she tried to do the unblock template (but wrong).. thought you might be wanna check it out. Tom A8  UDI  20:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's been taken care of. ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  21:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

FPC closing process
--Caspian blue 02:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Leonard Barkman
Hi Jake, I found some references for the article you just placed in the incubator. I reckon it ought to be enough to pass WP:N, and if not, I'm afraid that this is pretty much all I could find with Google. Also, I didn't even know we had an incubator and don't know what to do next: apparently changing the status to "eval" puts it back in mainspace? I'll let you be the judge of that, OK? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Moved back into mainspace. Thanks so much!  ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  22:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:ITN
Please see In_the_news: "The item has been nominated at the candidates' page, with an emboldened link to the updated article." --BorgQueen (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In addition, this is not the first time that you got reverted on ITN. I suppose you didn't notice last time. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You will have to wait until you gather multiple supports, since I've expressed my opposition. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that now. Cheers, ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  03:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Cookies

 * Thanks. ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  03:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Books
I see you deleted my listing in Wikipedia. Granted, my own ignorance caused me to exceed the limits of acceptability. But to designate that two of my books are not relevant or notable is a considerable misstatement. Beautiful Bad Girl, The Vicki Morgan Story, defined one of the major sex scandals of the late 20th Century. This was the ongoing, twelve year affair between Alfred Bloomingdale, department store scion and Reagan Kitchen Cabinet Member. Morgan sued and made international headlines. She was later murdered, and her death remain a controversy as does much of Bloomingdale's involvement with the Reagan Administration. My book tells the story from my first person perspective as I was a witness for the persecution and no Morgan and got a first hand account of her affair and involvement with Bloomingdale and other members of the administration. I was consulted and have been continually consulted for information and input regarding the notorious sex tapes and mechanisms within that period. I have recently been approached by two different parties for the film rights, as it is one of those stories that doesn't go away.

The Guys Who Spied for China was done as a roman a clef due to vetting difficulties. However, it is a first hand account, based on my personal experiences working for one of the persons largely responsible for uncovering Chinese Espionage Networks operating in the United States. This is obviously an ongoing story as each month it seems another story appears bout the arrest of someone or some group who is spying for China. This, again, is a controversial story and was recently published by an Independent Publisher. It is a story that has yet to be told up until now, and I am receiving favorable response from people in the film and literary markets as well as people experienced with intelligence operations. It is slow going of course, as publishing through an independent publisher offers certain advantages, telling the story you want to tell, but there are challenges with distribution and dissemination.

The Constant Travellers is a book I published through Putnam's. Other than it was optioned for film rights, etc. it is not particularly notable in a historic context.

Again, I apologize for the self-promotion. It was over zealousness and, frankly, ignorance. I should have reviewed more thoroughly the Wikipedia policies. But to deny the notability of the other two books, I believe, would be remiss.Ga bass (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration on this.

Gordon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ga bass (talk • contribs) 19:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is another site http://www.amazon.com/reader/0546797415?_encoding=UTF8&ref_=sib_books_pg&qid=1259711563&query=gordon%20basichis#reader_0546797415 Ga bass (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

http://www.amazon.com/reader/1569248729?_encoding=UTF8&ref_=sib_books_pg&qid=1259711563&query=gordon%20basichis#reader_1569248729 Ga bass (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I left some information earlier in the day. With respect to Beautiful Bad Girl, the book was reviewed extensively, including Time and People Magazines. However, the reviews were conducted in 1985 and do not appear on the Internet. There were radio, television and newspaper interviews, including Current Affair, during that same period. I will try to find the links, but it has been some time ago, but then,given the years, reviews from those publications, may have been lost over time. Here is some of the information I do have at the moment.

