User talk:John Vandenberg/Archive 14

Orphaned non-free image File:Montreal 24heures 01 11 mars 2005.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Montreal 24heures 01 11 mars 2005.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Y Done Unorphaned. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * replied. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

banned user?
John, I left a question regarding a potential banned user on your archived talk page. If you could help clarify the situation there, it would be greatly appreciated.-Scientryst (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll answer that today, as best I can. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's sport
Hello if women's sports fascinate you: WikiProject Women's sport and Portal:Women's sport, --Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève  (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Betacommand 3 needs your votes
You are listed as an active Arbitrator in the Betacommand 3 case, but you have yet to vote on any remedies. I understand that you may be busy with other concurrent cases, but at this point a wide spectrum of remedies have been put up for consideration. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
For all the work you selflessly do for Wikimedia Australia, the GLAM movement in our country, the programming work you do related to supporting this work, the personal money you put into supporting this, your support at RecentChangesCamp, etc. I really appreciate the fantastic work you do and I apologise for my own curve balls and making it more difficult. Seriously, you do fantastic work and don't get the appreciation you so richly deserve.

LauraHale (talk) 06:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC) 
 * Thanks Laura, and thanks for the 200% effort you've put in thus far. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Hammersoft/Δ vitae
I expanded, ordered and sorted, and posted a link to this page from the evidence page, per your request. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Requests for comment/F&aelig;
A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:F&aelig;. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've asked a question of you here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I just came to alert to this as well, but I see D.C. has already done so. CycloneGU (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Back to bed for me. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * John, a question for you: it looks like the message above has been spammed to a very large number of people by MadmanBot (though I don't know who initiated it). How can this possibly be appropriate given that it looks like a very blatant example of WP:Canvassing? Prioryman (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Fæ and BOTREQ.  MBisanz  talk 20:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 179 people?! That makes me very uneasy. The phrase "piling on" comes to mind, frankly. Prioryman (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Simon Kidd
you've got mail Simon Kidd 2012-01-29T23:55:51‎

Orphaned non-free image File:Andes U.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Andes U.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 19:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Who said what to whom and when
You may wish to take a look at Balloonman's statements on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Fæ, particularly here. I believe they are misrepresenting your words and actions, but facts don't seem to figure very strongly in the discussion around this subject anyway. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * John is back editing, but I don't see any "who said what". 109.151.136.180 (talk) 15:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My message was more of a courtesy to John, not a request for him to participate. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
See last section. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Re your questions
I edit at work some times. The policy at work regarding editing at work is that you are free to use the internet for personal whatever as long as it doesn't conflict with your job and you don't purport to be repping whoever I work for. How would you want the answer to your first question to appear for parties like me? How is that different than how someone who was paid to edit wikipedia a specific way would answer? Just trying to drill down your Q's to get the information you want. Hipocrite (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I tried to avoid asking for someone to volunteer whether they edit at work when they are at liberty to do that, but where there is no approval involved. e.g. academics often edit Wikipedia at work, and that could be described as "paid editing", and even the term "paid advocacy" could be used in some instances.  However I am mostly interested in merely where the employer is aware of the editing and approves of it, irrespective of whether the employer is approving of the individual edits or desiring/expecting a certain POV to be pushed.  I suspect that most of your editing wouldn't be "approved" in the sense I am referring to, however you may have occasionally discussed some Wikipedia content with your employer with your subsequent related edits being essentially 'approved' based on that discussion.  In my own situation, my employer 'approved' of me writing articles about academic journals and they couldn't care less what I wrote about the journals (within reason, of course).
 * My question about editing at work is intended to see whether the parties have been "paid editing" with the employers knowledge and approval, and whether they are happy to disclose that. It tries to avoid asking whether they have been expected to push a certain POV, as I doubt I would get truthful answers to that.
 * The two questions that follow allow the parties to offer examples of whether their editing involved a COI or POV. Most of us have COIs and POVs, and we edit more cautiously in those topical areas, defer to others, and sometimes we're delighted to learn more about a topic and re-evaluate our POV, or at least better appreciate that other POVs exist and are respectable.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 08:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Mention
I mentioned you here. Regards, SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Serge. I've thrown a spanner in that MFD. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way . ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview
Dear John Vandenberg,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day Jonathan. Teaching people to become an administrator is a bad idea IMO.  Please teach them to be a contributor of content first.  I had 20,000 edits before requesting to become an admin, and by that stage I didnt need anyone teaching me how to become an admin. ;-)  As I am sure you are aware, there is a large pool of peer-reviewed literature about Wikipedia.  I have done interviews along the broad lines you have described, and that material has been published.  Unless you have a new line of inquiry that hasnt been researched before, and intend to publish the results, I don't think it is valuable to rehash the same types of questions. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

