User talk:John Vandenberg/Archive 4

RfB
Not that your support or opposition is going to change anything at this late stage,, but i have responded at length to your concerns, and must admit, I am troubled by your decision to focus on one, uncontrolled event, instead of looking at 30+ months of consistent editing. More specific examples are on the RfB page. Thank you for your time and interest in participating. -- Avi (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My final response is posted on the RfB page; thank you for taking the time to engage in discussion, albeit that we agree to disagree. As a courtesy, I am letting you that I plan to re-run for RfB after a few weeks/months more participation on RfA's. I hope by that time you will have come to understand with, and agree to, my point, but if not, please bring your concerns again at that time. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Request layout change on editing buttons
Plesae see 13065, it went to WONTFIX as final outcome. Thank you for you attention.--Namazu-tron (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource collaboration on George W. Bush
Sure. I'll tackle the radio addresses, and search for speeches. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 03:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfB
I wanted to personally thank you, Jay, for your participation in my recent RfB. I am sorry that you feel that once incident, in which I was a passive participant, and over which I had no control was enough to outweigh 30+ months and 21K+ edits, and I am gratified that almost everyone else saw fit to either support my request, or oppose for technical and not fundamental reasons. Regardless, if you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

WS Collaboration project
G'day, this weeks Wikisource collaboration project is G. W. Bush. We need your help ! :-) John Vandenberg (talk) 03:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I'm afraid that I have neither the time nor the motivation to participate this time around. Nonetheless, good luck to you! —Remember the dot (talk) 05:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The article Anthony Pratt (Visy Board)was first added in October 2007, then a few comment from a disgruntled person were added on Feb 21st 2008, we tried to take them off, but they we coming back. Anthony Pratt asked to take the entire article off as it posses a risk to his image.

What proof do we need to show to prevent the repopulation of the article? Or is there a legal address we can put in communication to with our Legal council?

I have to users here: jsmdbm and jmerelo and we represent Anthony Pratt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmerelo (talk • contribs) 03:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

My request for bureaucratship
 Dear Jay, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats. I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight. I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community. I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :) I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Article deletion.
yes, thanks. There was a mistake in the title. You can delete that page, that'll be fine. Thanks again.

oh also, if you could, the title of this article: Oakwood (Staten Island Railway station) is incorrect, it should be: Oakwood Heights (Staten Island Railway station) Again, thanks a lot. Maigot1 (talk) 04:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Article Deletion
Hi there,

We noticed that the article "PDFNet SDK" was deleted by you in September 2007. The article explained a PDF software library (an alternative high-performing technology to Adobe's technology).

If go to the category "PDF", go to #7(Implementations), and then under "See Also" go to "List of PDF Software", you will find a list of different PDF software tools and development libraries (both open source as well as proprietary).

Since PDFNet SDK is a very reputable PDF development library and an alternative to Adobe's technology, we felt it was a very valid addition to that list (and as such also the creation of the article). It was done by following the examples of other companies and software listed on that page.

If the entry of PDFNet SDK was invalid, then perhaps the whole "List of PDF Software" and the articles they point to should be deleted as well. If not, then we would appreciate the undeletion of the article and the inclusion of the entry in the list.

In case you need more information about PDFNet SDK or the company PDFTron Systems Inc., there is plenty of informaiton available on the internet.

Thank you in advance for your consideration, —Preceding unsigned comment added by PDFguru (talk • contribs) 00:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In response to your inquiry:


 * "If you can identify independent reviews of "PDFNet SDK", by reputable sources (preferably in print), I will look at them. John Vandenberg (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2008" (UTC)(Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PDFguru")


 * You can find the most recent, independent review of PDFNet SDK in an article "High-Level Programmierung" published in the December 2007 issue of Desktop Dialog - Das Publishing Magazin (a German DTP/Prepress magazine) as part of its monthly "PDF in Motion" series. You can probably view the article at: or you can also refer to the following link:


 * PDFNet SDK is also often reviewed as well as listed on independent, reputable PDF and developer community sites such as Planet PDF, Dev Direct and others.


 * Isn't this the kind of information though that is reviewed before an article is deleted? PDFguru (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In general, no. The onus is to provide evidence of notability not to prove lack of it. --BozMo talk 14:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I see. The notability of PDFNet SDK would probably be easier to see for someone involved in the PDF field, but may be more difficult to recognize for someone not generally interested in this area. In the PDF developer community, PDFNet SDK is well known.


 * Regarding "There is an expectation that an admin will look for sources if it is an obviously "notable" topic, however it isnt required. In this case, I wasnt able to find any quickly[1]. This looks ok; can you identify others? John Vandenberg (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)"


 * ...So, in addition to the article mentioned, you can also find an independent printed and online review of PDFNet SDK in a 2005 issue of How-to-Select Guide for PDF .NET components:


 * Perhaps it may also help that PDFNet SDK and PDFTron are listed in the Open Directory Project (Dmoz) to which Wikipedia already points to for External Sources (under the 'List of PDF Software'). See: and


 * In addition, there are also a number of news and listings about PDFNet SDK (and PDFTron). For some examples please see:, , , , ,, , , etc., etc.


 * Hopefully this will help to prove the 'notability' of PDFNet SDK and be sufficient to add it to the 'List of PDF Software' and undelete the article. Thanks.PDFguru (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

WSEAS
To me the recent expansion at WSEAS seemed too much (I commented at the talk. Frankly I had just assumed one of it's staff had done that, but presumably I was mistaken. Pete St.John (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had similar thoughts, but I decided against rolling back in order to help bring the user into the fold. I think we need to integrate the new content offered by these users, and show them how to present it nicely. John Vandenberg (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, I got confused about who editted which. And agreed, we'd like to help them integrate, but the last revert was an SPA-- a new one, a single-edit-account. Anyway thanks for your patience. Pete St.John (talk) 03:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Prem Rawat Case...
I hope this is the right place for this question(s) (I think I saw it was you who opened the case), if it's inappropriate, or should be directed elsewhere by policy, please let me know. After reviewing all the relevant documentation I could find it looks like I was a little quick off the draw with my statement regarding the Prem ArbCom case. It seems that my comment would have been better located on the evidence page after the case was opened. Do I need to cutNpaste my comments onto that page, or will my initial statement be considered already? or is there something else I should be doing if I want my statements considered?

Thanks.

-- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 02:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Your initial statement will continue to be read and considered by everyone, however it is advisable to distil it down into smaller chunks of evidence, and place them on the evidence page. Take a look at one or two prior cases to see how the evidence is presented: Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Evidence (case closed) and Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Evidence (case yet to be closed). John Vandenberg (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi again! I hope this is still the right place for this, if not, please point me to the right place and I'll continue over there. How do I find out who the clerk is for this Prem Rawat arbitration? Or am I not supposed to know? Even though I am over my 1000 words, by about 200, am I allowed to respond to counterpoints made by Jossi? And thirdly, as I said at the end of my statement, there is some "evidence" placed on the page by one IsabellaW, I think her section contains nothing of value, does not mention the "defendant" (accused? other?) at all, and is quite a demonstration of rambling, in short, I think it should be removed, and was a little surprised to see it hadn't been. I don't see it's point of being there, but I understand that's a job for the clerk, no?-- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 06:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I am the clerk; I have read the evidence section added by IsabellaW, and I dont feel that it is imperative that it is removed. If you need to reply to the counterpoints made by Jossi, please be very brief :- the evidence page isnt supposed to be a discussion page. John Vandenberg (talk) 08:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the information, I didn't mean to imply that the removal was imperative, only that it provides no evidence for or against the case whatsoever. She has not presented a single diff, and let's not forget, this entire arbitation is about Jossi's behaviour, not Prem Rawat. Her entire "evidence" is about Prem Rawat. On that basis alone, it seems reasonable to remove it. Its inflammatory and massively biased nature is another issue entirely. However if you've read it and don't agree, I have no problem with that. Thanks again. -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 16:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to bring this up again, but IsabellaW has done it again, she now has 1475 words on the evidence page, without a single diff, and without a single mention of the defendant; the only person who's actions are under review here. Her "evidence" now exceeds by far, the total amount of text, including talk pages that she has ever written on the subject of Prem Rawat, and yet she tries to pass herself off as some kind of research expert, this tirade of hers is nothing but an obvious attempt to take away the credibility of other users who are involved (I'm not trying to claim that any of them are Snow White either, but that's irrelevant, and many of their points are supported by diffs). All of her new references come from a Prem Rawat organization, (Elan Vital). I feel her input is making a mockery out of this procedure, and it exactly like what is happening with the articles in question, Obvious Pro-Rawat supporters make enough hassle for everyone else, that nothing can get done. If you feel that this still does not warrant some kind of administrative action, can you tell me where I would take my case to next, because now I do have a problem with it. Also, if you are not going to respond to this, can you at least acknowledge that you've read it please? --  Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 07:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have been noticed your messages here, and had a quarter of an eye on the case pages. I've another few things to do before looking at this closely. John Vandenberg (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have dealt with it as much as I think is necessary, and commented at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat/Evidence. If you feel that isnt enough, I think the first step is to another clerk to take a look, but asking them at WP:AC/CN.


 * John Vandenberg (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank-you for your efforts, I'm sure you're a busy guy and I appreciate taking the time you have so far to deal with the situation. If, after considering, I decide to continue pursuing this course of action, please don't consider it as a slight. I appreciate your input, the fact that your opinion may be different than mine is not a mark against you. You have suggested that IsabellaW revise her "evidence", how long is appropriate for her to do so (in your opinion), and if she fails to do so in that timeframe, what is your next likely course of action? I ask because if you are going to continue to monitor/deal with the situation, I'm not sure I need to get in the middle of that. However, if you've done all you're willing to do for now, then I will have to ponder what I think should be done next, if anything. Thanks again for your time.-- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 02:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont mind if you ask for additional opinions on this. I prefer to leave evidence as-is unless there are gross violations of our communal expectations, because in order for the Arbitration Committee to be sure that they have done the right thing, they are going to dig into the evidence page to read any material that has been removed.  They do this to be sure that they havent missed anything.  Sort of like a poorly written affidavit; judges still need to read it.  The "evidence" on that page isnt considered "accepted", or even "acceptable".  The "acceptable" evidence will make its way through the Workshop phase and onto the "proposed decision" where they will be called "Findings of fact", and then the arbitration committee will vote on whether the findings of fact are "accepted".  It is very typical for evidence to not be accepted; only quality evidence that is pertinent to the case makes it to through the process to the final decision. John Vandenberg (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:Wikiproject Tool update
A few updates in events: Thanks to everyone who has helped thus far. The project is still very new, but good progress is being made!  Lara  ❤  Love  03:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Maynard James Keenan has been listed for copy-edit at the WP:LoCE, however, the backlog is quite long. Therefore, if anyone has copy-editing skills, please go over the article. I would do it myself, but I've done quite a bit of work on the article and I am incapable of copy-editing my own work.
 * Maynard James Keenan discography has been worked back into the bio and has been determined to be redundant of the main discographies. It will most likely be deleted this week.
 * Devo Keenan has been created. I think this is a good opportunity for the project to get together and create a DYK entry. The article needs to be expanded and referenced. Hopefully this is possible. I've not yet looked to see how much information is available. Please take time to help with this, if you can. We have four days!!

the sydney Journal
Hi there, Just thought I'd drop you, and others from the recent meetup, a line and mention that the first edition of the Dictionary of Sydney's online, peer-reviewed journal is now live.

The Sydney Journal is the first (and most academically rigorous) "product" of the Dictionary. It will be a quarterly publication with a variety of texts from upcoming Dictionary articles and is hosted by UTS E-press. This edition features 4 thematic articles, 6 ethnicities and 5 suburbs - all specifically related to Sydney.

I hope you find it useful and interesting - If nothing else it's essays are eminently referenceable for their corresponding articles here on WP.

Best, Witty Lama 12:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource calls again
Me again :-) We have two candidates for CU on Wikisource, and we need to accumulate 25 votes in favour in order to be approved. While I am one of the candidates, I dont mind whether you vote for or against me; this note is just to ensure that you know that as you are a serious contributor to Wikisource, and we dont have many, your input is desirable at this stage. John Vandenberg (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to support you, but I don't have a strong opinion on the other candidates. I'm sure you'll do well! —Remember the dot (talk) 05:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for participating. I'm sure Pathoschild wont mind; he has been around a lot longer, so I am sure he will also fair well. John Vandenberg (talk) 07:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the nice welcome message
Hi, John,

Thank you for the warm and very helpful welcome.

I'll try not to pester you with too many questions. That is a really cool trick.

Kindest regards, Snakesteuben (talk) 08:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, ahem, here's something that's been bugging me for a few weeks. I see you're also present on the de wiki.


 * I would like to crank out some wishlist items that have existed for 6 months or more. Most of these are on the Deutsch site and/or wiktionary entries. But the idea is applicable here, too. But I'm struggling with the formatting--especially on the German side, my German is a bit better than kein--at bedenklich (dubious). So I haven't written word one, except for an aborted draft hung off my user page.


 * Then I came up with what I thought was a brilliant idea! I thought I'd put the word, translation, information, complete with usage notes, etc., unformatted, on the word's talk page. Then I would point the original requester to that talk page, and make an entry on the wishlist page also pointing to what I had done. The original page would still show up as a redlink, so no harm would be done.


 * The user who wanted it would have his information, and whenever someone was motivated to write the entry, they could see the content I put there, and use/adapt it, or not, just starting from scratch. Again, no worse off. And nobody gives me a boatload of Mist for screwing up the formatting.


 * But it doesn't work! I looked around to see if anyone ever did that. On the contrary. Discussion on a redlink page is grounds for speedy deletion! Oh well.


 * I don't get that. It seems as though there are some people who affirmatively enjoy the formatting side--or writing bots/procedures for formatting entries. OTOH, I'll bet I could crank out 20 in the time it takes me to format one to everybody's satisfaction.


 * Do you think my idea might have any merit whatsoever?

