User talk:John Vandenberg/Archive 10


 * Please leave comments about my resignation at the noticeboard talk page. Thank you, John Vandenberg (chat) 15:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment
I left my comment at the right place. But I'd like to note here that I think the world of your moral strength and humility in offering your resignation, but in addition to the proper arguments at the noticeboard talk, those factors are outweighed massively by your skills and experience as an Arb. --Dweller (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Truly a shame. Respectful of your decision. Thanks for serving the community with such excellence. --Dweller (talk) 11:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009
Please do not engage in unjustified and what many believe to be disproportionate acts, such as resigning from the Arbitration Committee. They do not particularly help the project in any way, we have had too many arbitrators resign in the recent past already over similar incidents, and we have few enough people running for the open seats as is. Or, alternately, if you so desire, I think it could reasonably be permitted at this time for your resignation to take effect come the end of the current election cycle and have you offer yourself as a candidate for a post in a confirmation vote. But at the very least I would think that you, and hopefully the other arbitrators, will come to realize that we can't really afford to have you guys resign after you make a mistake. And I do think having some sort of confirmation vote instead in cases when individuals have maybe ruffled a few feathers would be an effective way to go. But we would probably need at least one example of that being effective (not necessarily keeping the person in place, just effectively dealing with the issue), and it is very hard for me to imagine that we would ever have a better and easier opportunity to see if such could work than this instance. Thanks for your attention, and I very sincerely hope that you reconsider, at least considering the possibility of a confirmation vote. John Carter (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, no less than 30 other users have expressed a similar sentiment at WT:AC/N, calling unanimously for you to return to your seat. The fact that this list includes some people who categorically never agree with each other I think speaks volumes. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 18:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I fully understand if you don't want to be on arbcom any more for you own reasons/sanity/stress. However, as noted above the consensus is that your resignation is not required, is unwelcome, and does not assist the project both because of the loss of your services and the poor precedent it sets. Please at least time the time to reconsider.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Hi John, I figure it's entirely likely that considering all the thousands of editors here that you've never heard of me, but I've been reading around some stuff lately, and thought I'd visit your talk page. Now, I don't know any details about anything; but, I've seen a lot of posts from you that to me indicated a huge level of clue, compassion, intelligence, and maturity. If I understand my research, it appears that you've stated that you will resign your efforts from ArbCom. To be quite frank about the matter, I think ArbCom is a vastly important aspect of our project, and I think the efforts you've made there have been a tremendously positive influence on the Wikipedia project as a whole. Now my understanding is that you are simply a volunteer editor here, and not a paid employee of the WMF, ... so nobody has any right to demand a single thing from you. If you would allow me though, I'd like to ask 2 questions: I know it's all none of my business and all, but I'm hopeful that you'll consider taking on that work that so few are able or qualified to. Either way, I do wish you the very best, and I'd like to thank you for everything you've done to improve our little slice of the web. I really hope you'll keep up the good efforts. All my best. — Ched : ?  21:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you want to continue to serve on ArbCom?
 * 2) Would you be willing to continue to serve on ArbCom (given the need and lack of alternatives)?


 * I have heard of you Ched ;-)
 * The answer to both questions is no, but thank you for asking and the well wishes.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 22:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing my own objections then. I hope you realized the template was intended primarily as an eyecatcher and a joke. I can just see what would happen if I blocked someone for resigning from ArbCom. "Drama Month"? Hamlet is less dramatic than what would happen then, and probably has a happier ending too. Thanks for being willing to put up with the tasks involved in ArbCom in any event. I know I am completely unsuited to it for any number of reasons, and am more than grateful that a few more, well, thoughtful people are willing to subject themselves to it. John Carter (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You were one of the few I voted to support in last year's elections. Sounds to me like the committee is still a clusterfuck of drama mongering two-faced backstabbing, so allow me to be one of the few that says Do whatever the hell is best for you. Those asking you to get back on the Titanic after it's hit yet another iceberg filled with inflated egos should just be ignored, especially the usual admin suspects that drama mongered this into happening in the first place. I had hope with last year's elections that we'd start to see a change for the better, but the committee is now beyond saving. Good luck on your future endeavors, which hopefully includes ignoring all the hormonal rage from the crazy kids on this site. Vodello (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I second Vodello completely. As a friend, I can't help but see your resignation except as something that must make your life more sane and happy. Don't look back.-- Birgitte  SB  04:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I respect your decision, but I'd like it on the record that I respect it because I respect your judgement.
 * Hopefully this brings you some measure of life back and more time to do happier things.. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to hear of this whole thing, and think you have been put in an intolerable position through no fault of your own. This is a slap in the face for those of us who've been trying to get accountability and good practice into wikipedia, and a big step backwards. --Barberio (talk) 06:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia needs an effective shake-up to make users like this feel better about working their asses off for it. This is a great loss to the community and I hope somebody somewhere exists who will take it as a loud alarm going off to begin making the project more reasonable for constructive use. Still way too much kindergarten. For no reason other than its preservation as such. SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Listen to the call of the WSirens or if not them, then otherwise watch Psirens at least they are saner than WP. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by anon ;-) (talk • contribs)

For what it's worth
I think you were one of the best. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. I don't agree with you on everything (you know what :-)), but you were one of the good ArbCom members. No reason for you to resign at all. Fram (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Discouraging news to me as well. I am surprised to see you resign. It's a huge loss for ArbCom.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 22:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * That's just brilliant. The other characters even have pitchforks. --Dweller (talk) 12:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Universality of patriarchy
Please see my reply at User talk:Alastair Haines. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Latin deletions
Hi John, are you still an admin at Latin Wikisource? If so, could you clear out s:la:Categoria:Deletiones Propositae? Thanks! +Angr 21:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Angr, thanks for letting me know. ✅ John Vandenberg (chat) 00:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox

 * Discussion at User_talk:ManfromButtonwillow. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 03:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.codesria.org/Publications.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Admin accountability
It seems you were confused as to what proposal I was replying to. I hope my latest comment has clarified it sufficiently. Daniel (talk) 07:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Your comment did clarify it. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Tōru Sakai
An article that you have been involved in editing, Tōru Sakai, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. andyzweb (talk) 11:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Note
Please revert if I'm mistaken. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reverted. :-) Cheers, John Vandenberg (chat) 02:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, Motion 2.2
Forgive me for getting in direct contact, however I have serious concerns about this motion:

"Mattisse is indefinitely banned from participating in FACs, FARs, GANs, GARs or DYKs of editors with whom she has had previous conflicts."

The wording is imprecise and is likely to lead to difficulty in implementing which will cause more conflict than it is intended to resolve.

Problems of wording:


 * "FACs, FARs, GANs, GARs or DYKs of editors" - The intention is to avoid Mattisse being involved in any article quality assessment process of articles where certain users have been significant editors. The wording, however, doesn't make that clear, and doesn't give guidance as to when a person is a significant editor.


 * "editors with whom she has had previous conflicts." - This is also unclear. Again, there are people in mind, but they are not named, as they normally would be in an ArbCom case. I do not know who all these people are, so I cannot advise Mattisse on this matter - and Mattisse herself may not know who would consider themselves to have had a previous conflict with her.


 * "indefinitely banned" - This is going against the spirit of the case, which is to allow the mentoring process some time to work, to give Mattisse an opportunity of working toward co-operative and harmonious editing. Motion 2.3 has a 6 month restriction, which appears more appropriate.

This case has gone on for quite a time now, and it would be a shame for all concerned if in an attempt to close it quickly before the holiday season these ambiguities were not addressed.

Clearer, more workable options may be:


 * 1) Mattisse is banned from FACs and FARs for 6 months.
 * 2) Mattisse is banned from tagging Featured Articles for 6 months.
 * 3) Users who have difficulty working with Mattisse are to make themselves known to ArbCom who will then inform  Mattisse and Mattisse's advisers. Then for 6 months, Mattisse is to check the Revision history statistics of Featured Articles she wishes to become involved with by editing, tagging, talkpage comment or article quality assessment to see if any of these users are among the top five contributors. If any of these users are among the top five contributors, then Mattisse is to consult with her advisers and await a response before getting involved.

I have removed DYK and GA from the list, as these are not significant problem areas. Incidents there have been isolated. I feel some or all of these options, or a variation of them, would be acceptable to all concerned, and are worth considering.  SilkTork  *YES! 01:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have recently retired as an arbitrator, so don't put much weight on my vote there - the other arbitrators can strike my vote if a motion hangs in the balance due to my vote, or for any other reason.
 * For my part, the remedy is workable. The mentors can privately draw up a list of people based on prior problems they know of.  When new problems arise, the mentors can note this, and advise against Mattisse initiating or participating in article quality assessment where similar problems are likely to re-occur.
 * The "indefinite" can be reviewed when the problems stop, and yearly reviews are typical. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

truthiracy
Aloha John Vandenberg,

I am Christopher C. Lord, aka "truthiracy". The "etymology" of your name means: Germanic "Vand" meaning "vandal" (destroyer), to " vandalize" or to sack. The suffix "berg" means the "Mountain or hill" (high up). So your name means "The Destroyer From The Mountain". In other words you crush and destroy (truth) from your high throne!

So you took my facts down because they told the "real truth" and like they say "He who owns the present owns the past, he who owns the past owns the future! If you cared for humans (sheeple) then you would not have your job! The Illuminati will go down, because the power of the dark side is weakness, and I have all the power of wisdom and the power to use it. Did you read what I wrote, or did one of your masters tell you to take it off?

Good day!

"Evil Must Die" Christopher C. Lord —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthiracy (talk • contribs) 12:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Your prose is unsuitable for Wikipedia unless it is accompanied with reliable sources.
 * Wikipedia is not a publisher of truths, real or otherwise. Wikipedia will wait until those truths have been peer-reviewed.
 * If you want to distribute your ideas to the world, you should write a book, or start a blog.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 20:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello John, and thank you for your response, In other words, at present time, you may only "re-write" others peoples "original research"? All facts came from "original research" so who and or what "stopped" the very essence of finding facts? Does only the Rockefeller's & Rothschild say what is fact and what is not? I thought Wikipedia was made by the people for the people, but I see I was wrong. The words "original research" could be used before or after anyones article that has "original research", and that way people could make their own choice what is fact or not. All evidence should be presented, and all truth will be determined. Just because a new understanding is found, a new insight on old ideas unites to new wisdom that now is factual, may not be accepted by mainstream yet, but none the less, a fact! So, when a person is researching, they can find these new and innovating terms and understanding etc. Have a great day! Christopher Lord

Have a wonderful day! Christopher Lord —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthiracy (talk • contribs) 20:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It sounds like you are understanding Wikipedia a lot better now.
 * Original research must be published somewhere else first, in a more traditional venue. Only after peer-review can the idea be incorporated into Wikipedia.
 * If you are wanting to publish new ideas or new understandings, you might have better luck over at Google Knol. Or, you can set up your own website; see Category:Blog hosting services and Comparison of free web hosting services.
 * -- John Vandenberg (chat) 21:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Antonio Arnaiz-Villena
I do not want to bother you or Kwami anymore,but you are interested in Antonio Arnaiz-Villena page.

Apparently they brought about an old Palestinian paper work. This link has been disrupted. Do you have any other link to the paper? Is this old history behind all the attacks seen in the AA-V page?

I think ,I copied AA-V writings,showing he and his group are not anti-Jewish. Should we let this history as it is.It is wrong because we do not know the paper and people writes without knowing.

However,I am intersted in linguistics :there are still unreliable quotations and false assertions. But I am not going to touch it. I have been threatened too many times. Tell me if you want me to put correct and proper quotrations and editions.--Virginal6 (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Great Wikipedia Dramaout
Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, John, you've been disqualified. :)  Jehochman Talk 14:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

E-Mail
You have mail. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for delay...
in responding to your questions. have been too busy with work lately. i see that a decision has been rendered in the Asmahan arbitration case, which is fine by me. thanks for your help. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You chose... poorly.
While I might make an argument that unblocking Giano was unwise in substance, doing so without even so much as discussing the matter with me first was ill-advised. Not only is it, normally, mandated by policy but it is also basic courtesy. I expected better from you. &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Aye, two wrongs don't make a right. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, you know I'm not one to start harping on letter of the policy outside a case. I'm not falling on your head because of a fine point of procedure; but because I still believe that this block was both justified and necessary and that overturning it was a bad idea&mdash; something that we could have discussed.  It's a bit late for that now.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The block was way overdue. The unblock only made it worse. — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that we cannot react to this user the same way we would anyone else? The primary reason blocks against him do not work is because there is always someone ready to unblock regardless of the circumstances. The ongoing re-run is one of the reasons I ponder leaving Wikipedia. I sure would like to see this reoccurring issue resolved one of these years. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 00:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Me too, but it needs to be resolved now. Not years from now. — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Nah, it's nearly Christmas - a Giano arbcom case is as traditional as the Sound of Music on TV. Wouldn't be the same without it. Oh, yes, they resolve nothing - never do. There's a sequel due out next year too.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the real shame in all this, nothing will get fixed. — Rlevse • Talk  • 01:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