Beautiful Bad Girl was first published in hardback by Santa Barbara Press, in 1985, which was not at all a vanity press. The book went out of print and was later put back in print through the Author's Guild and its Back in Print program they co-ventured with iUniverse. Additionally, Beautiful Bad Girl came out through Books on Tape and was distributed for twelve years. You can find copies of the Books On Tape addition on Alibris, and you can find copies of the original hardback on various used book sites. The hardcover, among other places is listed on Amazon, minus a photo of the cover. Here is the url. http://www.amazon.com/Beautiful-girl-Gordon-Allen-Basichis/dp/B001T9ERY6/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259704778&sr=8-10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ga bass (talk • contribs) 22:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is the url for the Beautiful Bad Girl Books on Tape edition http://www.alibris.com/booksearch.detail?invid=9547344982&wquery=beautiful+bad+girl&qwork=-555712306&qsort=&page=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ga bass (talk • contribs) 22:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Ga bass (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are additional links for the Books on Tape version http://www.spotcost.com/prices/9785557123068/

For what it's worth, I may well have coined the phrase "Beautiful Bad Girl," having published the title in 1985. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ga bass (talk • contribs) 22:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Ga bass (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B0026EOM8Y/ref=dp_olp_collectible?ie=UTF8&qid=1259709399&sr=1-2&condition=collectible Find here the original cover to Beautiful Bad Girl, the Hardback Edition. Find it under the section that says "collectible, very good. Show all three images.Ga bass (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I should note that I was the only one to interview Vicki Morgan, and did so for nine months, as she helped to write this book.

I will look for additional information. As The Guys Who Spied for China is so new and out through an independent publisher, reviews are slow. For points of reference, and I know this is abstract at best, there are numerous articles about Chinese Espionage in the eighties, especially. I realize that anyone could write a book and claim reference to various incidents, but that is what one is always faced with in writing a book of this nature. Anyway, I posted some of this information elsewhere, but as I am not all that familiar with the mechanisms inside Wikipedia I forget where.

With the understanding I now have, I will refrain from editing or promoting myself in ways that would seem untoward or not in compliance with Wikipedia. But to consider either book not notable in the face of their historical value tends to leave a lot out of the research mix. Ga bass (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Regards,

Gordon```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ga bass (talk • contribs) 23:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom questions
Just wanted to drop you a line saying I appreciated the questions you asked of the candidates. The way they were phrased made them among the most helpful to me, and I presume for others as well. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 21:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am quite glad others found them helpful.  ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  23:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

MyPaint site accepted?
Since there were no remark then I guess it's accepted to make a new page there then? ArTorP (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to show coverage in as many reliable sources as possible to establish notability, and keep the page from being nominated for deletion again. Let me know if you need me to elaborate further.  ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  21:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

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

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:
 * Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
 * Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
 * Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
 * Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
 * Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
 * Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
 * Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
 * Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
 * Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
 * In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

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

Autoreviewer
You've made me this, but I'm not sure what it means. Can you please explain for me? Thanks, GauchoDude (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Gaucho--here you go ... Autoreviewer.

--Epeefleche (talk) 06:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks
While I've not requested it, I recognize that it is a good thing, and appreciate it. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Chen
Yeah, I was emailed about the situation. I've since changed the reasoning on 2009 Macau Grand Prix Formula Three, but thanks for the re-notification. :) Cs-wolves  (talk)  00:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed ...
... Scott just got his admin bit back. Did he ask for it, or is it a Christmas present? :-) lol (I ask because I thought it was kinda cool he had given it up ... and was flying that pirate flag.) Proofreader77 (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He asked for it back. ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  00:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for indulging my curiosity. Hate to see that pirate flag go, though. :-) Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality and Anglicanism
Regarding this, please be more careful when posting new ITN items in the future. Not only that the item didn't get enough consensus (User:Tone had already expressed his objection), but that the article hadn't been updated at all. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Tai Streets DYK
Please remove Tai Streets from DYK. It is not ready for main page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why isn't it ready? ⇌ Jake   Wartenberg  04:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, in any case. I moved it to prep 1, and that should give you some more time.  How this happened, I am unsure.  ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  04:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please remove from Prep 1. It will not be ready until the weekend. I have hundreds more newspaper articles to read.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

yes?
Re: Yes. - is that yes, close it, or yes, the motion is too soon? davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  02:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've clarified. ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  02:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk
Excuse me, I've come across the SPI page and the idea of being a Clerk there intriged me and I was wondering if you could give me some information about it please? (P.S. Could you reply on my talk page because I'm terrible at talk page watching!) The C of E (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This question has been asked and answered in the past; another clerk declined to take you on as a trainee, and a checkuser stated that you are not suitable to become a clerk trainee at this point. Nathan  T 16:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What happened to looking into edits and also the fact that I have turned over a new leaf have no basis? The C of E (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Please help correct ASAP
Hi,

Somebody made a last minute hack to my DYK hook which is on the front page right now (I say "last minute" because I checked the queue last night and it was still intact at that time). The butchered hook now says


 * ... that, during the territorial era of Minnesota in the U.S., Native Americans were frequently denied the right to vote based on whether or not they wore trousers to the polling station?