as you are one who is pretty sure to recuse just in case it ever gets to ArbCom :)
I was going to ask NYB, but did not relish a 5,000 word essay :) -- might you look at my attempted summary on the Fae RFC/U page and apprise me of any neutrality problems in my phrasing therein? Thanks! Collect (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it is an oversight to not mention that due to the RFC, Fae has apologised for the only 'post-Ash' problem which was raised during the RFC (the one described at Requests_for_comment/Fæ). The apology was on his talk page, and/or on Brenneman's talk page.  Also, I dont think that it is accurate to say that there hasnt been concerns about canvassing. John Vandenberg (chat) 18:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Both concerns addressed - though I am unsure how relevant the apology is to the gist of the summary. Collect (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The justification for the RFC (and the one before it) was poor sourcing. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

AfD and PROD
Hi John. Back in November, you got either an AfD or PROD notification, and it was during one of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (there are links to the templates), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at swalling@undefinedwikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   19:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks John. :) Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   00:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No no no, .. thank you! ;-) It's great to see that you're providing assistance to improve this aspect of the project. I'm curious about the "unknown" entries in the graph on that page.  What types of messages were they? John Vandenberg (chat) 00:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Royal "monograms"
Hello John! This is pretty shocking. What's scary is that it looks like a very large amount of such inventions have been added to royal biographies by that editor, alleged "monograms" that never have been used in the real world. Any advice on what to do about it? SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, user:roux is the person I would talk to about that. How 'bad' is File:Royal Monogram of King Christian I of Denmark.svg?  Has it never been used? John Vandenberg (chat) 01:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Without the slightest bit of doubt, I would guess it has not. To my knowledge, those kings had no monograms at all. If they did Christian would gave used a "C" not a "K". The letter "K" looks like it's been taken from some Windows Word font - so do almost all the other ones I've seen, added by that user after upload by someone h/s calls h friend. A few look more legitimate, such as Queen Ingrid's, but there too, it looks like the mirrored letters "I" have been mechanically redrawn (with unsmooth curves and poor symmetry) not like a faithful representation the actual (and very elegant) monogram she officially used. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The Russian source given on the "K" image page looks pretty questionable to me, and in any case the blue (!?) redraw is not in the exact same font, and that open crown used in Denmark then has subsequently been changed to a more modern one for Commons. So the source does not even verify the near appearance of that monogram. I can't see good faith in intentionally creating non-authentic stuff like that and passing it on as authentic at Commone or on WP.
 * The book looks legit.  I'll need to investigate that more.  It may be misguided, and that is definitely grounds to not include it in WP.
 * Could you locate an image of the official monogram that Princess Ingrid of Sweden used, so I can compare them?
 * We should be careful to not denegrade the work that Glasshouse has done; some of the artwork may be misled, but I doubt it is intentionally wrong. A tragedy of good faith errors?! ;-)  But that is why we have domain-experts like yourself to help rectify these problem.  If we provide better examples for Glasshouse to use, they may improve their work, and everyone benefits.  Thanks for your time, John Vandenberg (chat) 02:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning me, JVDB. I had provided my opinion at User talk:Fry1989; he has (as per usual for him) removed the entire discussion from his talkpage once it became clear he was in the wrong and once again tilting at windmills. In summary: the Russian-language website does not appear to be authoritative to me; it is a website for model shipbuilders, not exactly SME in the area of royal monograms. In addition, the extreme creative licence taken with the colouring, the actual lettering, and the completely-unlikely-to-have-ever-been-used full-colour depiction of the crown renders these images less than useless from an encyclopedic perspective. Assuming that the website is correct with the images they show, the images as hosted by Commons are completely different and factually incorrect. Fry needs to be disabused of the notion that 'close enough for jazz' is good enough for an encyclopedia. → ROUX   ₪  08:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you both! Here I just found a specimen of Ingrid's actual monogram - as you can see the lettering is exact and symmetrical.
 * So we agree that there are problems here - my question is what to do about this syndrome? I'm afraid it seems to has polluted WP considerably. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You have been registered as a 'paid editor' to be monitored.