And no, by the way, I had no intention of dragging you in front of the committee. I think you goofed with the unblock, but that's a peripheral issue and certainly not worth a spat over. As far as I'm concerned, your action was just a symptom of the underlying problem and not the core issue. &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yepper, Coren's got it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 02:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * And yes, if you didn't notice, you did haul me in front of the committee. I think you goofed by blocking, which is a symptom of something, and that is a central issue worth desysopping or trouting.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 03:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Err, what? You weren't named as a party, and I specifically said that your unblock wasn't what I was raising a case about.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Grrrr!
In the interest of peace between the many English-speaking peoples of the world I can forgive many things, but ultimatums? Is that really acceptable anywhere? :) DuncanHill (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * apparently it is. Which is to say that it has slightly more use than my original attempt.
 * Maybe I should stick to using strine. Trouble besets me whenever I use high felutan' lingo. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Still confused re: suppressed edit
Thanks for the comments at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee. I looked at your referenced further comments relating to "Outing/COI" and now I'm completely confused. If there's a problem with the edit and it must remain suppressed, that's fine -- I don't care about my edit being "unsupressed." However, I never received any feedback that I had created a problem necessitating oversight, and never expected or intended to cause one. I'd just like to understand the nature of the concern that my edit raised, so that I can avoid future issues. As I recall, the comment related to the fundraising banner; I don't recall that it contained anything referring to another person, and I don't see how it could have been related in any way to my RL or interests other than Wikipedia. Is there a way you can explain further? Thanks! Steveozone (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I cant see your comment, as I am no longer an oversighter, however I am quite sure it was not a problem.
 * The problem was that there was content on the pages WP:COIN and WP:ANI, added by other people, which disclosed private details about an editor. i.e. it was being discussed at another part of the same page, so your edit inadvertently contained these private details which needed to be suppressed.
 * The suppression tool hides revisions of a page, so your revision of the page needed to be suppressed along with 70 or 80 other revisions by other people who had also done nothing wrong, other than edit the wrong page at the wrong time.
 * I'm curious ... were you worried about this? If so, perhaps we need to add a link on the suppressed edit explaining why it was oversighted, and who to contact if the reader (yourself) would like to know why it has been hidden.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 04:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I understand that; it's fairly clear to me that my edit was caught up in a sequence of edits removed as a part of the removal of Giano's "Randy in Boise" comment. I thought you were saying that there was some independent reason for oversight of my unrelated remarks.  If I understand correctly now, you are saying that those remarks were just part of the "collateral damage" caused by using oversight on a high-volume discussion board.  That is good, and I thank you for the reassurance.


 * Frankly, I would not have realized that my comments were suppressed but for the imbroglio that ensued shortly thereafter over the action that was taken as to Giano's comment. However, it is somewhat disturbing that consensus is that Giano's comment should not have been oversighted (whatever disputes may remain over the motivations of those who were involved), and yet while Giano's comment is now in the open, the "collaterals" like me remain suppressed.


 * All that having been said, no, I don't care whether my edit is restored, although it is irksome that my thoughts and ideas were vaporized without giving me any notice and opportunity to express them in that other thread. Yes, I would think that if someone's edit is suppressed, they should be informed, so that (a) they are aware of any problem that they may have caused, or (b) they can go back to replace their comments if appropriate.  Otherwise, the "collateral damage" from this sort of thing impacts the quality of discussions that are affected (my point wasn't heard, despite its inarguable merit!) and frankly insults the affected editor.  My edit in this particular case was not a big deal, but I could envision circumstances where such an edit might be far more important to me, and it is not difficult to imagine others in this situation being very offended. Thanks again for your comments.  Steveozone (talk) 05:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

There were two incidents. The Randy in Boise incident (which didn't involve you), and second one about a day later which occurred while the former one was being discussed.

Your edit occurred while the second piece of private information was on the page. You can see the second suppression here. That problem started when user:H Debussy-Jones initiated a new discussion at 2009-11-13 03:10:34, and ended when user:Daedalus969 removed the problem at 2009-11-13 05:50:24. That private information has not been unsuppressed, and it is unrelated to the Randy in Boise incident. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. Again, I'm not upset, John, and I truly do appreciate the need to conduct oversight, and the challenges presented to those who perform those tasks.  It seems to me that this indicates some 15-20 editors, who were discussing topics other than the suppressed discussion, lost one or several edits that remain suppressed (collateral damage).  Perhaps some of these folks quickly figured out what was going on, were able to assure themselves that they were not involved, and were able to go back to their discussions and make their points again.  On the other hand, how many had no idea that their edits disappeared, or couldn't figure out what happened and therefore stopped discussing?  I'm not sure to what extent this is a problem, but it does seem as though an automated process could be employed to send a generic note to the talk page of each affected editor, advising that their edit at (linked page/section) has been removed for reasons that have nothing to do with them. Maybe this is better discussed at the Audit Committee talk page, but I'm not sure that would be very helpful at the moment. Steveozone (talk) 07:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry to jump in, but I do think it needs to be said that collateral damage on a board like ANI could be seriously disruptive. Editors can find themselves blocked or effectively banned after very short discussions there, and if comments are being removed accidentally the quality of argument and evidence available to the users of the board will be impaired, as will their final decisions. As we have seen how long it takes to review suppressions, and there have been recent examples of extremely short block/ban debates, there is a very real danger that the combination of the two will lead to a decline in the quality of decisions made. DuncanHill (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * G'day again Duncan. Usually oversighters dont remove unrelated sections; the text is visible, however the history during the affected period is not able to be browsed.  The result is that the community needs to trust that the oversighter has not fiddled with the unrelated sections.  Most of the time, oversighters use "[redacted]" (or similar) to delineate the part of the page that has been messed with.  These unrelated discussions end up archived, just like normal threads.
 * I think the long term solution is mw:Extension:LiquidThreads. On pages where LiquidThreads are enabled, each comment has its own mini-page, which has its own history.  A problem with one comment can be fixed without touching any other comment.
 * user:Werdna recently announced that Liquid Threads will be available soon. There is an onwiki discussion at VPT, but I expect that there will be proposals before it is implemented on en.wp.
 * I've tried it out and it is very different (jarring even), but quite usable.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 12:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks cobber. I haven't looked at the Liquid Threads stuff in much detail yet, but if it reduces the opportunity for confusion it could be useful. As you said above, usually oversighters don't remove unrelated sections or comments, but of course sometimes they do, and it is very hard indeed for most editors to do anything about this. It has struck me also that a further problem with the current method is the unavailability of diffs. We've all seen the demands for diffs that accompany most attempts to bring concerns or complaints to the boards, and removing the ability of editors to point to legitimate diffs when also removing a problematic one will impede discussion. DuncanHill (talk) 12:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oversighters editing the page should be to remove the private information. I've been watching the stream of oversight requests, and how they have been handled, fairly closely, and I can't quickly recall any times where oversighters have altered unrelated sections of a page without a good reason.  if you know of any instances where you recall problems, even if only vaguely, email me or the audit-subcom.
 * Your "further problem" is a good point.
 * The diff links still exist, if you know how to get it.
 * for example, here is steveozone's suppresed edit: . note the error message, which comes from MediaWiki:Rev-deleted-no-diff.
 * The history & user contributions UI do not provide this link when the reader doesn't have permission to see the content. Without that link, the reader can't easily refer to the edit either, and they don't see that error message.
 * If we can let the reader see the error message, we can expand MediaWiki:Rev-deleted-no-diff to inform them that oversighters (or audit-subcom) can assist them.
 * The oversighter (or audit-subcom) can at least help the reader understand wtf happened, perhaps giving them the part of the diff that doesn't contain private information, or describing it accurately without releasing the private details. (similar to how admins handle requests from non-admins for deleted pages, only with a lot more care for private data.)
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 13:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that - I had no idea that that message existed, and would have no idea how to get to it from an oversighted diff! I think that by letting editors see that error message from the contributions list or history list, and appropriate use of a message as suggested by Steveozone above, we could help reduce the understandable frustration and confusion that sometimes results from oversighting. Of course, care must be taken to avoid accidentally giving out information which would render the oversight meaningless, but I am sure that it is possible. DuncanHill (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Here, as it veers off-topic
Re, of course I do. Part of the matter is the discussion on whether, and when, it is appropriate for an arbitrator to act privately; and that is a matter that demands careful examination by the whole committee and not just a small subset. There are some arbs who feel strongly against it, some that are considerably more measured, and some that feel that it is a judicious application of judgment in certain cases. The matter is far from decided, and will have considerable impact for the entire committee for years to come; the suggestion that it be "decided" as a side effect of an arbitration request where, at best, six of eighteen arbs could participate is completely ridiculous. I should point out that this is now moot given that it was made clear that no rule or precedent would be created by motion in this case (much to my relief). As to your own participation in that discussion, well, I made no secret of my belief that you made a mistake by leaving your seat on the committee. &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Coren, you don't get to vote on how a case is heard when you are one of the parties. Not, that is, if you have any sense of honour or Arbcom has any sense of reality. Are you deliberately trying to make asses of the committee? Good God man, have some decency! DuncanHill (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You fail to understand my point, even though it was pretty clearly set out just one paragraph earlier. My point isn't that I wanted to vote on the principle, but that the principle should not be decided by motion of a small fraction of the committee.  Given that it was made clear it wouldn't, there is no issue.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It was your behaviour that made it necessary for the committee to consider the question. To then be one of the people deciding if such behaviour should be allowed - well, I never thought you were that kind of person. I'll ask you directly this too - were you one of the recused arbs Carcharoth was referring to when he mentioned emails? DuncanHill (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are begging the question. On your second point, the matter is unclear.  I did make a request on arbcom-l about extending my statement past 500 words as any other party would have been allowed to, but that (and the subsequent response; which you can guess at by my statement having been extended) is the extent of my communication with the committee regarding this case.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One problem is this - you appear to have a degree of control over how the current request for a case is being handled than would be available to a non-arb requesting a case, or to a non-arb named as a party to a case. The other is that you appear to be trying to decouple your actions from those of Giano and John in as much as they relate to the case. Of course, that may not be how it appears to you, but please try to put yourself in the shoes of ordinary editors - it looks like an Arb working the system in a dispute with another editor. DuncanHill (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I am, though it's unarguable that my unavoidable familiarity with the process obviously means I'll be more "at ease" within it that many would be; but I can hardly be expected to unlearn that. As for severing the matters &mdash; well, I obviously requested a case for a particular purpose, I certainly did not do so because I believed I acted improperly!  :-)  But I also know full well that someone bringing a case finds themselves under scrutiny as well (for having done so myself repeatedly).  My only bone to pick was that one specific matter (arbs acting privately) would be very improperly decided in this case&mdash; I have no bones with my actions as an admin being examined.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll add to that that any putative "pull" I might have with the rest of the committee is illusory &mdash; it's already apparent that my attempts to not have John included in the mess will not be heeded. If anything, I would expect my colleagues to be more stringent and stern towards me than they would towards a non-arb: partly as hypercorrection to avoid appearances of being biased in my favor, and partly because they can rightly expect that "I know better" and do not need kid gloves.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that you are "working the system", or that you have any pull with the rest of the committee, but it certainly could look like it to a lot of people. To move from the specific to the general, it has struck me that it isn't just communication that the committee has trouble with, but presentation in general. I don't think you should all be PR experts, but I do think that all of you (and all previous arbs that I can recall) seem to lack the presentational skills that the role requires - and to come back to the specific I do feel that you have not presented the current request for case in a way that enhances either your or the committee's standing. You want Giano off? OK, everyone has a list of editors they want gone, but to bring it on the tail-end of the oversight affair feeds the unquiet of those who feel that was handled poorly. Find a genuine beef with Giano, not a case where it is understandable that he will be angry, and make sure that certain avowed enemies of Giano stay well clear of him first, for their presence wil just make it look more like a vendetta and less like a genuine attempt to improve the Wikipedia. Sorry about the long sentences, but it'd take a day and a half to edit this into decent prose. DuncanHill (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So you don't mind if I vote; I'd bet that Giano wants to vote too. :P
 * Perhaps this general predicament we find ourselves in will help you realise why the original block was daft.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 23:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It certainly raised the fact that there is a problem, but we obviously do not agree on what the problem is. The only reason "we" find ourselves in this predicament is because you overturned the block; there is little doubt in my mind that if you had not, someone else would have but it would also have been a bad unblock.  That unblocking this way under these circumstances was even considered is the problem; but it's obvious we don't see eye to eye on the matter.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the problem is that you indeffed Giano and then said no one else is able to unblock him and you would only allow him back under "supervision". As I said on my arbcom statement.  You are not God, Coren.  What makes your opinion matter more than John's?  Nothing.  You can't rule this place by fiat. Tex (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've said no such thing. &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I will accept discussion leading to a supervised return to the community, under strict conditions Tex (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We agree that there is reason to believe that two respected users acted outside of current policy. The Committee will undoubtedly consider: (1) Whether the first administrator acted within current policy when indefinitely blocking users without consensus or discussion; (2) Whether the second administrator acted within policy when he overturned a block without consulting the blocking adminstrator.  At another, more appropriate time, the separate question regarding arbitrator blocks in general will be considered by the Committee or the community.  —Amelioration  01:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (to Tex) Yes, of course. Except for vandal-only accounts (and even then) I've never made an indefinite block without also tending an offer to return under conditions which would avoid what the editor was blocked for; much less and editor with a long list of positive contributions!  I fail to see where that says that "no one else is able to unblock him", or that John's opinion is woth less than mine?  &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Coren, we are all intelligent people here, yes? Would you please read the message you left on Giano's page when you blocked him?  Can you not see where any reasonable person would see that message as you telling them not to unblock him unless there is a discussion about his "supervised" return?  Have you seen Doc's response?  Everyone, except John, was too scared to unblock because they didn't know if you were wearing your "arb hat" or not.  You thought Giano should be blocked, John did not.  When he unblocked, you not only came to chastise him on his page, but you filed an arb case.  So, yes, reasonable people can assume you feel your opinion is worth more than John's.  I'm done.  You can have the final word. Tex (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Trivial Arbcom procedure question
I was just now looking through the Ottava Rima case findings, and I found it interesting that there were generally eight votes on every resolution. Is it normal for someone who votes to decline to hear the case to avoid voting on resolutions? Nyttend (talk) 23:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yea, that is normal. Often an arbitrator thinks that a case is not desirable, but the majority of arbitrators votes to accept the case.
 * If declining meant that a arbitrator needed to recuse from the case, they would be less likely to decline.
 * The declining arbitrators are needed in the case in order to have consensus and representation.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 23:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and question
Hi, thanks for removing that unwarranted 3Rr tag from my talk page. Question: I just had a look at the site of the IJSTDand I don't find "and AIDS" in their title. Where did you find that information? If that is now the correct title, the article should be moved, but as I couldn't find it, I didn't do that yet. Cheers! --Crusio (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries; I'm still looking at the content dispute.
 * By the way, the 3RR still feels warranted to me on the grounds that he reverted three edits ... by combining them into one revert. And he's done so repeatedly before, also without valid WP:REVEXP.  Even if combining like that is legit, it's still sleazy and offensive.  He even admitted that he did the reverts without really looking at the content ... otherwise how could he possibly have overlooked the cite request he deleted?  His reverts were not as purely intentioned as he suggests. --69.226.238.251 (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 3RR is about the number of reverts, and it a "bright line" because it means one (or more) people have pressed the "revert" button three times, which means they are not communicating very well.
 * Crusio grouped your edits together and undid them. You have done the right thing by going and talking to him about the issue.  You have also caught my attention, so now there are three of us talking.  If we keep talking, I bet that user:DGG will opine soon too.  That is precisely what we want: talking instead of reverting. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The cover of ijstd has "and AIDS", and so does the eISSN on WorldCat. Expanded Academic ASAP uses "and AIDS" on their 2008 and 2009 index, but has a separate index for 2007 without "and AIDS".
 * btw, with all my deprod's, feel free to take them to AFD if I dont find good quality sources. As we have only a few people who will dig into sources about journals, it would be nice if we only have a few of these at AFD at time.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 10:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries about the deprods either. I'm actually more interested in saving those journal articles, but with the proposed guidelines failed, this has become more difficult, i think. If I prod and somebody deprods, I take that as a sign that there must be some notability somewhere and am not really inclined to go to AfD (which I have been doing less and less, I guess I must be becoming an inclusionist... :-), unless I feel it really is an egregious case (like FidoNews). Concerning the content dispute, the IP is correct that it is a bad article. At this point, I have gotten a bit tired from all those people just inserting their own opinions into it, which is the reason behind my reverts. Happened to be pro-OA comments, but could just as well have been the opposite (personally I'm still somewhat agnostic about it, although my "own" journal would be very profitable by now if it were OA...) Anyway, a good re-write would be the best thing to do, if only I had the time for that... (I still have improvement of the impact factor article onmy to-do list, but early January I have 3 grant deadlines...). --Crusio (talk) 11:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Policy proposal
Topic ban. Tell your friends and enemies. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