Thanks again, Snakesteuben (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow. Absolutely Brilliant! Do you have a fan page/forum? (But I'll definitely let you know if my DE nemesis busts my chops about the stub. :-P) Snakesteuben (talk) 10:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. If anybody wants templates ported across wikis, consider me a resource. (E.g. I've just about finished adapting this one over to Frisian.)

Snakesteuben (talk) 10:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

new day, new colour, to help the long-winded one keep track of her place

"Especially take note of the key differences between a Echter and Falscher stub. Native speakers of German are much more picky about how you use their language, and about quality,"

Tell me about it! Let's just say I found that one out the hard way. Ugh. Thanks loads for the specific pointer! I have found people a little more indulgent when I decloaked as female, and stuck this custom template in my profile. A little self-deprecating humour can go a long way.

(You already know the meaning of bedenkliche. :-) )

"If you do like translating templates, I would be grateful if you could translate Template:Bible translation infobox into as many languages as you can."

Whoa, guy. That is some voh-ca-byoo-larry you got there! I meant mainly cross-wiki coding quirks, and standard wiki words, but I'll do my best. The code looks very uninter... erm, straightforward (except that some of the third-world projects don't seem to have the same #if behaviour as the more populated sites). Here's an idea, once I throw the code over and fill in the easy stuff, maybe you or I can troll the left-lingua pane of a germane topic article or two, find an author with an en-2+, and get some help there?

At any rate, I'll keep you posted so as not to have any of your minions duplicating effort.

Winter S. (talk) 10:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC) (Still me, decloaking just a little bit)

P.S. Y'know, another thing about that DE crowd. Even the en-3+ totally don't grok (i.e., "get" if you're not at all familiar with Heinlein, but since I see you as a theologian, I give it 50/50) my sense of humour. Gheheh! -Winter --
 * Well, gee, since there's two follyglot anglos now, I guess I should create a User Category over here, huh?
 * Winterx —Preceding comment was added at 13:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Work permit (United Kingdom)
Just out of curiousity, how did you know that copyright permission had been given for this article? I don't know anything about the OTRS system. Until I saw that you'd put the OTRS template on the talk page, I thought you were inappropriately trying to resurrect some article which should have been deleted. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have access to the OTRS system. John Vandenberg (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks 4 the welcome!
Hi, yea thanks. I love Wikipedia. I'm definitely interested in being a part of that project, although I don't know of any public domain docs that would be of use at the moment. Still I'd love to join, thanks for your help. Maigot1 (talk) 06:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey. Quick courtesy pointer.
Well, you were right about the category!

There's some chance you might be interested in glancing at the hints on the discussion page before they get deleted. None are finished yet, but I went ahead and pasted what I had from various places.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:User_follyglot

Winter S. (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry I forgot to close that yellow style the other day. Oeps! *sheepish grin*

-Winterxx


 * No worries about the excess of yellow. I was waiting to see if anyone would fix it; they didnt; I need more minions. John Vandenberg (talk) 07:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Shushavian Noble???
if it is before 1923 what book is it from??? Why are you reverting without explnation???? I keep asking the people for a source so I can check, but all I get is reverts!!70.21.139.214 (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * please keep looking, why do you ignore me? the image is unverifiable, please help resolve this matter fairly as an admin. I believe the citation is suspicious and from an obscure source.149.68.31.146 (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Music
Please unprotect Music. You semi-protected it due to vandalism, but did not leave a note that this was permanent or any information on the discussion page. If it's permanent, please justify and explain on the discussion page, otherwise please remove the semi-protection. It seems to me these things should be temporary, since Wikipedia brags that "anyone can edit," and if they're taking care of a temporary problem, or noted on the article if they're permanent. --Blechnic (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sanchez
In the future, when Sanchez posts on my Talk page via an IP sock, if you're going to intervene, I'd prefer you remove his attacks, rather than merely adding his latest IP sig. Otherwise, you're enabling Sanchez, although I'm sure you don't see it quite that way. -- Eleemosynary (talk) 10:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I doubt that all of these IPs are Sanchez, so please dont make accusations unless there is significant evidence. It is more likely that due to editing a high profile bio you have a few users who dont approve and have a chip on their shoulder.   It's your user page, so I wouldnt want to remove something unless it was quite clear violation of our policies - I only added the sig so anyone looking at your talk page would know that the user has been warned. John Vandenberg (talk) 10:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Then I retract my statement about "enabling" in the edit summary. However, there is significant evidence that the anon poster was Sanchez, as his petulant habit since his ban has been to "snipe from cover," as it were. --Eleemosynary (talk) 10:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. My guess was that this isnt him. John Vandenberg (talk) 10:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

GM - Auto Racing Addition
Thanks for welcome. Please review the article now and let me know if references used meet the requirements.

Ron, w9kfb W9kfb (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

References to external sources
I am in the process of adding sources now. Also will add photos if permitted by Delphi Corp. W9kfb (talk) 09:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Exact wording
Please, please could you tell me ASAP the EXACT wording someone has to write to give permission for their photo to be used on Wikipedia under the Creative Commons licence?--Seahamlass (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC) Thanks. I've sent the details to the two remaining people yet to respond about their pictures.--Seahamlass (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again. Just heard from the Flickr photographer whose three pictures were deleted earlier. His message reads: FlickrMail From: Lincolnian Subject: Navenby Photos. I changed the Creative Commons licence on my photos but can only see one on Wikipedia, maybe I missed the others. Load up what you need because once they are there I may well change the licence back - you will be OK on that because if the licence is OK when the photo is taken then permission stands as I understand it. Hope that will help. Kind Regards. Brian Where do I go from here with this - please??! --Seahamlass (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Images problem
Hello, I notice you recently removed the CSD tags from these images , unfortunately all these images are only licensed on Flickr with a Attribution-NoDerivs-2.0 license, images with this license shouldn't be uploaded to wikipedia as per. Polly (Parrot) 04:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Trust me, I am on top of this. A clarification of the permission is being sought. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Jolly good, because at the moment it's a mess with all sorts of conflicting licensing. Polly (Parrot) 04:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi John: Had an email from the Flickr photographer today, who has changed the release again and hopes that is OK. So do I! It seems to have been changed on the image page already - was that you? Many thanks! --Seahamlass (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Got it! I have forwarded the email on to the same address as last time. Here's hoping it is OK. It covers all 12 of Ray Beckham's images on the page - just thought it best to cover my back:

--Seahamlass (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Crop circle G4 speedy query
it was a recreation of Image:Firefox Crop Circle.jpg, an image deleted shortly before the one I deleted. -- w L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt; 06:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

NPA
Sorry, but that wasn't a personal attack, as it did not deal with anything but words that were stated on an issue. If you think it adds "barbs" to a comment, then you are in direct violation of WP:ASF. I'm sorry, but if you want to be an effective member of Wikipedia, please read the rules before responding to others comments. They are quite clear about how members are to treat another. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And John, I will practice WP:ASF and assume that you lack some of the basic understandings of rhetoric: "so you don't have to belittle me or act like I don't know what I am talking about. A tag that says you practice law does not mean that you necessarily understand law, nor does it mean that you would win a case before a judge on the matter. I know what I am talking about and my concerns are legitimate enough to necessitate conversation, and the talk page is appropriate." The first sentence states "I", which refers to me. It refers to me not knowing what I am talking about. The second statement is the universal "you", which deals with a generalization on the matter. The third sentence combines one and two to answer the concerns addressed in the first. You cannot remove the context of a line and act on the matter. Your actions were inappropriate and show a reworking of an entire paragraph to result in whatever you wanted it to be.


