User talk:JayHenry/archives5

Hippos!
Just thought this little article would interest you. Take care. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course....
...a corollary to your eminently reasonable suggestion is that admins who block Giano (or his sockpuppets) are not summarily haled in front of the Arbitration Committee. As an aside, we really do need to collide under better circumstances. Ever edit railway articles? Mackensen (talk) 03:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Guide
Hi Jay, I was wondering if I could list your guide User:JayHenry/chimpmanzee to the Template:ACE 2008 guides template?  MBisanz  talk 20:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I heard there was a secret arbcom guide, and just started looking around the various backlinks, nice attempt hiding though :)  MBisanz  talk 01:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

BLP diff
If you have concerns, please ask a question. Jehochman Talk 20:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Not academic material?
Sinestro Corps War is plenty academic! The usage of colors to represent different emotions and the emotional spectrum is very Jungian, it's got parallels to the War on Terror, the metaphysical implications of fear versus willpower, the literary constructs... Of course, that's all OR so I guess it doesn't matter. But still! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Worry not, I probably should have done the same with my comment above; it was only in jest! :) --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 01:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, a little of this and a little of that. In January I was embroiled in the Burma/Myanmar naming conflict and helped enforce the "king of the hill" policy (i.e., whichever name the article is, all related articles are too) to prevent the edit war from spreading across the encyclopedia. I also got Sinestro Corps War to GA status and wrote a brand-new well-sourced North American Union article that had previously been deleted for being under the control of the conspiracy theorists. In February I created and helped initially maintain International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo. I've since left it to more well-researched and better equipped editors. March and April a little more subdued; mostly categorization and diffusion there. In May, I finally got Sinestro Corps War to FA status and proposed the first of two Great Revisions that brought some order and stability to WP:VITAL. In June, and in the interest of full disclosure, I proposed this. It seemed like a good idea at the time, I swear...
 * For most of the latter half of June and most of July I was out of the country, so few edits there. In August I did a lot of random editing work and proposed an Editorial Council, which was essentially a non-binding ArbCom to make rulings on content issues. It failed spectacularly for a variety of reasons. Throughout most of September and October I was consumed by real-world things and didn't make many substantial edits, though during this time I have hundreds and hundreds of patrolled new pages and a variety of categorization-related edits. And now here I am, running for ArbCom again! I figured that since most of my oppose votes were along the lines of "not enough experience, maybe/definitely next year" in 2007's election, it was only natural for me to try again this year.
 * Anyways, that's about the gist of it. Any questions? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 09:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Policy dispute
I stumbled across User:JayHenry/chimpmanzee. The protracted policy dispute I was involved in was over no original research. I had my own opinions, but I stayed involved in a long frustrating and circular process in an attempt to try and find some solution addressing most concerns. It was very exhausting and frustrating. I admittedly did not behave as well as I should have, in my own view. I took a wikibreak to cool my head and have since generally avoided becoming overly entangled in policy disagreements. If that is not a sufficient reminder, I can provide some relevant archive links and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * On an unrelated note, I've been wracking my brain about your name seems so distinctly familiar. I now recall that you were part of one of my earliest cases at MedCab. Oddly, it feels like that was ages ago! Be well. Vassyana (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice work
I like the well-thought out views expressed on User:JayHenry/chimpmanzee that you've posted. I think you've done a good job in evaluating the candidates. Nice work!

In addition, while you yourself are not a candidate, I would easily have endorsed your candidacy, had you decided to run. I think you have the right judgment for ArbCom, and would be an excellent arbitrator. Best wishes. Acalamari 00:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:AA
E-mail heading your way. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 05:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment re AC vote
Not that it matters, but I very much believe the current "culture of secrecy" is misguided. I simply believe in respecting confidences. I regret your comment. Sam Korn 22:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe, then, that we're concerned with quite different aspects of the "culture of secrecy". I believe there is an incredibly vast middle ground between "respecting confidences" and the sort of obfuscation that has become the daily fare in ArbCom operations.  For those of us who 1) care about the project and 2) volunteer hours to it, this stonewalling can be infuriating.  We end up with completely incoherent communication from ArbCom on cases like SlimVirgin-Lar, and for no good reason.  When the details emerged, it was apparent that it would have been trivially easy for Arbitrators to have said what happened without breaching any confidences or violating anyone's privacy.  Too often they simply make no effort, and ludicrously claim confidences or privacy concerns.  Another example, off the top of my head, is the block of User:Melsaran.  Just tell the community.  "He was creating sockpuppets to harass and attempt to out another user.  This user has been the victim of such harassment in the past.  Although we cannot determine who exactly he is a sockpuppet of, the behavior is clear and Arbitrator A, Arbitrator B, Arbitrator C, Arbitrator D and Arbitrator E have evaluated the evidence and all agree."  Instead we got several weeks of drama created by ArbCom.  I know it is not easy.  I am sure it takes a lot of careful thought.  But the questions I highlighted in my oppose were opportunities to demonstrate the balancing act of transparency that we desperately need from the Wikipedians who govern us.  Being unable to mention a single final decision with which you disagree, for example, because of your need to "respect confidences" is not what I mean by transparency.  On the contrary, it's the very behavior that I find exasperating and demoralizing. --JayHenry (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think we are concerned with different aspects. I think one can simultaneously respect a confidence and believe that such a confidence should not be necessary in the first place.  If you can't tell from my comments that I agree about the "desperate need" for transparency, I rather think you had your eyes closed while reading.  Sam Korn 23:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I do agree it is possible to respect confidences and believe the confidences unnecessary. But in instances where it's necessary to keep confidences (and it will always be necessary to keep at least some), there is still a vast middle ground for better communication.  Perhaps I'm naive, but I believe it would have been quite possible for you to publicly identify a final decision with which you disagree.  More generally, it would be very possible for the ArbCom to respect confidences in every case it already does so, but to dramatically increase their transparency.  I'm not calling for the ArbCom to keep less confidences.  I'm calling for them to learn how to respect confidentiality, and still communicate. --JayHenry (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought about this for quite a while -- whether I can identify a final decision that I disagree with. I think that I could, yes, but I would struggle to say why I disagreed with it because anything I say (on a case controversial enough for me to disagree with fifteen senior members of the community) would inevitably be coloured by understandings and knowledge that I can't discuss publicly.  It seemed simpler, cleaner and more honest to give the answer I did.  It was my "campaign platform" of integrity in practice, if you will...  No matter now, but I hope you understand better why I declined to answer those questions, even if you disagree with my having done so.  Sam Korn 00:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

My RFB
Hello. You said in my recent unsuccessful RFB here, that wanted clarification as to my reason for "wanting to help" and I never responded to that before I withdrew. So let me get to that now. You mentioned that "we have dozens of backlogs that need worked on" and "If you [Useight] just want to help because we need helpful tasks done then there's lots of places to go do it, and it won't matter if you [Useight] have a fancy title."

Why don't I go work on the immense backlogs? Mainly because they are extraordinarily tedious and, over time, I would get bored or worse, burn out completely. Since this is a volunteer project, we all edit in areas we enjoy editing. For example, I'm helping with articles about NFL seasons, see User:Useight/NFL Project. Many, many NFL season do not yet have articles (upwards of 400 when I began), but I'm churning my way through them. Does this come with a fancy title like NFL-Article Connoisseur? No, I do it because I enjoy it. Same with the areas of RFA and CHU, I happen to enjoy working there and there happens to be a title attached to some of the functions. I cannot do those functions, but I enjoy clerking at CHU and archiving SNOW-ed RFAs. I'm going to continue doing them because I like that sector of Wikipedia. As for the huge backlogs, on rare occasion I do show up to categorize a few of the thousands of uncategorized articles, but because I don't enjoy it, I don't do it very often or for very long. Well, I've said my piece, so I'll get off my soapbox and back to other stuff, I just wanted to clarify why I want to help in the realm that requires bureaucratship. Useight (talk) 03:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Science
Hey Jay. Just thought I'd let you know that I clarified my answer on the science question. You can still oppose, I'm not forcing any change of heart, just pointing it out. After all, technically I should've gotten it right the first time. Wizardman 19:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers
Thanks so much for your kind words, JH. I agree that your supportive note at TTDYK was excellent, and I'll never grow weary of blessing you for it. Have yourself a happy little holiday too. Scartol •  Tok  13:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays
To you too. Thanks for your kind words, but the irony is that a fair few of my friends are accountants and economists, and I was able to ask them about bank runs and panics when you were working on 1907, and was proudly boasting that I had a small role in r-w'd the page. I have no idea where you are coming from re: your "antics", I just dont get that at all. WP is a collebrative community, we work together and of course friendships come from that, and friends goof around. So what. If others want to be cut and dry, thats their problem not ours. I've come accross some fairly seriously capable and intellegent and witty people on WP, and interacting with ye is one of the largest reasons why I spend so much time here. I'd consider you amongst the first rank. Right up there with these guys.

