User talk:Jdforrester/Old Archive 8

This is an archive of my talk page, the current version of which is located here.

Note that I am likely to reformat, delete, or otherwise alter what appears here...

= *Please* put Arbitration matters here =

AI prohibited from CoS articles
And what is the reason for this based on what? --AI 21:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The evidence. What else?
 * James F. (talk) 09:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * P.S.: See also Arbitration rationale, specifically:
 * [...] we feel that what's important is the product, not the process - our decisions and rationale given, and not the details of how we came to the conclusions we did.
 * HTH.
 * James F. (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Gavin RFArs DreamGuy
How is wikipedia helped by accepting this RFAr? Hipocrite 17:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * How is it helped by leaving it to fester?
 * James F. (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe that WP:RFC would be sufficient, don't you? I've got comments I'd like to make about DreamGuy's editing (comments in the negative, mind you). If he's up for some sort of punishment, however, I will be conflicted, in that I'd have to insist that the RFAr against Gavin The Chosen close before I contribute meaningfully to this. Hipocrite 17:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No-one is necessarily "up for some sort of punishment". We don't punish, we take action to prevent damage to the project.
 * James F. (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok. I'll just decline to participate untill the close of the GtC RFAr, then. It's really a shame that this never went through RFC. Hipocrite 18:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Apologies. I now find out that it did, in fact, go through an RFC at one point, though this was not linked in the evidence section. Wish that someone with even a remote hint of credibility did the nomination, though. Hipocrite 13:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel/Gavin is due to be blocked for a month for his current RfAR brought up by about 20 editors (and considering he just continues to make more violations that may even be extended). It seems to me that there will no longer be any "fester"ing once that RfAr is finally finished, as he will be gone and be forced to take a new name and then risk further blocks should his behavior continue. This is just a last ditch effort on his part to get something on me, and considering his chronic examples of bad faith editing (including working with another editor to try to falsely accuse me of violations to try to get me banned, see his RfAr) i would think that his word wouldn;t mean much. Vashti and Elvenscout's complaints are separate matters entirely, and their refusal to work with me on trying to resolve the conflict through normal dispute resolution process should not be encouraged in this way. DreamGuy 19:41, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine
elements cross-posted

Apparently, I have been named by Ultramarine as a party to the RfAr. Since I did not initiate the action, and was not named as a party by Septentrionalis, I am not sure exactly what this means. Can you help clarify what his naming me entails for me? I am not sure if I am being exactly accused of anything, or if I should post something on the RfAr, and if so where. Thank you. Robert A West 21:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC) (talk)


 * I believe that he wishes your input; if you could provide evidence, that would be helpful to us. If you don't chose to, then we won't hear your perspective on what has happened. It it possible, but looking at the request, highly implausible, that you would be found at fault, and obviously were that so and you failed to comment, we might not fully understand the circumstances.
 * However, don't be worried - any help you can provide in deepening our understanding of the case will be greatly appreciated.
 * James F. (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * What is the proper procedure for providing input? Do I respond on the RfAr under Party #1?  Do I add my own section?  Do I wait for interrogatives from ArbCom?  Thanks.  Robert A West 07:33, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Adding your own section would be best, yes. We won't go chasing for people's input, though (people who care are generally quite happy to discuss). Feel free to put in anything you feel might be helpful.
 * Thanks in advance.
 * James F. (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom Election/Selection/Appointment
The Arbitration Committee page could be a lot more clear about the apointment process. Perhaps you could improve it. Superm401 | Talk 00:39, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Erm, the rules don't really define any structure to the process. It's very informal. A discussion between arbitrators on the arbcom mailing list might look something like: "Hey, we're missing a lot of arbitrators. Maybe Jimbo should appoint some" "OK, who would be good for the job?" "Well, from my experiences with him, I think user X would make a bang-up arbitrator" "Oh, yeah, from the work he did on that controversial article, I think he has superb judgement" 'etc. &rarr;Raul654 02:51, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Yuber arbitration
James, before Yuber's case is closed, can I ask you to look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Yuber/Proposed decision, and specifically my post here? I feel that Guy should be allowed to present evidence if he's to suffer the same penalty as Yuber, and should have been told that Fred had compiled evidence against him. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem. Thank you for bringing this to my specific attention.
 * James F. (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Arbitration Case
Thanks for letting me know. Rob Church Talk 12:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem.
 * James F. (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/AI/Evidence
I've added new evidence that discusses AI's belligerent article revert warring and intimidation. AI has unapologetically verified (on the evidence page) that I have quoted him/her accurately. I noticed a motion suggested to close the arbitration, but I hope that the new evidence will be considered beforehand. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look. Thanks, HKT talk 17:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks.
 * James F. (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