This statement is not strictly supported by sources and, regardless, is not really the point made in the article. The original statement said they were "allowed to vote" based on wearing trousers. Can somebody please correct it quickly?

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * DragonflySixtyseven corrected the hook (mostly). Never mind. Thanks. --Mcorazao (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK
You forgot to link to the article in your message on my talk :-) Is something wrong with the DYK update bot?  Nyttend (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The credit template got messed up at some point along the line. I am not sure who's fault it was, but it wasn't the bot's.  ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  03:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay; I was just wondering because the bot normally gives the credit. Nyttend (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

INDECISION2009
Cute. :) davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  14:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I found this too. I can't tell whether it's supposed to be humorous, pointy or a political statement. Regardless, it's amusing. -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 03:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

request for copy of deleted article
Could I get a copy of the deleted article Air travel, climate change, and green consumerism? We want to move it to Appropedia. I'm guessing there's no easy way to do it with history? If so, I guess we'll assume it's substantially by the one author.

Post to my userspace or send it to me at chriswaterguy with the domain name appropedia dot org - many thanks! --Chriswaterguy talk 09:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, with history. You can move to another wiki with the history intact if you have import privs on that wiki.  Best of luck, ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  16:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wonderful, thank you! --Chriswaterguy talk 00:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked editor returns
An editor whom you blocked for 3 months in this discussion in November has returned and is causing problems again - see WP:AN/I. You might want to consider resetting the 3-month block given the repeated evasion. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Translations on cs wiki
Thanks, it would be great: cs:Cheryl Haninová (Cheryl Bentov), cs:Spark (software) (Spark (software)), cs:Trampling (Trample), cs:Ĝangalo (Ĝangalo). Thak you for help and merry christmas.--Slfi (talk) 10:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Should be done now. Best, ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  02:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Text in your discussion page on cs wiki is similar this from en template:Test:


 * Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.


 * I'm sorry for that, I contacted that user and I explained why you added english text on that discussion page. Thank you for your help.--Slfi (talk) 10:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

jackie gibson mercer
Why did you delete the jackie gibson mercer page? Is she still alive? 71.177.230.111 (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See the deletion discussion. ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  02:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Your extension of the block to
Jake, I cannot see why you extended this block to indefinite. The original block was flawed and there seemed to be no justification for the extension. By extending the block and reverting AML's last edit you are also arguably making yourself uninvolved. While I can see that AML was POV pushing and editing through a COI, I feel that Bilby's attempt to draw what is an very inexperienced user into a discussion about their concerns should have been given more then 3 minutes before AML's editing career was brought to such a peremptory end. Spartaz Humbug! 05:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * These are fair points. I wasn't aware that the individual had BLP related concerns; I agree we should be very sensitive in these kinds of situations.  I would have looked further into the matter had I known this was the case.  I don't feel comfortable overturning NW's original block, but I've reduced the duration to the original length.  Let me know if you need anything more from me.  Best,  ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  07:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will speak to NW about his block once the writer has responded about their behaviour. I won't unblokc unless they agree to play nice. Spartaz Humbug! 10:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations
I am not sure how to submit a case but here is the evidence: I have a suspicion that User:Drawn Some and User:Gerbelzodude99 and User:Torkmann are the same person. Of all the articles in Wikipedia and of all the articles I started, why would three people be drawn to the same articles over and over? All three accounts exist only to nominate articles for deletion, and all three concentrate on articles that I write and all three have nominated Joachim Cronman. The odds that three random people nominate the same random article would be 3 million cubed. See Articles for deletion/Joachim Cronman (4th nomination). The multiple accounts appear to be in order to avoid sanctions from Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive563, Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive553, and Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive198. In the most recent ANI an admin proposed banning Drawn Some from topics. Drawn Some subsequently stopped editing, so it is conceivable that the person behind the account switched accounts to avoid scrutiny when renewing the attacks on my articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have similarly brought these suspicions up at User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Australian Monarchist League - references
Dear Mr Wartenberg,