 * I could do the same: "you will find that other editors on Wikipedia will report you for attacks like these" This statement is a clear violation of WP:NLT. By using your standard of dissection, I have removed all context that could allow the sentence to be construed in its original context, and have placed another context by applying a warning behind it. Thus, the above is a viewed threat to say that you would report me, most likely, to the police. However, we both know that it is untrue. Why? Because the context does not deal with such. Now, if you would oblige WP:ASF, then you would take the appropriate measure and strike your comment, and I shall strike this in return. Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you are incredibly mistaken. My comment is not wikilawyering. My comment is a basic grammatical analysis which proves that you were quite misreading my comment. There is no problem except in an accident upon your behalf. This accident was furthered by a violation of WP:AGF on your behalf. I suggest that you read through the rule clearly, and if you would like, I can provide some easy grammars that would ensure that you would not make the same mistake in the future. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome, mate.
I don't really know what I'm doing at this point, but I can't help but fix the minor nitpicking errors I find. No worries, though: I won't break anything. CWGannon (talk) 05:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Development of Electronics for GM Auto Racing
I am somewhat concerned to finish this section with Delphi info, as they are not part of GM now. It does seem to complete the article better in my mind showing where the technology is now. Hopefully you or I will get feedback on this and we can revise as required. I consider this section finished now and have a few Ideas for other history of development sections: The GM Emission Control Project Center, and The history of data communications on GM vehicles. Please let me know what you think of the section now it is complete. I am still working on getting photos of the items included.

W9kfb (talk) 07:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have corrected the internal references to have only one internal link per reference. I will attempt to do the BorgWarner Technical award article next. It will be good to do a smaller piece for practice. W9kfb (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

John,

I found that Wikipedia already has a write up on that Award, see "Louis Schwitzer Award" W9kfb (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

John, I added photos, Please check them for appropriate size. I like them large as I am into HD photos. Also could not get frame and caption to work on a 800px photos. W9kfb (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

OK John, I understand now why the caption didn't work on the 800px setting. The thumbnails work well. With the last upload of the photo:Practice at Phoenix 1988. Mario Illien introduces the Gen II to Mario Andretti. I am done with this piece for now. The only concern I have now is the title and the location in Wikipedia, the fit in the GM Corporate area seem a bit of a stretch. I am now thinking there may be a better home for it in the Delco Electronics or Delphi sites or possibly in a motorsports area. The title would have to be changed accordingly as needed. Please advise. W9kfb (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of George Addes
A tag has been placed on George Addes 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 a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance 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 biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. STTW (talk)  15:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

New section in Vehicle Busses
John, Thanks again! W9kfb (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion sorting tool question
Hi! I just installed User:Jayvdb/Deletion sorting tool. It works great, but it seems to have wiped out Friendly. Is this a known problem? Or something I fouled up? Thanks!--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've solved my problem. I had to comment out importStylesheet('Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Add LI menu/css'); . Now both delsort and Friendly are playing nicely together.--Fabrictramp (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Always lovely to see a problem solved before I wake up. I've noted the problem at User:Jayvdb/Deletion_sorting_tool.  Cheers, John Vandenberg (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Navenby


John - Many, many thanks for all your help with the Navenby pics. Above and beyond the call of duty I think! This is my first attempt at giving a barnstar... I'll delete it if it comes out wrong! Just incase it doesn't tell you what it is, here is the description: The disco ball of knowledge certifies that editors are among the finest contributors in the world of Wikipedia, and help it to never stop turning.--Seahamlass (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Some guideline help
John, I'm new to Wikipedia. I started out by contributing new links to musician's pages. Wikipedia puts enormous weight on relying on Discogs and MusicBrainz as resources but I find that the external link I was adding (e.g. for the artist Laura Veirs) is as much, if not more, a useful resource to provide the user. I didn't know that this is considered 'spam' - if it is, I apologize but I think the links were reverted quickly without a second glance as to the merit of the resource. Your assistance/feedback in the matter would be appreciated. Thanks! Mimecuvalo (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Jayvdb, see Only make links that are relevant to the context, Manual_of_Style_%28links%29, what happened in short, is that on Wikipedia we write articles, not link directories (WP:NOT), sometimes a link is provided to support a fact, if a link is just placed out of the blue, usually it gets removed, specially for articles about persons and organisations, we try to minimize the external links, . If you want to contribute a fact to the article, do so by writing it yourself into the article. cheers.Mion (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have more questions ? Mion (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mion :-) John Vandenberg (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * you're welcome :).Mion (talk) 02:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Objection to party clerking Workshop page
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat/Workshop ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Suspended-annihilation.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Suspended-annihilation.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Grouping of editors
COuld you please take a look at my objection ? I strongly believe that grouping editors by their perceived or declared affiliation, is inappropriate, divisive and against policy. If editors want to provide edit counts, they can do so without such groupings and will not affect their evidence. I request that the groupings be removed from the Workshop page and the talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

User:SQL/Months
I don't think you should be adding things related to the dates on User:SQL/Months, I think its just a page for dates. Thou I could be wrong. --Atyndall93 (talk 12:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See Bot_requests and Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Removal of many individual date articles. John Vandenberg (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't quite understand how that is related to adding things like bonjovi album next to dates. --Atyndall93 (talk 12:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * my edits to that page are to point out the pages which are not actually of the same nature as the rest -- i.e. they are false positives, and probably need to be discarded from the results, as they are not really what the original request desired. John Vandenberg (talk) 12:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK. --Atyndall93 (talk 12:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

ifd oddness
I'm sorry, but I am not understanding what the issue is that needs attention. Could you please explain it to me again. -Nv8200p talk 12:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

RS?
Can you please tell if Newanimal.org RS or not? I am confused.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will use it as external link.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Not Funny?
yeah it is funny have u ever met Kris? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davejeanyus (talk • contribs) 22:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