Well thats my Love, Actually credit spend! Take care. Oikel (talk) 13:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Jay, our christmas truce not withstanding, it was Outriggr and not me that wrote CDF. It kills me to praise that man after all he has done / not done to me - bastard - but there it is. Ceoil (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your careful consideration at my successful RfA. "An excellent editor" was generous and appreciated. Please let me know on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

LTCM
Sorry about slouching on that. I've been getting into finals and my normal method of actual "content" editing (As opposed to drama or project editing) of sitting down with source in hand for 2-4 hour blocks doesn't accord well with that. I've also realized that my grasp of the terminology and fundamentals wasn't enough to summarize this into a featured article so I picked up a copy of Stigum's Money Market. I'll be up to speed in a few weeks. Protonk (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK rules
Hi Jay. Thanks for offering to help out with a DYK rules rewrite. I've jotted down a few thoughts at User talk:Olaf Davis/DYK rules - see what you think. Best, Olaf Davis | Talk 11:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom concerns
I'm dropping you a line to let you know that I have clarified my position and reasoning regarding devolution at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Vassyana. Please take a look over it and let me know if I can clarify anything further. Addressing your specific stated concern, I believe devolution shields admins less than ArbCom-imposed broad solutions, making it more difficult for "tendacious admins" to act without consequence. For example, discretionary sanctions imposed by ArbCom, for better or worse, permit admins to act in situations with a considerably greater amount of impunity and protection than "regular" actions. Simply setting an example in a particular case and encouraging the community to resolve similar cases leaves further administrative actions subject to "normal" scrutiny and recourse. If you still disagree, please know that I respect your opinion and your well-reasoned opposition. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 04:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello. I am just stopping by to make sure you're aware that I posted a brief response to your comments. Thank you again for taking the time to discuss this with me. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I just want to make sure you're aware I have responded to your most recent comment, as well as a followup question from another user. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 11:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Blockquotes
The Dr Pda instruction sheet says that the device should include blockquotes and other quotes, but cannot: ""This method is not perfect however and may include text which isn't prose (eg in navboxes), or exclude text which is (eg in Cquote, or prose written in bullet-point form,"

The Readability program does include the blockquotes. That is why I was saying that one was the more accurate of the two in a prior conversation. Politizer's comment is completely misleading, because Dr Pda supports WP:SIZE's definition of what prose is, which includes quotes and blockquotes. I hope that helps explain things. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My pages normally include blockquotes. Dr Pda's said that his should include them. The Readability does. They are propse. My 50+ DYK have them and I never had a problem until recently. I would prefer it if Milton (as I did in the one page in question Samson Agonistes) was quoted instead of having to summarize or add padding just to meet the requirement. For instance, under readability, the 2.5k characters went to 16.8k characters. However, according to Politizer et al, the page only had 11.5k worth of characters. A 5k discrepancy because they no longer count quotes, although everywhere else on Wikipedia defines them as part of prose? Thats not really fair. I went from having more than enough for 5x expansion to falling just short and not being allowed to have it count. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't do it for me. Part of this came when it was a complex set for Milton's birthday. I worked 72 hours straight to make the deadline, and fighting over something that was never an issue disrupted two of the sets of hooks from displaying. It ruined a 400th birthday celebration. Furthermore, displaying pages on the main page attracts people to the topic, brings in people to check things, add content, add wikilinks, etc etc. Its hard to get people to work on new literature pages without using DYK. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: ACE Note
Hey there JayHenry, apologies for not answering you sooner. Your comment was not at all intrusive or unwelcome; as I said on the ACE page, I welcome all discussion. The reason that I was holding off on replying is because I was trying to formulate my thoughts to express myself most clearly. I suppose the distinction that I want to make is that I do not feel that article writing is the be-all end-all of WP participation. This project is big enough that we can have people that specialize in article writing and some that specialize in policy-making or technical aspects. It's simply not fair to have requirements for positions on what is ultimately a volunteer project. While I realize the argument that this might create a disparity between two "classes" of editor, even the little bit of editing in mainspace that Deskana does (yes, it averages out to be poor, but he does it in groups of several edits at a time) clearly shows that he knows his way around and can function. As pointed out by Majorly, there were other factors involved there as well.

Regarding WJBscribe, I think it was honorable of him to bow out if he felt that he wasn't going to have enough time to fulfill all his roles, but I'm not seeing how that supports your point; obviously ArbCom is a very time-consuming and draining job, but I trust the candidates to have considered this before throwing their hat into the ring. Will realized that his RL constraints would not allow him to perform at full capacity, and so he withdrew. I have no problem with that; in fact, it's good that he withdrew rather than getting elected and then realizing his time limits. Glass  Cobra  06:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I don't have oversight and I was never part of Mediation Team.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 23:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction. Fair enough.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 23:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello JayHenry, wanted to drop you another quick note to make sure that you weren't offended by my delay in answering you. If you'd like to continue our conversation, I'd be happy to oblige. Glass  Cobra  21:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Worn out your welcome? Haha, yes, because my talk page is so busy! No, of course not. :) I do understand your point of view, and hope you understand that my disagreement is nothing personal, of course. In my opinion, it's not really our job to be telling people what jobs they can or cannot undertake; if they have the RL time to be assuming multiple hats, then we should be glad to have them. Perhaps "punishing" and "ridiculing" were too harsh, but opposing them can send that message. In any case, voting's over; hopefully we'll have some competent and fair Arbs. Stay well, feel free to drop by my talk page anytime! Glass  Cobra  11:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
JH, I see you covered my back on the 6RR case. Thanks. My bias against current news stories in finance is confirmed by my experience on the Bernard Madoff article, people just get carried away, but at least there were no market predictions involved. Thanks again. Smallbones (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons greetings
Can't think of a better song to wish a Celoieth mispelling Scotch and Irish confusing Outriggr supporting -indvidual- such as yourself except to say Slainte. Ceoil (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * a fine Xmas message for all of us to be mindful of.... hehehe. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(meant global pan-religious not unitarian)

a challenging map...
PS: Got a favour - up for a difficult map with 9 subspecies and some overlapping ranges???? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays


Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; at some point, our paths have crossed and I've found your comments amusing, helpful or thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which! Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement. Best, Risker (talk) 03:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Dear JayHenry,

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

Kind regards,

 Majorly  talk  21:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

South African Scout Association peer review
Good day

I am not sure if this would be the correct place to place this.

Could you please help to perform a peer review on the South African Scout Association article. Thanks in advance. -- YiS,  Jediwanna be 13:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I finally got it
Sorry 'bout all the trouble back there, JH, i now see the errors of my ways Sweetnorbert (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Official Bios
Jayhenry, I know you will know the answer to this -- is it kosher to copy "official bios" from show websites (online or TV) to wikipedia or other wikis? If you don't know, I'm sure you'll know where I should go look? Thanks. Milowent (talk) 06:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A belated thanks for the response! Come by the "old house" sometime! --Milowent (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, look at our approval by the Chapters Committee, develop ideas for chapter projects at museums and libraries throughout our region, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the November meeting's minutes and the December mini-meetup's minutes).