What the hell??
Hi Man. I am very new to Wikipedia, and i am so confused firstly. On top of all that, you sent me a weird warning as if you are the Admin of Wiki. No offense, but did you write the XRumer article? If yes, i am sorry man. Can you tell me how to know the Author of an article?? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrybias (talk • contribs)


 * Hello. To know who originally created an article, you can check the article's history (see the link on top). However, be aware that the original author in no way owns the article in question. Your addition to XRumer was removed because it doesn't add anything helpful to the article and could be looked at as vandalism. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 12:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Harrybias. I don't think I have sent you a warning, but I am an admin. Twsx has answered your question very well. Since you are here, your article "Rapidshare search engine" is about a website which isnt yet "notable". If you want to help, perhaps we can suggest topics that you can write about without running into brick walls. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * RapidShare is notable. Are these two different things? Jehochman Make my day 13:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This was about Rapidshare search engine, which had links to filefreak.info. The general topic of RapidShare search tools can stay in the main article, and filefreak.info doesnt appear notable. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

PD question
Hello. :) I've got two articles that I've tagged as part of an ongoing WP:CCI. The creator has a verifiable history of extensive infringement, but sometimes also copies PD material. I think it's possible, even likely, that these are also PD, but I don't want to mess up on the side of clearing material that isn't free. Since you are my go-to man on PD questions, would you have time to take a look? The articles in question are National Museum of the American Latino and National Museum of the American Latino Commission. I don't want to assume that its federal work; the National Naval Aviation Museum is happy to claim copyright over its material. The members of the Commission were appointed, but not federal employees. Do you have an opinion here? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * The Latino Coalition doesnt appear to be a federal body, so it needs to release the copyright of, or we need to clean up the history. As it is a press release, I cant imagine them declining.
 * Wrt to National Museum of the American Latino, the text was written back in Aug 08 (or earlier), and has been republished in sept 08 in Somos Primos. I don't think we want the text in the section "Basis for creation", ever, so I would lean towards cutting it and moving on.  Again, a release should be simple enough.   may be able to help arrange it.  I'll grab him now.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 22:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. :) As always, I appreciate your help. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * John my friend, you know that I am always willing to help, so tell me exactly what you would like me to do. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Tony, there are two issues here: John Vandenberg (chat) 00:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) the text at  has been put into the first revision of the article National Museum of the American Latino Commission.  Could you contact the The Latino Coalition, asking them to release that press release into the public domain.
 * 2) the text at  has been put into the first revision of the article National Museum of the American Latino.  Could you contact the National Museum of the American Latino and ask them if they are happy to release that blurb into the public domain.  Note that this blurb was republished in the Sept 08 edition of Somos Primos.


 * I will get on it right away and as soon as I find out anything, I will post it here. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The content in the "Basis for creation" section of the National Museum of the American Latino was obtained from the Bill H.R. 512/S. 500 introduced to Congress by Congressman Becerra and which was signed into law by the President the United States on May 8, 2008, and being a work of Congress the content of the Bill is of Public Domain. Dennis Vasquez, Program Manager dennis_vasquez@nps.gov Tony the Marine (talk) 04:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I cant find this text in the documents associated with Bill H.R. 512/S. 500 available at thomas.gov. If it is lifted out of Bill H.R. 512/S. 500, we need to find a more complete version of the document.
 * However in my searching, I have found parts of this that date back further. e.g. "Latinos share a heritage drawn from a combination of old world and new world culture" turns up a letter from a school, and "Latinos have also played a crucial role during every conflict." is the same online sources.  "[They] were present on the American continent for more than two centuries prior to the Declaration of Independence" does appear in Congressman Becerra's statements.
 * p.s. I have started s:Author:Xavier Becerra to collect these statements.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 11:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't gotten in touch with The Latino Coalition yet, I hope to do so, but it seems to me that the information posted in the article National Museum of the American Latino Commission, is in violation of copyright laws since the coalitions website does post their copyright status at the bottom. I don't know, but I recommend that the whole thing be rewritten and merged into the National Museum of the American Latino article. In the meantime I will see what the Latino Coalition has to say. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wait a second, the content of the National Museum of the American Latino Commission, article was obtained from here which is a Press Release from the Department of the Interior. I may be wrong, but I believe that the Press Releases from Federal Government agencies are Public Domain, even so I still believe that said information should be rewritten and merged into the National Museum of the American Latino article. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice find! This is dated one day earlier, so maybe they wrote it, or have some pre-existing clause about copyright.  The author of that press release is "Office of the National Museum of the American Latino Commission, Dennis Vasquez, Program Manager, dennis_vasquez@nps.gov"  so we are back to Dennis Vasquez again.
 * I agree that the Commission doesnt warrant a separate article. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: your comment on RFAR
Can you perhaps refactor/redact the part your statement related to the bomb you have on the RFAR request? - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 06:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The f word? John Vandenberg (chat) 06:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Aye. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 07:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Sorry about that. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 07:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit-conflict edit-summary gaff
I'm sure it's relatively small potatoes, but please excuse the "John John Vandenberg" in my edit summary &mdash; twas rushing to avoid yet another edit conflict (looking forward to liquid threads, I pray). Meanwhile, thank you for your perfectly informative response, and of course, happy holidays and best wishes for 2010. [No reply necessary.] Proofreader77 (talk) 03:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Jim. I'm chuffed that you and Jimbo found my response useful.
 * So long as you spell my surname correctly, I don't mind what you call me ;-) I didn't even notice.  Maybe if you had guessed my middle name, I might notice and presume you are channeling my mothers stern voice or something.
 * Best wishes to you as well, and I am sorry to see your disambiguation page normalised.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 03:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (Just to show you how stupidly American I am, had to look up "chuffed":-) Ah, yes, I was starting to type your name, got through "John" and then shifted to "spell" technology ... the rest I leave to your imagination. As for your kind words re Boke, you may appreciate my recent humorous swipe at the leader of the dab pack at ANI (see the resolve:) In any case, much appreciate a pleasant exchange of charming chat here on your page. Kindest regards, BOKE aka Proofreader77 (talk) 04:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

"Decorative" lol
Looks like there may have to be an Arbcom about formatting after all. lol Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 00:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * been there, done that. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 00:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Whole other teapot. :) (But good link. Thanks!) Proofreader77 (talk) 00:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

PS: Boke (my name)
FYI: I disliked that middle name as a child ... but embraced it as an artist after I learned that it was once the spelling of "book." I.e., I now go by "Boke" (not Jim) ... usually signed "BOKE" for symmetry/design purposes - name/brand :) [no reply necessary] Proofreader77 (interact) 03:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Request to Publish artical online
I want to publish or move my artice online with the name "INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, BUNDELKHAND UNIVERSITY, JHANSI" please help me work out my problem.

UO ROHITKUMAR GAUTAM, B.Tech(CS)-08234017 (talk) 14:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure. I see your page User:Rohitkumar6889/INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, JHANSI, and will come help you today. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

edits
what exactly did you find unsuitable,that is considered suitable in the other links,these are my own interpretions.none of the interpretions made by anyone else can ever stand in a court of law. or are you against indians,you had a look for 1 munite and edited my link,i have undid your edit user prophetvcn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prophetvcn (talk • contribs) 13:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC) cheers back to you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prophetvcn (talk • contribs) 12:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * discussion at User talk:Prophetvcn

hi
i saw that you deleted my contribution on the Kristin Kreuk biography, i think that people must to know this crucial information, then Wikipedia is for me the better place for this! i hope you will put online my contribution even if you change some things. best regard

BekwatcherBekwatcher (talk) 22:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

re Ottava Rima talkpage protection
Per this request I have amended this to semiprotection. I did not note your comment on Ottava's page before doing so. If he keeps to the intended purpose I think my actions are permissible (I don't intend going up against Jimbo more than once every couple of months, really), and I have noted that abuse of the facility will mean re-instating the protection. If you feel that Ottava still needs to be kept from interacting on his talkpage then I have no objection to you reversing my good faith actions. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Due to the block settings, lifting the protection doesnt permit him to edit the page. I hope it stays that way until he has given unambiguously worded assurances that he is not going to misuse the page to continue the battle against everyone involved. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I suppose that I should put OR's talkpage on my watchlist, should other editors be tempted to place antagonistic comment there - since I am the person who permitted such access. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

International Journal of Molecular Medicine
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of International Journal of Molecular Medicine, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijmm/abstracting.jsp?journal_id=ijmm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion concerning edits of someone you blocked
FYI, there's a discussion going on here concerning another editor's reverts of a user you blocked,. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're going to remove that user's contributions, what about articles like Gang Fan that were entirely (well, 1680 out of 1681 bytes) (his|her) creation? Is someone going through the contribs? CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you; I missed that one, and two others. And some more. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Richard C. Hoagland
Just noticed that you have been reverting a series of edits made by User:Place4us. The edit summary I attached to my edit at Richard C. Hoagland (that reverted your edit) was rather generic. I would have wrote it differently if I had taken the time to review the circumstances. Keep up the good work! Cs32en 12:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries.
 * Have you checked Wayback Machine : ?
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 12:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No I haven't. Didn't know "the Angstrom Medal [...] is a high considered reward in almost the same caliber as the Nobel price" ;-)  Cs32en  13:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice work, who was Place4us? Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics.-- John Vandenberg (chat) 00:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for User:Cyclopia/List of dichotomies
An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Cyclopia/List of dichotomies. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cycl o pia talk  14:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Mark Ridley (zoologist)
I've replace the link to Mark Ridley (zoologist) at Paleobiology. Don't know about the banned user stuff, but links to dab pages need to be avoided. Vsmith (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For simple bits like this it isnt a problem to re-do the edit. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

who was this guy?
I saw you reverting 76.200.188.178 as a banned user, but you didn't tag his page and I can't identify his style. Who was him? --Enric Naval (talk) 03:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See above, or drop me an email if you're unsure and concerned. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Email received, thanks. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

editing the arizona bb39 page
My father is still alive and his account of the events were edited by others in the military so Fuqua could be elevated to Commander. My father and curly Graham were offered a commission to warrant officer if they would change their account. my father did not change his story. G. H. Lane retired as a senior master chief with 30 years. A few years ago representative Rick Larson (WA) arranged for him to received his purple heart for his injuries at pearl harbor. It is to bad that Fuqua never recommended my dad the navy cross, for saving his life, like he said he would, but that just shows what kind of person he was. If you look at the archives you will see where his account was changed to "Mr Fuqua was at his post" why would he put that in. then look at D.A. Grahams account what a bunch of bull. After my dad save his life a puked on deck and then stood there with his hat pulled down over his ears.

http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/ussarizona/how_why/304.htm

Look at the accounts and figure it out for yourself.