rktect request for arbitration
In that every story has two sides to it it would be nice if both sides were represented in this arbitration. Where one party claims original research and pseudo science and the other party shows that the material in question is neither original research nor pseudoscience, the question should be worded so that it may be related to the evidence to be submitted, ie; the references which prove it isn't original research. "Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate)." Citing Herodotus should not be considered original research. "The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". The question of Original research turns not on the opinion of the many (consensus) but on the facts. When I can cite facts from reputable publications that support an historical interpertaion as mainstream that cannot be considered original research even if one or more individuals diasagree with the concept. "Re. Primary and secondary sources; Primary sources present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations. Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data. Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.


 * Herodotus
 * Vitruvius
 * Claudias Ptolemy
 * Lucas N. H. Bunt, Phillip S.Jones, Jack D. Bedient
 * H Arthur Klein
 * R. A. Cordingley
 * Gardiner
 * Antonio Loprieno
 * Michael Rice
 * Gillings
 * Somers Clarke and R. Englebach
 * Francis H. Moffitt

Rktect 16:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

In regards to bad faith editing, repeated systematic reverts of contributions without discussion on the talk pages and repeated systematic submission of contributions for vfd on grounds of false or misleading charges and repeated solicitation of actions by others should be listed as among the actionable offenses.Rktect 16:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Maoririder
Thanks for the heads-up on the ArbCom. I'll certainly keep an eye on the procedings and take a stance if need be. Back to the ol' wikivacation. :) - Lucky 6.9 20:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll be happy to participate in this process, but I haven't followed this user for a while. Is he (or his sock puppets) still making contributions?  I sort of got the impression that this problem was fading away....  ike9898 13:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think he still is. Will look into it.
 * James F. (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Stevertigo arbitration
Sorry to bother you, but there is one key unresolved issue (finding of fact one way or the other) that is not currently being voted on in the proposed decision page. Please see User talk:Fred Bauder. -- Curps 17:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Will look now.
 * James F. (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Lightbringer
I appreciate that the ArbCom has a lot to do, but I would really like to see this casego forward ASAP. Ever since the request went up, Lightbringer has gotten worse. He considers basic research to be propaganda, has called the ArbCom the "Masonic goon patrol", and makes outlandish claims and attacks on people who are simply giving reasonable explanations as to why his edits are being removed. The result is that Freemasonry Talk has become full of garbage rather than proper discussion, and I think that really needs to stop. Is there some way to expedite the approval process so evidence submission can begin? MSJapan 17:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm going to try to get another Arbitrator to accept it right away.
 * James F. (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Guy Montag
In clear violation of his prohibition on editing Israel related articles.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionist_terrorism&diff=25247905&oldid=25186664

Unbehagen 06:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the notice, but this isn't really the appropriate venue. I will pass this on to WP:AN/I.
 * James F. (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * appologies - wasn't sure where to put it. Thanks for the correction. Unbehagen 08:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Yuber/Guy
Thanks for letting me know the outcome of the case, James. Something went badly wrong with this case, in my view. Guy has ended up with a greater punishment than Yuber, even though without question Yuber was the worse of the two parties, and almost no evidence was presented against Guy.

It seems to me that Guy was given an extra punishment (the three-month ban from editing Israeli-Palestinian articles) because a number of people spoke up on his behalf, particularly about the issue of his not having been notified that a case was being made against him by Fred. I asked Fred    what he meant by saying "Probation seems unworkable in this case due to solidarity with him by other editors in this area," and "How could any administrator employ [probation] when you (and your supporters) make such a fuss?" &mdash; which were the reasons Fred offered for proposing the three-month ban &mdash; but he didn't answer, so we're left to guess what he meant.

It means that Guy has a three-month ban and probation, whereas Yuber only has probation. I can't think of any judicial system in the world where a person would be given an additional punishment because people spoke up to defend them.

Guy is not an easy person to defend, partly because his POV is regarded as unacceptable by many people, and partly because he announces it openly on his talk page, and says he is here to defend it. I don't agree with his POV either, and I strongly disagree with people who arrive at Wikipedia with the sole purpose of defending a particular position. I admit to having felt a little wary of defending Guy for those reasons.

