User talk:James F Kalmar/archive

= Universal Talk Page Archive =

Hello
Could you explain why you're commenting in RfA's in your first few edits? -- Mythdon  talk •  contribs  21:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your recent comment. I apologize for perhaps giving you cause for concern over my RfA comments.  I have been a careful observer of Wikipedia for well over three years now.  During that time I have, as you noticed, refrained from significant editing.  I suppose I usually reasoned that there are editors far more intelligent and experienced than me.  However, for the past year or so, I have been intrigued by the Wikipedia dispute resolution process, specifically by the fact that many diverse editors are able to straighten out complex difficulties in a usually amicable and straightforward manner.  I have noticed that sometimes the atmosphere is understandably tense in these discussions.  So I thought that while I might not be the most experienced, I could perhaps offer a unique and encouraging view in these discussions.  I figure that perhaps my "niche" can be in the realm of informal mediation.  That is why I have recently been carefully commenting on certain third-party opinon and request for comment pages.  With regards to the RfA page, I have been, as I said, observing for some years, and thought I might finally try and make a (hopefully helpful) comment myself.  I am very aware that I do not have as much actual editing experience as many editors, and I appreciate your caution.  I did carefully check that I was not violating any policy or guideline before offering my comments.  If I am violating a policy, I would appreciate your letting me know (To clarify, I mean that sincerely, not facetiously).  I really am just interested in being helpful to other editors and to the encyclopedia project, specifically by encouraging civility and cordialness in the discussions.  Sorry to write so long, but I wanted to fully answer your question. -- Matheuler  01:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Further to my earlier comments, I viewed your (Mythdon's) user talk page. I percieved from your conversations with another user in one section that your main concern regarding my low edit count is probably potential sockpuppetry.  I should have realized that some would be concerned about this.  I can unequivocally state that this is my only account ever on any Wikimedia site, and that I am not operating in tandem with any other editor(s).  I am sure that you are a good editor and person, so I sincerely hope my commenting earlier than usual has not caused you to be too upset.  Thanks! -- Matheuler  01:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification! -- Mythdon  talk •  contribs  06:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

3rd opinion
You are still planning to offer a view on Talk:Roy Abraham Varghese, yes? Just making sure, since this item was removed from the WP:3O list earlier today. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the timely reminder. I do indeed plan to offer a neutral opinion in the hopes of working out a fair and proper solution for all the valuable editors involved.  Matheuler  17:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually came here with the opposite reminder - your third opinion on Talk:Nutrilite looks spot on, but you forgot to remove it from the list. Generally when I am sorting through the 3O list, I pick one that looks interesting, skim the relevant discussion to see if it looks tractable to my limited skills, and then remove it from the list to avoid duplication of effort while I investigate more fully. Also, since you state above that you are interested in Wikipedia's dispute resolution mechanisms, it might be worth noting that the two editors in the above-linked discussion have very different ideas regarding how to interpret the notability policy. Good luck, and keep up the good work. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the good idea. I will try and remember to remove any items I work on from the list.  I haven't done a lot of this, so I do appreciate helpful tips! -- Matheuler  21:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Another 3O question
I saw you commented on Talk:Pedestrian crossing a few days back saying you would provide a WP:3O, and was just wondering if you were still working on it. If you are, no worries, but if not I can take care of it so that the editors at least get their request within a week. ~ Amory  (user • talk • contribs) 20:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me. I have been trying (without success) to locate a relevant precedent.  Since I was unable to find one, I'm going to go ahead and just contribute my personal opinion with the goal of finding a precedent.  However, please feel free to add your comment as well. -- Matheuler  22:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome! I gave my thoughts on the matter, you might find them interesting. ~ Amory  (user • talk • contribs) 01:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion at Speak (artist)
Thank you for offering a neutral opinion at Talk:Speak (artist). I realize that this may make me sound like a whining child, but just want to note that the edits made to Speak (artist) since 13 August are not without controversy. I am, however, refraining from editing the page until further steps are made toward consensus. Cnilep (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your work and for keeping in touch. I have requested at the article talk page that all editors explain the reasons for their potential edits.  I appreciate that you are careful not to enter into an edit war.  If however, you have serious evidence that an edit is primarily destructive, please either revert it or bring it to the attention of other editors (such as myself) at the article talk page.  I would appreciate if you make a concise statement of any future controversial edits on that talk page (with diffs if possible). Thank you again for your hard work, and please keep trying to make this article the best it can be.  Matheuler  20:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello again. You're probably busy, but I wanted to remind you again of the ongoing discussion at Talk:Speak (artist). Cnilep (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reminder. I had the page on my watchlist, but, as you suspected, I had gotten preoccupied with other projects.  But I would be happy to offer an opinion shortly. Thanks -- Matheuler  22:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Shilpa Shetty mediation
Hi Matheuler, thanks for your helpful comment. I have done what you proposed and am unsure what to do next. Kind regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.199.17 (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for your effort. I will take a look in a little bit! — Matheuler   18:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee#Fixed MedCom Chair Template
Hi there Matheuler. Just wanted to say thank you for spotting the template error at Template:MedComChair. I presume it's been like that for months and none of the committee have spotted it. Even if we had, I'm not sure we'd have figured out what was wrong so a big thanks is in order from all of us! Take care and I hope you enjoy your time here. Kind regards,  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal Case
Hi! Thank you for offering to mediate in this rather difficult situation regarding the Donghu article. Basically, the argument seems to centre around User Alexjhu's apparent belief that the Chinese never referred to foreigners in a pejorative way. I do agree with him or her that the widespread over-simplified translation of various terms used by the Chinese for groups of foreigners (such as hu, man, etc.) as "barbarian" is taking things too far.