Tlane0 (talk) 03:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Request
Hello John, I have a request. I believe be a victim of Wikihounding by User:Damiens.rf and I would like for you to tell him to stop it. You see it all started when he mass nominated several images which I uploaded and then some of the discussions turned personal Files for deletion/2009 December 7 and 1, he suddenly showed up here. As soon as I created the article Maria Luisa Arcelay and he shows up again Damiens and nominates the image for deletion. Today he started this discussion: and also nominated one of my articles for deletion. His constant stalking has led me to reconsider my continued participation in Wikipedia. I hope that you or someone can talk some sense into him. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at it ... I'll respond in more detail within half an hour. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * First some thoughts on the content side of things, as that is a bit of a tense situation.
 * I cant find any clear sources for Pascal. I have one ~700 page source which may help; I'll look at that later.
 * Two interesting sources re the drink, but no mention of inventor.
 * Nalley, Richard: AMERICAN CONTEMPORARY; Why Not an Aperitif.(Home Entertaining Magazine); The New York Times Magazine Oct 29, 1989
 * Casey, Kathy Very, very, very dry, stirred not shaken, with herb sprigs.: (the martini) Insight on the News June 19, 1995, v11, n24, p32(1)
 * There are three French language sources which should be looked at.
 * If there are no reliable sources for it, the Pascal reference needs to be removed. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On Talk:Isabel Gonzalez, he is a bit aggressive, but it looks like you three have come to a common ground.
 * With the images, I agree that he was being rude. These appears to be a common trait with the people who patrol for non-free images.
 * Overall I can see the pattern of hounding, but will AGF and have a chat with him about it after the Negroni issue is sorted out.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 06:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 07:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * John, he has continued in his Mass deletion nominations of images which I have uploaded once more Files for deletion/2009 December 29. As you can see he has targeted me . Tony the Marine (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect it has more to do with a difference of opinion over what constitute valid source information and non-free content rationales than any campaign of harassment. (I wish I could say the same about the comments at ANI but I can't.) It was Greek images the other week that Damiens.rf was nominating. No doubt it will be something else next week. It's not as if there's any shortage of things to send to PUF and FFD nor will there ever be so long as people such as yourself indulge in doublethink - GFDL/CC for your work and nothing for others - when it comes to sourcing and crediting non-free images. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Proofreader77
I would appreciate your input as soon as possible, regarding User talk:Prodego, which is in response to my comment at User talk:Jimbo Wales. Thanks. Prodego talk  07:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * responded; let me know if you're seeking more input. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for unprotection
Hi there. I see that on November 17, you semiprotected the article Frederick Crews, citing the need to protect it from vandalism. Looking through the history of this aricle, I see that it has been the target of vandalism and POV pushing - but only from logged in users, not from IPs. The article has only been edited by IP addresses twice in the past year, and one of those edits was constructive. Meanwhile, the previous vandal continued to vandalise the article after semiprotection was applied, saying 'semiprotection cannot stop me!'. I believe article protection should only be used where necessary, and it does not seem to me to be necessary here - it's just stopped IP users making potentially useful edits. Would you consider removing it? Robofish (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The logged in users that you see, from before the semi-protection, may not have been able to edit the page if semi-protection was in place. i.e. they were not auto-confirmed when they did the edit.  e.g.  and.
 * The person in question might have waited until they reached the auto-confirmed threshold, but there is no telling...
 * Also look back to 2008-06-29; this is a long standing problem, and all these throw-away accounts are all the same person, and I have had the pleasure of debating protection policy with them via email. They would very much like to see my arse tanned for the "inappropriate" protection, and the protection lifted of course. ;-)
 * As I have too many balls to juggle, I'd prefer to wait until Flagged Revs arrives. Alternatively, if  is OK with the protection being lifted, I'll do it.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 15:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Article Incubator Invitation for Bocconi School of Law Student-Edited Papers

 * Replied at User_talk:Grasshopper6.

Hi. I have put an article on Bocconi School of Law Student-Edited Papers in the article incubator, here: Article Incubator/Bocconi School of Law Student-Edited Papers. Considering your previous experience editing articles on law journals, feel free to cooperate if you have any practical ideas to help establish notability. Incidentally, let me anticipate that the journal is actually the first student-edited legal working paper series, which has been created in Europe better to adapt to the editorial panorama of the Old Continent, where student-edited law reviews are not nearly as popular as they are in the US. I have already provided references (e.g. an article appeared on the German Law Journal) for these claims. Thanks for any help you may provide me with, --Grasshopper6 (talk) 10:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

External links in journal articles
Hi John, I just see that you reverted one of my edits, removing an external link because it was present in the infobox. I have been systematically removing such links since quite a while now. I think it started because somebody was trying to get a journal article deleted and used the fact that links like this were present multiple times to argue that the article was spam. I'm not sure there is any policy guideline about this, but if you know of something, I'd like to have a link so I can use it as an argument in future. It will be a pain though, to put all those external links back, as there must be a couple of hundred stubs where I did this, by now... --Crusio (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The link to the subject of the article is expected in the External links section. That is covered in WP:ELOFFICIAL.
 * Regarding infoboxes, see Help:Infobox- "they are only supposed to summarise material from an article". i.e. they are optional and additional.  If the info isnt in the body of the article, it shouldn't be in the infobox.
 * I wouldn't worry about going back and fixing the stubs; the guidelines may change many times before those stubs grow to become more valuable than a directory entry.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 12:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, apparently it's too long ago I read that part of the style manual (or perhaps I even never read it, I can't really remember... :-) One more question: sometimes people include links to the publisher's home page, for example. I also remove those as being too spammy. Same for links to editorial board and such (WP:NOTADIRECTORY). Is that according to policy? --Crusio (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Umm...I'm not sure if this is written anywhere in policy ... I think we reject any EL which can be reached, easily and logically, from the official URL.
 * An EL to the publisher's main website is unnecessary; a wikilink to the publisher name is better.
 * I find that an EL to the publisher's page for the journal can be quite handy, especially when the journal website is very distinct from the publishing side of business. e.g. when the journal's official page is only a small part of the society website.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 14:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Tcaudilllg
Yes, there is an explanation - before the case was closed he went and made some legal threats that led to the indef block. There was some speculation at the time that he might retract the legal threat, which would lead to the indef block being removed but the one year ban by ArbCom still being in effect, so I made that note in the block log accordingly. It all makes a lot more sense if you look at the full block log:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3ATcaudilllg&type=block

There's also already a topic about it on his user talk page (directly above mine), so I figured no need to repeat it. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC).


 * I've left a note explaining this on the user's talk page. Thanks for clarifying the situation. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ping
I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I wont pick up this email for a day or two. Sorry for the delay. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No time-related issues -- only an open-ended option. --Tenmei (talk) 07:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there!
I have joined wikipedia about a month ago. Here are my computer specs:\

Intel(R) Pentium(R) E2200 @ 2.20 GHz

4 GB DDR2 PC2-6400 RAM

Nvidia 630i motherboard

Nvidia Geforce 7100 inegrated graphics w/ 128 MB memory

320 GB 7200 rpm Hard Drive

Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit

What are your's? Xavier The Second (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm currently on a clapped out PC on a dialup connection. It isn't the size which matters, it's what you do with it .. ;-)  John Vandenberg (chat) 07:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I put this random non-wiki related comment on your talk page. Anyway, I was telling you how bad my PC is. It is the slowest thing ever. Xavier The Second (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If you want it to be faster, I recommend replacing Vista with Windows 2000, or if you are really brave and geeky, try Ubuntu (all your Windows programs will not work, so expect a steep learning curve). John Vandenberg (chat) 01:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not see how downgrading to an operating system from 10 years ago will make my computer faster. (I'm talking about Windows 2000). I think that I will stick with Vista for now.Xavier The Second (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Broken vote

 * ''Replied at User talk:Racepacket

I was logged in, clicked on the link at the top of the page, voted, and only my IP adress was reflected. Racepacket (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I posted a response to you
at the amendment page. I would like to know how it was a "clean start" attempt when he was editing articles with both accounts and I would like to know how there was "no problematic edits in the first place" when he repeatedly violated his topic ban and restriction with the other account? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Rather unbecoming.
I was neither surprised nor disappointed that M chose do bring a personal dispute to an unrelated project, but I admit I am more than a little stunned that you would. Will you honorably disclose that we were in a dispute less than a month ago or need I? &mdash; Coren (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I was avoiding mentioning the uber-admin thing, but since you asked me to, I'll get right on it... John Vandenberg (chat) 14:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ at meta:Meta:Requests for adminship/Coren
 * You are not treating it as an unrelated project. You do not have an extensive history of contributing to meta.  You are seeking meta sysop on the back of your en.wp contributions which are, frankly, lack lustre. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the bits I have here were mentionned because of two reasons: (a) they are a requirement of sysop on meta (at least, admin is and others are stated to be best stated) and (b) they speak to trust; whether I have been using them often is immaterial to the fact that I am trusted with them (and, I suppose, that I have not misused them).  &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (Thanks for the disclosure, BTW). &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You and others are complaining that meta is a separate project to en.wp, so why the heck are you commenting on my talk page here rather than there? I don't watch this talk page more often that the others.  If you really want my attention, post to s:User talk:John Vandenberg. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no wish to squabble at the candidacy itself, but John's concerns are valid. One of the values many Wikimedians share is the importance of keeping in touch with the communities that advanced ops are meant to serve. A primary means for that is hands-on article writing, vandalism patrol, etc. No one expects every arbitrator to turn out four featured articles a year, but it's important to keep one's toes wet. Coren has made only 75 mainspace edits since he became an arbitrator. His most recent 500 mainspace edits stretch back to 2007. That is by far the lowest rate among the arbitrators, and the total mainspace contributions for his entire edit history (1339 edits) would be unlikely to pass RFA on this project by today's standards; he'd be rejected as too inexperienced. Coren would do well to take this feedback on board, alter the title of this thread to something more moderate, and spend more time writing articles. This confrontational tone tempts a scrutiny whose likely conclusion is that the only "unbecoming" conduct is Coren's own. I have plenty of potential DYK material including a mostly-written article in user space that's backlogged due to media work: would gladly accept the help of a collaborator on the text side of those projects. Durova 401 18:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Rollback
Hi John, Thank you for granting me the Rollback access. Regards.--Kanags (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

An article you commented on in the past is at AfD
I noticed that you commented in a past AfD discussion of the article Nicholas Beale. It is now back at AfD again, so you might be interested in commenting again (but you are under no obligation to). I noticed that while many editors who commented on prior AfDs in the past were contacted, you somehow were not, so am leaving a friendly note here. Thank you, --Epeefleche (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is a blast from the past. Thanks for letting me know. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA/2
Just a quick reminder that the Second Great Wikipedia Dramaout has begun. Please log any work you do at The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd/Log. Good luck! -- Jayron  32  01:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Delsort tool
Hi there I am having trouble getting your desort tool working I have added the code to my monobook.js page and saved it :) but it does not bring up the additional action on the AFD page. I am editing using chrome but tried it out on firefox as well so that is not the problem.  I have been using both Twinkle and Friendly for quite some time so that is also not the issue...  Any suggestions?  Thanks --  RP459 </B> Talk/Contributions 21:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As a follow up I have cleared my cache in both browsers and that did not fix it... <B>--  RP459 </B> Talk/Contributions 21:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ping <B>-- RP459 </B> Talk/Contributions 03:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem was with Chrome... works fine with firefox... <B>--  RP459 </B> Talk/Contributions 08:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello John Vandenberg! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Harry Wayland Randall -


 * Fixed. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Wikipedia noindex pages
I have nominated wikipedia noindex pages for merging into noindexed pages. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. The Evil IP address (talk) 09:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

New Year's Resolution
How's it progressing?  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  06:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Green_Squares
See. Have you returned from travelling? --Enric Naval (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have returned, but I am about to travel again for four days. I'll email him now. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Phineas Gage assessment, review, whatever: advice please; and Rejoice!
Phineas Gage is still listed as B-class and I think it would rate better now under a fresh assessment. I'd like "fresh eyes" comments and suggestions before nominating or whatever. I'm bewildered by the array of machinery available -- peer review? request for comment? -- and (where the question is applicable) from what project -- medicine? neuroscience? biography? (I'm ruling our Wikiproject Trains -- no offense to them.) Advice on that, please? On an unrelated matter, I knew nothing of this resignation incident, but for what it's worth I think Wikipedia benefits greatly from your calm and wise participation at its higher levels, and losing that would be a real blow. If any part of your decision is based on whether your efforts are deeply appreciated, the answer is Yes (whether or not that's always obvious). P.S. Remind me to talk to you about Rejoice in the Lamb (sorry for the long wait). P.P.S. Um, and another thing: why are Wikitexts re Gage gathered under an author page? Isn't there some kind of "subject"-type page (or category?) we could make for writings about Gage. EEng (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A peer-review is the way to bring a fresh/critical eyes to the article. People from various projects will come as they please.
 * After that, it should be ready for a Good Article review. You can see some examples of good articles here.  Spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leak is a good example, as it was recently GA reviewed; see GA1, GA2 and the successful GA3.
 * My resignation was due to a bit of a mess that I caused. A lot of water has gone under the bridge, and a new crop of arbitrators have been appointed since then.  Thanks for the kind words ;-)
 * Regarding s:Author:Phineas_Gage, the "Author" namespace is where we list texts by or about a person, usually arranged in order of publication. Wikisource also has subject indexes, like s:Wikisource:Chess.  There are no rules about which topic can have its own index page on Wikisource, but I can't think of any topical indexes about a person.  If you want, you can be the first to create a topical index about a person at s:Wikisource:Phineas_Gage.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 05:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate your own comments as well. I haven't even gone over any of the checklists yet (for GA etc.) so at this point I'd like just general impressions. But I gather you may be busy after returning from travel (?). EEng (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Grand Chancellor & Federation concert Hall

 * See also: Talk:Hotel Grand Chancellor, Hobart.