We'll make preparations for our exciting museum photography Wikipedia Loves Art! February bonanza (on Flickr, on Facebook) with Shelley from the Brooklyn Museum and Alex from the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

We'll also be collecting folks to join our little Wikipedia Takes the Subway adventure which will be held the day after the meeting.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Camel peer review
Hello, how are you? Since you were one of the main editors in bringing Javan Rhinoceros to FA status, I was wondering if maybe you could please review Camel, which I have just brought to peer review with the hope to get ideas to eventually give it a GA candidacy. Thank you. -- Fish-Bird (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam
Denbot (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Clicky maps
Hi JH, I'm after a favour. How easy would it be to turn this File:FlyingQuirinalJPG.jpg into a clicky map as we did at Winter palace, also it needs some numbers that stand out on the rooms, but each time I try to add then they become blurred, becasue the package only lets me do text in the plan form not the 3D - all suggestions welcome! Regards Giano (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks JH, that would be great, I have one or two minor ammendments to make to the plan, I spent about five hours yesterday adding the windows, but it looked ridiculous,, I will upload the conventional plan in a while with the numbers that are needed, and then perhaps you can adapt the numbers to the three D plan. It will be nothing like as complicated and difficult as the Winter Palace, the poor old Kings of Italia lived far more humbly! Giano (talk) 07:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are the numbers, can you equate them to the 3D plan? I do appreciate this, I hope it is not too complicated. Giano (talk) 09:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have decided not to make any more amendment to the 3D plan, everything looks too fussy and complicated - best to keep it simple. So we can go with the one already uploaded. Thanks. Giano (talk) 09:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You're invited!
Join us the evenings of Friday February 6 and Saturday February 7 around Wikipedia Loves Art! museum photography events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum.

There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Apology
I've posted a general apology in my withdrawal statement at the Oversight election page, but I felt that as a contributor you deserve an individual apology too.

It was not my intention to let the election begin without a statement, but an IT gremlin "ate" my first attempt at posting there some hours before the election was to begin and then unforseeable RL issues prevented me from getting back to it until too late. Thank you for your consideration and sincere regrets for wasting your time. --Dweller (talk) 10:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Another apology
Hi JH, first of all, profuse apologies for not getting back to you earlier, I've had one or two local and minor difficulties in my new role as a BLP (or whatever they call it) author, far more complicated than architecture, as the people that rule that area seem to have all sorts of strange rules, which seem to echo my late lamented Granny who used to say "if you can't say something nice don't say anything." Sadly, her biography of Attila the Hun proved to be an easy if short read, but sadly not a best seller; anyway I digress - I seem to be improving with the program that did the Quirinal plan, perhaps I was too ambitious choosing a huge palace to start with, I have completed two floors of Belton House here:  File:BHouse2.jpg and File:BH1Trial.jpg, could they be converted to a clicky map without numbers, just so the mouse mices over the rooms - what do you think? I think it is much more easy for the lay person to relate to this sort of plan, especially if we have a proper foto immediatly above or below. Giano (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

But don't tell anybody
I'm told thou are not like other men. If so would you mind moving She Dwelt among the Untrodden Ways (but dont you worry yor pretty little head why) to She dwelt among the untrodden ways. ta. Ceoil (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Feck. Ceoil (talk) 09:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * JayHenry, if you would like to submit to the torture of RfA, I'd be happy to nominate you ... just say the word. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 11:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have offered as well...but he must do my map first :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Not enough experience generating clicky maps for Casliber. Ceoil (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is a fair point. If elected I promise to work to address this concern.  Thanks for your feedback. --JayHenry (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. Per JayHenry's grave concern about clicky maps. Ceoil (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Man have I had a shite two days...I stubbed my fucken vulnerable little toe on the fucken front door and it has now gone a light fucken shade of fucken purple...our heatwave is over and it has been raining for three days, so in my spare time I hobbled round in the fucken welcome rain to see if I could find any immature Amanita muscaria in suburban Sydney (common as muck the world over, but do you think anyone has a free image of a new shroom in button stage? naaah. Still, saw none and foot is sorer, but got a photo of the type subspecies of an Australian Magpie which I will pupload posthaste and stick in the fucken taxobox. No free images of Sydney magpies 'cos us Sydneysiders are known to be as rather lazy and apathetic as fuck generally. (amn my foot is sore!)'' Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, aren't you all in a fine mood !! Having deposited my valentine on the talk page of our favorite rotund editor, I shall now go do something fun for the rest of my day ... like pack and sit in an airport for six hours in advance of a flight because of governmental inefficiency ... cheers !!!! (offer stands, JayHenry) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I barely have time to edit anymore. Maybe once (if?) the economy recovers... --JayHenry (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Bu seriously, I understand - take care of RL stuff first. I won't need the map for a while anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Same from me Jay. Read Anglo Irish Bank and weep. They are asking for, ah, €600 million to recapitalise. This year. €15.0B over 5 years. More or less every worker in the country is being asked for a 10% pay cut to bail out banks that only 5 years ago were able to absorb €400-500 million 'accounting errors' with barely a wink and a dont you worry about it love. C's.  kole (talk) 11:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How almost every bank in the world hired nothing but idiots. --JayHenry (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can think of other adjectives.. One of them starts with C. Ceoil (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have lots of pics from 1991-2006 of Amanita muscaria, but usually I can be seen grinning like a particurally slow witted cheshire cat in the background. I have no scanner, but a friend has and some minutes in photoshop later.... Ceoil (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * When I was a student I worked in market research - once we did a phone survey on banks and it was funny hearing the..erm..colourful language that folks responded to when they were asked what they thought of them...Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Man, if you can get a pic of a weeny one as a little white warty button-thing you are a feckin' champion and I will owe you muchly. Lotsa clover-leprechaun kudos will go your way. They don't usually pop up till eastertime here but I was sorta hoping against hope. I feel miserable as my magpie pictures don't look too good neither :(( Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Featured articles/Science FAC symposium

 * Saw your comments on Outriggr's Talk. If I may ask, do you have any thoughts on WikiProject Featured articles/Science FAC symposium and on the constructive bits (ahem) of its talk page? If you don't wanna join in the (small) circus, you can post here... thanks... Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 02:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

DC Meetup Events: You're invited!
This has been an automated because you your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway project?
I am interested in starting am Ernest Hemingway project to improve content related to his life and works, and have proposed the project at WikiProject_Council/Proposals. Please share your thoughts there! kilbad (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Research Request
Hi JayHenry. While exploring the User talk pages of editors that are alumni from UCSC, I somehow came across your name. I'm doing a research project at UCSC about Wikipedia editors and I see that you're very active member. I would really like to speak to someone like yourself with a long history of activity about your thoughts on Wikipedia. Please let me know if I might be able to do that at some point.

Thanks for your time. Rodomontade (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Awesome Jay—if it works for you I'll just use my talk page as the forum to get to know some things about your experience on Wikipedia. Rodomontade (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, is it okay to just post questions back to you at my talk page? I don't want to litter yours up. Thanks again. Rodomontade (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Peer review/Billie Jean/archive1
This might interest you. I'm not overtly involved with it, I did a little clean up before GA. Would be nice to see such an iconic song reach FA. Kind regards. — R  2  14:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The WikiProject Novels Newsletter - March 2009
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Got any time for the map?
or shall I ask someone else. I won't hold it against you personally if you're flat out (though woe betide you if you ended up here... ;) ) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't sweat it - you take care of yerself - wikipedia don't put food on the table. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

La Cousine Bette
Hey there, Jay. Long time no talk. I hope this message finds you well. I just completed the redrafting of another Balzac article, and I'd be honored if you'd be willing to have a look. No rush, whenever you're able. Thanks in advance! Scartol •  Tok  12:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy JayHenry's Outriggr's Day!

