User talk:John Vandenberg/Archive 5

RfAr
I've replied there btw. dorftrottel (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw, and reviewed, but ran out of time to act. I'll get back to it sometime soonish. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No hurry, I suppose, just my usual impatience... :) dorftrottel (talk) 06:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

OTOH, see here. If you still think it's a useful idea, it should be done soon so that any potential response can be evaluated and weigh into the proposed and final decision. dorftrottel (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As one final precaution, I've discussed your suggestion with an arb, and they didnt see a problem. Im just about to head out of the office now; I'll do it in an hour when I get home. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. Good to hear. dorftrottel (talk) 10:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and good idea imo with the dedicated Workshop section. I hope you don't mind my amendment according to my explanation here that comments by the parties regarding the evidence presented against their own behaviour are the most valuable and should be specifically asked for. dorftrottel (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw, and it was good. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot problems
It's patrolling outside article space, and I don't see any connection between the bot's actions and the whitelist. DS (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, the problem with letting it patrol any userspace edits made by the users themselves is that it's marking-as-patrolled userspace spam. This makes me uncomfortable. DS (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The bot no longer autopatrols user/user talk on enWP. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource upload
Hi again, John. I've uploaded a similar document to the one you helped me with some time ago,. I've also uploaded it to Commons. I wrote up a summary on Wikisource here, but am not sure how to match it up with the uploaded file like you did for the other file I uploaded previously (this one: B-23). Can you take a look and tell me what I need to do? Thanks for any help you can provide. Parsecboy (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

ENCA
Dear sir,

could you take of the speed deletion from ENCA.

I believe that ENCA is enough to have an own article in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuleote (talk • contribs) 10:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you believe that, find good quality reliable sources to prove it to the rest of us. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Your second welcome
Thanks for welcoming me here as well! Stratford490 (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your comment and clarification. It is much appreciated. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It occurs to me to ask this question, based on the initial warning that I got from ChrisO here : Am I to understand that the Arbitration committee regarding the Israel-Palestine Conflict area has recently passed some rules allowing administrators more leeway to discipline editors in that area? Is it also my understanding that they are supposed to come out with some report about this any day now? Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Tundrabuggy, the Arbitration Committee has imposed what it calls a "general sanctions" regime on that and a number of other topic areas. See General sanctions. In general, what it means in practice is that administrative action may be triggered sooner and more robustly than might be the case in non-sanctioned topic areas. I'm not aware of any report being produced on it. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, thanks for your comments at my talk page. I have decided to come to you a little early in light of what is happening now at the Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah page. I have tried to stay away and edit other things, and indeed I have done so, though I can't help but look in now and again. It appears that the edit which MZMcBride said demonstrated that I could not productively contribute, ie this one, has held for the last 6 days and has not been substantively changed. The argument has moved on. In light of this & in light of a number of positive unsolicited comments by other editors here, concerning the value of my contributions to this article; and in light this argument by Elonka , who was/is moderating the page, and in light of the new bans placed on other editors, namely ChrisO & Julia1987 [see Administrative notes and section following] -- it seems to me that the sanctions placed on me (3 months for both the article and its Talk page) are uniquely heavy.

Considering that as of tomorrow I would have had a week off from the article itself, I would ask that at least the Talk: be opened to me now as a token of good faith and as a matter of fairness. I would very much appreciate your thoughts. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been following Tundrabuggy's progress, and have been very pleased with what he has accomplished. He has made some excellent contributions to other articles, and based on the improvements at his userpage, is working hard at understanding the culture and improving his communication style.  If you have no objections, Jayvdb, I'd like to see Tundrabuggy resume participation at the Muhammad al-Durrah talkpage, and then if things go smoothly after that, I'll look into allowing him back to editing the article as well. --Elonka 04:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the talk page ban should be lifted. Go for it. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone involved. I will try to not to disappoint you. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the list. I appreciate the opportunity to work on some of those subjects. Tundrabuggy (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Jayvdb, FYI, asked me about lifting his editing restrictions.  I reviewed his contribs, and feel that he's done an excellent job working in other areas and creating some good stubs, just as we advised him to do. So I went ahead and restored his editing privileges, along with a caveat that he continue to try and maintain at least a 50-50 balance between work on the al-Durrah article, and other areas of Wikipedia. If you feel that any further restrictions are recommended, please feel free to modify. Thanks, Elonka 01:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for Semi-Protection From Anons
Hi. I'd like to ask you for semi-protection of two articles, Sheylanli and Minkend, from editing by anons. There are many IP's which teamed up for edit warring on those articles as you have blocked one. They don't give any useful summary for their edits, and the materials they add is inappropriate for the articles. I've observed that they push registered users into edit war and got them blocked on violation of 3 reverts rule. Thank you.  Gülməmməd Talk 07:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have semi-protected one, and full protected the other, both for a duration of two weeks. Hope that helps. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Definitely that will help. Thanks once again.  Gülməmməd Talk 14:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