However, as someone who has been working on Chinese translations for 30 years I think I can quite authoritatively say that while the Chinese did indeed sometimes use such terms without racist overtones, they were frequently used very pejoratively. It is rather like the use of the word "Pom" to describe English people here in Australia. "Pom" or "Pommie" is sometimes used quite neutrally, as in: "He's a Pom", or "She is my favourite Pommie," or "I've fallen in love with a beautiful Pom." At other times, though, it becomes a term of foul abuse such as: "Bloody f****** Poms! Why don't ya get back to where y'came from?" or "Dirty Poms - they hardly ever shower!" It depends entirely upon how it is used, the context and the intent (and often the tone of voice), giving the requisite clues as to how it is to be understood.

Somehow Alexjhu cannot seem to understand this and accuses others of being bigoted and ignorant if they suggest that terms such as hu could have ever had negative overtones. He or she then goes on to refer to numerous articles in Chinese which are difficult to check to back up his or her opinion. Now, there are two factors to consider here. First, many modern Chinese authors may find it uncomfortable to own up to racist overtones on the use of the word in ancient Chinese literature. Secondly, the word hu has long since lost most of its negative overtones and has now become a pretty common surname and so, some Chinese may actually feel that it never was used negatively, but I think the evidence speaks strongly otherwise. Chinese people now very commonly use other abusive terms to refer to foreigners instead - as some anonymous user has pointed out on the Donghu Talk page. Well, that's about the gist of it at present. If I can be of any further help please do not hesitate to write. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply
I thank you for those clear comments. I will investigate the matter further. Until such time, I advise that further comments regarding article substance would best be directed to the article talk page. — Matheuler   03:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Azerbaijan
Actually there isn't any official translation or an English newspaper in this matter (at least I haven't seen yet). But inside dictionary or maps normally Azerbaijan is used to calling this region (I mean for both of Republic of Azerbaijan + Iranian Azerbaijan provinces). However inside net various verbs is used for the proviences (East Azerbaijan: http://iguide.travel/East_Azerbaijan_%28Iran%29 Western Azarbayejan: http://www.salinesystems.org/content/2/1/9 East Azarbayjan: http://www.iranchamber.com/provinces/08_east_azarbaijan/08_east_azarbaijan.php or Azarbayjan-e-Sharqi in google map and so on).--Microinjection (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply
Thank you for your information. I do not have time to reply in detail right now, but I should be looking into it within the next two days. Thanks again! — Matheuler   23:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Further, I believe most commenting on this matter should be done at the article talk page. — Matheuler   02:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Renewed edit war at Speak (artist)
I assume from the redirect that you are the user formerly known as Matheuler. I apologize if I am wrong in this assumption.

Thank you for your assistance in averting an edit war at Speak (artist) back in August and September. Sadly, User:Speedman79 has again begun to delete pieces of the article. You may recall that my objections to such removal led me to seek a third opinion on the article's content. After some discussion, you helped write a revised version, which we each agreed to. Speedman79 has again begun to delete pieces of the article, including those with third-party sources, calling them 'irrelevant'. I disagree with him. If you would be willing to help solve this disagreement, I would appreciate it. If not, let me know and I will seek a new third opinion. Thanks, Cnilep (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for keeping in touch! I had taken a brief break from editing to care for other matters.  Thanks for re-alerting me to the present situation.  I will look into the matter and attempt to help make sure that the appropriate solution is attained. &mdash; Finn Casey  * * * 20:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch for letting me know!
Rico 21:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course, it's only fair to know when you're being talked about! (Re:notification) — Finn Casey * * * 21:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Your request at WP:REFUND
Hello Finn Casey. You asked for Matheuler's user and talk pages to be restored. After a discussion with Fabrictramp, I have done so. (He let me use my judgment). You can see the history of your former pages, for instance here. You replaced the latest version with a redirect, but the old stuff is under the redirect. Hope this is what you needed. EdJohnston (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What a lovely surprise. I had given up on having the pages restored, as it was not overly important.  However I am pleased that I can now make sure there are no loose ends I need to tie up.  Yes, the CSD criterion was incorrectly applied, and that is appropriate grounds for the revocation of the deletion.  It was very thoughtful of you to take the time to investigate the matter. Best wishes in your future editing. — Finn Casey * * * 20:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Donghu article
Thanks so much for your careful and balanced efforts to bring some sanity back to this article. One problem though, you archived the old Talk page notes but the archive does not seem to have saved properly (there is just a red link which goes to a blank page). Are you able to fix it? If not, I would be happy to give it a try. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 00:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the page was recently moved by another editor, and I need to work out the details. Thanks for letting me know! — Finn Casey * * * 00:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * FIXED! — Finn Casey * * * 00:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks also for restoring the Donghu material, but it was deleted yesterday without any discussion. Could you please help again? Keahapana (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been rather busy of late, I apologize. I will try to refocus the discussion and examine the events within the next few days! — Finn Casey * * * 02:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm sorry to keep asking for your help, but the same material has been deleted again. Keahapana (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The situation has been escalated by legal threats at the page. Please stay with the process and keep being patient, and we will resolve the situation.  Thanks, and sorry that it has been so frazzling.  — Finn Casey * * * 01:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