 * I have decided to surrender my day to the beneficent Outriggr, a far superior editor than myself. --JayHenry (talk) 03:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Hi JayHenry. I can't recall if we've had any real interaction prior, but I decided to stop by and say hi, and also to ask a question.

JayHenry, have you ever considered submitting a request for adminship? Recently it has come to my attention that you do not have sysop access, and I have to admit I am more than a little surprised. I had always gone under the assumption that you already had the tools. You strike me as somebody who would know how to use the bit responsibly; you are a thoughtful and rational editor and even when I disagreed with what you said, I had always been left with the impression that whatever you had said, you had the best interests of the project in mind. I think you would be an excellent admin.

I am not willing to nominate at the moment, as I am on a WikiBreak and have limited internet access, however if you've ever been interested in going up at RfA, you can be assured that you will have my support. :)  Master&  Expert ( Talk ) 09:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, establish a membership process for the chapter, review the upcoming Wiki-Conference New York 2009 (planned for ~100 people at NYU this summer) and future projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

!!
why the interest? & why the rapid response? Lx 121 (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

hi; i got your reply x2; thanks for the rapid response. ;) i'm aware of the circumstances of the case & found them pretty appalling.

here's my concern:

imagine it's 2 years from now, or 5

noob admin

they are involved in something where the case of !! is mentioned.

they go to check his userpage...

as preserved, the userpage leaves the impression that !! was banned for sockpuppeting. without some kind of explanation, anyone unfamilliar with what actually happened is going to think it was a routine sockpuppet ban, & draw the wrong conclusions, which might affect subsequent decision-making on their part.

unless we have some other, better way of preserving the record, a tagging note seems like an apopropriate measure.

i note that no one is faulting the note's accuracy.

sorry you didn't like the wording; i was trying to be diplomatic, but have inserted a trimmed version.

as i said, i'm open to revised wording, or some other way of clarifying the page's meaning. but left as-is, it is egregiously unclear to anyone who doesn't know the case, & it should be made clear.

this was a fairly major error of judgement by the blocking admin. if that point isn't clearly understood by someone who refers to this page, it invites the possibility of repetition.

"those who do not know history, are doomed to repeat it"

(also user:Durova should never, ever, ever be allowed anything other than basic editor-level access to wikipedia again. she's lucky she wasn't banned!)

Lx 121 (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

i note your latest revert. the problem with "as he left it" is that anyone who checks the page for any reason, & does not know the history of the case, will simply think it was a sockpuppet ban. what happened there will come up as a reference in future discussions, inevitably. someone who doesn't know the facts of the case, & goes to look up the userpage, will not understand, & might concievably make bad decisions, based on that misunderstanding. if that person happens to be a noob admin, so much the worse.

&, with respect, you still haven't told me where my note is either a) inaccurate, or b) a violation of WP.

Lx 121 (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested
I had the pleasure of reading your thoughtful oppose on my RFA. Thanks a lot for that, it made me feel really warm inside. I slave away on Wikipedia for three years solid and what do I get? A big slap in the face. OK, the gist of your comment is fair enough. But I'm curious - what are these alleged "vendettas" at RFA? I'm not a little kid - I don't keep enemies lists, and get my own back on people if I disagree with them. Your "slow to think" comment was particularly insulting too - are you implying I'm mentally retarded or something? Was I that bad as an admin, that you had to leave that utterly hateful rant in the way you did? I received a lot of constructive criticism on that RFA - most people had the courtesy, manners and politeness to present it without belittling me, or making me look like a complete imbecile. "His antics, tantrums and vendettas at RFA are a decent part of what makes RFA such a miserable environment" - no, what makes RFA a miserable environment, are insulting, hurtful, and vicious comments like the one you left me. Free from any kind of diffs, of course. I am one of the people who try to make RFA better by attempting to deal with such horrible comments, that cause people to be put off ever trying for adminship. I am not someone who makes it a miserable environment.

Next time you consider opposing someone, please bear in mind there is a human being on the other end, and that your insulting, vicious and abusive remarks may actually have an effect on the person you are talking about. I'm not something you might find on the bottom of your shoe - I'm a human being, please treat me with a shred of respect, instead of talking to me as though I was a piece of crap you trod on. Thanks,  Majorly  talk  19:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As for vendettas, antics and tantrums, this here is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about with comments like "It is quite clear I have had problems with your behaviour for some time now" and all the rest. You do realize that this is precisely the sort of thing Friday is concerned about to begin with and you're merely proving her point?  I'm not normally vicious, but I make a singular exception for users who perhaps need a taste of their own medicine to wake them up.  You are prone to saying quite nasty things yourself, and indeed your comments are often directed at humans as well, often those who've done little but disagree with you at an RFA.  And that's what I mean, when I talk about the environment at RFA -- I am referring to the environment for participants.  I've always found it somewhat baffling the way you go after people for opposing, when you yourself have opposed at least 80 RFAs.  It's high time you realized that your "attempting to deal with such horrible comments" is often more unpleasant than the original comment -- I often find it hard to classify as anything but bullying. --JayHenry (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That isn't a vendetta - not even in the loosest sense of the word. Nor is it a "tantrum" - do you even know what a tantrum is? Friday is an abusive administrator who goes round acting like village cop, beating up all the kids he doesn't like. What is the "sort of thing" Friday doesn't like? How am I proving his point? What point? People complaining about his problematic behaviour is a problem? Two other editors I know of are working on an RFC for him - an arbitrator, and an admin. I'm not the only one who finds him problematic. And if I had vendettas against my opposers, surely I'd have gone after them all? Your comments are so baseless and false it's unbelievable. Either back up your allegations, or don't say anything.
 * I don't go "after" people simply for opposing anyway - your claim is simply false. I might question their comment if it's one I disagree with. What the heck is wrong with that?
 * The only bully around here is yourself. It isn't often I feel any emotion from anonymous people on the internet - but your comments stung and were deeply hurtful. You could have easily phrased it in a more pleasant manner. But you chose to do it in as nasty a way as possible. There's a thing called having moral highground. If you think I'm an immature spoiled brat, best not to act like one when letting me know. Besides, I don't recall ever leaving such a vile, vicious and offensive comment to anybody. Least of all not during their RFA, a particularly stressful time.  Majorly  talk  21:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You've been having this dispute with Friday since at least this RFA, and as far as I can see it's primarily because you disagree with her opposing young admins. As this has been fairly longstanding now I'd classify it as a sort of vendetta.  One of Friday's concerns is the tendency of young editors to be overly emotional, to create a lot of drama, and to perceive opinions different from their own as problematic and abusive, etc.  As for diffs, I had begun gathering some but the RFA closed and I didn't want to be perceived as twisting a knife.  Many of my concerns were brought up in the RFC.  I see Friday's attempt to back up her allegations gets classified as drama-stirring, yet you're simultaneously critical for never providing substance to her claims.  The WebHamster thing appears to me to be completely unrelated, and thus your behavior on her page is precisely what I'm talking about. --JayHenry (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue here is your lies about me, claiming I have a vendetta. I'll repeat once again: I do not have a vendetta against any editor. This isn't a game, it's not a playground, it's an encyclopedia. I do have numerous issues with Friday - as well as the age thing there is his abuse of tools, his mudslinging at IRC, his unhelpful remarks on RFA - and that's just what I've seen of him. That isn't a vendetta, that's an abusive admin/editor who needs to be dealt with. Do you want me to just sit back and watch it happen? Please stop with the baseless, false allegations about me.
 * The RFC is old news - the main people behind it were in support of my RFA. So pointless bringing it up. Bother to look for diffs yourself if you're going to take the time to belittle and sully me at RFA.
 * Friday thrives off drama here and he is the one who goes looking for trouble (he ironically described himself perfectly in his oppose). It isn't at all the fact he isn't providing any evidence (and you haven't), it's the fact he's involving himself at all, then attacking me for looking for trouble. It's so hypocritical. And he's another who thinks it's acceptable to lie about other editors, and thinks he knows exactly what I am like and what I will do. Utter nonsense.
 * You did more than twist a knife on my RFA - your oppose was one of the most hurtful and insulting things I've seen, ever. The worst part is, you're not even remotely remorseful or apologetic about it. You rather enjoyed kicking me in the teeth didn't you? I'm far from perfect, but you do a fine job of kicking someone hard when they're at a low point. You enjoyed belittling me, didn't you? Are you a bully in real life, Jay? Does this make you feel good inside? I hope it does, I really do.  Majorly  talk  23:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * When you're in a dispute that began many months ago with another editor and you can't "just sit back and watch" but instead believe the editor "needs to be dealt with", I don't think I'm stretching the English language to call that a vendetta, whether or not you believe it's justified. As for whether it's justified, I personally can't see that Friday's views about IRC, about age, and other comments at RFA are outside the realm of acceptable opinion.  (As far as I can tell the issue with WebHamster was isolated, unrelated, and now resolved.)  I believe Friday has been reasonable and patient explaining her views at RFA (I've always been under the impression Friday is female, for some reason, if I'm wrong and it's bothersome please let me know), and the way you went after her is something that I believe makes the RFA environment unpleasant.  I'm unsure if you really want me to document more fully the things that caused my concern or not, although I'd be willing to do so.  But what's happening with Friday is exactly the nature of my concern.  To your final point: No, this does not bring me any joy.  My disagreement here is sincere, not something I've adopted for sport. --JayHenry (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Salinger Onion Article
Hey there, JH.. Long time no talk. Hope you're well! I just wanted to make sure you saw this, from The Onion: New Terminator Movie Brings J.D. Salinger Out Of Hiding Cheers! Scartol •  Tok  11:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Now check out Kate Beaton's latest, about the Fitzgeralds. Cheers! Scartol  •  Tok  11:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