Hey John, Sorry it took so long to reply, time is always against me. I have started a very basic article. I know all the info needed (as i worked there for almost 10 years) but sources are another thing. If you know of any please feel free to give me a shout. There is now a link to my email on my talk page. Cheers Wiki ian 06:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Fancy closing an RfC?
Requests for adminship/Bureaucrat Unchecking has now been open for 32 days; with only four comments in the past 10 days. RFCBot ran off with the RfC tag two days ago; it's easily time for it to be closed. Due to the nature of the issue, no administrator is truly "uninvolved", but one who is especially well-respected by the community, such as yourself; are the closest thing we've got. Fancy making a close? For reference, I'm contacting former arbitrators who hold admin tools but no other bits. Cheers, Happy ‑ melon  19:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Greensquares
Should there be some way to link his new account to his old block log/accounts and the current topic ban? Dougweller (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * At this stage, I'd like to leave it be. If there is trouble, the history will likely be raised on the user talk. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Mae West
A bit sad to see this article slipping down a few pegs on your to do list. What, if anything of consequence, did you ever encounter when trying to find a better portrait? Could all of these images really be unfree? SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Wikipedia noindex pages
I have nominated wikipedia noindex pages for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

User:John Vandenberg/Saved pages/Asif Mengal
Hi there. I happened across User:John Vandenberg/Saved pages/Asif Mengal today, and I saw that a couple of IP editors had edited the page since you had lasted worked on it (quite a while back). Would you like to move it to the Article Incubator perhaps? <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 21:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Trevor Ivory
I have nominated Trevor Ivory, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Trevor Ivory&. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Two things

 * Re: Adamantius (journal), please see User:Alastair Haines/ACTemail.
 * I'll discuss this with Wim and DGG, before restoring, but expect they'll have no objection to either an article on the research group who publish the journal, or to one on the journal itself, so the stub can be restored.


 * 1) Also, you should have a look at my documentation of Kaldari's deceptive editing at the Patriarchy article (unsurprising given his public ideological commitment). Naturally, he wanted even this one example of evidence of his obstructive and deceptive editing censored. It is looking to me like all manner of baseless personal attacks against me are encouraged by ArbCom (contrary to their mandate in policy); however, genuine fair criticism, and discreetly offered, of Kaldari's editing is forcibly silenced nonetheless. That's not really how Wiki should be, should it?
 * Of course, the good side of this is that it shows how easily the erroneous ArbCom can be deleted now we know so much better, in fact just as easily as the genuine evidence above regarding Kaldari, of course. So I look forward to that being done in the next few weeks or so, or would ArbCom need a little more time?
 * As you are aware, I've been busy for a long while, but I'm back now. However, my first order of business needs to be securing, to my satisfaction, lasting remedies regarding the ongoing indiscretions of the series of editors, administrators, mediators and even ArbCom itself, where they have published and acted contrary to the evidence of reliable sources and reliable Wikipedians. You know where it all started, and just as I predicted, it has only been exacerbated because of repeated inexpert handling. Time to set things straight, at last! :)
 * Needing urgent attention is the repeated wikilaywering and obstruction by Kaldari, of course, which would otherwise be likely to result in republication, under the Foundation's responsibility, of material that has demonstrably led people to think less of me, of all people. Of course, I don't want that to have to be resolved outside Wiki, so I'm just giving you the heads-up that soon I'll be asking ArbCom if they need more than 28 days to correct things themselves, or whether they'd prefer me to get my people to talk to the Foundation's people directly.
 * If you have any advice, I'd appreciate and consider your always valuable contribution on almost any topic. Though, of course, it's not really my decision, but ArbCom's, whether they wish to insist on publishing, without correction, things we all know are false; though life is stranger than fiction sometimes, isn't it?
 * Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Alastair, I don't understand why you are obsessed with harassing me, just because a year and a half ago I didn't agree with an edit you made. Personal vendettas are counterproductive, and you'll only continue to attract sanctions from ArbCom if you refuse to edit in a collaborative and respectful manner (and adhere to the policies of Wikipedia). Kaldari (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Impugning my motives again, eh?
 * I won't stoop to that level, mate.
 * All that matters is that you have repeatedly worked to remove and obstruct provision of reliable sources.
 * That you also do so by making personal attacks, like that above, against me is by-the-by really.
 * Keep stalking me, Kaldari, please do.
 * Alastair Haines (talk) 06:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alastair. I am a bit short of time at the moment, and haven't had time to look at this. It is great to see that you are back, but it isn't good to see that the past issues still trouble you. It would probably be best to discuss those via email, demand little, and hoped to be pleasantly surprised with more than you asked for. ;-) John Vandenberg (chat) 10:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Past? An ArbCom error was republished a couple of days ago, in a context that demonstrated it made someone think less of me. The statute of limitations rolls forwards. I don't particularly care what people think of me, and currently it is not damaging text or wasting time, so I'm not fussed. But if this sort of thing affects text or time, though, something will need to be done by someone. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins
Could you explain the reasons, why you have removed referenced information on Dawkins' political stance (Labour, then LibDem) in section "Other fields" on February 7, 2010, 09:24? Fuseau (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The information I removed was added by someone who is very banned. (see Talk:Richard_Dawkins/Archive_12) I can explain more via email if you wish.  Feel free to reintroduce any good information, in your own words and with sources you can confirm are appropriate. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

User:WritersCramp
Your attention is urgently needed. Off the rails. Hipocrite (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. MRG also alerted me. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Holmes Institute
A tag has been placed on Holmes Institute requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Codf1977 (talk) 11:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Codf1977 (talk) 11:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

RiCEST article
Hi John. As someone who participated in the deletion review for the Regional Information Center for Science and Technology article, would you have the time to take a look at the notes I'm making here? What I'm looking for is comments on whether an article is feasible and (if possible) help in drafting an article. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Last night I initiated an inter-library loan for a book which I hope will help. ;-) Tonight I'll pull together what I have on this, and what I think is still needed. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Afteread redux?
The previously (and mysteriously) blocked user Afteread is apparently active once again, as User:Monkeytext. Phiwum (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well spotted Phiwum; Monkeytext (and many others) is Afteread. Sorry for taking so long to act on it. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Australian Property Bubble

 * Discussion at User talk:Justdata4wiki

Articles for deletion nomination of Society for the Encouragement of the Fine Arts
I have nominated Society for the Encouragement of the Fine Arts, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Society for the Encouragement of the Fine Arts. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Szzuk (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Country Women's Association
Hi John, I was wondering if you might be able to expand Country Women's Association a little bit more. With your knowledge of the operations of this wonderful organisation, I feel you should be able to get it up to FA standard in a short period of time. Your contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 01:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Agricultural Economics
Hi, it seems to me that the Czech journal now also uses this title (see http://www.agriculturejournals.cz/web/_generovani/agr_econ_2009.htm). Looks like we have two journals with the same name, rather confusing... How to handle this? --Crusio (talk) 08:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC) PS: the Czech journal uses the abbreviation "Agric. Econ. – Czech", so perhaps we should call that one "Agricultural Economics – Czech"?


 * It has used Agric. Econ. for a very long time (2002) and is usually referred to as "Agricultural Economics-Zemědělská ekonomika", esp. as the articles are now exclusively in English afaics. I'm not keen on "Agricultural Economics – Czech" as that isnt it's proper title, so I'm thinking "Agricultural Economics (Czech journal)" would be more inline with naming guidelines.  But I don't care greatly; I created the two articles because of this confusion, and I am happy so long as they exist as separate pages!
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 09:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Now you say that, perhaps it would be a solution to merge them with the current entries redirecting to the merged article? Anybody would then always find the journal they are looking for, both journals could have their own infobox, etc. It would also create a more substantial article, as both probably cannot be expanded significantly beyond stubs. In addition, I don't really like the "Czech journal" solution either. I have argued earlier (concerning journal by country categories) that journals nowadays are too international for such classifications and I don't think the current one is an exception. --Crusio (talk) 09:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen your argument about nationality being a foreign concept to journals, and I do agree for the most part, esp. wrt to categorisation. I see your point about the "Czech journal" disambiguator, but I wouldnt like to try to give it a better name while I know so little about it. I will dream up new and interesting types of virtual pain to inflict on you if these stubs are merged.  I can definitely expand at least one of them (the IAAE journal) well beyond a stub; I have little knowledge of the other, however it has a long history and I would be surprised if that could be summed up in less than a paragraph. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please! No virtual pain! (I've enough already :-) Just an idea when you mentioned tow articles versus one... In my experience, though, journal articles are rarely expanded beyond the stub stage... I'll think about the disambiguator. Perhaps we can follow the example of the Journal of Physiology: J. Physiol. (London) and J. Physiol. (Paris), using the name of the city of publication? --Crusio (talk) 11:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is sadly true that only a tiny percentage of journals are expanded beyond stub stage, but that is something that we shall have to remedy. Hopefully without inflicting pain on anyone. ;-)  Using the city of publication appeals only if it is the city that the first issue was published from, or where the journal "settled".  But that isnt going to help with journals which commence as electronic-only.  Otherwise the name of the city of publication could lead to even more problems with the smaller journals changing name often if they are printed from uni press - in some cases it would be more stable to disambiguate the journal using the editor-in-chief. A few months ago I compiled a substantial list of ERA journals with the same name (of which this is one); I'll upload them in the next day or two and we can move this discussion to the project. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll wait for that. We can leave the current articles meanwhile as they are. --Crusio (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

New Life Children’s Refuge case
Hello. I see that you've deleted New Life Children’s Refuge case as G5. I have no idea what story is behind all this but the deletion is misguided imo. The article may have been created by a banned user but as far as I remember, a number of people invested time in the article. So why throw the baby out with the bath water? I don't think it does much to deter the banned user from returning with a fresh fake moustache, it destroys the work of legit editors and it removes a somewhat marginal but interesting article from the project. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Whether or not it deters this banned user isnt the primary concern; knowingly allowing their contributions to "benefit" the project isn't desirable.
 * It is true that a number of other users have worked on it, however two sets of IPs which edited it were also the same banned person. If I was to remove the banned edits contributions, the bulk of what other people edited wouldn't exist.
 * Note that I also reverted the removal of content from Timeline of relief efforts after the 2010 Haiti earthquake and 2010 Haiti earthquake (and possibly others).
 * I can email you a copy of the wikitext if you would like to use it in order to write a new article about this topic. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No thanks. That would most likely be problematic with respect to GFDL (not that anybody would know) and I really don't want to rewrite the thing from scratch when a decent article exists. I'll take my chances at DRV. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't stop you taking it to DRV, however I suggest that you read this Deletion review/Log/2009 December 29, from last time, and also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive_57. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for New Life Children’s Refuge case
An editor has asked for a deletion review of New Life Children’s Refuge case. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Pichpich (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI. Discussion of a revert on Project Math
FYI. There's a question being raised about one of your edits (and the policy being applied) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Justin W Smith talk/stalk 01:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Fdghdg12
Thanks for preforming a check on the above case. It appears that you have said that there are three different sockpuppeteers at work, and that none of them are related to Fdghdg12, I've tagged them accordingly, and archived the case. However, I just want to clarify, are you sure that the accounts are not on proxies, and thus related? They all seem to share the exact same MO, in any case. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 12:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fdghdg12 & Dgfdgr666 were each on their own IP, and all were on open proxies, hacked boxes, etc. Sorry I neglected to mention this.
 * However many sets of linked accounts on different proxies doesn't provide a technical linkage of the sets. On the untechnical side, they are likely to all be the same person, or persons working together. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm, alright, I've tagged them all as suspected socks of Fdghdg12. Thanks again for preforming the check on this case, and thank you for all your work around SPI. Kindest regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 11:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Fix delsort to work on Vector skin
Hello. Testing your delsort script in preparation for the upcoming Vector rollout, there appears to be an issue. I get this error in Firefox 3.6.3: The problem is that the ID "globalWrapper" does not exist in Vector. Can you please change "getElementById('globalWrapper')" to "body" in both that place and the place somewhat above it? That should get it working. Also note that, on AfD logs, the script does not work with the left edit links gadget, since that gadget moves edit links in the DOM to be after, rather than before, the section headings. Perhaps to fix that, the script would have to be changed somewhat to look for the H3's and then the section edit spans inside, rather than looking for both spans one before the other. PleaseStand (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Error: document.getElementById("globalWrapper") is null
 * Source File: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/delsort.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript
 * Line: 727
 * document.getElementById('globalWrapper').appendChild( iFrame );
 * Mentioned this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User scripts since there has not been a reply to the above post. PleaseStand (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kick in the shins ;-) John Vandenberg (chat) 11:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It now works in vector. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This Spotfixer business
What do you think should be done about this?