White listing
Hi there great idea having a bot automatically patrol the elite editors and contributors. I was wondering if you could extend the same courtest to User:EJF who is an active and able contributor. PLease see his contributions and then make a decision cheers  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 13:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have moved the discussion to User talk:JVbot/patrol whitelist. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Rivers
Hi, thanks for all of your past help on the Rivers page. I've only been adding things in patches these past few months because my time has mostly been taken up with university and research for his biography but I have added an 'extensive' bibliography. A little too extensive I fear. Is there any way to create a new page for it? I'm not good with technical stuff :-P Thank you! --Pudupudu (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC) --- Sorry to message again. I copied the list to wikisource, should I delete it from here and what should I write in its place? --Pudupudu (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Moving the list to Wikisource is a good idea. The usual practise is to include on Wikipedia a smaller bibliography, including only the more influential works. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Lrr06.jpg
I've tagged this Image:Lrr06.jpg because it's missing the fair use rationale. I would have added a rationale had the source been somewhere on the image page. Cheers Kevin (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The image was at the URL provided by the article. Sorry, I am at work at present. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've added the boilerplate rationale with your link. Kevin (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Tag on Israelinsider article
Not sure how to deal with this (see my talk page and the history). Running off for a few hours now. Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I already handled it. Tundrabuggy's stub was inappropriately tagged and then deleted within 60 seconds of creation (even though it had sources, an assertion of notability, and was being linked to from multiple other articles).  I have had a word with both the tagger and the deleting admin, and the stub has been restored. --Elonka 17:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I disagree. Please see my comments on Elonka's talk page. I am reverting the nn tag, as it expresses my belief that the site is probably not notable, but gives everyone time to work out the issues without going (yet) to the formal AfD. I believe that AfD is the avenue of last resort, and we aren't to that pont yet, and may not get there at all. But that is yet to be seen. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource and 1911EB template
Can you help? Would like to try and get people to use wikisource in addition to attribution templates when copying in large chunks of PD stuff. Some discussion at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism. Carcharoth (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Before you try to get other people to use Wikisource, I strongly recommend that you try it yourself. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. Were you serious about the "5 hours" thing? My entry into all that plagiarism stuff was because of an ANI thread about someone copying (with minimal rewriting) some botanical website. That turned out to be copyrighted, but the "minimal rewriting" stuff led to accusations of plagiarism, which led me to invite people to this discussion. I'm now looking at User:Magnus Manske/Dictionary of National Biography and wondering if it is worth doing anything with that, or where one would start? Those are actually short enough entries that they would only be the basis of a stub and pretty much worked up and rewritten with only a little bit of effort. More relevant, it would seem, would be the full text of a PD copy of the DNB. Let me see if the wikisource search engine works... Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900. Hmm. That's a lot of redlinks. When (not if!) I register an account (I should already have a SUL "reservation"), where is the best place to go to learn the ropes and ask questions such as where effort is best directed? Carcharoth (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Five hours is a worst case scenario; for you, it should be less than an hour to get up to speed.
 * DNB00 is a freshly minted project, started by a newcomer at that; you should start by creating an EB1911 article in order to stand on the shoulder of giants. I will take the time to assist you once you log onto Wikisource with your SUL account, and poll me on my talk page over there.  Or, come onto  which is a nice quiet environment unlike its wikipedia equivalent.  You might even need to yell a bit in order to attract someones attention. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to let you know that I hadn't forgotten this. It might take me until next week now, but, like Commons, wikisource is one of those projects where I definitely want to get more involved. I would ask you to nag me if I forget, but I really should remember myself as I've been mulling over a few things but without the time to follow them up. Carcharoth (talk) 01:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, as you have seen, I'm well into the crash course. I'd like to thank you for helping me get settled in over there. The discussions at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism rumble on. It turns out that this has been a bone of contention at WT:CITE. The WT:Plagiarism page now has links to those old discussions, which you might like to read, and I've pulled a load of quotes out (inside the collapsed box). Carcharoth (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Electrical Experimenter
Hi, I got a note a few months about about collecting Electrical Experimenters. Sounds exciting. Are they in the public domain now? I don't have any issues, but I have Xerox copies of the Nikola Tesla articles and a few others. DonPMitchell (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied at User_talk:DonPMitchell. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Login
Here are me, I'm user Vatrena ptica. I'm anonymus user, I only add interwikies.--Vatrena ptica (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks for saying hello! John Vandenberg (chat) 16:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource account
Um, I hadn't actually created an account. It seems the SUL software finally got around to kicking me off Wikipedia, and forcing me to log back in again, thus creating the SUL account. Please do forgive me if I seem to be off doing other stuff. I haven't forgotten my promise. Keep updating the section and I'll get there eventually. Carcharoth (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe the software is telling your something. ;-) John Vandenberg (chat) 12:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow
You have some nerve. Discussion of a fundamental change in the way in which the community operates is "clogging up a notice board". I find your dismissal of such concerns to be deeply offensive. Guettarda (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It was not in reply to you. Close case notices on AN usually only attract a few comments, usually to clear up a few things.  As you say, and FT2 has pointed out, this is a fairly radical departure from the normal case, and I fully expect lots of discussion.  I am not trying to prevent it.  I was merely suggesting that the standard practise is to discuss cases on the talk page, and I wanted to make it plain to everyone that was the case.  I'll also go suggest that a VP thread might be useful to look at the broader issues.  Surely you can see that this isnt an administrator-centric discussion, and having a very long discussion about this on the noticeboard where administrative notices are posted will clog it up; i.e. having it there will negatively affect normal administrative operations. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Again - I wasn't the only person disturbed by this major change in policy, so saying "it was not in reply to you" does not lessen its offensiveness. A discussion of a fundamental change in the way that Wikipedia operates doesn't belong in the talk page of an RFAR.  Your suggestion that is does is offensive.  Wikipedia isn't an oligarchy run by the arbcomm, much less the clerks.  Maybe you've missed that.  Guettarda (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I didnt say you were the only person. I didnt dismiss the content of what you or anyone else said.  I am not suggesting it isnt a major change in policy.  I have already posted twice now to try and clarify that I was only suggesting a change of venue.  If you believe it is the right venue, so be it.  It was a suggestion, and I think that is quite plain from the bland language I used.  If people dont like my suggestions, they usually come up with better ones, and everyone is better of for it.  I've clarified what my suggestion is because it seemed to me that you had misinterpreted it, but other that clarifying, I have no interest it pushing the matter.
 * I hope we meet again on a less glum day. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The OM case is clearly controversial, and arbcomm is having a hard time getting its story straight. So far we have FT2s posts, and KL repudiating them, and everyone else conselling patience. However, we also have you adding the case to the list of recently closed cases and putting up a note on ANI   asserting that FT2's postings do indeed reflect the authority of the arbcomm. I would like to know by what signs you know that this is indeed done by the authority of the arbcomm, and whether you are still comfortable to assert that the OM case closure and result does indeed have consent of the arbcomm William M. Connolley (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In case you havent realised, my edits in regard to this case were at the time it was first posted, and way before Kirill or Jimbo posted. I was asked to do some clerking, and I did what was requested, so those edits can be considered to be actions by an arbitrator, which only arbs are expected to overrule.
 * I sure wish they had quickly decided that either the closed case was roughly what they had discussed on the arbcom list, or that the case needed to be opened for further analysis, and overruled me. Either way I would have been pleased as punch; sadly, we are all still waiting for clarification. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

re: court rulings
Hi, Jayvdb. I am still working on some of the things you put up at my talk page and appreciate the opportunity to do it and learn. I am now considering how to go find the rulings that you mentioned re: Enderlin. I found the latest one in French here:. There is an English translation at Augean Stables but I am not sure that qualifies as a proper reliable source.