A thought
After making a recent onwiki criticism of some of our powerdrunk superusers, one of the WikiGods deigned to email me. "Worried I'm planning a coup detat? :)" read the entirety of the email. I guess our dear WikiGod thought this all a joke, albeit one best made in secret.  It's sad if unsurprising that as a user's power increases so does their poisonous appetite for secrecy (sigh...) .  For posterity, here's my response:

One of my favorite quotes -- it shows up sometimes on my user page -- explains (if you're interested; apologies if not) part of my philosophy: "It is very comforting to believe that leaders who do terrible things are, in fact, mad. That way, all we have to do is make sure we don't put psychotics in high places and we've got the problem solved." I don't believe that you (you being superusers in general, rather than you specifically) are bad people with bad intentions. The fact, I believe, is this: Wikipedia is badly governed. It's not, in my opinion, governed by bad people. One reason is the community's naive belief that if we don't put psychotics in high places, we've got the problem solved. I think we don't. More is necessary. I believe there are straightforward ways to obtain good governance, and they are in fact the very principles of good governance adhered to by the outside world, honed by history, proved through observation after observation. Checks and balances, separation of powers, etc. The foundations of free societies and just governments, the regulatory requirements of corporations, the underpinnings of nearly every successful organization. Every well-intentioned but failed elite hierarchy in history has told itself, "Well, yes, those are good principles in general. But we have no ill-intentions, so we needn't worry about it.  It's not as if we're planning any coups d'etat :)"  When this too is inevitably pointed out to them, well... I can more or less guess your response... there's a lesson in that famous Santayana quote ("those who cannot remember...") for me too: I'm not going to change any minds just by pointing it all out.

For posterity, I'll note the response was, indeed, "..." -- in other words, I was ignored. --JayHenry (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a problem. But don't let that get you down.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I was the user who e-mailed JayHenry. If I would have known JayHenry would have preferred the discussion on-wiki, I'd have been happy to post on his userpage. I viewed the e-mail as personal, not "job" related. As for my lack of a response, Jay, having read your e-mail, I was not sure how to respond as I think we have vastly different understandings of what is going on here, and I am pretty certain you would not agree with how I see things, and I do not think it is my place to try and convince you of my position, as it is no more valid than yours. I did not watchlist your userpage (a mistake I have since rectified), so I did not see your disappointment in my lack of response. Very well, for what it is worth, I shall respond although I am certain we will continue to agree to disagree.

Santayana was a brilliant philosopher, and his quote deserves the widespread repetition it has. However, it can be easily misused. Let me bring a more complete quotation (emphasis addes is my own: famous portion is underlined ):

Santayana, from what I understand, is discoursing on the need for retentiveness and how the past forms the seeds of the plastic future, until such time as the individual loses the ability to change due to the calcification of age and habit, for lack of a better term. Santayana does not endorse change for change's sake; au contraire he requires the transmission of the "ideal identity" from one generation to the next, one which can find a "better" expression as it were. Therefore, using Santayana to express a desire for change in and of itself, in my opinion, does not capture the essence of what Santayana was trying to express.

Be that as it may, we may have a more fundamental difference in understanding. You seem to believe that there is no separation of powers in wikipedia, and you include within that broad rubric of powers diverse tools such as CU, OS, bureaucrats, etc. My understanding has always been that to view those as "powers" is a misunderstanding. Using the government of the US, as to which I believe you were referring when you discussed separation, there are three distinct units: The legislative branch, entrusted with the power to make and change laws, the executive branch, entrusted with the day-to-day running of the government, and the judicial branch, entrusted with interpreting the existing laws. What are the wikipedia analogues? I posit that the equivalent to the Judicial branch is ArbCom, the executive branch is the entire admin corps, and the legislative branch is everyone who opines at the pump or the talk boards where policy is discussed and debated. To consider checkusers, oversighters, and bureaucrats as part of the "government" of wikipedia is a mistake, I believe. Checkusers are no more than the "special detective" unit of the wikipedia sysop corps, who specialize in uncovering sockfarms and sockpuppeteers. Oversight is no more than the on-wiki unit charged with protecting individual privacy. Bureaucrats are just that, paper-pushers that in general rubber-stamp community consensus (regarding RfA/B/BAG/BOT) and change names. The "mystique", for lack of a better word, comes from the rare times (see Bureaucrat discussion) that they are entrusted in identifying the community consensus. In those times, I guess they could be considered judicial, although they are not interpreting wiki policy. Perhaps "pre-accepted binding arbitrators" would be a better term.

In a nutshell, and I apologize for the extreme length, I would say that the governmental separation of powers paradigm is not truly applicable here. A checkuser has no more special powers than any other editor in wikipedia; their use comes in identifying sockfarms—that's it. The fact that a checkuser says something at WP:ANI should mean nothing more than if the person were a regular editor. The same with the other "hats" as it were. What may be contributing to the conflation of issues is that the tools are not common, and usually given to people who have earned a significant deal of trust in ArbCom (appointed CU/OS), the community as a whole (bureaucrats), or both (elected CU/OS's). People whose behavior, edits, and overall wikipedia interactions have allowed them to earn that trust, may have their opinions valued based on who they are—the hats that they wear are indications of the underlying trust that they have earned, not the causes of that trust—well at least they should not be.

Is there a potential for abuse? Of course; there is also the potential for every doctor or nurse or policeman or fireman to become a murderer, G-d forbid. Does that mean we should not allow policemen to be volunteer firefighters, or prevent nurses from being police officers? I do not think so. Similar here, I do not think the potential for abuse indicates the need to move to a system which has distinct inefficiencies. The fact that separation of powers makes for the best form of government we know is, in my opinion, inapplicable to the janitorial and support roles here in wikipedia. The proper lessons need to be learned from history; making inappropriate syllogisms and inter-disciplinary connections is not, in my opinion, learning from history but ensuring that the new expression is inferior to the old, to use Santayana's language.

Let me leave you with another quote from Santayana (emphasis added is my own):

At this point, the algebraic expressions that represent our respective experiences have driven us to create different theorems to describe the workings here; I hope I have clearly stated where I disagree with your expression, and should you be interested, I look forward to your analysis of mine. -- Avi (talk) 02:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Coordinator Election
Hello. The Coordiantor Election has begun. All members are encouraged to vote by the deadline, July 28. To vote simply add support to the comments and questions for.. section of the member of your choice.