We've got either a user or a group of users who have been waging a multi-year campaign around the Christianity and abortion article and around my edits. (BTW, different users from that hive have taken a few different people to ANI, taking me 3 different times with 3 different accounts and the community stood behind me every time. They tried legitimate dispute resolution but so far it hasn't come down on their side.)  He or they have pryed into users personal lives and unfortunately he or they don't seem to be going away. Any thoughts? Would this be the time for an RfC?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Schrandit (talk • contribs) 2010-05-07T20:44:52


 * I'm going to need to sit down and look at the history of this dispute before I can give a proper assessment on where to proceed from here.
 * Can you point me to any previous discussions about the long running conflict on the Christianity and abortion article, specifically regarding the switching between "mother" and "woman". John Vandenberg (chat) 12:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Image cleanup
Hi,

At the moment I am trying to get some image backlogs dealt with..

Much appreaciated if you could review my recent contribs and comment. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Your talk page is on fire, as I predicted :P
 * I'm working backlogs over on Commons. ;-)
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 12:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

CSix up for Deletion
I don't get why the CSix entry is up for deletion. I may have created it in 2006, but many others have contributed content and formatting.

What else do you want for a Wikipedia entry?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSix —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devans00 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. In order to keep this article, we need to add sources about the topic. e.g. newspaper and magazine articles.  We need two good ones in order to pass the notability criteria, but if you can find a lot of smaller mentions in local rags, that would help too. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Co-motherhood
Hello, I am new as a contributor to Wikipedia, but I thought my contribution with a short but informative explanation of the term co-motherhood was important. But as soon as I had finished, it was suggested for deletion. I see you have included a discussion on the deletion in a certain list, but I am wondering how I best should comment on this. Please, could you give any advice at all? Or do you think my contribution should be deleted? Grateful for any advise. Best wishes, lesbianrights —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesbianrights (talk • contribs) 03:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, welcome aboard. I'm sorry that your introduction to Wikipedia is going to include a wild ride through our "deletion" process.  New pages are often sent through the "deletion" process, which can help fix them up quickly if enough people are interested, but the other possible outcome is deletion.
 * The deletion discussion page will usually remain open for comments for seven days, but sometimes the outcome is so obvious that an admin will close the discussion sooner, or if there is ongoing useful discussion, the admins will let it continue after the seven days has elapsed.
 * A lot of acronyms will probably used during the discussion, and often they will be referring to Wikipedia policies or guidelines; e.h. WP:COI, WP:POV. So you will need to read quite a bit in order to understand the discussion.
 * You can add comments to the deletion discussion at any time, however it is wise to collect your thoughts first and present a good argument when you are ready.
 * It is possible that community members will assume you have a conflict of interest (COI) or are pushing a point of view (POV); don't get into an argument about these possibilities - stay dispassionate and focus on justifying the existence of the page.
 * I think this deletion discussion will hinge on whether the community feels that this term warrants a separate page. Have a read of the page "LGBT parenting" and consider that question yourself. ;-)
 * Another aspect to be considered in this deletion discussion will be whether this term is "importance" and in common use. We have a guideline about new terms, or new uses of old words; you can read it at WP:NEO.
 * My quick assessment, based on only scanning Google Books is that this term has a few meanings, and I see it being used back in 1964, and possibly earlier. But I doubt the term itself justifies an page on Wikipedia.  If the term does have more than one very distinct meaning, we can describe each meaning on separate pages, and the page "co-motherhood" can link to those pages.
 * If deleted, we could create a page about the term on Wiktionary, listing its various meanings. Wiktionary pages are less detailed, more like a dictionary entry. e.g. thieboudienne
 * Feel free to come back here and ask more questions. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much. One reason I added the term, is that it was hard to find in google, especially since google confuses it with any company, CO, which in their name or description has the word motherhood. The LBGT parenting article is fine, but the term co-motherhood is not mentioned there at all. The new legislation on co-motherhood in several European countries indicates the importance of defining the concept as it is currently being used. So my thought was just to fill in a gap. I feel that the resaon it was suggested for deletion was because of my username which I have applied for a change of, as I agree it might lead to the POV judgement, although I think this judgement should not be taken from a username but strictly from the article. I see alot of spam here in Wikipedia. That gives a much worse impression than someone who might be "advocating" equal rights, as if that was inappropiate. I am about as unbiased as you can get, which my article shows clearly. Thanks again, co-motherhood 02:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesbianrights (talk • contribs)


 * Is the term "co-motherhood" used in the new legislation? Are these laws/acts written in English, or is "co-motherhood" only an English translation?
 * What are the names of these new laws? We can write articles about those laws. See Local Government Act 1974 (New Zealand) for an example article about an act. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, there are established procedures of application for co-motherhood and approved regulations on co-motherhood so far only in Holland and Norway. There has been much discussion in Australia, Canada and France, among other countries. In English-speaking countries this term has been used in these discussions. co-motherhood 07:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, the article was deleted and re-directed to LGBT parenting as some users suggested, but still there is no mention of the term co-motherhood in the article it was re-directed to. As a new contributor I would not wish to edit other peoples articles but I understand there is a group to improve the LGBT parenting article. Please feel free to use my article in editing this article, if you wish:


 * [copy of co-motherhood article removed]

I think this is important as there are standardized procedures to apply for co-motherhood in different European countries, so it is not a term which should be left totally unmentioned in an encyclopedia. Please, could you forward this to the LGBT group project? OKjustchange (talk) 10:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the update.
 * I can appreciate your reluctance to edit other people's articles, however all articles on Wikipedia are collaboratively edited. These pages are constantly edited by many people every day.  I see you found the LGBT project; there is already a comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies.  I have left a small note at Talk:LGBT_parenting to inform people of the LGBT project discussion. Enjoy. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks alot, John. OKjustchange (talk) 05:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the greeting.
Albert Sumlin (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Advice on getting format consensus?
Care to give me some advice here? Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Today.az
A tag has been placed on Today.az requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Vipinhari ||  talk  03:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, please read what you revert
See my reply here. Tks. Ionidasz (talk) 03:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Khojali massacre
Hi, regarding your addition here, as the title of the source alone tell, it was organized by Azeri and Turkish organizations, why was this added in international reaction, those kind of lectures are commonly prepared by those organizations but I fail to see how those are international reaction? I'd like to read your input on that. Thanks. Ionidasz (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry to bother you again, I really need your input as I'm buffled at the reason this was added in the first place. I won't be available before Monday or most probably Thuesday. Your proposed form was the following: On February 25, 2010 a conference about the Khojaly Massacre was held at George Washington University,[31] and the Massachusetts House of Representatives adopted a document, offering "its sincerest acknowledgment of the 18th commemoration of the Khojaly Massacre".[32][33][34] The way this was presented was obviously wrong, first in your addition an important element was missing, that it was organized by Turkish and Azeri organizations and was attended by them..., second I still can't find what this is doing in the international reaction, third there was and this from the scan provided no adoption. I am proposing to remove this conference, since it has no relevancy, unless a section regarding Azeri advocacy regarding the event is added. tks. Ionidasz (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. I won't be around much in the next few days either; at best, I will be on dialup internet.  Quickly, ..
 * The conference was added as I thought it was an interesting aspect of the events of this day, and as you will know from reading the source, it is related to the Justice for Khojaly program, which is recognised internationally. I don't mind if this conference is omitted as it doesn't look like any U.S. diplomats attended, and I don't know whether it was an academic conference or not (I assume not, given the hip-hop in the background).
 * I have done some more reading since then, and I think it would be more appropriate to generalise it to say something like "Turkish and Azeri often hold memorial services and conferences around on the world on the 25th of February." or something to that effect, if we can find evidence of other similar conferences.
 * If you look at that link again, you will see that it was in a section that was called "Remembrance". I later merged the sections because they were overlapping a lot, and it is not.  More refinement is needed, of course, and it probably would be resolved already if the page was not locked.
 * Regarding "adopted", I didn't choose this word. I reverted to it, and confess I have not looked at the procedures of the Massachusetts House of Representatives in order to find the correct terminology for Citations of this sort.  I did look, but wasnt successful as "citation" is used more often on mass.gov to refer to parking tickets, etc.  Do you have any information I can read about the procedures and correct terminology for these?
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 02:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Uuhh...
What does this mean? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've found and fixed all instances of that journal= value, pointing them to Clinical Cancer Research.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 06:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Céline Dion
Consensus by whom? The world? This is a "free encyclopedia". I was correcting an obviously incorrect spelling. Perhaps I didn't do it in the correct manner, but nonetheless, I did manage to accomplish the task. Her name is "Céline Dion", not "Celine Dion". "Nicolae Ceauşescu" is spelled correctly in the subject area on Wikipedia, as are "Börje Salming" and most other international names. Why is any "consensus" required to correct this one? I've voluntarily and without objection corrected errors on thousands of Wikipedia pages over the years. This is but another one, in my view.

But fine, leave your boneheaded (American) error in place. Apparently, it's not my encyclopedia to edit. What's the point of giving the general population the ability to edit pages if you're going to unilaterally reverse a proper correction? I didn't see you seeking "consensus" in order to reverse my correction. Just because whoever wrote the page in the first place made a mistake does not mean it cannot or should not be corrected.

See the illustration at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Je_ne_vous_oublie_pas for the correct spelling. Smratguy (talk) 11:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I reversed your action because it was technically wrong; we don't move pages that way, as it breaks the history of the page.
 * The page has been moved between Céline Dion" and "Celine Dion" quite a few times.
 * And this issue has been discussed a few times at Talk:Celine_Dion/Archive_1, Talk:Celine_Dion/Archive_2, Talk:Celine_Dion/Archive_2, Talk:Celine_Dion/Archive_2, and then Talk:Celine_Dion. It is quite possible it has been discussed at other locations as well.
 * I'm not keen on using "Celine Dion" in order to avoid accents, but I am also not motivated enough to get involved in a page name dispute about this.
 * If you want this page to be renamed, you will need to acquaint yourself with policy WP:NAME, and then start a new discussion at Talk:Celine_Dion.
 * I'm sorry this isn't simple. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my vision of Wikipedia obviously differs from yours, even though your profile would indicate otherwise. I believe in accuracy and recognize that the vast majority of the population do not know what is accurate and what is not.  I do, and I am not shy about correcting patently incorrect items when I see them.  This is one of them.  If there were an article about me on Wikipedia and my name was misspelled, I most certainly would not appreciate having to appeal to a tribunal in order to make the correction.  I correct articles all the time, probably more than you.  I do not appreciate your action.  I did it the way I did it because I could not see any other obvious way to accomplish it.  Her name IS "Céline Dion".  It's on her albums.  Claiming otherwise is like claiming that the Sun revolves around the Earth.  She is French-Canadian and that is, in fact, how her birth name is spelled.  I don't give a *$%& whether there is a consensus or not.  Why allow accuracy to be held captive by a few know-nothing morons?  Please make the correction in whatever the appropriate manner is and you, once again, will have improved Wikipedia.  Thanks. Smratguy (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't get irate eh. This is english wikipedia, not french-canadian wikipedia. Just because she has an accent in a foreign language doesn't mean that is what the common english usage is. Den Haag redirects to the Hague in the Netherlands - Den Haag is the correct term yet we use the anglicized version, the Hague. This is no different - using google it seems the majority of english speakers drop the accent when they use her name, as do the majority of reliable sources, so that is what wikipedia uses. Where there is a common english version of a given name it is likely to be used with other versions, inclusing the correct foreign spelling, linking to that. This really isn't that big a deal, especially not for the majority of english speaking readers. Weakopedia (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey Scumbag
U.S. Azeris Network doesn't appear to be notable, however Azerbaijan State Telegraph Agency, Today.az and International Security Research and Intelligence Agency all appear to be reasonably reliable sources who are unlikely to mis-report an event like this. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

well, just read this you baboon:

http://armenianow.com/news/22876/echmiadzin_refutes_azeri_information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.250.2 (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link to the story; it is interesting.
 * If you read the original news, they are careful to attribute the speculation to Allahshukur Pashazade, apparently originating from an interview with ANS. :It looks like PanARMENIAN.Net was the first online English-language source to report this incident, and they were careful to note that it was Allahshukur Pashazade who had allegedly given ANS incorrect information.  Armenianow omits this aspect initially in the story you link to, but they later report that responsibility is being placed on the shoulders of an employee of Allahshukur Pashazade.
 * ANS issued a correction promptly, which is what reputable new sources do, and day.az redistributed it.
 * I am curious about how Allahshukur Pashazade phrased this in the original interview; it seems convenient to fire an employee for "disseminating the false report" when it appears that it was Allahshukur Pashazade who disseminated it. If you know more about what was reported, I'd love to hear about it irrespective of whether the fault lies with the religious organisations or the media.
 * Likewise, I would get a giggle if this Massachusetts citation turned out to be a fake. I'm sure that would result in a few Armenian media outlets picking up the story, and the whole debacle would warrant being mentioned in the Khojaly massacre article. ;-)
 * But the reality is that there are no media outlets which have exposed it to be a fake; there are merely a few Armenians who refuse to believe it is real, and don't appear able or willing to verify it for themselves - instead they point to a location where it will not be, the Journal of the Mass. House of Reps, and they say it is not there. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