However, what was done in this case was clearly unfair. Guy didn't know when he brought the case that it might be turned against him. He wasn't informed that Fred had built a case against him, and the case was nearly closed without Guy being given the chance to mount a defense. A few editors, myself included, objected to this, and so the arbitrators who had voted to close the case withdrew their votes, and Guy was given time to respond. That was good, and that's how it should have been left. But then Fred added the additional three-month ban on the grounds that the "fuss" from his "supporters" meant that probation was unworkable. First, there was no "fuss"; it's called a defense, and the objection that Guy needed to be given time to defend himself was an entirely legitimate concern. Secondly, not everyone who wrote on his behalf was a "supporter." At least some of us were only concerned with what appeared to be the unfairness of it, and had this been done to Yuber, I'd have spoken out against it in exactly the same way. Third, Fred didn't explain how any of Guy's "supporters" could have made the probation unworkable. And fourth, the supposedly unworkable probation was upheld anyway, so now Guy has both.

I know there's no right of appeal in these cases, except to Jimbo, so I know there's nothing you can do, but I just want to express my unease at the way this was handled. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I would disagree that our job is to be "fair". Instead, it is to prevent damaging behaviours from disrupting the project. In this case, I think Fred's point was fair - Guy Montag and others who are unable to prevent themselves from editing in POV ways (I'm not in the least suggesting that you are one of these people - quite the opposite!) should not be commended to continue. I looked at what was happening, and I don't feel that it reflected well on either Yuber or Montag. And I would also disagree that Yuber was "without question" worse.
 * OTOH, I really do think that you should contact Jimbo if you think we erred here. Otherwise people will feel that what the Committee decides is absolutely final, and that would not be a good thing.
 * James F. (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

James, regarding what you wrote at Requests_for_arbitration/Admin_enforcement_requested, I think Guy is banned from editing Israeli-Palestinian articles for three months only. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, forgot to type that part in. Thank you.
 * James F. (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Please advise on how to seek ArbCom's clarification
Hi, could you please point me where to seek ArbCom's clarification in regards to the "substantial reason for the change" (as per Requests for arbitration/Jguk) for date notation (BC/AD v. BCE/CE) in a few certain articles where a particular notation is inappropriate, given that there is an alternative. Thanks much. ←Humus sapiens&larr;ну? 09:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi James. Thank you for supporting my attempt to avoid getting banned. Really appreciated. Ze miguel 12:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem. Banning you would not have furthered the project materially.
 * James F. (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Accusations?
Hello, I would like some information regarding the arbitration case against me. It says (quote): The case has beeen opened mainly to consider the behavior of REX. What does that mean? Which particular aspects of my behaviour are being considered? How do I defend myself against unknown accusations? I added a rather extensive statement with justifications for my every possible action which the arbitration committee could have been referring to; the problem is that it now exceeds the 500-word limit. If you tell me what I am being accused of, I can remove the redundant parts, because I suspect that no one will actually read it all. I do think that I have a right to know what I the arbitration committee will be looking at so that I can arrange an appropriate defence. When I asked User:Fred Bauder on his talk page ''Fred, I notice that the case I had filed has a different name now. Why is that? What am I being accused of specifically? The heading is very vague? he said The change of the title from the arbitration case reflects recognition that the focus of the matter is on the behavior of REX''. What is that supposed to mean? What I would like to know is what am I being accused of. I am not being unreasonable. Every other arbitration case has specific accusations against the "defendant". Why not me? It seems very unfair. REX 19:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I can see that you have been active since I made my inquiry. Why haven't you responded? What is going on here? It's a simple question: ''what am I being accused of? There are specific accusations in all other arbitration cases, why not me?'' you did accept the case, didn't you? You must have some idea. REX 20:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:RFAR/SV

 * Re: ''Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Stevertigo/Proposed_decision

I understand that some are quite busy and may have missed recent discussion and questions regarding my Arbcom matter. Ive taken the liberty of posting here to remedy any inadvertent oversight regarding my case. Sinreg, St|eve 22:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I have already seen this.
 * James F. (talk) 10:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone/Proposed decision
Would you please answer my questions on the Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone/Proposed decision page. Thank you.

[ 80.141.207.146 14:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC) ]


 * Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
 * James F. (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Zephram Stark RfAr
Hi Jd, I see you've just voted to support Fred's proposed finding of fact regarding the focus of the dispute in the Zephram case. 