3 users are standing:

Regards, Alan16 (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC).

Gia Carangi
Thanks for the laugh in this link, and for reverting that mess by that IP. Yes, these vandals and often IPs in general put in funny or just plain foul crap most of the times, don't they? Mainly, I get annoyed or angered by this stuff, but it is sometimes a good laugh. Flyer22 (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Dismissal
To Mr. JayHenry,

Your services as Chief Financial Officer to Godriggr are no longer required, as of July 4, 2009, due to the impending bankruptcy filing. You signed away all rights to human legal recourse in your contract: there will be no severance package or golden parachute. You are considered an unsecured creditor of Godriggr, ranking below Ceoil and SandyGeorgia.

Thank you for your services to Godriggr, and enjoy your fourth of July. Please find enclosed your "day", which has no value in bankruptcy proceedings.

Regards, Outriggr (talk) 05:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thought about making an English version of this to make up for the unfortunate news above. However, between my, er, rusty Spanish, and the rather limited amount to be said, I thought I'd just point it out to you. I'm sure you'd agree that the hippo, as with all good creatures, is being treated unfairly. Outriggr (talk) 08:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

My RfB
Hi. Just wanted to let you know that I clarified my answer a bit to that question you were concerned about. Regards, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Your rationale on Skomorokh's RfA
Agreed with everything except the part that read "[he] can disagree strongly without being disrespectful (a skill I lack)." I consider you to be a very tactful editor. I mean, you're a very individualistic so I'm sure you've left some people with somewhat sour opinions at times, but I certainly don't feel you've ever lacked respect for anybody. But then, that's my opinion, I suppose it may be a bit overbearing of me to bring it up. =)  Master&  Expert ( Talk ) 16:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

interminable notability wars
I draw your attention to the last bit It isn't just inclusionism/exclusionism either: it's highly unlikely that anyone that strongly disagrees with members of this council on any topic will ever be invited to join the council. That's my real concern: it really doesn't matter where the imbalance is, this structure will make it more and more imbalanced over time. People don't tend to think "I want to invite someone that disagrees with me on things" when they select additions and replacements.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I might be sympathetic if I could think of two editors other than DGG and Casliber who have shown such incredible patience, good faith and even outreach toward those with whom they disagree. My experience is perhaps colored as I met both DGG and Casliber very early in my time as a Wikipedian.  DGG helped me in one of my first disputes and Cas with my first featured article.  I've watched over the years as they get senselessly hammered for their tireless patience and good faith.  Imagine if every editor were like those two.  It's the prioritization of notability war ideology, the desire to win a battle, over any conception of what could possibly be considered good for the encyclopedia.  It's disgusting to me (and I'm sorry if this unfairly hit a trigger point with your single post... I've just occasionally had those talkpages on my watchlist and read reams and reams of such abuse).  At any rate, if your purpose was actually to take a specific example of two editors to make a general point then you may have picked the worst possible specific example. --JayHenry (talk) 04:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It was simply the most obvious and apparent imbalance in the group, and one I'm familiar with. I'm sure that an hour's research would reveal other similar imbalances among editors that I'm not so familiar with on topics that I'm not so familiar with.&mdash;Kww(talk) 11:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!
Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:


 * T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
 * WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
 * WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
 * WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
 * WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32. talk . say no to drama 02:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Long time, no see
How's the markets? Smallbones (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Recessions
Sorry it took me a long time to respond. I don't have any sources to recommend, it's out of my field. Now that I've looked closer at the article, it looks terrific to me. C RETOG 8(t/c) 22:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Chime in on AFDs?
Jay - the Jackson Davis article has been nominated for deletion again. You spoke up the 1st time, so I figured you may want to weigh in. The proposer seems to have nominated a raft of webseries related content for deletion. --Milowent (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The Business and Economics Barnstar
I've just noticed the good work you've put in on the various articles related to Recessions. Nice work! LK (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Recessions
Sorry, off-hand I don't have any good leads about pre-1900s recessions. However, have you looked in the free 1911 edition of the Britannica? You can view the text here. best, LK (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ceoil's buying beers! (Sandy's planning the event!)
Looks like our effort of a few months ago to sabotage Ceoil's finances has backfired. In retrospect, who wouldn't 'invest' in a penny stock that gets to stay on the NYSE indefinitely and when everything about it is backstopped by the government. Eventually the gamblers will run it up. Godriggr would be displeased, but he Forgives (even though that's in your portfolio). Cheers, Outriggr (talk) 23:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Might be up your alley
Markus Brunnermeier, my first new article in a while. It's kinda workmanlike, but the subject matter is perfect for you. If you haven't read this guy's papers on insider trading, predatory trading and investors pushing bubbles, you might like to. Sort of like Akerlof with more math (on that note the akerlof article is in a sorry state...maybe I should work on that) Protonk (talk) 06:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I remember reading that WSJ article about Bernanke's bubble factory. Did I mention that I think Shiller and Akerlof's Animal Spirits is well worth a read (and it's short)?  If I found myself suddenly rich I'd go get a PhD in behavioral economics.  And speaking of Shiller, did you catch his appearance in a Daily Show classic? --JayHenry (talk) 05:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You and me
I know you know I'm just a thick, bloody, fucking potatoe farmer; but tone down, please, your things when we are in the company of ladies. Humbly, Ceoil (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Re "find someone..." -- I do! Bwahaha. I can send you my article in Journal of Depression & Economics if you like. ("Double-blinded trial of SSRIs in ameliorating feelings of guilt associated with quantitative easing by American crony capitalists") Outriggr (talk) 03:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, there probably are those who argue it's a "Depression". I read something quite recently that sums up my feelings of such analyses: "There are many others who do not seem to care much for the numbers. Their approach is to define a conclusion first, than seek out data or anecdotes that support that conclusion. This is the province of the economic ideologue. As you might suppose, these data-free ideologies are frequently wrong, occasionally spectacularly so." --JayHenry (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * All I know is that I won't be responsible for my actions if I hear the words "glimmer of hope" one more time. Protonk (talk) 02:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it would be strange to say "glimmer of hope" in mid-August, since we're halfway through what's likely a quarter of positive GDP growth. Being bearish is for some reason permanently fashionable on the internet, but the only way permabears actually make money is writing books, because even their good years aren't as good as they like to pretend.  But as they say broken clocks are right twice a day, ie permabulls are just as dumb, and so your best bet is finding someone who's always wrong.  I find that the people who think gold is always the best asset class usually make a good contrary indicator for reality. --JayHenry (talk) 03:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "I find that the people who think gold is always the best asset class usually make a good contrary indicator for reality" I should put that on my door. Protonk (talk) 03:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just come on down, run a comb through your hair, and if you're here by 8 a.m., we'll have you on Squawk Box at 8:15 making stock picks. Protonk (talk) 00:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels - Narnia Task Force
Hi! You would be glad to know that a new wikipedia ad has been created by Srinivas to encourage users to join Chronicles of Narnia Task Force. You can display that ad on your user/talk page too using the following code:

-- Alan16 (talk) 10:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels - August 2009 Newsletter
The August 2009 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Alan16 (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

MARCAS!
Hey there JH.. Long time not talk. I hope this note finds you well. I've recently whipped together an article about a novelette by Honoré de Balzac, called Z. Marcas, and I wonder if you'd care to have a look. I haven't decided whether I'll take it all the way to FAC or not, but I figure it can't hurt to have a few sets of eyes over it in the meantime. (Obviously your thoughts on its suitability to FAC are most welcome.) Cheers! Scartol •  Tok  20:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference New York, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Takes Manhattan and Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, and your edit summary
Dear JayHenry, my edit, with an edit summary "Lewis Carroll was first and foremost a mathematician", was certainly not silly. There are a number of reasons why I made this edit. Below are the reasons:


 * 1) Charles Lutwidge Dodgson trained as a mathematician at Oxford, and held the Christ Church Mathematical Lectureship for many years.
 * 2) Alice in Wonderland, his main work, is not a typical literary fiction; in that fiction, Dodgson was saying to his young readers (and some older ones) that alternative reality was possible &mdash; one would expect a mathematician to write such a fiction rather than a man of literature.