Not clear exactly what you mean when you say they need to be transcribed and put on wiki source. Would you clarify a little? Thanks. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC) 

Just did this: Copied it verbatim -- took a bit of doing. Hard to know what one is doing with mere high school French. Hope iI did it correctly. It would be great to get a certified translation next! Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Great. You need to create an account on French and English Wikisource, so that everyone knows who to talk to.  This is especially important if you are going to be part of the effort to translate the text to English. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I made both accounts, but now I can't find my English one. Anyway, I just read the English translation and I must say it sounds like it was done by Babelfish on a bad day.  Maybe someone hurried it?  Who and where is it being translated do you know?  Even my high school French might just be of some benefit here. Bon soir.  ;O --Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Your English account is here: s:User:Tundrabuggy, and Karsenty v. Enderlin-France2 was a cleaned up machine translation. By all means, help improve it. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
I reversed out the Orangemarlin case from the arbcom "Completed requests" page, because I think in retrospect we can agree that it was a premature filing. Please check and revert if it's in error. --Jenny 04:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am avoiding taking any further clerk action in this case. I strongly suggest you revert yourself as you are not a clerk, or ask other clerks at WP:AC/CN to review your action. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Mind-meld
See —  Rlevse  •  Talk  • 01:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Some loving on Wikisource
Are your ears burning? s:Talk:Elements of the Differential and Integral Calculus/Chapter XIII. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 14:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks.&mdash;RJH (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

re: the sandbox summary
I've got no probs if folks want to take it and work further with it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Pontic Greek Genocide
I think we have agreement to move the article to Pontic Greek genocide and to replace the lead with one that is acceptable to those who have recently contributed to the talk page. There is no agreement to move it to an alternative name at the moment. As you protected the page I would appreciate it if you would unprotect it, or failing that put in your reasons for continuing the protection in the section Lead on the talk page --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've dropped it down to allow regular editing, however I am a bit confused. You mention here that there is no agreement to rename it, yet you have renamed it.  I don't have time to catchup on the details of the discussion, so instead I'll just cross my fingers and a closer eye on this one for a few days. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Rivers
Hi, I've been working on the Rivers page again to try and get it to be 'Good Article' worthy. At the moment I'm up to 'Beginnings of psychological career' but there's still a lot left to do. If you're still interested, could have a look through what I've done so far and tell me what you think? Although I love researching and writing about him, it does get a bit mind numbing after a while to do it alone.

Also, I fear I have committed some kind of deadly sin in using primary sources (specifically in the 'Early Life' section since I refer to information I found in his Baptismal Certificate etc). Since I have copies of them, should I put them on wikisource or something? Would that help? I have accumulated quite a vast supply of primary information about Rivers- letters, manuscripts and the like- over the past few months and it seems such a shame not to be able to use ANY of them.

Thank you! --Pudupudu (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry I cant put a lot of time into this article at the moment, hence the delay in me responding here.


 * His Baptismal Certificate can be put on Wikisource. If you have an image, upload it onto Wikisource.  It will help reduce the concern re: using primary sources, but it wont entirely solve that problem.  If you make the collection of primary sources available on Wikisource, there is also a better chance that someone will create a second source that mentions the facts therein.  I have done a quick analysis of the images on photobucket at s:Author_talk:W._H._R._Rivers - there are a few details that you will need to provide about a few of them before we can be confident about the copyright status of those. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

--- That's quite alright! I've added another thing to the photobucket account: Rivers's baptismal certificate. The 'clerical error' that Slobodin points out appears on the Birth Register, which is already up. I'll find out the details for the other photos now. --Pudupudu (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Banned editor
Hallo, I see that you added a message to User:Yorkshirian to announce that the editor is banned: could you also add a message to the editor's talk page, as that's where people wanting to communicate will go? Thanks, PamD (talk) 09:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Your block
Hi Jay, I would very much like to unblock Tony. I feel he should not have been blocked in the first place for that comment, especially given that he's a long-term contributor, but he particularly shouldn't have been blocked by Aaron, who's been in conflict with him for ages. As such, I disagree with your decision to take the block over. However, I'm relucant to wheel war, so I would prefer to unblock with your blessing. SlimVirgin talk| edits 03:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "[T]old by many to stfu"? — that's a bit out of step with decorum, especially for a blocklog. El_C 03:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, SV do not have my blessing to undo a short block that is effectively arbcom enforcement. please read the AN thread, participate there, and let someone else do the unblock if consensus develops that way. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Why would I have to allow someone else to do the unblock? SlimVirgin  talk| edits 03:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Because you are too involved. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no involvement with Tony. I haven't even read that case, except during the first few days of it, and it's not on my watchlist. On the other hand, I've several times felt that you've been less than even-handed, as you know from our early e-mail correspondence, though I've not looked at the pages since then, so perhaps that is unfair now. I have to say, though, that this block and your curt responses here haven't alleviated my concerns. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 03:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The block is primarily due to Tonys activity on the case. You are a party in that case.  That is too involved; you have strong opinions in this matter.  If you wish to speak of our private email correspondence  in public, are you also happy for me to publish those emails so that others can see what is being discussed? John Vandenberg (chat) 04:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You see, that is exactly the attitude that worries me. I mention that we've e-mailed, so you have to ask whether they can be published, even though you know that at least one of them might compromise me. In my view, this is exactly how an ArbCom clerk should not behave. It feels as though you're simply playing to an audience.