Herostratus has you on a special little list. &rarr;  Stani Stani  02:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 03:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Teigan Van Roosmalen
Can you unprotect the page Teigan Van Roosmalen? The page is now off Main Page and there's no really evidence that the page will be recurrently vandalized in the future. Thank you. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  07:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done! John Vandenberg (chat) 07:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Sandra Fluke
Can you lock the above as a redirect? -- The Red Pen of Doom  23:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Thanks.  I've locked it for six months. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. As you may have noticed me as a rather vigorous (or just verbose?) contributor to the discussion who !voted keep, you may have been expecting/dreading tiresome objections from me. But don't worry, I'm just after a little clarification. You wrote: ''Some comments suggest that she was already notable before this recent event [...]. I recommend that those who believe she is notable contribute to the article about the controversy '' (my emphases). I can guess what you mean but am not sure. Could I ask you to revisit your closing comment, making each of these clear? Thanks. -- Hoary (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've been waiting for someone to object. ;-) I have added more detail to the closure.  Thanks, John Vandenberg (chat) 01:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent close, John Vandenberg. I was certain that this was headed for the perfunctory "no consensus" or even "keep". I'm glad you looked at the arguments rather than the sheer number of !votes. I wrote earlier about "the myth that we don't vote, we discuss". I stand corrected. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the elaboration. Now it makes sense. (I even half agree. And as for the disagreeing half, I'll spare both of us.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Its the right result. You simply cannot get a real "consensus" in these super high profile BLP1E cases; when the content is preserved in the incident article, like we have done many times before, this outcome makes sense.  Just dropping this (as a strident inclusionist) in to dissuade anyone from considering DRV; I guarantee any DRV will be resoundingly endorsed and I will take $100 bets on it.--Milowent • hasspoken  06:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Inspiring for users looking for mentor assistance?
Hello John! Any comments on this? SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * While I'm at it, I do not understand why there is no interest at all in comparing statistics to arrive at competent theories about motives. These contributions (almost all related to me personally) to mine, for example. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Haven't I painted myself into a corner here, not blocked but unable as of today to even communicate with anyone about the problem? SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I also dont have time right now to investigate the problems between you and Pieter Kuiper.
 * However I have quickly looked at Talk:Richardice of Sweden, and it appears his comment there is reasonable. Would you please ignore his snide remark, and add a comment there explaining why you created the page.  Thanks, John Vandenberg (chat) 23:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I find no sources either on the Internet, but I believe there is some older literature where the name has been used. Problem is, while I'm basically called a hoaxter again and again and some of his supporters take notice and use it against me, I'm not even allowed to write that (that there are older sources I could look for) there because of the one-sided interaction ban that User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid, got me to agree to. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * PS I've applied to be adopted (I think correctly) since I always feel like a newbie when it comes to this subject. Thanx for that tip! SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I didnt realise that you were under an interaction ban. (I'm starting to understand your problem...) Rather than interact with him (there), could you let me know (here) of any sources which support "Richardice" and/or "Richardice of Sweden". John Vandenberg (chat) 01:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! If/when I find any (other than Throne of a Thousand Years and Find-a-Grave), I certainly will. By that time the deletion may have gone thru, but I guess it can always be reversed if needed. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Institute for Basic Research for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Institute for Basic Research is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Institute for Basic Research (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grrahnbahr (talk • contribs) 14:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Documentation for gadget authors
I saw you had done some work on gadgets. We're trying to start a library for gadget authors to use. Please check it out and post any questions or comments there — ☠ MarkAHershberger ☢ (talk) ☣ 19:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