Are you aware of the discussion about this at Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Workshop? Several of the editors who opposed Zephram at Talk:Terrorism have said they feel this is not an accurate finding. The only person who would agree with that finding is Zephram himself. I hope you don't mind me drawing your attention to this. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Looking at it again; thanks.
 * James F. (talk) 12:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Behavior of Ted Wilkes
User:Ted Wilkes is still removing my contributions to the Elvis Presley article, though they are well supported by credible sources. See and. He also aggressively continues to make personal attacks against me (and some other users) on the Talk:Elvis Presley and the User talk:Onefortyone pages and repeatedly violated the 3RR rule. I think the arbitration committee should place a note about this behavior on his talk page.

[ 80.141.255.90 20:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC) ]

POTW's Rfar
He's never going to respond to it. I doubt he'll even acknowledge its existance if you asked him on his talk page. Acting like an ostrich and sticking your head in the sand should not be able to get you off the hook at Rfar. Karmafist 22:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm.
 * I'll wait a few days, then accept anyway, if that's the case.
 * James F. (talk) 11:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

= Other discussion elements =

Infobox standardization
You have just voted to have info-boxes standardized. We are still looking for people to join the team to implement the new boxes. If you are interested join the team on Wikipedia talk:Infobox standardisation. This is also the page where you can submit your design for the new infoboxes.--Fenice 17:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you. James F. (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Bbsrock
I see that you put a comment on Bbsrock's (talk) page to the effect that he should stop changing en-dashes to hyphens. He has not. He also goes around moving birth information out of the intro paragraph, even when this is not a style improvement. In the case of Keith Olbermann, he moved it into a section titled "Olbermann at ESPN," follwing the section "Early Career." "Early Career," if very liberally defined, could include birth, but I don't think he was born at ESPN!!

He also changed a perfectly good verb to passive voice (or something like it) for no reason.

Unweildy link to Olbermann changes

So, is there any way to stop this well-meaning whirlwind of destruction? He doesn't seem to read his Talk page.

67.173.240.27 12:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I would recommend attempting some discussion before trying anything more drastic, certainly.
 * James F. (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * He appears to have forgotten that his Talk page exists. I see several comments to him and no replies.  I am relatively unseasoned at Wikipedia.  Is there some way to grab his attention, just to get him to read the Talk page?
 * 67.173.240.27 21:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Full stop
elements cross-posted

Hiya. I noticed you readded a full stop to 'Dr(.)' in the Mo Mowlam article. Please note that in standard British usage, which is appropriate for an article on a British personage, there is no. in the abbreviated form of Doctor ('Dr.' is 'Drive'). --Ngb 13:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I would strongly disagree that such usage is "standard"; the two forms are, if anything, reversely-so common in use. I am "Mr. James D. Forrester" (or "Mr. James D. Forrester, Esq." to Lloyd's), in short form. Reading "Dr." as "Drive" would be, well, uncommon, because roads called "so-and-so Drive" are fairly uncommon, notwithstanding my mother being born on one. :-)
 * It is, as you say, an issue of style, but one which I have always read as a bit of an uncouth modernism of not bothering to try to use the correct form. One wonders what Debrett's of yesteryear said (modern Debrett's being that awful concoction for the Merkin market, of course).
 * James F. (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Conventional behaviour in British English is that abbreviations that use both the first and last letters of the word being abbreviated do not use the full stop (so 'Dr' Doctor but 'Dr.' Drive). See almost any British style guide or, for that matter, our own article on Abbreviation ('History' section). The 'uncouth modernism' is the accidental adoption of the standard American usage, which does always use the full stop. --Ngb 17:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * "Conventional" suggests that there ever was a single usage, the lack of which was my very point. I am very much aware of the differing styles for this, having read easily a dozen different style guides, each of which, essentially, disagrees with all of the others. It is most tiresome :-)
 * James F. (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. It's a non-issue on Mo Mowlam anyone, as apparently you aren't supposed to use The Right Honourable with other prefix honorifics. --Ngb 06:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Meto
elements cross-posted

Thanks for fixing various meto/metoffice URLs I put in. William M. Connolley 12:54:44, 2005-08-20 (UTC).


 * No problem; I was asked to fix them by someone at the Met. Office who emailed info-en.
 * Keep up the great work. :-)
 * James F. (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Prefices
elements cross-posted

You said ""The Rt Hon." and "Dr(.)" aren't meant to be used together anyway)" - really? Didn't know that. Lots of articles combine several preficies (e.g. ISTR "Professor Admiral Sir Foo Bar" or something similar). Are there any general rules?

Also - you're off? Please don't go! Your fantastic copyediting may not feel substantive, but it's massively appreciated, at the very least by me.