I made my edit based on those two reasons. His article may be located at Lewis Carroll, but it starts with "Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (pronounced /ˈdɒdsən/) (27 January 1832 – 14 January 1898), better known by the pen name Lewis Carroll ...". Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologize for being rude, but I think it's fairly clear that Carroll/Dodgson's encyclopedic importance is overwhelmingly as an author. It's true that he trained as a mathematician, but it's a bit like saying "Thomas Jefferson was an American violinist..."  It is true, but it's certainly off the mark in terms of the main reasons he's in an encyclopedia. --JayHenry (talk) 05:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Jessica Lee Rose
Hey, thanks for your input on the JLR talk page. Any advice on how to make the awards section into a list? --Zoeydahling (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to see you had to get dragged into the mud, but having your wise input is always a good thing. BTW, I got my 1st barnstar, for work related to AfD discussions, and I am irrationally exuberant about it.  Cheers.  --Milowent (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content
FYI. This RFC is based on, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses which you participated in. If you already have commented at the RFC, my apologies for contacting you. Ikip (talk) 00:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Irbisgreif (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Fractional-reserve banking
Hi, saw your comment at Fractional-reserve banking. To explain what's going on, the article is under attack from a series of anon-IP fringe conspiracy theorists. Will appreciate it if you help keep an eye on it. Thanks, LK (talk) 02:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, after making my comments I saw it was in a state of flux. To think the version I saw was only the second worst (Yikes, what an embarrassment).  Have added to my watchlist.  Probably worth asking for semi-protection if that sort of thing keeps occurring. --JayHenry (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Superior isn't just a lake straddling the Canada-US border
I couldn't help but notice that you, with 12,225 edits as of Sept 9, do not quite measure up to me, with my current 12,238 (in "my preferences"). And you've hardly been active since the 9th, so we know this holds. Sorry, old pal, but I've got to move on. (If it's any consolation, you have more talk page watchers (cf. SandyGeorgia's talk for a link); but so does everyone else, so...) But I've got to get back to editing: there are 110,000 articles that need a reference tag. When I'm done I'll be in 35th place! Outriggr (talk) 01:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And 135 years old. Ceoil (talk) 07:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Can I play, too? Protonk (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The most interesting application of this tool is to measure your enemies. I assume that only mortal enemies watchlist a redlinked RFA.  Outriggr has made no enemies, but for me, people are ready to pounce. --JayHenry (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, people waiting to adore and indulge you. Cough/FYI, I referred to you here. Outriggr (talk) 05:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of recessions in the United States/archive2
Hi, are you still keeping track of the above FLC? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Business cycles and depressions: an encyclopedia
My library just delivered "Business cycles and depressions: an encyclopedia" by David Glasner, which I had asked them to get out of the archives. It's sitting on my desk now. Let me know if you need something out of it, like a specific page scanned or something. LK (talk) 08:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Cough
Re: Did you find anyone yet? It's not my usual sort of thing, and I'm not here as often as I used to be, but I could certainly use a new project. I can't guarantee Featured List status, and I certainly understand if you'd rather work with folks you know better. Just thought I'd offer, though. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll be careful about who I accept candy from, then. I don't know how much time I'll have today, but I should be able to put in a good chunk of time over the weekend. Kafka Liz (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Would be happy to help, but am on short editing time for a day or two. I see Liz will help out, you have a good 'un there. Ceoil (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Some questions
Well, just one for now. About these "47 recessions" - since not everyone agrees on the number, is there some way we could qualify this, as in "47 major recessions", "47 reported recessions", or "According to the NBER (or whoever), there have been 47..."? Kafka Liz (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm just catching up on the comments at FLC... do you want me to continue with the copyedit, or just leave it? I'd hate to do something that might cause Tony to rescind his support. Kafka Liz (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, please continue. (Unless it's boring.)  I want it improved for its own sake, not just the FLC.  This will be the gold standard accounting of recessions on the Internet.  When the Relapse Recession of 2011 begins I want everyone on the Internet linking to this.  I'll ponder the best way to word the 47. --JayHenry (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "gold standard accounting of recessions ". I want in on this glamor! I tried to go undercover during the week to talk to striking workers, but somebody - a girl no less- told me I look like an accountant (which is what I am). Bad tidings, and sure enough I was busted within minutes. Was not pleased about that. I think the white shirt and black leather ankle picker shoes gave me away. You have heard of Bauhaus right. Or maybe it was the man's perfume. Or the heavy dark rimmed Morrissey glasses, or the lined briefcase (actually a ponced up Tesco's bag). Ceoil (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Damn, man, it was the whire shirt no question. Some of us chicks look askance at men in wire. :D Kafka Liz (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well Yeah. My mother told me it looked smart. Last time I listen to her. Ceoil (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * @JH- will do. It's challenging, but not boring. If you see anything wrong with my interpretations, just let me know. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC) All the good hippos I know are copyrighted, so no amusing pix.
 * I provisionally went with "as many as 47". The key point is that some people argue that some periods weren't recession (or, that, say, the 1980 and 81-82 recessions should be thought of as a single recession) but nobody, to my knowledge, suggests there are additional recessions that this chronology omits. --JayHenry (talk) 03:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That should work ok. Thanks. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Query
Re DaBomb87's page, are you serious? You're one of those "I thought he already was one"! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought maybe I had been disqualified for all those times I got Ceoil blocked. --JayHenry (talk) 04:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe we're all just Riggrs ! Seriously, let me know ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That I am a Riggr meatpuppet could make for a tricky RFA (there but for the grace of godriggr go I). I think I'm going to run once I catch up to Casliber on WP:WBFAN and WP:DYKLIST. --JayHenry (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Better get busy then ! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

List of recessions in the United States
Congratulations Jay. Delighted to see it was promoted. Ceoil (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well Done J! Whose the Man Now Dog! DOGRIGGR (deflea) 23:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice job, excellent addition to WP. C RETOG 8(t/c) 00:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wuf!