delsort
Is your delsort twinkle add-on still working? I did all the steps to install it, ctrl-shift-r to refresh my firefox cache, and don't see any differences on AFD pages or when I create an AFD with Twinkle. However, I had added Twinkle via preferences and not via my .js, does this make a difference? I even exited firefox altogether and started it up again and still don't see anything on the AFD pages. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I also have Twinkle installed via my preferences, and it is working for me in vector with this js.
 * When you are on an existing AFD page, a 'delsort' menu item should appear in the same location as the 'delete' menu item.
 * Let me know how you go; if necessary I will import the other parts of your monobook to try to replicate your problem. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah... I have it installed in my monobook.js. Could that be the problem? The installation instructions said to put it into there, but since we're all on vactor now, it should be there, right? If so, I'll move my monobook.js to vector.js and see if that solves the problem. - UtherSRG (talk) 08:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, moving monobook.js to vector.js fixed it. You should update the instructions. :D - UtherSRG (talk) 08:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've updated the instructions. Cheers, John Vandenberg (chat) 08:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Metal Storm
Hello there, what was the reason for undeleting this article? Cheers. Weakopedia (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I undeleted it because the speedy deletion was inappropriate; I assume it was a mistake, admin asleep at the wheel, or deletionist on a spree.
 * I undid it quickly because the deletion had resulted in a new article being created, a new disambig page being written, and incoming links on other pages being updated. You can see all my actions at  and
 * If you think this article should be deleted as SPAM, prod or AFD would be the way to go. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. Why did you think the original deletion inappropriate? Weakopedia (talk) 04:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And also, the original deleter was User:Fastily I believe - did you contact them to express your concern? Cheers. Weakopedia (talk) 05:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've replied on ANI. (shit, it was an ANI archive)
 * The original deletion does not fit with the CSD criteria for db-spam, which is "Unambiguous advertising or promotion/Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic."
 * I did not bother to start a discussion with Fastily as both Fastily and I are both busy in real life at the moment, and the deletion was both inappropriate and the poorly executed as it left "Metal Storm" without any disambiguation.  had started to write a new article and disambiguation page to fill the void, so I quickly undid the deletion to avoid Nono64 wasting a lot of effort repeating what had already been added by others years ago.
 * Despite being a bit grumpy to see db-spam being used for this article, I don't consider it to be a concern on its own as I expect admins who process large backlogs to make the occasional mistake, and I haven't had time to look at whether this is an isolated incident or not. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, cheers for the explanation. Weakopedia (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

delsort vs 2nd nomination
Delsort can't find the article for the 2nd nom I'm trying to sort. Articles for deletion/MC Lazarus (2nd nomination) - UtherSRG (talk) 04:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Umm... maybe it can't find MC Lazarus because it is deleted. ;-) John Vandenberg (chat) 05:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that happened just after I created the AFD and didn't notice. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

ping
I've emailed you. Tony  (talk)  13:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed you did. I've replied. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Tennis expert
Hey John, hope you're well. Take a crafty peek at the history of Samantha Stosur. Have a quick look at who edited it 25 minutes before you.... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've tagged the user page. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User talk:ScienceApologist/Approved articles
User talk:ScienceApologist/Approved articles, another user's page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are requested; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:ScienceApologist/Approved articles. Thank you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've deleted it. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"Linguists" attacking Arnaiz-Villena from newspapers non-extant news
Please,John,go to my page,to Arnaiz1 page and to Paul Barlow page (Why?) and see the libels.The "linguists" are putting up a cancelled judge sentence, distorted by a newspaper which does not exist according to Higher Court. Could you please remove this newspaper source for a distorted non-extant sentence?. Do you need a scanned document? Or they should avoid news from newspapers in my biography? On the other hand,why have they started with this attack now? Have you any idea? Thank you, Best regards AntonioArnaiz1 (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, could you email me the scanned documents for
 * Sentence TSJ, Madrid, January 10th 2004
 * Colegio de Medicos-Madrid
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 23:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Moving
Hi, John. Could you move me from to  account with contribs reassignment? There were some issues, which I clarified at WP:ANI. Thanks so much. NIGHTBOLT t 18:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am not able to do that. As far as I know, even 'crats cant reassign contribs, and I'm not a 'crat. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct, the two sets of contribs can't be mixed. I'd have to rename Nightbolt to 'ZYX' (its contribs would move too) and then rename Brandmeister to Nightbolt. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 00:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. So Nightbolt would also be in the same user groups as Brandmeister, e.g. autoconfirmed? NIGHTBOLT  t 17:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I can set the rights the same but why do you need two accounts? <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 17:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, Brandmeister would be a redirect to Nightbolt. I repeatedly face login problem (incorrect password), e-mailing does not work, so decided to move as Help suggests. NIGHTBOLT  t 18:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * When people look for Brandmeister, it would redirect but the actual account would cease to exist.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 18:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Is WP:CHU mechanism workable here? Or my contribs would not be assigned during the move? If no, move anyway and set my previous user rights, looks like there is no other way. NIGHTBOLT  t 20:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How do we know you're also Brandmeister? Then that begs the question why you are currently editing with two accounts. CHU is the usual way to make such a request but I can tell you the bot that prechecks this will reject it as both accounts have recent edits.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 20:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Rlevse, you are a checkuser and I left my IP :) And I don't edit with Brandmeister account anymore because of the aforementioned password loss (that's why I am unable to make a CHU request), the last edit is of June 9. You are authorized to move me.  NIGHTBOLT  t 21:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't need to give us your IP, we can find that out ourselves. If you are renamed, your block log moves too. This is unique, using CU to prove two accounts are the same to do a rename. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 22:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've started a BN thread at Bureaucrats'_noticeboard to seek more input.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 22:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

DO
I see you signed up for the last dramaout. Consider notifying 3 good editors of this to encourage more participation. Perhaps saying

I am participating in this. Please consider doing the same! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Great_Wikipedia_Dramaout/3rd#Participating_Wikipedians Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

user page
I see MediaWiki bite your page, too. I've reverted most of it back while commenting out the IE-opacity filter that is now viewed as. You also messed with the image a while ago, changing to one too small for the coding that was in place. Let me know what you'd really like and I'll fix you up again. Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks great. thx. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't. The whole point of the coding in place is wallpaper behind the content and the picture you switched it to is too small and leaves a border running around the void to the right and bottom of the too-small image. Let's get either a new picture in there that's larger or go with the 'Book of ...' idea. The daffodil was just a no-drama-week thang ;) We had a fun trip but everyone's exhausted. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix Prize for Spiritual Art
I wonder why you would concern yourself with this page: Phoenix Prize for Spiritual Art. Have you nothing else to suggest to delete? Please explain, in terms that I can understand. - Peter Ellis - Talk 11:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I was unable to find two source which cover this topic in detail, so it may fail the Wikipedia Notability criteria. I recognise that there may be sources that I am unable to find easily, which is why I have informed Australian and visual art people. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

wp:sight request
Hi John

I was looking through the wp:sight article and came across a list of people who can suppress the logs for editors whose IP data logged after accidentally logged out and thus inadvertently revealed their own IP addresses. I was wondering if you got the time to suppress those ip edits or replace them with my username. You can use the checkuser to confirm my ip and the edits that are on there. If you don't have the time, I'll ask another oversight admin. Thanks. Takamaxa (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

sorry john. I just read more of the wp:sight and I will follow the RfO. Takamaxa (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * feel free to email me if you're having problems. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

i see that you are an administrator
I see that Prince Albert redirects to the old, dead guy, Prince Albert, not the current Prince Albert of Monaco. I think that it should redirect either to the Monaco prince or a disambiguation page. Opinion? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 02:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If it were up to me, I would put the dab page back at "Prince Albert". As there are many wikilinks to the redirect "Prince Albert", changing it would require a consensus. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Karunyan
What's the range the *Coll* accounts are on? Is it 59.92.0.0/16? It seems that he's getting around the /19 block... T. Canens (talk) 02:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the accounts are in 59.92.0.0/16, and specifically 59.92.96.0/19. The *Coll* accounts where created when there was no block on that range. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

IndiaFM Images
Hey buddy... remember me?? :) A couple of days back, I sent you a message on your Commons' talk page regarding a couple of IndiaFM images that needed to be ticketed. If you don't mind, could you please take a look at it when you have the time. Thanks & Best Regards --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 03:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This will need to wait until after the weekend. Cheers, John Vandenberg (chat) 02:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Who's Who in American Art
I have nominated Who's Who in American Art, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Who's Who in American Art. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 19:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom ruling question
Hi. I wanted to ask about the arbcom injunction ruling about Jack Merridew. The way I read the final decision, Jack is not permitted to edit the same pages or no comments about White Cat by name or innuendo. Yet, he did just that here when he said "This is not 'evidence', it is a demonization tactic, it is a parroting of tactics that have been used against me in the past by problematic editors such as User:White Cat and User:A Nobody." I would also note that he has continued to threaten me with "escalating our dispute to further steps in the dispute resolution process. Repeatedly, and used the arbcom ruling as his excuse for stating he was going to open a RfC/U against me, as he also repeated, again, in the above link post, where he said "Your friend is not a victim here, ref she's simply a stubborn woman who is very wrong about a lot of her approach to this project; she is manipulative, devious, rude and threw a pity party when I assured her that I would pursue appropriate dispute resolution steps if other means failed to resolve this stupid shite. I'll be posting a detailed statement to the RfC about this" and also said "I will put together an RfC/U on all of her conduct issues if this persists much longer, too." He openly wikistalks my editing and raises arguments each time, which seems to me to violate the #5 decision outcome of "User:Jack Merridew agrees to avoid all disruptive editing". Does this not violate the conditions of his arbcom ruling? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That ruling was lifted at the end of last year; see Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion.
 * Still, he should avoid unnecessary references to White Cat & A Nobody, in the same way he hopes that people don't unnecessarily drag up his own past and use it against him.
 * I've not looked at the allegation that he is wikihounding; are you intending on pushing that into an RFC soonish?
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 01:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was brought up at WP:AN/I, I was asked to provide diffs, and when I was assembling them, the discussion was archived with no action. Now, the subpage where I compiled a lot of the data has been nominated for deletion by Jack, after he reverted my blanking of the page in order to nominate it. Informally, it's been supported by various editors and at least one administrator. See the discussion here and the comments by Fences and windows here. Other editors who agreed can be noted in the AN/I post above. I'd also turn your attention to this, where I referred to another editor by his given name, which he has posted all over his user page and every image uploaded, where Jack again showed up and claimed I was in violation of WP:OUTING. Is there anything to be gained by opening an RfC on his conduct toward me? The interactions between him and I aren't good, but I don't follow him from article to article to initiate more stink. I wish that was true of him. As it is, at every opportunity, he is certain to tell me how he is going to open an RfC/U on me or make other similar intimidating comments and state clearly that he is experienced in disputes and he always wins. Since the issue he inflated at User:Rossrs, I've essentially retired from editing here, except to deal with the page deletion and to continue to hope someone will put a huge stop sign on him. He has basically ruined Wikipedia for me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * John, User:Rossrs, a friend of WHL's who's familiar with much of this, has agreed to serve as an informal mediator of this dispute. He seems a bonzer bloke, to me. I've agreed, and so has she. She's said that she'll agree to this (on User talk:Moonriddengirl) "on the surface", whatever that might mean. I've an email into Rossrs about how we should proceed. (fyi, he's in Brisbane.) The refs were in passing and necessary for context, that's all.
 * Wildhartlivie, are you still open to this? Jack Merridew 06:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Rossrs is in Brisbane?? I'm heading that way myself atm.  Maybe a meetup is in order, or maybe there is one and I didn't get an invite.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 08:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Fine with me; he's got it on his user page, and there's talk about it (re *you*;) on my talk page. It might really help sort things. He seems fine, to me; he's been here 6 years. I just got him to turn email back on. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think he is from Brisbane, rather than being in it. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack, you have an interesting turn of phrase. You "got" me to turn on my email.  Actually it was User:Crohnie... at least I saw her comment before I saw yours.  Anyway, I didn't realize it was disabled and now I do, so anyone in the whole Wiki-world can email me if they wish.  Yay me. ;-)   For the record, I am from Brisbane and I am in Brisbane, so you interpreted my comments correctly.  When my edits drop to zero for more than a few days, I'm not in Brisbane.   John, I think we may have spoken before as your name is familiar, aside from Jack mentioning you to me recently.  Maybe I'll remember, but if not, pleased to meet you.  Rossrs (talk) 11:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean much by it, just that it took a few messages to sort that you didn't realize it was off. I saw that Crohnie was talking about email, too, but didn't pay any attention to the timestamps. Be careful who's email you open; we have trolls; and report abuse to someone to shut'em down. I figured you were off for the weekend; no internet out beyond the black stump. John suggested all mellow for days; all are, so all will be apples. Chat with John, he'll find time for that, and ping me in a day or two and we'll talk about how to proceed. I had in interesting chat with Mike, too; bottom of my talk. (look for the big green sig;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I know you didn't. I was kidding. I told two people "sure, email me!" with no email enabled. How clever is that? I was wondering why I didn't hear from either of you. I'm watchful for trolls, and that's probably why I disabled the thing. I was on the receiving end a couple of years back, all Claudette Colbert-related, (never in my wildest dreams did I think there could be a Claudette Colbert controversy let alone that I'd be knee-deep in it), and that's probably why I disabled it. I've relied on talk pages, so whether the trolls get me on a talk page that I can revert or in an email that I can delete, it's equally pointless. Rossrs (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it worked; got it. And I'll skip refactoring my above post ;)
 * I did read the Claudette links you gave; that was strange, but we let anyone edit here, including the strange. Sometimes they're very persistent. My pages are often semi'd as they're hit a lot; stuff gets oversighted, too; I've seen some of it and expect that there's a lot I never saw. My pages are pretty well watched yours, John's and friends step-in as needed. See DefendEachOther. John must be really busy; I think I'll just do him another new when I find some time. We should scoot to our own pages. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Nah, he left it implied in the talk @ #Filmography table; mid-thread, find the "Brisbane" bits. I read it that way, at least. He was distressed at the #...Fences and windows thread on his page. See the #Mediation and Claudette Colbert, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See his recent contribs; all the endash fixes; I explained that issue and pointed him at scripts for it. Off he went. He listens. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi John, since this has come to you now I felt you should be aware of this conversation on my talk page. I think his comments about my not knowing the project well enough and his pointers were most offensive to me.  I am done with this unless it does go to the next level.  As it is now, I am looking to go to another part of the project in hopes of getting away from all of this.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  11:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Still waiting for a reply to my questions above. Following me to user talk pages, hijacking or trying to hijack talk page threads to change the subject from his misconduct is something Jack is quite good at, sort of like he has done here. Meanwhile, the hijack precludes me from getting a response regarding the wikistalking. I like how he discusses Rossrs like he is a brand new pet. I'd further mention that the thread at Rossrs' talk page wouldn't have been distressing except for the fact that Jack cried "WP:OUTING" where it did not exist. None of that was necessary and was essentially the straw that broke the camel's back regarding my feelings about Wikipedia and Jack in particular.