As a member of the National Council of the AML I have been contacted by its Chairman, Philip Benwell, and asked if I would look into the possibility of removing the first reference on the AML entry i.e. the one written some years ago and about the alleged background of Mr Benwell. I have tried to do this but cannot manage it - I did see however, that you appeared to have restored the reference after he, Benwell, removed it. I note that you are an administrator so I assume that you have access to things which I don't - and rightly so. ( I have written a few things for Citizendium so am fully aware of the need for accuracy and objectivity.)

As the reference to him is surmise and unproven and not relevant to the entry on AML - Benwell is Chairman but does not run the organisation himself - I would ask that you consider removing it yourself. The other references are fine, if a little dated.

I am not sure if I am following protocol or common sense in writing to you but I do so nevertheless.

My e-mail is fhugheveleigh@hotmail.com.

I seer that I am supposed to precede my signature with 4 tildes so I have now added these (30.12.09)

Yours sincerely,

--Fhugheveleigh (talk) 11:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)F. Hugh Eveleigh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fhugheveleigh (talk • contribs) 16:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Fortitude HTTP
I am creating an article based on a previously delete page: Fortitude HTTP. I believe this page was deleted (after reviewing the notes) because no internet presents could be found under its release name "Fortitude HTTP", it was originally called simply "NetworkDLS HTTP Server" which has seen nearly 500k downloads from the vendors sites and many more from other outlets (such as Softseek, Softpedia, Wareseeker and Geardownload).

I believe this presents contradicts one of the criteria that caused the articles deletion. My brother-in-law also uses this software and is an avid Wikipedia user (much better than I, im a n00b), I am going to ask him to help me expand the page and add some more references.

Is there anything else I can do to ensure the the page isn't deleted?

Thanks in advance!! FourtySix&amp;Two (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

NPWatcher
I am interested in using this tool. when It's working again think you can approve me to use it? I like the tree on the profile, by the way GLaDOS (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That tool hasn't worked for a while due to a MediaWiki update. You can huggle to check for new pages. Best, ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  22:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The 2010 WikiCup begins tomorrow!
Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Userbox
I created this userbox, if you are interested in including it on your page.

GLaDOS (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Requesting unprotection on Wesley Pruden
Hi there. Back on November 17th, you semi-protected this article indefinitely as it was the target of repeated vandalism from multiple anon IPs. This was a good idea at the time, but I think it's no longer necessary; he was only in the news briefly due to a controversial newspaper article he wrote, and has had little attention since then. (In fact, the page hasn't had a non-bot edit since November 18th.) I generally think that protection should be used as sparingly as possible, and articles shouldn't be kept protected any longer than necessary. If you agree, I recommend lifting the semi-protection on this article. Thanks. Robofish (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The protection expired on the 17 of December. Best, ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  00:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Protection on Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism
I've removed the explicit protection on that editnotice as it's already protected (as are all editnotices outside user space) by the Mediawiki software (as Amalthea noted when unprotecting it the last time). I checked that this protection was really true, by attempting to edit it both when not logged in and as my alternate non-admin account Sackful of swallows and I see that an attempt to edit brings up a "only editable by admins" header. Oddly, it doesn't seem to have automatic protection against renaming, though, so I've put move protection on it. Regards, Tonywalton Talk 01:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I protected the page because users with the accountcreator permission, something much easier to attain than adminship, can bypass the title blacklist and edit unprotected editnotices. Since the ACC flag isn't really intended for this purpose, I thought it made sense to close this loophole for such a prominent editnotice.  One could make AIV inaccessible with the right kind of code on that page and it would take a technically oriented admin to remove it.  It's worth noting, though, that there isn't consensus for this kind of protection (so you are more than free to reverse it) and that it's not an issue I feel strongly about--I just thought you might like to know why I implemented the protection.  ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  01:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Accountcreator - of course. I missed that. I've reinstated the protection. Tonywalton Talk 01:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet(s) of blocked user oldwindybear
Hi. I have noticed based on writing style and a particular passion about Bonnie and Clyde/Frank Hamer articles that users Pv86 and HarringtonSmith may be sockpuppets for banned user Requests for checkuser/Case/Oldwindybear,- |suspected sockpuppets of old windy bear. Old windy bear was banned(or resigned) just after being made an admin in July 2007 for sockpuppetry. I could not find the arbcom page regarding that though. If you could look into this, it would be greatly appreciated. Mytwocents (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Jake,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Quays Waterford2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on January 14, 2010. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2010-01-14.  howcheng  {chat} 07:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that's better...
The guy just refuses to take the hint. I mean if his edits were at least helpful, I could work with it, but like I said, he edits like he's in grade school and just keeps doing it. Half Shadow  20:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day NYC
You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Diamond