unfavoureable log entries

 * Discussion at User_talk:Tannin

Hi John,

What is this talk about "unfavoureable log entries" you are repeating. It sounds quite unfriendly. Please explain what you mean. Best, Tannin (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Enjoy the second half of the year
Buck 11:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Meetup in North Queensland
Hi John! Thank you so much for the invitation. I would love to attend but unfortunately cannot as I will be busy with family affairs here and, anyway, most unfortunately, due to a collapsing spine, I am unable to drive as far as Townsville any more. I am not sure I could even make it from here (Cooktown) to Cairns now. However, I sometimes fly to Cairns for medical or other reasons - so, if you have a meeting there sometime it might just be possible for me to join in. I will be away from the 10th of May to the middle of June - but if there is any chance there might be a meeting in Cairns sometime after that do let me know - I would love to come if I can. And, of course, if any of you ever make it as far north as Cooktown, do contact me. We are about 25 km out in the bush but we could certainly get together - I would love to meet up with you. Please do not hesitate to contact me at any time. I hope your meeting is productive and fun. If any of you write something about the meeting, please do send me a copy. I send you my very best wishes and thanks for the invitation. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 05:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response John. There will be a report about the workshops and meetups, and I'll be sure that you're kept informed along the way, and of any future events up North.  Regards, John Vandenberg (chat) 05:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6
Hi. When you recently edited List of women firsts, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barbara Harris (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks DPL bot! John Vandenberg (chat) 10:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

dangerous territory
all the indicators are hobart, but one small clue suggests perth, WA - i suspect a more standardised indication system for those who are still editing might be a good idea one day!! SatuSuro 01:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Check the edit history of their user page and you will see I am right. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * misunderstanding - yeah i agree you are right - but the user leaves all the old stuff around for the unwary was more the gist of what i was trying to say....SatuSuro 02:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * for a matter of context - what is the lapse in editing considered to make someone not current - a rule of thumb is how long? or is it spread - like some do come back ater 6 months to a year later (sometimes) is there any generally accepted criteria? SatuSuro 04:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I havent seen any attempts at defining "current" except for how active they have been in the last month (5, 10, 100 edits). I'm an optimist; I assume they will be back, if they see a need, unless I see they have written a statement to say they have no further interest in the project. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * there are quite a few marie celeste's from 2006, 2008 and 2007 that are quite weird - low edits, gone with no comment, just jumped and no return SatuSuro 04:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of PowerTech Information Systems for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article PowerTech Information Systems is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/PowerTech Information Systems until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Joja lozzo  14:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18
Hi. When you recently edited National Trust of Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Secretariat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You have email
Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I've received no response. Email problems? --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: Tardy reply, a while ago. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikisource reliability
Thanks for bringing up the Wikisource issues on the self-published list. Sorry for the delay in responding... just too many things to do. But I will do something about it sooner or later. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Its a great discussion; I hope to get back to it soon. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Edwin Mellen Press
Hi. Over a year ago you added a template to Edwin Mellen Press thanks to which it has since told the reader ''The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.'' However, the history of the talk page reveals that no such discussion was even started. Ummmm.... Hoary (talk) 10:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry; the neutrality issue is quite obvious to anyone familiar with the topic of academic publishing. I've added some notes on Talk:Edwin Mellen Press.  A quick read through the forums of Edwin Mellen Press site:chronicle.com will shed greater light on the matter. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm moderately familiar with the complaints. Or rather, I read them, or similar complaints, rather more than a decade ago, but since then forgot about EMP until just this evening. However, the article clearly says that there is a dispute about the article, I saw no sign of one, and although I could easily imagine disputes I didn't want to prejudge the matter. &para; How about adding to the article material that will summarize criticism? &para; Not to defend EMP, but I have encountered (and, damn it, bought) books from both U Calif P and OUP that richly exhibit the misfeatures for which EMP is notorious. -- Hoary (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I hesitate to add content to summarise the criticisms until I know more about the positives of their efforts, or confirmation of my suspicions that there is little positive to speak of.
 * I would be happy if it was cropped to a stub, without the promotional tone currently in it, and only a hint that they have been considered to be an academic vanity press. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