James F. (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Styles emanating from the Sovereign and the Church aren't supposed to be used at the same time as styles emanating from other sources (like universities). So "Professor Sir John Smith", "Professor the Lord Jones of Oxford", "Alderman Sir Henry Brown", etc., are incorrect. "The Right Honourable" also replaces prefixed titles like "Mr", "Miss" and "Mrs", rather than being stuck in front of them, so it would overwrite "Dr" anyway, even if it could be used with it (as "Dr" is used in exactly the same way as "Mr"). Military ranks, as they emanate from the Sovereign, are different, and so "Admiral Sir John Smith" is obviously quite all right.
 * As to my absence, it seems likely that I'll be back before long, as the draw of Wikipedia is as strong as ever, and I don't seem to be able to keep away. Proteus (Talk) 09:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Well, we'll await with baited breath your full-scale return, then. :-)
 * James F. (talk) 11:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

(Not) a probable robot mistake
(deleted -- my mistake, not the robots, I see it has also reordered categories alphabetically) --stochata 22:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No worries. :-)
 * James F. (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

RSVP
Hi James, thanks for the invitation to the London meetup, sadly i'll be in Manchester that weekend but maybe next time! Look forward to hearing about how the WMUK discussions go on. best wishes, ClareWhite (Wikinews, I can't make the link work!)


 * Never mind. We'll see you at some point, I'm sure. :-)
 * James F. (talk) 09:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Placing users in danger
JD, FYI Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy SlimVirgin (talk) 02:27, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this.
 * James F. (talk) 09:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Bot oopsie
elements cross-posted

From this edit, it looks like JdforresterBot is confused by nowiki tags. -- Beland 05:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Will pass it on to the author of the bot ('tis PyWikipediaBot). Thanks.
 * James F. (talk) 09:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

My user page
elements cross-posted

I never gave you permission to vandalize my user page. Please don't make the mistake of doing it again. -- Spinboy 11:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry... whut?
 * James F. (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think he's commenting on the jdforresterbot's recent edit to his page that re-categorized Queer Wikipedians to LGBT Wikipedians. - C HAIRBOY  23:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * How confusing. It wasn't a re-categorisation, it was a standard category fixing, and certainly not "vandalism". Threats about "making the mistake of doing it" are laughable, however.
 * James F. (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

What Chairboy said. I didn't ask you nor or bot to touch my user page. Please don't do it again. -- Spinboy 18:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Then you evidently fail to understand that you don't "own" anything, even "your" user page. This is Wikipedia. Feel free to read up about it. :-)
 * James F. (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Voting is banned
People said that no such page existed, so I made one. Any corrections appreciated! :)

Kim Bruning 20:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * (now all we need is some good pages describing how consensus actually works on wikipedia) Kim Bruning 20:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Categorization
In light of the recent CFD debate about fictional emperors and empresses, I decided that the issue was way overdue for a more global discussion. Thus, please join the talk at Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 07:48, September 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ta.
 * James F. (talk) 09:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The Winter Queen
Naming conventions: Please take a look at Talk:Elisabeth of Bohemia. Arrigo 15:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you; I have now given my opinion.
 * James F. (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Bureaucratship
Hi, Jdforrester. Thank you so much for your support on my bureaucratship nomination. Unfortunately, it didn't pass, but I intend to run again soon. If you'd like to be informed next time around, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks again! Andre ( talk ) 05:28, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Bot's deletion of category "Massacres"
"Removing from category Massacres" is an inadequate edit summary for a bot. How is anyone to know why it is to be removed? Moreover, the "discusssion" on it in CFD seems to have disappeared, not in the archive or anywhere. --Zero 12:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The bot doesn't have functionality to say specifically why category changes are made; complain to Andre. :-)
 * On the point of where the CfD discussion went, I have no idea - I just carry out the instructions when I'm around. I'll look.
 * James F. (talk) 12:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Your bot removed Damour massacre from category:massacres. Any reason, or just for a bit mischievous bot fun? Anyway, I'm reverting it. Babajobu 16:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's because the category has been sucessfully nominated for deletion. Unreverted.
 * James F. (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox Biography
I'm having some issues on John Vanbrugh. People keep removing the infobox! I think it's quite useful as it does take some hunting to find information about birth places, birth dates and death dates/places in many of the articles. Could you comment on the talk page? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