 * Really, nicely done. I'm sorry I wasn't able to put in as much time as I had intended to... things off-wiki are a bit crazy right now, leaving me less time than I'd like for thoughtful copyediting. Kafka Liz (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Business cycles and depressions: an encyclopedia
Sorry for not getting back to you earlier. I've been a bit busy IRL, grading term papers and stuff, and as you may have noticed, my wiki life is all taken up with mediation and disputes. How about this, I scan the TOC and Index of "Business cycles and depressions: an encyclopedia" and email to you, and you tell me which pages you would like scanned, and I will scan and email those back to you? If that sounds good, drop me a message on my talk page, and I will scan and email to you. LK (talk) 08:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, in case it isn't clear, don't leave your email address on my talk page. It's usually not a good idea to post your email anywhere on the internets, as that leads to much junk mail. I'll email you using the 'E-mail this user' link on the left side of the Wikipedia screen. Best, LK (talk) 08:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there, any ideas yet on which pages you need? Midterms are over, and I'm reasonably free before finals start up again. LK (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey
Thanks! I'm usually here and on top of things on that page. Nice to see you're still here! Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Shared insanity...
The "lead, follow or get out of the way" comments (I think I know what you are referring to) surprised me as well, at least in intensity and the evident disregard for the opinions of others. That attitude is a problem; progress is slow on Wikipedia, but radicalism isn't the solution. In any case - some folks around here treat quis custodiet as the refrain of the conspiracy theorists, but it's a reasonable concern. I believe that having a diverse group of people as election monitors would mitigate the risk of shared insanity leading to a corrupt outcome, but it looks like enough people weigh things differently that secret balloting for ArbCom is unlikely. Nathan  T 19:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that running as far away from "arbcom as governing body" as possible is the correct action. Building artifice upon misapprehension is assuredly not the way forward.  Creation of drama (either through election shenanigans or power struggles) is the likely outcome of enshrining arbcom by adopting the appearance of democratic elections for a body which should never have been designed to be representative.  But path dependence and all that means we are left with a set of options from which we must pluck the least worst.  As for the creation of "election monitors", I'm highly skeptical.  Real election monitors are motivated, experienced professionals with no interest (arguably) in the outcome.  Without paying someone, I find it unlikely that we would find an election monitor willing to oversee arbcom elections.  That's without the inevitable screaming retreat they would make after hearing our explanation of "one person one vote"'s limited applicability.  As for selecting a sage group of insiders...let the results speak for themselves. Protonk (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Like with most things on Wikipedia, what we lose in individual motivation by asking folks to work for free we make up in the numbers of the mildly motivated - hopefully we'd get enough people checking eachother that any significant shenanigans would be caught by someone. Worse to worser, in theory nothing prevents us from outsourcing the election monitoring piece (except looking a little silly to the real world...). But our current system isn't terrible enough to justify that. As for the rest, I'd ascribe the failure of the advisory council more to the method of its introduction than to the thing itself; I've spoken with some folks who agree with the need for progress and an element of leadership in certain areas, but can't stomach it as an outgrowth of the arbitration committee. Personally, I think Wikipedia made an effort at a "flat" hierarchy that has failed - we don't have it. Instead, we have a stratified system with all its attendant downsides but none of the benefits of leadership that might otherwise attach. Nathan  T 19:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that the argument for distributed oversight clashes pretty directly with the assertion that 'flat' hierarchies have failed. Also, I question the assertion.  Where did WP's experiment in flat hierarchies begin and end?  More importantly, how does the stratification have impacts on content production and maintenance?  What relevance does leadership have in an organization with near costless entry and exit (tack on the already tenuous value attached to 'leadership' in organizations where entry and exit are costly)?  I suspect that leadership is terribly important to the villagers (people like me who contribute relatively little content but watch internal operations very closely) and nearly valueless to the bulk of content contributors.  As for your summation about that ill-fated council, try exploring why people felt that they couldn't stomach the council's existence as an outgrowth of arbcom.  How would a similar institution come into being without being magicked into place by some extant authority? Protonk (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Last first -- the flat hierarchy experiment is the idea that most decisions can be made by the folks who show up, with voices that are formally equal. For most (but not all) content problems, this works well enough and is the best we can do - we have no method for determining real-world expertise, and so no way to assign "weight" to any voice over any other. The "villager" end of the experiment is the original concept of adminship - granted to reasonable and trustworthy folks, who are assumed to be most people who've been around a bit. (Of course, we've had Jimbo as the native contradiction to this ideal, but let's leave that aside for now). Inevitably it became clear that certain functions couldn't be well-handled by any random self-selected group, even drawn from trusted users, and so we've got all the various rights groups that have cropped up to limit vulnerable roles to smaller and smaller groups of people.


 * Election monitors who don't report to anyone is sort of a hack; I'm not sure that supporting it as a method for maintaining integrity in an election is the same as arguing for a similar system throughout the project. In a sense, haphazardly organized distributed oversight is what we've already got - and I don't think it works all that well. (That doesn't mean every element of it is a failure. A group of election monitors might be among the most useful applications, actually, since we can imprint the role on a real-world analog.) The core of the community, what keeps the metaphorical lights on, are folks who spend significant chunks of time here and are around enough to know and care about those ugly guts. Our HADO system doesn't serve them well, and doesn't address many of the long-term issues that we should be facing but aren't - I'm sure you know them as well as I do. This is an argument, then, for leadership. It's a concept separate in my mind from oversight, and it can in theory be found in a committee structure that doesn't devolve from ArbCom or dissolve into dysfunction. The advisory council struck many as an attempt by ArbCom to expand their authority by fiat, arrogating to themselves roles we haven't assigned them. I don't think that was their actual intent - more likely it was born out of the same frustration lots of people feel with the difficulty of just getting things done on Wikipedia, and the hope that an advisory group could come up with some advice that the rest of us could agree on. Unfortunately, its manner of birth doomed what might otherwise have been an interesting experiment. Most other attempts at any sort of "governance" reform are ad hoc systems developed by college kids fresh from their first poli-sci class, so the whole idea of reform has been set back as a result.


 * At any rate, time to let go the monopoly on Jay's talkpage! Nathan  T 00:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I always wanted to have one of those talk pages where people came and had really thoughtful discussions -- I think this is great! Monopolize anytime.  I've noted before, that RFA and ACE are both essentially caucus systems.  I think this is ideal for us at our present state of development.  I've never seen any retaliation for ArbCom votes; this concern strikes me as theoretical.  For some reason, a lot of Wikipedians have an incredible level of intellectual turmoil because RFA and ACE are neither wholly polls or wholly discussions.  Since I don't see this as an issue, it comes down to transparency.  It's true that election monitors might -- probably will, in fact -- perform their jobs honestly.  But I see almost nothing to be gained by a move to secret ballot.  The shared insanity has nothing to do with any particular issue per se, it will always be present.  People prone to silly and panicky rhetoric are unfortunately the same people drawn to positions of power on a project such as this.
 * Leadership is a separate question. I actually tend to think we'd benefit if a transparent ArbCom had more governing authority.  ArbCom has improved in the past year, in my opinion, but they still fetishize their secrecy to an absurd extent.  It is counterproductive and undermines their goals, but they are too insular to realize it.  Transparency will be the top issue I'll be looking at in my votes this year. --JayHenry (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Jay is right to point out that we do have a sort of communal panic over being at a transition point between two forms of organization with which we are familiar. We understand communal, charismatic authority well.  We also understand bureaucratic/democratic authority (or think we do).  The same sort of shock was evident last year at the Iowa (et. al) caucuses for the democratic nomination--people expressed disbelief that some caucus polling places didn't undertake any actions to ensure that votes were secret.  Hell, some of them just told caucus-goers to stand in a part of a room representing the candidate they favor and asked people supporting marginal candidates to go stand in the group representing their 2nd best choice!  It's hard to apply our norms about democratic elections to a situation like that and come back with anything but outrage. Protonk (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Christmas is starting early this year (the economy needs a good holiday season) and so to get in the spirit of things I'm starting to collect my thoughts about ACE2009. For anyone interested — User:JayHenry/arb. --JayHenry (talk) 05:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A note, they managed to fuck this up without fudging election numbers. Truly a feat. Protonk (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaks directly to the point about transparency. If they hadn't foolishly held this vote in secret this would not have been an issue since editors could have pointed out to them that they were changing the goal posts.  Yet more problems caused by their immature and backwards fetish for secrecy.  Also hardens (in my mind at least) what I said in the RFC about the need for an open caucus. --JayHenry (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ArbCom's faults aside, you gotta hand it to Majorly. Nobody dramamongers better than that guy.  Somebody should buy him a trophy. --JayHenry (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Have to agree with you there. I can understand the desire for secrecy, in a way - when they do things in the open, they have to deal with the uproar they faced over this little fiasco. It happens frequently enough as it is, and if all their deliberations and all the unguarded remarks they generate were in the open they can legitimately fear that it would never end. It's a balancing act, I guess - between the ideal of an open process and the reality that complete openness would neuter their effectiveness. The balancing was clearly not well done, here; Coren's comment that they couldn't have unbundled some decisions from others doesn't make that much sense to me, and if they could find a way to make process-related decisions in the open we'd all be better off. Still, this was a a pretty minor mistake in the scheme of things. <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T 02:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree this is a relatively minor mistake. But I think the ArbCom's instincts are incorrect.  If they kept it on Wiki I think they would mostly avoid these dramas rather than create more of them.  I can't think of a time when they created a proportional amount of drama when they initiated a discussion and held their deliberations and voting on Wiki.  The frustration I see comes almost entirely from these "surprise" actions. --JayHenry (talk) 02:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)