re Brisbane workshops and meetup
re Brisbane meet-up. Can do... Kerry

Kerry K 07:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Reublishers
Thanks for pointing out the urgency of the Wiki-republishers issue. By the way, would you like to add your name to the participants in WikiProject Wikipedia reliability? Membership is free. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 10:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hehe. I love free stuff.. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. History2007 (talk) 11:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

New editor would like some help
Hi,

I'm not sure how to ask someone to go look at a problem I'm having. It's such a peculiar situation that I'm hesitant to even discuss everything that gone one.

In any event I'm in tears over this and would really like you to look over my edits and edit summaries and their replies at the project and talk pages Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Agent00f.

I have asked not to be bitten. I have asked that others assume good faith about me. I have asked that things I write not be termed to be the opposite of the truth (but I put it more nicely).

I'm unsure if these problems have affected an article page I have been collaborating on editing which has nothing to do with anyone at the RfC/U. I am also wondering why so many users in one place who happen to disagree with me seem to be using similar sorts of problematic behavior towards me. I'm especially concerned about the number of times different individuals have stated that I have written or done something (always negative) which is the opposite of what I have written or done.

Please provide some kind of assistance.

Thank you,

Factseducado (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * John, I may have a reputation as a rogue editor, but I am available for an additional experienced POV about what Factseducado and one other editor are going through. Ordinarily a referral would be to ANI, but there is evidence of a poisoned well that makes forward movement difficult. JJB 19:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If either of you would prefer to describe your problem via email, I can be reached at . I'm not very interested in the MMA aspect.  Also, I am travelling all next week so may not be very responsive. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Delsort Tool
Hey there, I tried installing the deletion sorting tool & entered the code in my vector & monobook. Delsort now appears in the drop down menu but when I click on it nothing happens can you help please. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 15:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Not to start a new topic: on my Cologne Blue it doesn't show up anywhere and spits the alert box "Unable to parse URL" followed by current page's URL. I use https access if it is somehow important. Browser - xombrero (WebKit-based). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Woodstock Times 0907 cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Woodstock Times 0907 cover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for 1907 Sydney bathing costume protests
Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 08:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Bell Pottinger, Dahabhshiil, WereSpielChequers and you
I left a note on User talk:WereSpielChequers about learning that there were press reports that administrators John Vandenberg and WereSpielChequers had been engaged in discussions with Bell Pottinger. Could I ask you to look at that note?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

John Thomas Fryer Keane
Hi John I was in your workshop yesterday. I tried to enter the information on JFTK but have run into trouble with references. It appears I need to create a reflist - can you advise where i can find what to do? Regards Ctadfha (talk) 02:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added the "reflist" template there.--Melburnian (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

newspaper clippings
Hello John, I am writing articles on the early history of the Paralympic Movement in Australia and having problems with newspaper clippings from the late 1950's to 1960's that have no reference due to families who paste the articles in scrap books or photo albums. I am able to get written verification of the facts from the subject's nephew / niece if needed. These two articles that are needed to verify the dedication and support of athletes who went to the first Paralympic Games in Rome. Would you accept a reference displayed on Wikipedia Commons as follows? Transfer the two articles onto an A4 sheet of paper making reference to who they are about, where they were located, and noting that the information is on record in the library at the head office of the Australian Paralympic Committee. The person wanting verification of the article's location may then make a request to the head office of the Australian Paralympic Committee. Please give serious consideration to this request as information from the early history is very difficult to obtain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawn Renshaw (talk • contribs) 00:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Dawn, unfortunately we need verifiable sources, which means we need to find details such as the newspaper name, article title and date of issue. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You are being discussed
Just in case you're unaware of it, I thought I should let you know that your name has been mentioned on the evidence page of a current arbitration case and its talk page. In particular, other editors and I have been duscussing statements you made and advice you gave to editor Fæ in connection with his RfA. David Wilson (talk · cont) 04:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have belatedly . Thanks for the heads up. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

you need this: this, too, while you're at it: var urlDecoderIntLinks = true; //also try to simplify existing internal links in selected text
 * importScript('User:Scottywong/diffconverter.js');
 * importScript('user:js/urldecoder.js')