London meet
Well, I still hope to come. However, I seem to have arranged a flatwarming party the evening before, and am unsure whether I will be able to send people on their way in time to come. We shall see. Morwen - Talk 14:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Likewise, I'll prolly be there, but it depends on my hangover (obv). Thanks for the reminder, though! — OwenBlacker 14:54, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Can't make it I'm afraid, though I hope to be at the Birmingham one if it goes ahead. Take plenty of pictures! the wub  "?/!"  15:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed a definite, but the unexpected may still happen. Do I need to do inform anyone if the unexpected indeed happens? JFW | T@lk  16:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

James: Nothing in this world is definite except the present and the past (and even that is subject to interpretation). At present I definitely intend to meet you on Saturday! &mdash;Theo (Talk) 18:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Yep i am coming. Not sure i wanna be showcased by Thryduulf's digicam tho as i am avoiding the gaze of some bods. Will come appropriately attired - max rspct 20:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

aargh.. something else came up on the same day, so i'm not sure i'll be able to make it... ;( but i'll try next time! -kate

At the moment I'm planning to come. William M. Connolley 17:06:28, 2005-09-10 (UTC).

3RR
elements cross-posted

Heya,

On Wikipedia we have a rule called the "Three Revert Rule", or "3RR" for short, which forbids people from reverting a page more than three times in any 24 period, on penalty of being blocked for 24 hours. I've noticed that you've sadly broken this on Homosexuality, and so I'm meant to block you. However, if you agree to not do so, but instead work together with the other editors on the page to discuss the matter, I will relent. Deal?

Yours,

James F. (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Is a guideline not a rule. You should really deal with the Vandals that are deleting rather than editing.  I supported my text with a citation, which they refuse to accept.  There are many such citations, advise them to simply google.com them.  Cordially WritersCramp 15:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * For someone so terribly au fait with extactly the distinction, you do seem unable to follow it. :-)
 * James F. (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikimania 2006 in London?
Queen Mary bid looking more mature now LoopZilla 22:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed.
 * James F. (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Unicode
You have replaced all the Unicode infinity characters in the Comparison of BitTorrent clients article with (X)HTML entities. AFAIK, in MediaWiki you are supposed to use straight Unicode characters. Do you allow me to set them back? --logixoul 23:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You're "allowed" to do anything you like. ;-) However, I replaced the Unicode with HTML entities merely to make it easier for people to edit, and there's nothing wrong with having Unicode itself instead if you'd prefer.
 * James F. (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm allowed to do many things, but I'd rather not get into an editwar with anyone. IIRC there was a Wikipedia rule (or was it a guideline?) about having to use Unicode and not entities, though I can't find it again, I forgot the article name. And IMHO character entities are even harder to edit than Unicode - 1 character vs 8 characters... Please explain why do you think you made it easier for people to edit. Because of older browsers? --logixoul 07:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * There certainly used to be a guideline the other way around, advising people to use HTML characters to avoid corruption from Unicode-non-compliant systems. Not sure if there's the one that you describe, though.
 * As to for whom entities are easier, yes, indeed, those with "older browsers", or bots, or non-browser editors, or ... Unicode is all well and good, and it's great that we can use it, but Windows users alone count for a sizeable number of our editors who cannot properly use Unicode.
 * James F. (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Unicode --logixoul 12:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the infinity symbol is part of WGL4, which means that pretty much all Windows users should be able to display it. Our WGL4 article implies that Linux and Mac should too (it mentions all platforms support WGL4). Anyone making new edits could choose to use either the literal Unicode character or the HTML character entity reference. -- Curps 05:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I did say "easier to edit". :-) But yes.
 * James F. (talk) 11:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Saint


I hereby canonize you a saint of the Catholic Church of Wikipedia for accepting the sacred burden of being an Arbitrator. May Jimbo's blessings be upon you. Pax tecum. -- Essjay ·  Talk Servus Servorum Jimbo 04:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you. :-)
 * Might, however, I beg humility? You can venerate me once I've martyred myself on the rocks of doom.
 * James F. (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

See! More saintly conduct! You've leveled up to Wiki Martyr Level 2. ; - ) -- Essjay ·  Talk 22:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Votes requested on cfr Tudor and Plantagenet
Hi! I note your input on the Tudor dynasty page, I would greatly appreciate your voting on the proposed renaming of Category:Tudor to Category:House of Tudor, and Category:Plantagenet to Category:House of Plantagenet it seems the vote was suggested by obsessed with uniformity, however renaming the categories would be a mistake in my opinion, due to the fact that Tudor people is a sub category of Tudor, and having it as a sub category of House of Tudor would make no sense. Also, in my opinion House of Anjou is the more normally used phrase for the descendants of Geoffrey of Anjou rather than House of Plantagenet. please vote here Thanks, Arnie587 21:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I've already registered my comments, but thank you for the heads-up anyway.
 * James F. (talk) 03:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