 * As a compromise, I will forward our e-mail correspondence to the ArbCom. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 04:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would never publish any email without your specific consent for that specific email. I havent reviewed the emails, but if you want to discuss them in public, I pretty sure that I wouldn't mind them being made public.  It was not a threat to do so, but a caution to you.  I object to anyone speaking of private correspondence, especially only in vague references.  If you feel it was important to mention the meat of those emails in this context, why not reiterate here what you wrote in the email.  I run an open book. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I bring to your attention Jpgordon's comment, where he argues this was "an obviously political block" [that] "the chilling effect of a block like this is breathtaking." [...] "That an arbitration clerk blocks for one utterance while ignoring the constant attacks upon Tony is disappointing and could easily be interpreted as a lack of neutrality" — can you comment on that? Many thanks in advance. El_C 04:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I might add to this that you demonstrated your partiality against Tony when you reversed an arbitrator's action on an arbitration page back in May. You need to back away from this; you've already wheel warred, which is not a recommended behavior of an arbitration clerk. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As you will recall, it was on this case, and I welcomed you to override me. As I recall it, you blamed your involvement in that on your cat, or something like that.  If you have lost confidence in my clerking, I will resign. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that is a distressing turn of events. John has been an exemplary clerk. The incident that Jpgordon refers to was caused by Jpgordon not clearly expressing his intentions, and then not answering requests for clarification. A lesser clerk would not have been able to straighten matters out. John, I hope you wait to see what other arbitrators think before you actually resign. You're part of the solution to the mess ArbCom finds itself in, not part of the problem. ++Lar: t/c 05:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Due to the weight of Jpgordon criticisms, I cant be the clerk on that case. I doubt anyone else can either; maybe the arbs will have to do the clerking. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Jpgordon is but one arbitrator among many. I hope that when morning rolls around in the US, his will be the dissenting view, not the majority view. I again say you are part of the solution, not part of the problem, and you should be thanked for your efforts by everyone of good faith who cares about the project. ++Lar: t/c 05:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do wait for the opinions of other arbitrators on the topic of your resigning. I did fully agree with jpgordon on the first matter regarding 'parties to the case' if you recall. You may be expected to recuse from the case, but I am not convinced you need to resign entirely because of 2 actions involving 1 individual and the same troubling still-unresolved case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

John, I know I'm a gadfly who spend most of his life being sand in the gears of this great machine. But I am sorry if my flailings, however well intentioned, have had a negative impact on you or your enjoyment of wikipedia. I value you contributions, even when I disagree with them. Sometime more when I disagree with them. brenneman 05:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * John assured me by e-mail several months ago that if an ArbCom member asked him to stop clerking the case, he would. I hope he keeps his word. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 06:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oddly, I support him stopping clerking when asked, even by a single arbitrator. I've been public about my dissatisfaction with the performance of the committee collectively in recent months.  However, the individual members still have a certain amount of gravitas, even to me.  Clerking is no big deal, and they do serve at the whim of the committee. -  brenneman  06:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully John is just talking about resigning from this case --not in general (I don't have an opinion on whether he should resign from the specific case or not). Frankly this case is a touch more poisonous than most and to a certain extent I understand why a block occurs when a bright line is crossed but nothing is done when needling sarcasms and insults are ongoing. From what I've seen those are pretty much part of any ArbCom case. The fact is there seems to be little anyone can do under the current process to stop it. Sure there are a lot of admins watching, but most are involved. Then there's the committee itself, any premature action on their part leaves them open to accusations of prejudice and partisanship. . .thus leaving the lone case clerk. . .no group defense there but equally open to charges of bias should he or she take control (and that's if they are an admin, which is not always the case). So John, I hope that you're not resigning from clerkship altogether over this case, that would be a shame. R. Baley (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope not also; I have no opinion positive or negative about his work on any other cases, which is exactly how it should be. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 06:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I have resigned clerking entirely, which is what Jpgordon requested above. There is absolutely no way I can continue to be an impartial clerk on this case due to this mess, and I have no desire to be a clerk if any single arbcom does not trust my judgement. No big deal; I have far more important projects to work on. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I was sorry to see the way this seems to have panned out, and would encourage you to keep your own counsel about the best next steps... there sure seems to be something odd in Denmark (as in there's something rotten at play somewhere...) - and you may well be better off taking a step back.. on the other hand - I'd echo some of the above words in that I personally always felt your brand of clerking was strong, and helped.... follow your nose, I'd say... and I hope this hasn't bummed you out at all..... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 10:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC) by the way, I've been quite unbelievably cheeky and fixed your obvious mistake in the last sentence of your previous post... :-)