 Br'er Rabbit  04:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Lifestyle X'nter for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lifestyle X'nter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Lifestyle X'nter until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Marge Kõrkjas
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Cool!
Thanks for the bump, dude! Metao (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. It looks like you could use a quicker way to fix the problems on the articles you monitor. Read the policy WP:ROLLBACK, and all that jazz. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Sandra Fluke
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sandra Fluke. 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. Casprings (talk) 02:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A review is a good idea. I'll add my thoughts later in the review if someone provides a good summary of sources showing possible notability. Thanks. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 02:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Look forward to your inputs.  Casprings (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Secretariat
Hello. I notice that on 18 April 2012, you moved the "Secretariat" article to "Secretariat (disambiguation)" and converted the resulting redirect into something different. You seem to be a very experienced editor, so I assume that you decided that the new article that you created should be the WP:PRIMARY topic for "Secretariat". Frankly, I question that judgment. I believe it made more sense for "Secretariat" to be a dab page. Also, the new article currently at "Secretariat" seems to be poorly written and entirely unsourced – and focusing extensively on anarchism, which seems rather strange. I notice that the Talk page for "Secretariat" is still a redirect, which seems incorrect when the corresponding article is not a redirect. And the article at "Secretariat (disambiguation)" does not even refer to the article at "Secretariat". Can you tell me if there was any prior discussion before the move was performed and the new article was created? Can you please comment on the situation? –BarrelProof (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, I took the text at oldid 287942417 (which was part of the history of "Secretariat", removed in 2009) and put it as a new page called "Secretariat", with the old page moved to "Secretariat (disambiguation)". The text put there is not my own; it was written by Wikipedia editors over the years, and removed in 2009.
 * I do believe that "secretariat" should be a descriptive article, cover the three or four slightly different models of secretariats.
 * The article is not focused on anarchism. It mentions an anarchism organisation as merely one example of a rotating secretariat.  Feel free to replace it with one of the many other examples.
 * I've fixed the other problems you've identified with the articles. Cheers, 08:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding. I still have a concern about that article being positioned as primary. For example, I notice that Secretariat (horse) has about 20 times as many page views in the last 90 days. Secretariat (film) also has more than twice as many views as Secretariat. Also, in the existing article, I notice that what I believe to be the key meaning of the word is missing from it. A secretariat may be a role within an organization or a department of an organization, not just a building. I believe the use of the term for a building is actually derived from the organizational role name – i.e., it refers to the building that houses the department. I will probably edit the article to bring in that meaning. –BarrelProof (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I just did some editing of the Secretariat article. I hope you agree that those edits have improved the content of the article. I also want you to know that I have submitted a request for the article to be moved. The move proposal is being discussed at Talk:Secretariat, and I invite you to participate in that discussion. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your edits definitely improved the article, and the move discussion can only benefit the project. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