re: that indef
Do you have other diffs for the radical edits and general incivility? In all likelihood, his unblock request will pass (and for good reason: some people don't understand the policy). Nevertheless, if this editor is a detriment to the project, please provide those other diffs if you can. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have responded at User talk:Xavexgoem for continuity of discussion. Thanks to Xavexgoem for a prompt reply! — Finn Casey * * * 02:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi!
I noticed Alexjhu's threats this morning and decided to ignore them. Thanks for your kind note - I certainly won't give up - I will ty to get back to it just as soon as I can - but every waking moment is taken up these days with the Mother of all Mailouts trying to promote my self-published book, Through the Jade Gate to Rome. I had no idea there were so many universities in the world - let alone faculty members, Acquisitions Officers for libraries, Departments of Asian Studies and the like! It is quite an education - though a bit hard on the arthritis in the hands sending out thousands of E-brochures! Cheers and best wishes. John Hill (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like fun! You have my best wishes - I'll be checking the NY Times bestsellers list :) — Finn Casey * * * 04:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

A reply
Thanks for your interest in our case; I've posted a reply to your last question. I'll be looking forward to your reply. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know! It is a pleasure to work in a community where editors are polite and genial even under trying circumstances. — Finn Casey * * * 23:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree with you more. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Nonetheless, I remain disappointed that an experienced editor would not see that some of the things said on the mailing list would be disturbing and upsetting to many neutral editors." I chose to reply here as I may simply misunderstanding your point. I do agree that there were things said on that list that violated wiki policies such as CIV. However, the list was private. If you mean that it is regrettable that certain editors are now offended due to what was said, may I direct yo to my reply to another of your posts here: . --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I in no way intend to imply bad faith on your part. I believe that you acquit yourself very well in these affairs.  My comment was only meant to say this: I would have expected an editor with your experience to know that if the emails became public, they would upset a lot of people.  While you have the right to send whatever emails you want, you should not be surprised that they upset people when they became public.  Since you chose to say things in a somewhat cynical and uncivil manner, you may have to live with the unfortunate consequences.  I wasn't meaning to judge you at all - I was just saying that you should not be surprised that others are.  In fact, I think I agree with you that your ban may be overly broad. — Finn Casey * * * 05:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Left you a rather longish reply (longish because you asked for examples of specific articles, so I gave several). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Your question for the arb candidates
Hi Finn. I'm listed as an assistant for the electoral process. Thanks for your question. I wonder whether you might diff to one example of what you're referring to by "the recent Committee practice of bypassing RfA by directly re-granting previously revoked administrative privileges without community comment or approval"—for the convenience of both candidates and voters. Thank you. Tony  (talk)  12:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Tony. I appreciate your help. These elections require much diligent work, and we appreciate the volunteer spirit of helpers like you.  My initial thought on the subject of the question is that adding specific situations would not benefit the general question.  I will ponder the matter further however.  Best wishes! — Finn Casey * * * 23:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Finn, I've boldly reduced the wording of your revoked admin privileges question. I believe it gets to the kernel of the issue and will be more likely to be read by the voters. But please re-add if you think there's a problem. Tony   (talk)  01:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That was a great idea! The reduced version probably will be quicker for the candidates to respond to. Thanks for the help! — Finn Casey * * * 01:14, 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) 08:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the invite, I will take a look when I have time. — Finn Casey * * * 17:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Eastern European Mailing List Arbitration Committee case
just wondering, why exactly do you suggest that I've been linked to an "opposite side of the acrimonious Eastern European Mailing List Arbitration Committee case"? I came across this Anti-nationalist guy at one of the WP talk pages where he/she started accusing people of being nationalist and then ended up labeling me as an ally of the nationalists. So how exactly puts this me to an "opposite side" of this arbcom case you're talking about? Please explain! Thanks!--Termer (talk) 05:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can understand your frustration. I apologize if you feel I have mischaracterized your position.  My intent was to state that (i) You and User:Anti-nationalist have apparently had negative interaction in the past AND (ii) His opponents in a bitter feud have commented in support of your position in the username discussion.  Those factors indicate to me that now may not be the time for the discussion, especially in view of the open Committee case.  I wish you the best in future editing endeavors! —  Finn   Casey  * 06:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * no frustration here, its just interesting if its OK on Wikipedia to go around, name yourself an Anti-Nationalist and call anybody you have disagreement with a nationalist. and no need to apologize, I just didn't follow exactly what were you talking about. cheers!--Termer (talk) 06:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)