 * You have some stinking hide to alter my comments!! yes, I will come walk in your garden, but you owe me some wind.  Selah; and, I will be with you shortly. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * sure do! - and fair enough... - you have my sympathies with your wind problem... I'll go do some reading / validating... glad this doesn't seem to be getting to you unduly :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This foolishness isn't really worth resigning over; you shouldn't have offered on the say-so of one arbitrator. Go ahead and recuse from this case (who'd want it anyway), but don't give up altogether. Mackensen (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree with this assessment together with that of Ncmvocalist expressed earlier (I shall endeavour to avoid creating more problems by offering my own commentary :). Orderinchaos 12:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not a matter of giving up or in or even giving head.
 * Jpgordon thinks my block was political, accused me of wheel warring, said he has lost confidence in my clerking & requesting that I resign, and has obviously got a grudge against me (accusing me again of being partial against Tony, despite having put that matter to bed with his puppy (not a cat as I incorrectly recalled above)). I reject every single thing that Jpgordon has said in this case, and consider his participation inappropriate and it exposes a nasty vein which I have no intention of following for fear of opening the mother lode that is under the Omnibus case. I dont think I could be impartial when it came to Jpgordon, or at least I dont think that anyone would trust me to be impartial, so my clerking would be neutered and would end up in disgrace to someone somewhere down the line.  Better that it end now rather than later.
 * My opinion of arbcom is at an all time low, and I definitely dont want to "work" for them while they continue to snipe at each other and the clerks. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's time for arbcom to just go away and be completely remade from scratch. They rushed to desysop Adam C last year for trumped up charges.  They have far worse admin abuse in the current case but choose to ignore it.  They accepted the Giano wheel warring case in record time, but see no problem with Phil unblocking Tony a whopping TWO MINUTES after the block (and no attempt whatsoever at discussion).  I don't really put much stock in an arbiter's opinion of your block right now because right now, they have a conflict of interest in it.  They have demonstrated an either an inability or an unwillingness to consider the evidence of the case, so having the waters muddied as much as possible is in their interest.  Blocking a user for disruption is obviously correct and you made the correct decision.  This case, the Orange Marlin lynching, and the Adam C lynching have demonstrated to me that arbcom is not a solution - it is the problem and it's time for them to go. --B (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the problem is jpgordon, who has clearly shown that he is unable to be impartial about SlimVirgin or Tony. I think it is he who should resign, his behavior towards John has been an utter disgrace. Tony has been intentionally baiting left and right, yet he accuses us of being in the wrong? I just love how he paints Tony as the victim when it is clear that Tony takes up at least %30 of the edits on those talk pages. Shame on him! If arbcom reform is to proceed, people like jpgordon must go! He's a disgrace to this project. John has contributed far more high-quality content then either SlimVirgin or Tony, who are here mostly to play political games, ever will. --Dragon695 (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unhelpful comment. And B - we agree on the block, but that aside, you need to read the Adam C case findings fully before describing a second chance as a "lynching". Separate discussion though, won't pursue it here. FT2 (Talk 18:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Re your last point, of SlimVirgin and Tony's contributions .. comparisons are messy business at the best of times, and in this case I expect that I will be found wanting. I'm still yet to have an Featured anything to my name, and my attempts to write DYKs have mostly failed.  My best contribution to Wikipedia is Accius. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't blame you for quitting, either, JV. (FWIW, I was amazed that you stuck around after the puppy incident.) If the committee are going to lead their clerks such a life as this, leaving them to do their own clerking seems the wiser course. Bishonen | talk 15:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC).


 * I'd rather not have this "quitting" meme grow legs. I gracefully and promptly resigned at the request of a sitting arb, Jpgordon, who is more than probably conflicted, misguided or misled.  That is a meme with wings, and teeth. John Vandenberg (chat) 18:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC) I have restored your note as it was much appreciated; I am sorry that I responded on a tangent without making it clear that I thought your message had hit the mark. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Continuing the general discussion with B and Dragon695, I am leaning to agree with Dragon695 that it isnt arbcom as an institution that is at fault. As I see it, individuals within arbcom are acting up, the lack of unity within the committee is causing the mayhem, and (consequently?) increasing element of the community has been revolting against arbcom.


 * "A house divided can not stand".

However I can certainly see B's reasoning, and am starting to share this enthusiasm for calling for changes to the governance of the project. We need to go further than tweak arbcom. Moving large organisations forward is hard - the most difficult part is not finding the right path forward, but to figure out how to get out of the rut.

In real world circumstances like this, a working group would be established, their recommendations would be developed in private consulting with experts and stakeholders as required, and the board would consider the proposal(s) and make any decisions necessary based on the recommendations, and then put the plan into action. This is a tried and true method of letting everyone progress with only a little speculation about the future, and a well reasoned plan to come out. Obviously this approach would have problems in a wiki community, but I'm even more convinced that that fundamental changes cant be developed "onwiki" in the current climate - there are too many stakeholders would would be constantly ripping all ideas to shreds. The people who would want to think hard about significant changes are also going to draw in people who dislike the people who are working on it.

So, that leaves us with the only two ways of change that have been known to work on Wikipedia: ramming a half baked solution down everyones throats, or the two-steps-forward-and-one-back gradual improvement with a well oiled feedback loop.

Perhaps the arbcom members need to be re-elected every year, given a maximum of two years terms, or .. something (I've only recently lost faith so I am a bit green and need to think a bit before I am going to have good ideas). We have more than enough people who could do the job, and many of them can be found quietly working in their favourite part of the project without any allegiances or grudges. These are the type of people who should be called upon to give unbiased decisions.

Perhaps we need to establish a steering committee; a diverse group of people who are not dealing with the regular and repetitive spats that usually end up at arbcom. A group that is entrusted to deal with structural improvements and decisions.

This is the mad ramblings of a slightly annoyed worker bee after midnight. Disregard or distil at your own risk. There is no safe option. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am deeply sorry to see you parting from the clerk team (hopefully discussable), and in my book you do so head high and reputation unblemished on this specific incident. In addition, I have worked with you a while on various matters, on Wikisource-related content creation and Wikipedia articles which you asked me to have a go at, in 2007, and arbitration related matters in 2008. I have taken advice from you at times, and never found it any but the highest quality and completely trustworthy. I would reassure SlimVirgin that I have never myself yet known John to be other than a highly ethical and non-"political" person. I would be amazed to find that he would act the way you are concerned about. I'd be inclined strongly to read his words as he said them, and not assume he meant what some others might have meant. I would take him as simply meaning "if you wish to discuss me, can we let others see the content so they can see for themselves", which is the plain reading of the text as best I understand it, and I think if you had said "sure, but some things are private" that you would have had an amicable discussion no matter your disagreement.


 * In this case, fair process and avoidance of doubt, not disagreement, led to the unblock, and that's a crucial difference. ("I don't really think Aaron is an appropriate person to issue this block.") . I have seen other times, when an involved admin blocked, and someone unblocked due to process concerns, with a different admin reblocking if it was appropriate in their (independent) judgement. This was unblocking not from disagreement, but to be fair (as the blocking admin might have been involved), and for any uninvolved admin to reinstate if they felt it appropriate. If I am wrong on any particular or there is something I don't know, then I am willing to be corrected as always, but I think I'd like to respect the good done, right now.