WOT: Web of Trust images
Thank you for adding the copyright info to the screenshot images. Is that now sufficient to cover it? I appreciate you and the others "watching our back." When can I expect the notices to be removed from the logo and other images? Best regards, Debsalmi (talk) 06:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have closed the pie chart image, however the other two need to be cropped before they can be closed.  see Possibly_unfree_images/2008_March_27 for details. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I cropped the rating screen image and added the Fair use rationale. Does OTRS ticket 2008040110010787 still apply? Do you think it's OK now? For the other one, I added the Fair use rationale only. Thank you for your help, and I apologize for being so obtuse about this. Debsalmi (talk) 07:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've replied on the PUI page. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Warning on reverts
Proper justification was provided for this edit and you inadequately reverted and this was not the first time you're doing this. I believe that you reached the limits of reverting without justification and you have no legitimacy of doing that when IP's justify their edits, more particularly when the edits are the majority position. If this trend continues, I will request that you be put under the AA restrictions and your title of administrator should not make you immune. VartanM (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not sufficient for an IP to just "justify" their edits with an edit summary; once reverted, the appropriate thing to do is to discuss on the talk page. see WP:BRD  This IP is Edit warring, and is suspiciously like an IP of a banned user.  see User talk:149.68.164.90 for the warning I gave that user.  I looked at the talk page; I didnt see this as a majority position. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So you are allowed to revert someone who justified the edit in the summary, ignoring the fact that bunch of other editors agreed with the edit. And without even providing a valid edit summary. You claim that you looked at the talkpage, again, your vision is quite selective. And I do not believe you read the talkpage, because if you did, you would've seen that when you have replaced the term by the bogus they are called Azeri now and now denied the talkpage evidencing it is the majority position. Basically you don’t know what you are editing. Ulvi writes: I personally think that "Turkic" in the article can only be mentioned once. It should rather talk more about Azerbaijanis and use Hun, Khazar, Turkoman (Azeri) when talking about general population, and then Seljuk, Atabeys, Beglerbek, Kizilbash, Gajar history in Armenia when talking about the dynasties. Modern period should only mention Azerbaijani/Azeri. Parishan, what's your call on this? . First you will see here how Ulvi claims Turkmens to be Azeri (he did it more than once), but he does agree to name those other Turkic people, by several of their names, while in the version you have reverted they were all dumped as Azeri. Even if Ulvi was wrong there (claiming Turkmens to be Azeri), his arguments contrast with your less then informative edit summary and your failure to justify your blind edits and your refusal to discuss your actions.


 * Had you read the talkpage then, you will see that on January 1 Parishan agreed to replace the term Azeri : If the deleted bits are restored, I agree to a consensus version that will use Turkic-speakers and Turkic-speaking Muslims with regards to Azeris prior to 1920. Not only he didn’t respect this compromise, but he made a 180 degree turn and returned to Grandmaster's and Atabek's OR.


 * It is convenient for those IP's to make changes which by their essence are accurate and known what my and other editors problems are with Grandmaster and Atabek OR. Then, they just have to be reverted as yet another IP..., and those IP's then use socks..., then Atabek and Grandmaster will just have to associate my and other editors edits with those socks and banned users. This time I won’t be intimidated and will revert regardless when they introduce their OR, and this is regardless of your suspicious and unjustified reverts. VartanM (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Having more anons reverting does not help us move towards a good working environment. There are a raft of IPs which are edit warring at the moment, see my block log for the worst offenders, and I am starting to get annoyed at them, and your defense of them doesnt make me happy either.  Please understand that the IPs involved are edit warring on many articles, and they are doing reverts for the sake of it, like on talk page comments; doing that means they are primarily being disruptive.  When reverting problematic edits by disruptive anons I dont look at the edits in detail.  I dont try to assess the "majority position".  Any edit warring by anons from these will be reverted.
 * I have tried to avoid requesting Checkuser and have often welcomed these IPs and encouraged them to sign in.   However, if it continues, I will initiate a report to the ISPs involved.
 * p.s. I have no problem with you reintroducing any edits that I revert - if you stand by your edit, that is good enough for me.  I am only trying to deal with the widespread vandalism that is occurring. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Continue disrupting and I will ask the Arbcom to restrict you. Your disruptions have to stop. This edit shows that you don't even know what you are reverting. VartanM (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry; that was a mistake. Not worth taking me to arbcom, I dont think. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

dust cover edition
Hi, in order to move Image:Looking backward.jpg to commons, we need to know that it is of a PD edition. Any chance you recall, or can check, which edition this image is of ? Cheers, John Vandenberg (chat) 09:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I recall that the image was represented as the first edition of the book, which would have given it a copyright date of 1888 in the US. I've tried to find the original source of the image but haven't been able to locate it.  Hope this helps.--Rtrace (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide
I took the liberty of deleting the armenians sided with russians article for three reasons. 1. the original version was copy pasted entirely from armenianreality.com, even with citation it strikes me as being against wikipedia's policy to copy and paste entire websites, non-objective ones at that. 2. the modified version was unsubstantiated and filled with effusive words like "alleged," etc. 3. The intent of this section is to deny the genocide and therefore would be better suited to the denial of the armenian genocide article. Let me know if these seem like reasonable grounds. E10ddie (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Minion report
Hi, John,

Through this, I found this. I don't see this particular version listed here. Is this info useful to you?

And I entered the Portuguese interwiki link for your template here, and it seems to show up properly here. Is that the right way to do it?

xx Winter (User:Snakesteuben) (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Correction, actually that version is one of many available on the bibliaonline, which is one of the links on the Portuguese wikisource page I linked the first time. So never mind? Or mind after all? I confess I'm not 100% sure what info we're trying to collect where...

xx Winter (User:Snakesteuben) (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't mayhap torqued you off, have I? Winter (User:Snakesteuben) (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the Bible is on the backburner; it's been eating and drinking that has taken my attention of late, and I must say, it good to be merry! John Vandenberg (chat) 17:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Kewl. So to spin Horace, you have played enough, you have eaten enough, you have drunk enough, and now it is time for more bible inventory? Better for our waistlines, I suppose. Well, I suppose I'll take on fy next when I get a chance. I finally gave in to the nagging and became an admin on their wikt. Winter (User:Winter (User:Snakesteuben) (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Museum of Women
Hi. Could you take a look at Articles for deletion/International Museum of Women, please? Thanks - Nabla (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is best that I do not get involved in this one, due to my role as an OTRS agent, in order to avoid an OTRS agent influencing the outcome or making the final decision. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. I only called your attention in case it became needed to comfirm/deny the copyright issue. - Nabla (talk) 00:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That was fast!... Thanks. - Nabla (talk) 00:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * When I looked at due to your last comment, I thought that you had correctly articulated that the copyvio issue had been addressed. But looking at it again, I can see that a more direct assurance is a good idea.  Sorry I didnt do this the first time. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. I wasn't clear in my request. - Nabla (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed my mind on the deletion request
Hey, John, I've requested deletion review for the Follyglot user category. Winter (User:Snakesteuben) (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

ACED Magazine
Really? Why not? Why isnt it reliable - its independent and not biased and I see no existing ones so I figured itll help to put some on. Fattyjwoods ( Push my button  ) 05:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied at Talk:ACED Magazine. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Woop, Woop
Would you mind explaining to a luddite how you are able to get from Woop, Woop to Australian English vocabulary.