 * Thanks! ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  03:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you have a look at Talk:Main Page? It concerns this very update and since you were the one who put it on the mainpage originally, I thought it might be appropriate if you were made aware of it.
 * Peter Isotalo 10:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;


 * gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and


 * ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Need help regarding sockpuppetry
Hello! I need to report a disruptive user who uses sockpuppetry to insert false (or at least disputable and dubious) information. I would start the procedure but I don't know how to. I read Sockpuppet investigations but I cannot understand how it is done (English is not my first language). The person I am referring to uses two accounts called User:Bosnipedian and User:Regionlegion. Bosnipedian told me that Bosnia used agnatic-elective monarchy and, after I insisted that such type of monarchy does not exist, Regionlegion said that he had already explained that to me. Later, Bosnipedian completely agreed with Regionlegion in this discussion, simply repeating his arguments. The two accounts edit the same pages and put the same (false) information in the same articles. Furthermore, Regionlegion was unexplainably rude to me the first time he wrote anything to me. On the other hand, Bosnipedian had already met me. It is clear that I am dealing with sockpuppets.

I am sorry if I am bothering you. I suppose you are very busy; if you do not have time to help, could you please explain to me how to report him? Thanks in advance. Surtsicna (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I figured out how to report it. I hope I've done everything correctly. Surtsicna (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

a question about checkuser/sockpuppet stuff
sorry to bother you - I picked your name off the Active Clerks list on the SPI page. I want to know if a particular issue I'm having warrants a checkuser. a page that hasn't been active at all for literally months - orgone - has suddenly become active with an IP who is making aggressive and somewhat idiotic edits that mirror almost exactly a debate that got me in trouble when I first started editing wikipedia. It's a clear baiting tactic (the IP is just too polished for it to be the work of an over-eager newcomer), and I even have a good idea who's behind it - in the last 2 or 3 days I've had had a couple of cross-edits with an editor I also haven't run into in months who has been blocked and site-banned for sock-puppetry before. I'm just not sure whether there's enough here to merit a checkuser, or whether that's even the correct approach. any advice you have is welcome. -- Ludwigs 2 23:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

HI could you undeleted my psp go page please
It would mean alot, my email is jacobcotlong@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mylancotlong12 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We already had a page on the subject. ⇌ Jake   Wartenberg  00:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Jake,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Hospital at Scutari 2a.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on January 21, 2010. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2010-01-21.  howcheng  {chat} 19:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

prod of Ren Ng
I have removed the prod tag from Ren Ng, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! Ray Talk 16:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

BLPs
I do hope you are actually adding references to these BLPs yourself. I've tackled a number of BLPs to try to help out reducing the 50,000 list the last few days and I will be pretty disappointed if you are taking the easy option and think the best solution is to nuke the lot when with a bit of hard work we could try to reference and expand them Jake. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 18:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I'd like to thank you for sourcing the pages I did PROD.  I think you may be right--I did get a bit ahead of myself.  I will change my focus to older articles and perhaps spend a bit more time looking for sources.  Best, ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  18:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I am well aware there are many duds in that list, in fact I speedied a couple and supported a couple of deletions for AFD the last few days. I just think the idea of nuking the whole lot without assessing each one is also potentially damaging to the encyclopedia, I am sure several thousand in that list could be expanded into decent articles and sourced and are notable even if they are not all like that. Yes, the BLP is a serious one and it is definately a priority to completely whittle down that list to zero, but while it should be done as quickly as possible I believe we should be chipping in and at least trying to find sources and if not then delete.... The task is urgent but even if it takes several weeks or months to rid of that BLP list and we end up with keeping notable articles which are sourced and ready for expansion this is much better than nuking the entire lot without bothering and possibly facing the same problem at a later date by somebody recreating them in the same way!! I'll be putting in my contribution every day I edit on here.... Regards Dr. Blofeld       White cat 22:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