James
At my request could you please look at this at your convenience, It's very harrassing, let alone user claims he is being staulked when in reality he is the staulker, Thanks Scott 00:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Vote Deletion
I noticed you seemed to have removed my keep vote and replaced it with your delete vote on the Category:Terrorists AfD. I'll assume it was just an accidental oversight, but urge caution to doublecheck in the future. Happy future wiki-ing! Sherurcij


 * Hmm. Odd. MediaWiki shouldn't have merged those lines. Will ask a dev. if something went wrong.
 * James F. (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom elections
elements cross-posted

Hello,. In case you haven't noticed, I'm writing a special series on the upcoming 2005 ArbCom elections for The Wikipedia Signpost. In the October 17 issue, we will be profiling the current ArbCom members. Note that this should not be a platform for re-election; rather, it should serve as an insight into what you feel about the ArbCom, and your opinions of it are. Thus, I hope you don't mind answering a few questions. Many thanks!

1. Are up for re-election this year? 2. If so, do you plan to run for re-election? 3. How do you feel about serving on the ArbCom? 4. What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom? 5. Weaknesses? 6. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why? 7. Do you regret accepting your position? Why or why not? 8. If you could say one thing to the current ArbCom candidates, what would you say, and why? 9. Do you think your job is easy? Hard? Explain. 10. Looking in retrospective, is there anything you would have done differently? 11. Do you feel that the ArbCom is appreciated by the community? If not, how do you think that could be changed? 12. What is the most frustrating thing about being on the ArbCom? Enjoyable?

I hope you didn't mind me bombarding with you with questions; by no means feel obligated to answer all (or any) of them. Thanks for serving Wikipedia, and for taking your time to help a Signpost reporter! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 14:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem:
 * 1. Are up for re-election this year?
 * Yes, I am All of the temporary appointees' terms end in December.
 * 2. If so, do you plan to run for re-election?
 * I plan to run for election for a second time, yes. Hopefully this time I will be successful. :-)
 * 3. How do you feel about serving on the ArbCom?
 * I consider it very interesting work, and certainly useful to the community. However, it occupies quite a lot of my time related to Wikipedia (and Wikimedia generally), which I could otherwise spend doing other things, though quite probably less useful ones. :-)
 * 4. What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom?
 * When cases come all the way to us, the disputes are often difficult and highly acrimonious, and also seemingly never-ending. The Committee's ruling generally causes the problem to end, or at the very least abate significantly. But then, that is the entire point of the Committee, so I would say that.
 * 5. Weaknesses?
 * The Arbitration Committee is, by design, much slower than any other process on Wikipedia, because we want to consider the cases carefully and try our hardest to come up with workable and successful solutions and remedies to the problems that are brought to us which are in the best interests of the project and the community at large. This slowness has been criticised, and understandably so, but I think it preferable to the Committee rushing through things and being a destructive force.
 * 6. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
 * It is disappointing that participants in cases do not try to structure nor marshall their arguments in a way that is clear both what they consider wrong in general, the the parts that they are most concerned about. If we were merely concerned in which side presented the better argument, we could just discard them, but we're actually here for the good of the project overall, so we just have to deal with it as best we can. Sometimes it is rather frustrating that we don't force people to actually work at what they want, but I'm not sure that there's much that we can do about it, sadly.
 * 7. Do you regret accepting your position? Why or why not?
 * No, I do not. It's a necessary duty for Wikipedia, and it doesn't tire me the way that it seems to tire others, so I suppose it's my duty to carry it out.
 * 8. If you could say one thing to the current ArbCom candidates, what would you say, and why?
 * Be aware that the worst possible thing that the Committee could do, worse even than effectively stalling for months at a time and not dealing with cases, is to carry out cases in such a way that the community's trust in the Committee is reduced. The Committee only works because we keep that, and it's absolutely vital. We inherited a great deal of responsibility from Jimbo when he delegated his powers to us, and abusing or jeopardising the faith placed in us, even accidentally, would be disastrous.
 * 9. Do you think your job is easy? Hard? Explain.
 * Elements of being an Arbitrator are quite hard - analysing the evidence is often difficult, and made more so by counter-productive ways in which complaints and items of evidence are displayed. Then there's taking the flak - whatever decision you come to, at least one party will likely feel slighted at least partially. Sometimes this goes quite a bit further (death threats and to a lesser extent other threats of violence are not unknown, though they have become significantly less common of late, and then there are the obvious elements of vague legal threats, and rude emails generally). The main difficult is probably the workload - reading through reams of posts is tiring work, and not everyone (or anyone, really) would find it fun.
 * 10. Looking in retrospective, is there anything you would have done differently?
 * Not really. I could be rather asinine and say that I wish I'd devoted more time overall, but I could always say that. There isn't really a limit to how much time you can end up spending.
 * 11. Do you feel that the ArbCom is appreciated by the community? If not, how do you think that could be changed?
 * Sometimes, certainly, it feels like the Committee not being appreciated that much by the community gets some of us down, but again this problem seems unsurmountable, really. When we do well, people don't really notice that much - there's merely one iota less friction in the system. When we do less well, however, people complain readily. :-) This is even more significantly a problem in mediation, both formal and informal, and as these underpin the dispute resolution process and are vital to making the Arbitration process work at all, really.
 * 12. What is the most frustrating thing about being on the ArbCom? Enjoyable?
 * The most enjoyable part of being an Arbitrator is the sense that you are doing something significant for the community. The most frustrating part, really, is the lack of recognition. But such is life.
 * I hope that this helps you.
 * BTW, it's "Arbitrator" with a capital 'A' (and with the other terms, too), always. :-)
 * James F. (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Many thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 23:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Signpost
Thanks for your edits on the Signpost. No worries about editing the article, as long as it's just minor stuff like fixing typoes and mistakes. Ral 315   WS  16:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Right.
 * James F. (talk)