looking for my article
Hello John, tomorrow I planned to complete the edit of History of the Paralympic Movement in Australia but cannot find the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawn Renshaw (talk • contribs) 10:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Dawn.
 * Are you looking for "User:Dawn Renshaw/Draft history from outreachwiki"? John Vandenberg (chat) 13:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Serbian Propaganda
I've created those articles in favor of MACEDONIA and Macedonian sport only.My articles were attacked by some chauvinistic Serbian propagator that hates MACEDONIA.I guess you aren't familiar with the situation over there and by accident you swam in some political waters not being aware of it.Macedonia always existed and it was always there on bigger or smaller territory. Sports teams from that period are created by MACEDONIANS in the Duchy of Macedonian Vardar within the Kingdom.That Kingdom by the way that you call it Yugoslavia as SERVS(Serbs) refer to it was a ruled by Russian Royal family as a colony. Officially non of the Macedonian population ever recognized that illegal government.As you can see in the WW2 that territory was occupied by the German King who ruled the colony called Bulgaria,and again it wasnt recognized by the Macedonian population we were in war against it.So most of the teams were MACEDONIAN patriotic clubs that never recognized non of those illegal Governments.We played in our own league that we called Macedonian Football League ,and we never cared how they refer to it ,examples regional or royal or sub regional, subdivision and so on. As you can notice Macedonian Republic was established on smaller territory back in 1944, and we are independent nation within the Federation of six republics that we simply called federation and you refer to it as Yugoslavia.So we had our own government president prime minister or premier, parliament ministries and local government such as Mayors etc.So our Football league was called Republican Macedonian League -which means the league of our Republic of Macedonia.And in Macedonia we simply called it Macedonian Football League, regardless to what Servs(Serbs and others refer to it).In 1991 Macedonia stepped out of the federation,and the reason was simple we got sick and tired of the Fascist governments of Croatian and Serbian republics that came in to power in the years before 1989-1990.So we didn't liked the idea of war for creating greater Servia(Serbia) nor Greater Croatia.Since 1991 we are out of the federation and we have the same football league that was renamed in Macedonian First League, that we simply call it Macedonian Football league which is the same league from the early beginning back in 1927.So I created this article about the Macedonian all time football champions for Macedonians world wide readers specially for younger generations that are interested in Macedonian football and live in the English speaking countries like Canada USA Australia Great Britain etc.Non of us wants to read about Yugoslavia Servia and rest of that ,because we are Macedonians and we never recognized any of that ever.But unfortunately my articles were attacked and destroyed by Servian nationalism and their propaganda of Greater Servia that caused 4 wars in 1990s and they still have this agenda of greater Servia(Serbia) even in this kind of free sites like Wikipedia.So I ask you to stop supporting them and their propaganda and help me to put back my two articles in the previous stage.Those articles are Graganjski(Macedonian Football club that never recognized the authorities and government of the Puppet state Kingdom of Servia(Serbia) and it was MACEDONIAN patriotic team, and second the List of Macedonian Football Champions which are nothing else then MACEDONIAN.Never Yugoslav(Servian-Serbian and never Vulgarian-Bulgarian).I hope you will understand and THANKS if you do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LindbergJamesMK (talk • contribs) 2012-06-25T20:25:11
 * Hi LindbergJamesMK, I am quite familiar with the history of the region of the world, but I dont know anything about how the turbulent history affected the football in the region.
 * I am not taking sides in the dispute. I blocked you because you removed large sections of text, which is against Wikipedia rules.  You can not simply remove large sections of text that you dont want in an article.  If you keep doing that, you will be permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia.  So I beg you to stop deleting text, and keep discussing the problems with me.
 * The history of these leagues & clubs is messy, and includes other countries, irrespective of whether they were puppet states or not. The articles need to include this messy history.  If the history is wrong, please explain it to me, so that I can help.
 * To start with, do you agree that Građanski Skoplje played in the 1940–41 Serbian League? John Vandenberg (chat) 00:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Not at all it played in Macedonian League.In that time there was no Serbia, the official name of that country is the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.The kingdom was made of Duchies which were ruled by Dukes.The Duchies had subdivisions(their own leagues) the Duchy of Vardar Macedonia had its own subdivision called Skopje subdivision.The champion of this subdivision league was official champion of Macedonia.All the champions qualified for the Kingdoms division(something like European champions league these days).So do we call German Champions ,German?YES, or do we call it French champions French?YES.Do we call Chelsea a Bavarian team just because it won the Champions league in Bavarian Capital Munich?NO.There was no Serbian league back in 1928 till 1941.First time Serbian league was made in 1946 when Serbia become republic in the federation of YU.First time independent republic of Serbia as a country is made in 2008 after the Montenegro and Kosovo split. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LindbergJamesMK (talk • contribs) 11:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. It is regarding unvanishing ScienceApologist. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;  17:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, unvanished in 4 hours. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Sandra Fluke protection
Hi John Vandenberg, since you were the last person to protect Sandra Fluke, I thought I'd let you know about the DRV (closed by another admin) and my unprotection of the article. Best. Acalamari 08:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello! It's me from that AfD. Now consider its second AfD -- I mean, consider it for, oh, I don't know, morbid fascination or something. -- Hoary (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Closed! And i've left a note over at User_talk:Casprings. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 15:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Deftly done. I was probably too sleepy at the time; yes, I now see that the move had a certain good intention. -- Hoary (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You've probably had more than your fill of that article already ... but could I ask you to keep an eye on it and its talk page? (I'm pretty tired of it myself. I'm happier working on something like "Dorothy Bohm", far detached from the obsessions of US radio talk shows and the like.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I too would rather be editing Dorothy Bohm :P ;-) John Vandenberg (chat) 11:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Justin Bieber on Twitter for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Justin Bieber on Twitter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Justin Bieber on Twitter until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Informing you of this nomination because of your previous participation in the Justin Bieber on Twitter merge into Justin Bieber discussion.--LauraHale (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