For instance we don't want to be deleting articles like Roberta Flack just because they are not sourced!! Dr. Blofeld      White cat 22:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Can you AFD Eman Abatayo? I'm not convinced he is anything more than a reality show guitarist... Dr. Blofeld       White cat 13:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

prod of Darryl Sampson (Canadian football)
I have removed the prod tag from Darryl Sampson (Canadian football), which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! Ray Talk 22:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Note
I have nominated you for membership in WP:BAG at Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Jake Wartenberg. Please review the nomination, and if you accept, notify the appropriate pages listed in policy and then transclude it to WT:BAG. Good luck.  MBisanz  talk 02:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Request to undelete or Userfy "Barbie Wire Baseball Bat"
Hello.

My page was deleted as a "hoax." But it isn't. I just didn't know how to create the links, upload pix, etc. Below are links to vid, pix, and official results pages from the events named in my Barbie Wire Baseball Bat page. Also, there is a Facebook Fan Page (which currently has 19 fans).

Here is a video from Velocity Pro Wrestling's Summer Bash 2 (Aug 16, 2008) and at 1:40 the bat is used by Spike Dudley, just like it said in my description. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLTewKEMT04

Here are photos of the yellow bat and pink bat at VPW and Jersey All Pro Wrestling shows (with wrestlers Spike Dudley, Masato Tanaka, Sara Del Rey, and tag team All Money Is Legal): http://s3.photobucket.com/albums/y99/Xicon1979/Barbie%20Wire%20Baseball%20Bat/

Here is the Velocity Pro Wrestling's MySpace blog about the results of the Summer Bash 2, wherein the Barbie Wire Baseball Bat is mentioned in the fifth paragraph (right before the word "intermission"): http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=388955417&blogId=421695331

And here is the Facebook Fan Page, http://www.facebook.com/#/pages/Barbie-Wire-Baseball-Bat/260479000964?ref=ts

This is the Twitter page: https://twitter.com/BarbieWireBat

So if this is a hoax, I have gone to considerable trouble and expense to create it. Not to mention hired hundreds of extras to fill the arena, hired pro wrestlers and a ring crew to enact the hoax, and wasted a lot of my time coming up with all the different pages (Facebook, Twitter, Photobucket, etc).

Below is the original text from my Wikipedia posting. All of the text matches the evidence above.