I have searched the text of the Australian English vocabulary article and find no reference to "woop". If it wasn't for your good edit history I would be tagging the redirects for speedy deletion. Thanks LittleOldMe (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * chuckle* umm, well Woop woop is already redirecting there; "Woop Woop" is an Australian colloquialism referring to a fictional location in the middle of nowhere.  It is also written as "Woop-woop" and "Woop, woop".  Im not sure why it isnt explained in that article; my guess is that it has been trimmed or wasnt merged in.  "Behind the black stump" and "Beyond the black stump" are similar Australian phrases. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Forum for Stable Currencies logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Forum for Stable Currencies logo.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Bruce Botelho
Mind explaining the move? This source and this source and this source and this source and this source and this source and this source and this source and this source to name a few of the 5700+ google hits say Bruce Botelho as it was before you moved the article. The other way gives you 92 google hits. Where he is currently mayor even has it as Botelho and I would hope they would get it correct. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied at Talk:Bruce Bothelo. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Tango case
Just curious, did the ArbCom get the message from MONGO via e-mail that he would not be taking part in the ArbCom, since he has basically retired from editing completely? If not, I could forward the copy of it he sent me. John Carter (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * replied on user talk. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Revan Hanligi
P.S. noted you not only reverted the add on Revan hanligi but you also removed mention of Armenian genocide in some blind reverts or purposeful pov pushing. you should either pay more attention or stop editing obvious conlfict of interested as an admin instead of abusing power. as vor revan hanligi i deleted it because it would be the equivalent of adding the armenian name for the ottoman empire or a persian one. not to mention latin script is pointless. and also what will stop every other anon from adding a foreign name to any article he wishes - look at the iranica article for the erevan khanate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.221.82 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 20 April 2008


 * I cant determine who you are, nor do you specifically point out which articles you are referring to, nor diffs to issues you have. As a result, I have no idea what you are talking about, nor am I inclined to figure it out as you have left very few clues.  If you want a response, please take the time to clarify what you want me to respond to. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

British Isles
I presume you'll be as fast to jump in with the current spaz fit on the British Isles page. The crazy approach on that page is beyond belief. Accusations of POV, sockpuppetry, abuse of all sorts. The only point I was trying to get to was that points need to be referenced properly, not just asserted repeatedly. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have seen one unanswered accusation of sockpuppetry. Anything else you want to bring to my attention?  If you do, make it very brief and include diffs - I prefer to spend less time reading others take on a situation and more time assessing it myself. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:APRA logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:APRA logo.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done ;) -- Avi (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. you got a smile out of me for that. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

George Frederick Shrady

 * {| style="background:#ddffdd; padding:2px 2px 2px 2px;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"


 * You're welcome to copy the University of Illinois Morris Library stuff [1] (much more than the bit I used in this article) to Wikisource if you like, and incorporate my wikified links from this article, but my objective here was to start the Wikipedia article on George Frederick Shrady. I may be adding text from several other sources I've found to the article, in which case I'll remove the move to Wikisource tag.  (Since I assume that you wouldn't want the consequently non-original text moved to Wikisource.)
 * You're welcome to copy the University of Illinois Morris Library stuff [1] (much more than the bit I used in this article) to Wikisource if you like, and incorporate my wikified links from this article, but my objective here was to start the Wikipedia article on George Frederick Shrady. I may be adding text from several other sources I've found to the article, in which case I'll remove the move to Wikisource tag.  (Since I assume that you wouldn't want the consequently non-original text moved to Wikisource.)

I'm afraid I'd have to disagree with you about the citations thing, simply the fact that a work is in the public domain isn't any reason to not properly cite it as the source of the information in an article. I actually think it's very un-encyclopedic that there is so much public domain content copied straight into Wikipedia with neither attribution or citation, or mixed with Wikipedia-user-authored content without attribution or citation. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 06:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * }


 * {| style="background:#ddffdd; padding:2px 2px 2px 2px;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"


 * I think we probably basically agree here. I didn't expect that notice to remain there in perpetuity, just for the first few authors who come in to do some actual work on the article.  This guy happened to be the author of a source in a different article I'm writing; I noticed that there was a nice PD biography of him available, so I pasted it up just to have something to link to (though, I kinda got carried away wikifying the text, I actually ended up going and creating a bunch of additional stubs about the schools he went to and hospitals he worked at.)
 * I think we probably basically agree here. I didn't expect that notice to remain there in perpetuity, just for the first few authors who come in to do some actual work on the article.  This guy happened to be the author of a source in a different article I'm writing; I noticed that there was a nice PD biography of him available, so I pasted it up just to have something to link to (though, I kinda got carried away wikifying the text, I actually ended up going and creating a bunch of additional stubs about the schools he went to and hospitals he worked at.)

One other thing - after the work I've done wikifying and making minor corrections, I would say this version is actually much better information-wise than the unlinked text on the library site. So rest assured that the Google rank will not be taken in vain. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 09:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * }


 * {| style="background:#ddffdd; padding:2px 2px 2px 2px;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"


 * P.S. I also realized that you probably haven't seen the latest edits; when I do something like this I create the citation and reference in at least at the end of every paragraph. For the attribution to be lost a future editor would have to intentionally rip out all twelve citations from the text.  There basically isn't any defense against that kind of bad faith anyways. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 10:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * }
 * }

Re your comment in the clerk notes
Is it a problem that I added myself as a party after it went live? I consider myself one because I've been involved with that article and with several threads on WP:ANI concerning it and WMC. Jtrainor (talk) 07:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, that isnt a problem. Quite the opposite - it is good when people clearly indicate that they are involved rather than using section names like "Statement by so and so who is sort of kinda tangentially involved".  I made not of it because I noticed it while cleaning up the request, and it is something that the clerk who picks up the the case (if it is accepted) may find useful to know.  For example it explains why your input came later, and why you were not notified of the request. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, alright. I can think of several other people who should probably be involved as well (such as User:Ultramarine and User:John Smith's). Is it ok to notify them or does that count as canvassing? Jtrainor (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Net 4?
Re "my" RFA... its sitting at 4/3 at the moment. My reading of the rules is that makes a net 4-3=1; I'm not sure how many others are sitting in the wings pondering the matter? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Mark McGowan
Mate, I've edited my additions to McGowan's entry - I think I get the hang of this now - I'm only new to Wikipedia.

Regards,

Distantland —Preceding unsigned comment added by Distantland (talk • contribs) 03:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Tango arbcom case evidence
Hi Jayvdb - I note that you are the clerk on this case. As you may be aware, I have created two pages of evidence relating to this case. I wonder if there is a way that those pages can be moved from my userspace and directly attached to the case? It just seems right, as the case nears resolution, to have that information directly linked to it rather than some random editor's userspace, if you know what I mean. (Sorry to bring this to your talk page, I wasn't sure where else to post it.) The pages are User:Risker/Tango2 and User:Risker/Tango Blocks. Best, Risker (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Noted; I'll take a look at them, and get back to you within a few hours. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Steelbeard
Can you reveiw the discussion at User talk:Lar... particularily the information at the bottom where I sum it upnext to a bullet point. Steelbeard willonly implemet your compromise when I force him to... otherwise... he just simply deletes cited data and hopes nobody notices.--Dr who1975 (talk) 04:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd second the request that you give this a look, it seems to have come up on WP:AN as well as some other places. I'm trying but your insight surely would be helpful as well. I think both editors agree with the compromise, but seem to be contending over how exactly it should be implemented in certain specific cases. ++Lar: t/c 18:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied here. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 01:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Who missed the point I already told him about that most of the citations in question had become dead links so I couldn't verify the information before inserting the names in the body of the article in question. Bullet points are only for declared candidates and never for "potential" or "declined" persons who were never candidates to begin with. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That is why we are going to explore it in more detail this time. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Steelbeard1 is lieing. That specfic scenario occured with 1 name (Ben Nevers) and it was after the discussion above started.. once Steelbeard explained to me that the link in question was both dead and could never have supported the speculatrion to begin with I agreed (and youcansee this on his talk page).--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I have lost all respect for Dr. Who. See Talk:United States Senate election in Mississippi, 2008. After I posted a new comment in that talk page concerning a proposed merger after Journalist1983 did exactly the same thing, Dr. Who complained about my new posting but not Journalist1983's new posting. He's Jewish, I'm Jewish. Dr. Who and I have become bitter enemies it seems. Dr. Who is the obvious antagonist because of his pigheadedness concerning putting noncandidates in bulleted candidates' lists despite consensus which developed in the MS special election race. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You need to work together; part of that is being kind to the other person when they have made a mistake. This time around we will develop a guideline so that you both have some clear guidance on what is expected regarding mentioning candidates, and also so you can see how we resolve issue like this. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:American zoologist 41 6.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:American zoologist 41 6.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --10:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Sometimes having a few thousand pages watchlisted comes in handy. -- Avi (talk) 12:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Requests_for_bureaucratship/Avraham_2
Regarding this edit, it seemed to mess the numbered items following yours up. I reversed the order of the ":" and "#" which seemed to sort it but if that removing your numbered oppose was not your intent please feel free to revert me. Best. ++Lar: t/c 01:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC) PS: thanks for starting that discussion. I won't opine myself, in case they want me to keep trying to mediate but it was helpful!