 * Mackensen got it right, this isn't worth resigning over, but also I respect the ethic that guides it, and as one arbitrator has expressed a concern, I will not attempt to talk you out of it. My thanks for the good services you have rendered to the community on the RFAR pages, and the hope that this will shortly resolve a better way. FT2 (Talk 18:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words (very much appreciated), and no thanks to "hopefully discussable" - the time for clerking has passed. Over and out. John Vandenberg (chat) 18:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem, in regards to FT2's comments, is that so many people who are obsessed with their POV agenda, wiki-political agenda, or whatever other ambition they may have, assume EVERYONE is doing the same thing. I was accused one time by a particular user related to this case of nominating something for deletion soley because he had created it in "retaliation" for a disagreement (really, the only thing we had ever disagreed over).  Well, the reality is that the page had been created years beforehand, he or she had not edited the page since creating it, and I actually had not even scrolled back through the history to see who created it and didn't one bit care.  But the problem was, this user was inclined to do things like that to push an agenda, so he or she assumed everyone else was too.  Anyone who is pushing an agenda and Tony/Jenny's antics help their agenda is going to automatically assume you are pushing an agenda by blocking him or her.  In reality, you were merely resolving an issue of a disruptive user. --B (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, that's part of the problem (underlying that is, it's human nature for some people to do that, same as it's human nature for some to argue from one's own possibly biased position normally). The thing is to be clear what the "undesirable" here is. It's any behavior, on either side, of any issue, that doesn't help to recognize that disputes over how editors act, are all at heart undesirable distractions. Whilst we sometimes have to deal with problem editors, we do not come here to import our conduct elsewhere that encourages that kind of stuff. Here the ground-rules are different, and one can say "no, that's not what we're here for", not just "everyone does it so what". It is each person's responsibility to help do that, because it's common human nature to tend towards it if one doesn't try deliberately to avoid it.


 * So I agree a number of people are as you say. Some are "wiki-politically", some just have agendas, beliefs, and ways of interpreting and responding to others that don't work well here, and need to learn better. Those who can't learn need help, or need to listen to advice, or ultimately will hit a problem here because their conduct harms the project, and makes the job of others trying to keep the eye on the content development, even harder. The answer to this is not to become political to oppose an existing politick. The answer is to keep focussed on what counts -- the necessary mindset, the reasons why that is important, the things that help, and the things that don't -- not to ourselves get swept up in becoming arguers to fight arguers, dramatists to fight drama, distracters to fight distraction, alliance-builders to fight alliances. That's all falling into the trap we're trying to avoid.


 * What counts is we're here to build content, and everything that is unhelpful, distracts, saps good editors' goodwill or enjoyment, adds tensions, doesn't directly seek to reduce and resolve the inevitable problems, is best to be seen as an evil that we have the least of we can manage with, and we certainly do not add to it. Just like some people can (and some ultimately cannot) manage neutral editing mentally, that's how they are, so some can (and some cannot) manage "working with others" mentally in the way needed, and again that may be just how it is. None the less, it is expected that people will learn it over time, not just figure they can manage without it, and that may simply mean a lot of people (newcomers, admins, established editors, arbs, whoever) on both sides of many perennial alliances and disputes, need to stop and take note that the ground-rules they have followed in the past belonged to a mindset that's gone too far and they must be now choose instead to be responsible for undoing that. Themselves. Personally. By posting with care, asking "will this reduce or increase the wasteful disruptive tensions and disputes I see". When action is needed to deal with a problem, it will inevitably cause some distraction, but keep it simple, this is what's not okay, this is why, explain, warn, or act, and if uninvolved, try to reduce the heat, not expand it. That is how one does it. Nothing is asked more than that each user acts well, themselves, to achieve that. I don't buy "lots of people do it" as an excuse. Each person is responsible for their own conduct, and that's true for all, whether it's conduct, vandalism, POV, or whatever. FT2 (Talk 21:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, Thanks
I may not be high-profile enough to make Tony Sidaway's list, but as one of the minor participants in what Tony refers to as the "troll site" (or "attack forum"), I can't say I was thrilled to find I'd been insulted along with a number of other people when I checked on the case this morning.

Thanks for stepping in and doing the right thing, even if it has caused you a lot of grief. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 21:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for dropping by. Having someone who I dont know say thank you, such as yourself, is worth more than the praise of 10 who I do know. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, although my comment is evidently 1/10th the value of Sxeptomaniac's since we've crossed paths before (I've never been on Wikipedia Review, so not sure where that places me), I want to say how saddened and frustrated I am to read your talk page here. As I saw it, you always conducted yourself with the utmost integrity, and I think the Arbs could have learned a lot from watching you.  Although Jpgordon's statements are horribly unfair (not to mention his priorities completely misplaced), you remained a class act throughout and kept your word.  This is an awful situation, but I think through it all you've earned the respect of nearly everyone watching from the sidelines.  Please don't be discouraged by all this... and as for your "Featured anything" comment, we seem to have some similar editing interests, so if you'd like a hand (or just another editor with your project on the watchlist) do let me know. --JayHenry (talk) 01:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Echoing the above; more thanks for a piece of shit who made the list. —Giggy 12:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

A long ago "Resignation"
I am always sensing some echos and parallels, however weak, in whatever I am reading and on-going events. So here a bit of that non-poem for you. "You've seen your Council? Yes, they'll try to rule, And prize their Reputations. Have you met A grim lay-reader with a taste for coins, And faith in Sin most men withhold from God? He's gone to England.  R-p-n knew his grip. And kicked.  A Council always has its H-pes. They look for nothing from the West but Death Or Bath or Bournemouth.  Here's their ground                                              They fight. Until the Middle Classes take them back, One of ten millions plus a C.S.I., Or drop in harness.  Legion of the Lost? Not altogether.  Earnest, narrow men, But chiefly earnest, and they'll do your work, And end by writing letters to the Times. (Shall I write letters answering H-nt-r—fawn With R-p-n on the Yorkshire grocers?  Ugh!) They have their Reputations."

Think hard about far you really want to follow with the "letters to the Times" now that you've left the "fighting-ground". You'd have your Reputation. But Reputations, good or ill, are only useful for the "ramming a half baked solution down everyones throats" bit. Sense speaks for itself.-- Birgitte SB  02:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

A thanks
For what it's worth, thank you for your block. I think ultimately it was for the good of the project, and I'm sorry you got so much grief for it.

On an project involving so many complexities, i some ways, things are very simple. So simple they harken back to basic issues of fairness, of the sort even the youngest elementary school student has an understanding of. We have rules. There are things you aren't suppposed to say and do. This person broke the rule. If nothing happens to him, and he gets away scot-free, that's not fair. Why should he get to break the rules that all the rest of us have to follow.