July WMAU Melbourne Meetup
Hi, At last month's June meetup we discussed the idea of setting up a Training Course at a University of the Third Age (U3A) to be held in 2013 and named Becoming a Wikipedia editor. In order to get this course up and running we are calling for volunteers to help develop the idea, and either tutor part of the course, or provide one on one help to students in the class. All local Wikipedians are welcome to discuss this at our 11am meetup to be held this Sunday on 22 July. Please add your name to the attending list at Meetup/Melbourne 23. Food and beverages are provided. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 02:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fantastic; great to hear this is coming to fruition. Unfortunately I cant make it to the meeting. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Cheers! It feels like the time is right for it. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

SPI Needs Eyes
Could you take a look at this SPI, please? Kinda urgent. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 06:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am not a CU any more. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, you aren't, are ya? Just looked at the CU page and you're right.  I have a page of my own (makes looking at contribs easier to see who is online) and apparently I need to update it. :) -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 07:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You're being trolled
See here. I thought you should know. Besides, putting up a retired message really shouldn't be a way to skip out when one does something wrong. Silver seren C 07:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * thx for the heads up. Turns out it was a sockpuppet. shrug. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

article Wroclaw
Hello Sir ! As I see You live "down under" and far away from the Polish city of Wroclaw (German Breslau until 1945) and I happended to see that You have a headline "Serbian propaganda" and may have experience of this kind of national matters. Matters, in wich I'm neutral. I've simply tried to do some improvement (including sources) - but a couple of polish users just do not care about sources. It seems to me like they just have invented or repeted previous inventions during the communistic era in Poland. (It's complicated.)I have no intention of anything else than improving the article and make the history of the city as correct as possible. The present history parts differs very much (indeed) from what my swedish encyclopedias states. Not even a centence of pure fact - as "Breslau wasthe largest city Germany has lost after the world wars" gets accepted. But the primary issue is that nothing is supported by sources or references. (I've tried, but first I was suspected as german and later the best source, a swedish encyclopedia "Nordisk Familjebok" (Nordic Family Book 20+3 volymes 1925-1939) is stated as "unsafe due to the time". And so on. So I wonder if You could eghther help me, and take a look on the article "Wroclaw" - or advice me to another administrator with interest of european history. Best reguards /Pontus Eriksson, (pontus.eriksson4@comhem.se), Sweden 83.249.42.164 (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC) My auto-login doesn't always works, sorry Boeing720 (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My first recommendation is that you work on the encyclopedic article about Nordisk Familjebok - add reliable sources to prove that this reference work is respected by scholars as not biased. Also, you might like to talk to . -- John Vandenberg (chat) 01:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Being bold
You're a bolder man than I am! Now to see if it remains up... Andrew Gray (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good morning Andrew. The signpost coverage of Template_talk:Citation_needed last night galvanised me into action. I expected to wake up to see an AFD, and/or warnings/blocks for being wp:pointy.  Major anti-climax. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)