"Censoring on Don't be a dick"
Just to let you know that I didn't have a problem with it being uncensored - rather that if it were not censored, it seems to me to make sense to uncensor both the link and the explanation.... anyway, take care :). Ryan Norton T 07:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, right. Updated, as you can see. :-)
 * James F. (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

UK wikimedia chapter
James

What's happening with this, what would it do, and is it worth this Londoner contributing? :) All the best, jguk 20:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Deepcut Barracks / A303 road / Send Marsh
elements cross-posted

Hi, I noticed you have removed the photos I uploaded from these pages, and I assume you were involved in their deletion on Wikimedia. Can you please give a reason for their deletion, and where this was discussed (it didn't follow Deletion requests)?

All three photos were correctly tagged with a compatible licence (cc-by-sa-2.0) and the source images are still available at:


 * http://www.geograph.co.uk/photo/59426
 * http://www.geograph.co.uk/photo/62377
 * http://www.geograph.co.uk/photo/64351

As the uploader of these images I would expect to be involved, or at least informed of their deletion (as per the policy linked above).

Thanks/Wangi 15:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * See your email.
 * James F. (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:RM
I saw your comment at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves about the extremely low definition of consensus. I'm of the opinion that RM has no business in setting such a figure at all and that Philip, the only person reverting my attempts to make consensus something that is determined from case to case, is reverting me by claiming that a very small discussion involving about four or five people is enough to define this figure as some kind of policy and that consensus to remove it has to be built rather than recognizing that the decision is in fact violating standard Wikipedia practice.

I would appreciate your comments on this issue.

Peter Isotalo 19:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate statement
Your statement is about double the 250 word recommendation at the top of the Candidate statements page. Please use your Questions page for the lengthy version, but confine yourself to that rather fair guideline. -- Netoholic @ 14:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Two things: First, my original candidate statement is exactly 250 words (I set the limit last year in the first place). Secondly, I fail to see how 311 is anywhere close to "about double". A trifiling addendum is hardly worth bothering over.
 * James F. (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The Signpost
Hello, James F.! I just wanted to deliver this week's issue of The Wikipedia Signpost, which features the current ArbCom, directly to your front door. :-) Also, if you wish to read your fellow Arbitrators' full and unabridged responses, you can find them here. Thanks again for all your help! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 21:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the notice. Any time I can help out, please ask. :-)
 * James F. (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Help needed
Dear James, I need your help to get help! Confused?... I tried to subscribe the helpdesk mailing list in order to ask a few questions on the behalf of the wikipedia.pt. Apparently it did not work because, after i sent my email to the mailing list, i received a message saying that my post awaits approval from a moderator. But i did the subscription! So, as a moderator, can you please approve my post? It's important for us. Thanks and good luck for the election, muriel@pt 13:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)