For all the complexities of outings, recusals, resignations, and such, it actually is that simple. Thank you, Jayvdb, for upholding that basic, simple principle. I think, ultimately, the project will be a better place for it, and I'm sorry not everyone else saw it that way. --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, John, as always, you have shown yourself to be the better man. - Epousesquecido (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree completely and I think the way jpgordon treated you over this was ridiculous. Thanks for making a sensible block. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 07:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Words of support
--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well said. Daniel (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks to you both, and others who have not shied away from calling this for what it is, and publicly.  It is in the shadows that demons hide. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Although I've expressed disagreement on one action, there is no doubting you do the needful, and certainly did not let others be attacked as claimed - I still haven't forgotten your clerking of the excuse-of-a-proposal by WMC. You were a very valuable clerk. To an extent, I'm disappointed you resigned because I think the loss is felt (or in some cases, will be), but I understand why you did, and I'm glad you left with dignity and respect. Best - Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I only just came across this mess now, but also want to offer my support. What you said about Wikisource here made me feel all fuzzy inside! :-) Suicidalhamster (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Napoleon
Sorry, but it totally does talk about Louis Napoleon, page 75 of the link. It's right there, read it. I'm just glad you didn't revert the page again, that would have been frusterating. Vartan84 (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I agree he needs his own page. I found a picture of him on-line and a bit of info but not a whole lot. Am trying to find more. As you can see I am not too adept with wikipedia wrangling or how it works so I'd be indebted to your assistance. Vartan84 (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Scroll down a couple bios to find him, the one who died 1932

http://www.napoleontrois.fr/site/index.php?Famille-imperiale Vartan84 (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Mischaracterizations at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Rlevse
I am disturbed by a number of statements and mischaracterizations you have made about me at Requests for bureaucratship/Rlevse. I fully understand that you are one of many people who believe Rlevse is qualified to serve as a bureaucrat. Based on my direct experiences, I do not. I appreciate that you seek to rebut what you believe are unfair claims against Rlevse, but in doing so you have made a number of statements that are not in any way supported by the facts, such as twice making claims that I demanded removal of information about Coker's medals and claiming that ArbCom determined that I had a "grudge" against Rlevse, among several other inaccuracies and distortions. I am most particularly disturbed by your characterization, in two separate posts, of my being a "malcontent", which would appear to be in bad faith and a personal attack. You are entitled to disagree with me, and you are far from the only one to do so. I would hope that I can expect the same courtesy from you as has been expected of me. Alansohn (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to ask you to refactor statements you have made at Requests for bureaucratship/Rlevse that appear to be in bad faith and a personal attack, especially the improper and uncivil characterization as a malcontent and a misrepresentation of the Arbcom decision regarding a supposed "grudge". Please feel free to respond here or on my talk page. Alansohn (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I dont think they need to be refactored. I have twice made reasonable comments there about the issue; I've simply been saying how it appears to me.  I do think you have a grudge against Rlevse. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your characterization of me and other editors as "malcontents" is a rather clear violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. While you are free to express how things appear you, your use of repulsive ad hominem attacks in your efforts to defend Rlevse is rather disturbing coming from any editor, let alone an administrator. I will ask you again to correct the malicious attacks and falsehoods by refactoring your statements at Requests for bureaucratship/Rlevse. Alansohn (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I've had days to think about this and the answer is no. I meant what I said, I toned it down a little and clarified it in my reply on the RfB, and I have let you have the last word. I've never been keen on people revising comments; there is no undo button.

More to the point, I do believe you have a grudge against Rlevse, and I think it is quite clear to most people that you do have a grudge. You are repeatedly display chronic dissatisfaction about Rlevse, and the Coker article, and your approach to both has been largely adversarial instead of collegial. I am not saying you are always a malcontent, but in the specific instance I first mentioned on the RfB, the way you requested a source for the DFC was pointy, suggesting that you dont believe it after extensive research, and easily comes across as insinuating that Rlevse has let this false claim reside in the article for 2 years. Removing a medal from an article due to lack of sources should not be rushed, as it is always possible to request military records to confirm these details. I can see where you are coming from, and realise that your request did result in the source being found, but I am very glad that Rlevse obtained the primary records to prove it otherwise things could have turned ugly. BLPs dont like having mention of their medals removed from their articles.