 * Thank you; and yes, I posted on your talk only so you could follow where the discussion had been taken. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Probation notice
Now that the case is closed, we need to remove the 1RR Probation notices from all pages, and add a new template to alert editors of the arbCom probation. I created this page that can be transcluded in all related article's talk pages: Talk:Prem Rawat/probation notice. If you need any help with these janitorial tasks, just let me know. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for drafting it; I'll be up to that shortly. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * John, I notice that the decision isn't included in Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested. Is that page no longer active, or did I misread the decision? I see many other article probation cases listed there. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I had assumed that WP:SANCTION had replaced this page, but it appears to still be in use, so I have added this case. Thanks for the heads up. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's confusing. I also see there's a standard probation template, template:article probation, and a special category, Category: Articles on probation. Would there be value in using those rather than a custom template created by a party to the case?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The standard template isnt a drop in solution as it doesnt mention the specific set of related articles. I reviewed jossi's draft, and it was more suitable.  The template was substituted when it was applied to the talk pages, so I dont much mind who wrote it providing it is worded correctly.  Can you see an issue with the wording? John Vandenberg (chat) 07:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As a practical matter the most important difference is that the generic template includes the probation category. Frankly, I'm not sure what purpose that category really serves, but if it's used for other article probations it seems reasonable to use it for these articles too. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Rfb participation thanks
Hello, John.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. I especially wanted to thank you for our many conversations regarding issues that concern us both, and while on some minor points we may have disagreements, I believe we concur on the major issues. I also wanted to thank you for your kind words in your neutral statement. I hope our paths cross much more often in the future! Thank you again! -- Avi (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

New template
You may wish to add User admin Wikisource to your user page.--Poetlister (talk) 12:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Lovely. I've done that.  There should be a category for us . . . so Wikipedians know who to call on before they transwiki crap across to Wikisource ;-) John Vandenberg (chat) 12:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you like one created? :) -- Avi (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. 23:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Harrassment by a Wiki Editor
Hi There! I have wandered for hours here at Wiki trying to understand how to get help for a so-called editing war. I am told to 'contact' a neutral editor but there are no forms, no lists, no known way to do this. I am told to delete the pages, but I cannot find out even a delete option for the page! So I am asking you to step in and help me. I created a Wiki page for my grandmother, Suzanne Olsson about a year ago. Before then, she had several unpleasant internet encounters with a man named Paul Smith, whom she avoided at all costs. Smith would show up in forums and be so disruptive he was banned regularly, including the 'Mania' forum and a 'DaVinici Code' Yahoo discussion group (about a month ago). Mr. Smith is clearly identified at Wikipedia by the psuedo-name Wfgh66 which he also uses at various forums and blogs.

Now he has showed up here at Wikipedia going after the same people he regularly stalks around the internet. These include David Barret and Kathleen McGowan among others. He edited Kathleen McGowan's page to include the names of her children, something she said she did not want to make public. He included other information that she said was 'liable' and has just now turned it over to an attorney.

On the page I wrote about my grandmother, he keeps inserting the line "Olsson claims to be a descendent of Jesus Christ.' Then he includes a link to a web site for 'The Refiner's Fire' who is a woman who attacked my grandmother over a year ago. Her article includes statements grandma never made and refuted many times. He also includes other ficticious and misleading lines at the Wiki page I made. This includes a link to a letter to Kathleen McGowan which he claims is "proof" that my grandmother made claims that do not appear anywhere in that letter. An indirect statement from Fida Hassnain is also not a direct statement made by by grandmother. It is an assumption made because of grandma's research in India. When someone was trying to delete Wfgh66 comments, an editing war started. We went frantically looking for a way to report him, or to have the page locked but the instructions were too confusing and we couldn't find a complaint form or a link to continue. Meanwhile, HE REPORTED US (R. TABOR) as vandals and now the page seems locked and we are unable to revert his changes. I don't know what to do now. Please advise me. I made this page and now I am blocked from my own page and can't even delete it or stop him from doing these edits, although I tried several times. Wiki is very confusing and not at all efficient or easy to work with at times like this. Please tell me what I can do? Thank You. Alexis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashmir2 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The undesirable sentence is currently not in the article Suzanne Olsson. Feel free to notify me if someone adds it again. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Kashmir2
Excuse me, I was not "harrassing" or "waging a war" against Kashmir2, I was in the process of including Suzanne Olsson's name in the list of "Claimants" in the Jesus bloodline article, and if you visit that article right now, you will see that Suzanne Olsson's name has been included there by the editor, Loremaster. Suzanne Olsson/Kashmir2 has been disputing the fact that she claimed to be the descendant of Jesus Christ ever since I obtained the URL that proved that she did make such a claim. The only real edit I made to the Suzanne Olsson article was the inclusion relating to this. Here is the URL in question: History of the Des Marets Family of Suzanne Olsson