 * Meanwhile, posting this sort of personal attack, wherein Jack is saying I made a huge production of leaving in order to get sympathy is representative of the kind of conduct toward me that I mean. I didn't make an "I'm leaving, oh feel sorry for me" announcement. I blanked my user pages and left the note that I'm currently retired. Since then, Jack has gone about posting his little dig of GoodBye on various talk pages, which is snarky and I consider that a personal attack, on each and every page it was posted. It also brought in the IP sock of a now banned user to post really hateful things on my talk page. I'm just trying to finish up some loose ends here, including Jack's conduct toward me and the way he harasses and wikistalks me. I would like to know if you consider a RfC/U on his conduct and wikistalking in particular toward me meaningful or would it be just one more place I would post that would be ignored, overlooked and dismissed. His comments about me have become increasingly aggressive and there is a decided tone of personal attacks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

At present I don't have time to contribute meaningfully to all this except to say that you all probably need to back away from this for a few days to take stock. If you are feeling like leaving, the last thing you should do is write up an RfC/U or get deeply involved in public meta discussions — that will surely sap you of any further desire to participate. Have a quiet word with your friends, and/or do some non-controversial editing which takes you back to your roots and away from the problem area (e.g. I like to patrol new pages) John Vandenberg (chat) 22:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Great suggestions, thank you, not that it hasn't been said before but it doesn't hurt to hear it again. I also enjoy doing patrols except I do recent edits.  Take care John and have a good night, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  22:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Assessment Drive Challenge: WikiProject U.S. Public Policy
The first tagging and assessment drive challenge is starting now for WikiProject United States Public Policy. If you'd like to participate, start using the new assessment system and the project banner to tag and rate articles that are related to U.S. public policy. There's even a small prize for whoever does the most assessment this week.--Sross (Public Policy) (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Broken links request
I saw you list some broken reference links on a talk page recently, and it struck me that this was a useful thing to do. Some of my GAs (listed on my user page) could be candidates for you to look at, if you might be at all interested. Johnfos (talk) 05:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked Energy policy of the United States by hand, but there is an automated tool mentioned at Linkrot.  My point at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States_Public_Policy is that we should consider rating Wikipedia articles by how accessible the sources are, esp primary sources, and esp. for U.S. public policy topics.  Australian public policy is usually locked up under crown copyright, and the parliament recently adopted a non-derivative/non-commercial license, which means there content cant be archived on commercial websites.
 * See Anti-nuclear movement in Australia and Wind power in South Australia. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, John, for helping me make a start with this. I'm finding the Checklink tool very useful. One article that I've checked which deals quite a bit with public policy is Renewable energy commercialization... Johnfos (talk) 07:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ubuntu calendar
Great minds think alike? Yworo (talk) 06:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll pay that. ;-) John Vandenberg (chat) 06:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Apeiron disambiguation problem
[]

I could really use help from an experienced wiki editor with this disambiguation problem. You seem to have discussed this issue before. Please feel free to fix my edits, even if it changes the link. Better now than later. Reportica (talk) 10:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apeiron http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apeiron:_A_Journal_for_Ancient_Philosophy_and_Science I already notified that the copyright notice is an error so I think you can ignore that. The two journals Apeiron are being confused.


 * Thanks for creating this article and pointing out the similarity; I've added this to the list at WT:AJ.
 * Recording the ISSNs for similar by different journals is important to help reduce confusion.
 * I think your article is well named, and "Apeiron (journal)" should be renamed to be more precise. However our naming conventions are embryonic in this area, so more discussion is needed.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 03:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks John!
Actually, J, I don't think there's any message there for you, he's just learned how to use Talkback and he's practicing. After a frightening start, Mr. Ptb seems to be settling in quite nicely, I think. . I'll comment on the Gage SYNTH matter soon. EEng (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks John
The links to the pages you provided - particularly the Manual of Style are (and will continue to be) very useful. Thanks again for the help and the welcome message. Talatee (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikitext weirdness
This is just a note about a strange MediaWiki result which is trivial, and which will probably resolve itself in a few hours, but I thought you might be curious. I noticed your edit at WT:Requests for comment/Jagged 85 where you added a blank line then a comment. Strangely, it renders as if there were no blank line (that is, your comment continues on from mine, as if there were just a space between them). I tried adding <tt>?action=purge</tt> to the page URL, and I examined the wikitext for any strange characters, but can't see any. No need for any action – just letting you know. Johnuniq (talk) 10:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

See what happens when anyones embed markup? Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I give up. A month ago, an editor started a new section, and their comment included a <tt>&lt;p&gt;</tt> tag (with no closing tag) . Looking at the html source for the page shows that something (HTML Tidy?) has added a closing <tt>&lt;/p&gt;</tt>. Yet (which simply replaced the <tt>&lt;p&gt;</tt> with a blank line) fixed the weirdness that I mentioned above. At the risk of hijacking this talk page, what is going on?? Johnuniq (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This was an odd interaction between improper markup embedded in the wikitext and the parsing by MediaWiki as it generated the actual code served to browsers. One could look at it as a 'bug' in that MediaWiki could be more robust. One can also look at it as GIGO. Mebbe JohnV will point AndrewG at this. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably worth taking this to WP:VPT to be investigated further, and/or raise a bug about this, as there are plenty of other coders who could cut their teeth on this. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I have reported this at WP:VPT. While I'm here, do you have a moment to give me your opinion on my proposal at WT:Requests for comment/Jagged 85? I'm happy to boldly do it, but I'm not sure about the conventions re having a WP:JCL redirect to a talk subpage of a user RFC. Also, while the summary would be written with due regard to civility, the combination of a WP:JCL redirect and a summary could be regarded as something of an attack. Johnuniq (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * An I've commented there; MediaWiki's getting confused by some forms of improper embedded markup. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat
Hi. This user has been having problems with an anonymous editor who keeps changing IP addresses. Could you take a look at User talk:SchmuckyTheCat? I've just performed a range block for a short time to try and break the cycle. Could you comment on possible collateral and advise on other courses of action. Thanks &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm digging into this. If you have a few moments, can you fire up a new request on Sockpuppet_investigations/Instantnood.  Instantnood is only a guess at the moment, but I see similarity in the contribs. Cheers, John Vandenberg (chat) 22:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm actually looking into this, too :) - A l is o n  ❤ 02:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, John - I've softblocked two IP ranges used by a WiFi provider that have been used almost exclusively by said banned editor. Might want to followup, maybe, with your own check, but there were a few rather obvious accounts in there too. I've blocked for a short period of time but there should be no issues extending this given that it's softblocked and otherwise used very little - A l is o n  ❤ 03:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I noticed those accounts as well.  I recommended a wider block and new SPI case page over at User_talk:MSGJ.  I'll write it up after work. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 03:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Requested update at Sockpuppet investigations/Instantnood. Filled in with IP ranges and usernames that I believe are already blocked. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Thank you for your part in helping here, John. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Sockpuppet investigations/Instantnood
Hi John, firstly, thanks for your work on the Instantnood SPI case. I noticed that the Korata account to which you referred doesn't seem to be a registered username? Probably not that much of an issue (as I imagine all the socks are blocked), but just thought it should be cleared up. Kindest regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 12:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking that. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Brilliant. Thank you very much again. Best wishes, SpitfireTally-ho! 12:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Siddiqui
First, thanks for the quick action, it's much appreciated. Second, were no sleepers found? VernoWhitney (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * None to be found. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. I just wanted to be sure there weren't any more we needed to add to the ongoing copyright investigations. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I presume that somebody like X! will take administrative action here? I would go ahead and do so myself, but I don't want to step on his toes. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the clerks will take administrative action; I doubt their toes will be bent if you did it, esp. as you've found copyvios in Marduking's new pages. I'm off the night. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, John. Good night. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

PD question 2
Hello, my favorite genius wikisource admin. :) There's a question with cross-project implications at the listing for the 27th on CP, under "H. P. Lovecraft". Seems like the content should be okay, but it has graver implications for Wikisource than Wikipedia, so I wanted to see if I could get your input. If you're too busy, as always, just let me know and I'll see if I can scrounge up another genius wikisource admin. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done a bit of work irt the Lovecraft copyrights, so I'll be along shortly, after reading up on the current dispute. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Sock
It seems there is a sock user:Carl Francis editing Daniel Henney. They are reverting what looks to be referenced sections. Thanks. 浴衣 ℃  YucataC  16:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ta; I've figured out the context, and will take a look today. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I haven't been able to convince myself to run a checkuser. If you are reasonably sure it is a sock, please file an WP:SPI, probably against Sockpuppet_investigations/InkHeart.  Then a clerk can endorse it. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 12:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

help / thank u
Thank u for your message. I have 2 questions: Is my 'talk page' the same as the page that says 'user page'? (U said 'answer on your talk page' but I'm not sure where my talk page is. I have read the pillars info and some other info about editing on Wikipedia but am still getting 'the hang of it.' My 2nd question is how do I say that I think an article is a stub (could really stand to have more details/info filled in) or how do I label it as a stub? (The specific article I happen to be thinking of at this time is the article for the late singer Andy Gibb.) Thank u in advance for a response. Missy2468 (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See the horizontal list of links on the upper right corner of the page? Click on "My talk".  That will bring you to your talk page.  Next time you use helpme, please put it on your page instead of someone else's (it's still okay to ask specific people for help, but you don't need the template when doing so).  As for the second question, put stub at the top.  -- N  Y  Kevin  @257, i.e. 05:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment
As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Academic Journals/GoogleSearch
Hi, is there still a need for this particular page? I'm not even sure how or why it was generated... --Crusio (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * These pages were created before we tagged talk pages with WPJournals, to try to get a handle on what was out there, and so we could used the recentchanges feature. I've deleted them based on the consensus at this MfD. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

btw, I've looked at the redlinks on these pages; Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry and Catalysts and Catalysed Reactions may be worth reviving. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I appeal
Hi, John. :) I was approached by another contributor about a potential copyright problem with a GA nom, Antonio Paoli, which is copied extensively from the National Historical Society application, here. The problem is that though this is a government form, it was filled out by an historian for the Puerto Rico State Historic Preservation Office. Even if he was working for the Puerto Rico State Historic Preservation Office at the time, copyright is not released, as the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico retains copyright (see ). The National Register is unclear, here. They do indicate that some copyright is owned by others, but they do not indicate whether text is released to them (though images are not). They also don't indicate whether the material in pdfs is considered "on this site", strictly speaking.

Do you know of anything that can definitively establish whether the text on these applications is PD? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My guess is that the submitting of the form is supposed to place it into the public domain, somehow, but can't see any obvious basis for this in the regulations. My basis for this is that NPS can't hold copyright, so unless the copyright of others is clearly articulated, they shouldn't publish.  this says it is our responsibility, but they sound keen to help.  Do we know the name of the historian?  It looks like 'Carly M...'.  We could search for a copyright in copyright.gov; I'm assuming that NPS would be keen to ensure the copyright was registered if they were going to publish it with permission. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the historian is Juan Lianes Santos. :) It's possible that they will release the text. Hey, I just noticed that there's an e-mail address for him ca. 2009. I can write him and ask! If it doesn't work, I presume we can contact the Puerto Rico State Historic Preservation Office to ask them, since he was evidently acting as their agent? Or do you think that searching copyright.gov would be the better approach? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I cant see any copyright records for that name, but registration is not mandatory, so this isn't conclusive. I think it would be wiser to talk with the author, and/or the Historic Preservation Office, as we may learn a lot in the process. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Rivers
Sorry for the random message but I'm just coming back to the Rivers page and have seen that it has been redirected from 'W.H.R Rivers' to 'William Rivers'- there was a discussion about this and the general opinion was that it should remain as it was- since W.H.R Rivers is how he referred to himself, his published name and the way people referred to him but it was moved anyway. How might I move it back to it's original state? --Pudupudu (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Fixed; thank you for bringing this to my attention, and it is good to see you return. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: King Orgasmus One
Sounds like a reasonable enough reason. Keep up the good work! - Vianello (Talk) 21:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
I see you prot this, citing "edit war", after only two reverts. That seems rather trigger happy. Did you check carefully before acting? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See related thread on my talk page. PS-time to archive some of your talk page ;-) <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 13:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree it was a bit trigger happy, but I am sure it will be better for you both, and the project, if you two thrash it out on the talk page(s). John Vandenberg (chat) 02:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)