Let's get the obvious out of the way: the Barbie Wire Baseball Bat (The Bat) is a play on the term "barbed wire baseball bat", which is a weapon sometimes used in hardcore wrestling matches. Both weapons are obviously named. The barbed wire version uses barbed wire wrapped around a bat. The Barbie version is a "gentler" version that wraps plastic dolls around a bat. So far, two versions of The Bat have surfaced. The first was yellow, the second one was pink. No one knows what color the bat will be each time it enters an arena. A different bat is used each time, but always brought by the same guy. The Bat was conceived in 2008 by “Sharpshooter” Alex Pawson. ASK FOR IT BY NAME The Bat debuted at the New Alhambra Arena in Philadelphia, PA on August 16, 2008 at a Velocity Pro Wrestling show. Spike Dudley was the first to use The Bat, and the first victim was Sideshow. Their match was the mid-main event (right before intermission). About ¾ of the way through their match, a chant of “Use the bat” echoed through the arena. Spike obliged the crowd by signaling for The Bat from Alex. Upon impact, legs, arms, and heads of the dolls flew around the arena and the crowd went nuts. JERSEY DEBUT The Bat made its second appearance, and its NJ debut, at Jersey All Pro Wrestling’s 12th Anniversary show at the Rahway Convention Center. Monsta Mack (Heavy Hitters) used The Bat on Brodie Lee (Hillbilly Wrecking Club) during a three-way-dance tag match. The impact was so crazy that one entire doll went flying off the bat, and one doll was shot out of her tiny clothes. This match was the last of three main events, and the final match of the evening. LUCKY CHARM FOR SOME So far, both Spike Dudley and the Heavy Hitters have won their respective matches after using The Bat. We’re not saying that it has anything to do with The Bat, but we’re also not NOT saying that either. WHO’S NEXT? Who will wield The Bat next? Who will be The Bat’s next victim? Where will it show up? Can the winning streak continue for wrestlers who use The Bat? Check out the Facebook Fan Page as The Bat makes more appearances and claims more victims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LegendOfAlex (talk • contribs) 20:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi this is about the entry about the Barbiewire Baseball bat
Hello. My page was deleted as a "hoax." But it isn't. I just didn't know how to create the links, upload pix, etc. Below are links to vid, pix, and official results pages from the events named in my Barbie Wire Baseball Bat page. Also, there is a Facebook Fan Page (which currently has 19 fans). Here is a video from Velocity Pro Wrestling's Summer Bash 2 (Aug 16, 2008) and at 1:40 the bat is used by Spike Dudley, just like it said in my description. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLTewKEMT04 Here are photos of the yellow bat and pink bat at VPW and Jersey All Pro Wrestling shows (with wrestlers Spike Dudley, Masato Tanaka, Sara Del Rey, and tag team All Money Is Legal): http://s3.photobucket.com/albums/y99/Xicon1979/Barbie%20Wire%20Baseball%20Bat/ Here is the Velocity Pro Wrestling's MySpace blog about the results of the Summer Bash 2, wherein the Barbie Wire Baseball Bat is mentioned in the fifth paragraph (right before the word "intermission"): http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=388955417&blogId=421695331 And here is the Facebook Fan Page, http://www.facebook.com/#/pages/Barbie-Wire-Baseball-Bat/260479000964?ref=ts This is the Twitter page: https://twitter.com/BarbieWireBat So if this is a hoax, I have gone to considerable trouble and expense to create it. Not to mention hired hundreds of extras to fill the arena, hired pro wrestlers and a ring crew to enact the hoax, and wasted a lot of my time coming up with all the different pages (Facebook, Twitter, Photobucket, etc). Below is the original text from my Wikipedia posting. All of the text matches the evidence above. Let's get the obvious out of the way: the Barbie Wire Baseball Bat (The Bat) is a play on the term "barbed wire baseball bat", which is a weapon sometimes used in hardcore wrestling matches. Both weapons are obviously named. The barbed wire version uses barbed wire wrapped around a bat. The Barbie version is a "gentler" version that wraps plastic dolls around a bat. So far, two versions of The Bat have surfaced. The first was yellow, the second one was pink. No one knows what color the bat will be each time it enters an arena. A different bat is used each time, but always brought by the same guy. The Bat was conceived in 2008 by “Sharpshooter” Alex Pawson. ASK FOR IT BY NAME The Bat debuted at the New Alhambra Arena in Philadelphia, PA on August 16, 2008 at a Velocity Pro Wrestling show. Spike Dudley was the first to use The Bat, and the first victim was Sideshow. Their match was the mid-main event (right before intermission). About ¾ of the way through their match, a chant of “Use the bat” echoed through the arena. Spike obliged the crowd by signaling for The Bat from Alex. Upon impact, legs, arms, and heads of the dolls flew around the arena and the crowd went nuts. JERSEY DEBUT The Bat made its second appearance, and its NJ debut, at Jersey All Pro Wrestling’s 12th Anniversary show at the Rahway Convention Center. Monsta Mack (Heavy Hitters) used The Bat on Brodie Lee (Hillbilly Wrecking Club) during a three-way-dance tag match. The impact was so crazy that one entire doll went flying off the bat, and one doll was shot out of her tiny clothes. This match was the last of three main events, and the final match of the evening. LUCKY CHARM FOR SOME So far, both Spike Dudley and the Heavy Hitters have won their respective matches after using The Bat. We’re not saying that it has anything to do with The Bat, but we’re also not NOT saying that either. WHO’S NEXT? Who will wield The Bat next? Who will be The Bat’s next victim? Where will it show up? Can the winning streak continue for wrestlers who use The Bat? Check out the Facebook Fan Page as The Bat makes more appearances and claims more victims. 67.81.58.193 (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Dannie