Thank you, Wfgh66 (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That web page is not sufficient justification to include it in her biography, or on any other article, as it hasnt been published in proper reliable source which has editorial review. You have edit warred to keep it on the article.  If you continue to push for its inclusion in a BLP without reliable sources, then harrassment is an appropriate term for it.  I did not say you have harassed her, as I havent reviewed all of the diffs; I just said that if anyone continued to ignore our policies, they would be banned.  For your sake, I hope the shoe doesnt fit.  If it does fit, be warned -- lots of Wikipedians will be looking at this article until it is deleted. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Also note that if you know the subject in any way, then you also have a COI and shouldnt be editing the article. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * With respect, if you look at the history of the Jesus bloodline article, you will see that another editor has deemed the link as a reliable source, and has included it into the body of the article (that I have recently deleted, in order to avoid people getting the wrong impression about me!}. And it is the category of "Claimants" that is at issue here, not "Suzanne Olsson" the person. If "Steve Rogers" runs a personal website where he claims to be the half-brother of Bill Clinton that is usually regarded as an acceptable source. What has stirred-up this Hornet's Nest is someone who has now apparently revised their past claims about themselves. And does not like seeing what they previously claimed about themselves in the Jesus bloodline article and its inclusion in the article about themself which BTW was self-written and that in itself is against WP Policy, if I am not mistaken. From my perspective, this is all about the "Claimants" category in the Jesus bloodline article and not about Suzanne Olsson. You can check the history from when the "Claimants" category was first introduced in Jesus bloodline. Wfgh66 (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That one person adds a fact first does not mean that others are then able to use it without restraint. WP:BLP applies to all articles - not just the actual biographical article.  I appreciate that you have removed it from Jesus bloodline, and have no qualms with your suggestion that you became involved in this by innocently coming across it via that article.
 * Writing an autobiography, or writing a biography of a relative or acquaintance, is not against policy; it is however not desirable, and people with a COI should restrain themself to only interact with an article on its talk page. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Kathleen McGowan Article
Nor did I make any edits to the Kathleen McGowan article relating to her children or private life. Go check the history of edits relating to the article in question. There's a lot of mud being thrown at me here, so be careful who you choose to believe. Thank you, Wfgh66 (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand and 3RR scrutiny
Please see here for an ANI post about how Betacommand's use of multiple accounts seems to have led to a lack of scrutiny for a 3RR breach. As I've mentioned you there, your comments would be appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 02:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've stopped tracking this issue, only because I dont have time to follow it. Thanks for the heads up; I've replied. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Promotion to full Clerk for the Arbitration Committee
Based on your service to date, the Arbitration Committee has decided to confirm you as a full Clerk for the Committee.

Congratulations.

James F. (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * ooh rah, see the noticeboard too. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 13:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

So continue cleaning
Surely if a lack of evidence is reason for deletion then you'll also remove this which also was not supported by any evidence. It was not discussed and the only evidence seems to be within the original case, but notifications to those participants were refused so they didn't present evidence about the newer situation. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not only am I not clerking that case, .. that case is closed! John Vandenberg (chat) 04:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for Delete of Suzanne Olsson page
Kashmir2 (talk) 06:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)John, and all thank you for deletion of the Suzanne Olsson page. In future we will consider creating new page complete with all proper links and citations. At this time however, we totally support deletion of the page. Thank you hard working Wiki editors who all went to great lengths to help. Alexis (Kashmir2)and Suzanne OlssonKashmir2 (talk) 06:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Eleemosynary
About this user this is a misunderstanding. After communicating with the blocking user User:FT2 here, he informed me that this is not a ban, it is an indefinite block. The user, can under certain conditions, regain all previous abilities. Would you like a link directly to where the blocker has stated this in order to satisfy yourself that this is not a permanent ban? Thanks. Wjhonson (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link to the recent discussion. I have reverted you again as that is a user page, which need only relate to other users the current situation.  If you want to campaign for an unblock, please do it on their talk page or directly via email. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * John are you aware that both those options are unavailable? The talk page has been redirected to the user page, and the user has no email established.  Can you fix the talk page so it's not redirected? Thanks.Wjhonson (talk) 06:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * User talk:Eleemosynary is not protected. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I just went TO the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eleemosynary. When *I* (maybe not you) click EDIT I get the user page edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Eleemosynary&action=edit.  It automatically flips there.  Why? I don't know why.  Maybe you know. Wjhonson (talk) 09:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a redirect; you need to go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eleemosynary&redirect=no in order to avoid the redirect. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the heads up. Although I've been here for years, I've never encountered the ability to block redirect before.Wjhonson (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You do realize that he also tried to "out" SwatJester repeatedly? See is primary IP address page, which is also permanently blocked and has had the offending edits oversighted.  He has also engaged in sockpuppetry and trolling since his permanent block.  Doubtful there is a case for his return.  See edits, history and oversighting here: []79.73.12.169 (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

C68-FM-SV arbitration evidence
I've posted evidence for the C68-FM-SV case. This is the first time I've posted arbitration evidence on-wiki. I'm sorry it's over 1,000 words, and I'm also sorry I made that silly edit last Friday. Newbie mistakes. Good night. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 01:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries. I've had a quick read of your evidence section, and it looks like you have got the hang of it now. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

revert
Hello, I saw that you made a revert, and wanted to ask that you revert this page to the last administrator version of JzG on 7 April 2008. After reading the discussion and archives, JzG's version of 7 april was a consensus of multiple adminstrators to shorten the article, and any changes to the admin consensus should have been discussed on the talk page first. thanks. Colorwave (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * On face value, with only a little looking at the talk archive, I dont see concensus on why these additions needed to be removed. Perhaps you could point me to the relevant discussion? John Vandenberg (chat) 20:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

MIA
I may not be around an Internet terminal over the next three days. If I need to formally announce this somewhere on a case page, please let me know and where. If not, please keep in mind that I might not be responsive to any sudden developments or requests until Tuesday. Thanks. Cla68 (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

recreation of Suzanne Olsson
User:Katchu2 has recreated this (the only contributions of this user in fact). I've put a speedy delete tag on it.--Doug Weller (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Deleted and salted for six weeks. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

John, that unanimous decision included Olsson herself because of negatory changes made to her page by Paul Smith, then insults and inuendos by a select group of editors here. It was you who kept stating if such and such references appeared, you would keep the page, and encouraging us to 'be editors'. We did our best to comply and please you and Gale.

Everything on the new page is in compliance exactly as you asked for. The unanimous vote was for the old page, not the corrected page. Aren't you being unduly harsh and vindictive just because some of us don't happen to like the way some of your editors have spoken to a contributor? Doesn't it raise suspicions that Doug Weller brought this to you? (again) And why six week block? What happens after that? You will all find more reasons? If the submitted page has been corrected and updated now, it will also be acceptable in six weeks, so why bother just to please the same editors that have been antagonistic all along? I would much prefer you help us all get this righted than compounding the wrongs. NewYork10021 (talk) 00:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Katchu2"NewYork10021 (talk) 00:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration case
Could you semi-protect the Evidence page on the C68-FM-SV case? An IP, 207.112.69.210 has twice blanked it, citing "BLP concerns."

Thanks, Dr.  e  X  treme  22:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No. I have told the anon that they will be blocked if the disruption continues. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem sane, so I'll stop. :) Nonetheless, the second sentence in the third paragraph on this page is clear and unambiguous, and you're ignoring it completely.  It doesn't actually say that I must remove such statements, so I was wrong about that.  Maybe someone changed it.  (It says "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.")  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.69.210 (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Crum375's role in the C68-FM-SV arbitration case
I have asked whether Crum375 should be added to the arbitration case here. I have notified Crum375 of my questions. Please respond, in your role as an ArbCom clerk, whether to include him in the case, and if so, how to do it. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 22:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully good for a smile...
One direct result of being named as a party to an Arbitration case, however unofficial and unrecognised it may be (and I for one would like to keep it that way) is that someone so named will be considered ineligible to initiate or support recall of a large number (but not all) of the admins who are in CAT:AOTR ... :) ++Lar: t/c 00:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)