Getting back to the intent of my comment on the RfB, my point was that Rlevse could have stirred the pot and invoked your arbcom ruling to get you to back off a bit. But, Rlevse didnt take that path:- he went away and he some did better research. My initial comment on the RfB was intended to allow unfamiliar people to see another angle of the Rlevse, without specifically targetting you in the process. I think you are getting close to sanctions in this matter, and two admins have blocked you for this already. To recap, I think that your approach on this Coker issue is troubling, and it is only on this isolated issue that my remarks are made. You are escalating this in a strange manner. If it would help, we can initiate a RFC on the Coker COI issue, or a user conduct RFC on yourself, myself or Rlevse. Or maybe we should take it to medcom? Im not really sure where you want to go with this; for my own part, I think it is best to let sleeping dogs lie, and work together more collegial in the future. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please try for a second to view your actions from my perspective. I suggest you re-read your response and try to see your persistent bad faith misinterpretation of my actions. You insist that "the way you requested a source for the DFC was pointy, suggesting that you dont believe it after extensive research". The exact words I used were "I have been able to find sources for most of Coker's decorations. The most notable that I have been unable to find is for his Distinguished Flying Cross. Are there any centralized sources that would have this information or does anyone know of any other source to confirm his recognition?" (this diff). I had tried to go through the article and find sources for many items that had none. I stated what I had found and what I was looking for. I have no idea how I am supposed to have reworded my request to avoid your malicious mischaracterization. It is a rather unfortunate violation of WP:AGF on your part to assume that my request was somehow intended to slap anyone for failing to provide sources. All I wanted to do was to find the source that would have the one thing I was looking for and might support the other medals as well. It surprised me to find several other medals, but not the DFC. All I wanted to do was to find a source in a field in which I admit I know next to nothing. Your statement that I am not "always a malcontent", as you have done here, does not address the rather blatant violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, if anything you persist in the personal attack. All I ask from you is that my actions be accorded the same assumption of good faith that I am repeatedly claimed to be violating. Retracting your statements would go a long way to showing that good faith is an obligation that applies to more than just me. I will be happy to let sleeping dogs lie once you have apologized for your actions. Alansohn (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me summarize the above in a sentence: If I had called you a "malcontent" on three separate occasions, what would the response have been? Alansohn (talk) 02:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've not suggested that the new section "Military decorations" post was a problem. Where I see signs of this grudge coming into play again is two days later, when you "hereby challenge the claim that Coker received a Distinguished Flying Cross".  That level of escalation is very concerning, and your list of possible explanations heavily suggest inappropriate editing by Rlevse, whether you intended it or not.  Please keep in mind that I saw all of the "harassment, trolling, and bad faith" edits which MBisanz blocked you for a month earlier, so it will be hard for me to swallow that you dont have a grudge against Rlevse, and it colors my perception of how you are interacting with him since then.
 * My "he could easily use a recent arbcom ruling to bring the malcontents into line" was primarily indicating what he could have done, rather than suggesting that it was accurate and appropriate. This was poor phrasing as it implies you are a malcontent, and I've not repeated my thoughts in that way.  I apologise for implying you are a malcontent, and explained it was not my intention to tar you with that.
 * With regards to my opinion that you have a grudge, I'm not going to apologise for stating my opinion. I am in "wait and see" mode on the "grudge" issue.  If you want me to accept that your intentions with the Coker military decorations were honorable, I'm willing to do that provided this Coker issue doesnt continue to flare up any time soon.
 * If I am ever blocked for harassing another user, I would go out of my way to restore good will, and be doubly careful not to give them further cause for concern. Easy to say, but I am sure it is more difficult to do.  Good luck with that.  Come back and remind me of this if I am ever blocked; I may need your advice at that time.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 04:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What you see as a "grudge", I see as an effort to address a months-long pattern of abuse of Wikipedia policy. We're each entitled to see it that way. The difference to me, is that I have tried to make specific reference to issues backed by references to guidelines to support my claims; you have focused a bit more on personality than policy, actions that would lead to being blocked were it to come from me. Fortunately, it seems that Rlevse seems to be finally showing some willingness to come to a compromise, as he appears to be putting out feelers on finding acceptable wording to address the issue that began over six months ago. It still astounds me that efforts to prevent me from adding a link to a film -- with an undeniably reliable and verifiable source (see here) -- can lead to so much difficulty, for so long. If a previous editor's effort to add the link had been accepted (this diff), or my attempt to add that link with a source had been retained by Rlevse, imagine all of the problems that could have been avoided by letting sleeping dogs lie. I guess it's all my fault. I think that this is as good a time as any to end this conversation, at least until the day you need a tip or two on dealing with a block for harassing another user. I'll try to help as best as I can to offer the assistance you need in good faith. Alansohn (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

bot problem
JVbot seems to be down. DS (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It was. It is now operating again. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And it's stopped again. DS (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Im not sure why this time. I've kicked it off again. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey John. Thanks for the offer of mentorship (whatever that entails :)). I appreciate your suggestion to put it all in the past and I agree with it, but I first wanted to clarify a few things before getting a closure. If you don't mind of course.

My main question is: "what exactly did I do wrong?". I understand that my edits created an impression of me being an edit-warrior for some admins. But can you actually point to any of my edits this year that were disruptive? As I wrote on my talk page, most of my reverts were single reverts, which is what I thought is recommended by WP:3RR. It never states "Do not revert anything". In fact WP:3RR states: "Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others. If an action really requires reversion, some other editor will probably do it — and that will serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which course of action is preferable". Based on this statement I was (and frankly still am)  under impression that a single revert is editor's way to express his opinion and is in no way disruptive. Even if the revert happens in the middle of an ongoing edit war. Or am I wrong?

Please don't think of this as an attempt to find an excuse. I just seriously cannot find a policy that I violated, especially in such a way as to warrant an indefinite block. Can you? Frankly, I feel very uncomfortable editing anything right now because it feels like a game without rules. Sorry for the rambling. (PaC (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC))


 * As an illustration please look at this sequence of edits, starting from |here. You can follow the long list of reverts until you find my single revert (after which I was accused of meatpuppetry and, the-long-story-short, blocked for "incessant revert-warring"). Most of my reverts this year looked like this (single reverts on top of multiple reverts of others) which is why I have hard time understanding what prompted my indefinite block, especially since the multiple-reverters (usually the same person) I had to deal with, were not even warned. (PaC (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC))
 * Another example - different article. Starting from |here there is a series of reverts followed by my single revert.
 * Here's another example: starting from |here there are 13 reverts by multiple users followed by my single revert.
 * There are more examples like these. Each of these articles has discussion pages where I participated as well... I guess you see my point. (PaC (talk) 01:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC))

Re:explanation
Thanks for the explanation John. Your "friendly fire" metaphor did make me feel better :) I completely agree with your suggestions on what my course of action should be and plan on doing exactly that as time permits. (PaC (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC))

Wizardman
My opinion of Wizardman stems from the debate that took place about the Fort Myers Miracle entries I did.

I wrote an entry for every single player on the team. I'm not all that familiar with Wikipedia, and just started writing these entries. I didn't see what the big deal was. I even wrote an entry for the trainer, Larry Benesse.

Benesse's entry was deleted without any argument from me. He was considered unnoteworthy. OK, fine. Then all the individual players were also listed for deletion.

From this, an interesting debate ensued. Policy, as well as the merits of individual players were discussed. I didn't really participate in the debate all that much. I mostly sat back, and watched.

It seemed to me that we would reach a concession somewhere in the middle. It also seemed to me that the person who deleted all the entries just plain ol' didn't give a damn what anyone thought, and went with his own opinion. Read the debate; I think you will see where I got that impression.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka`
I do not see the need for others to respond to my query. In fact, I think others who respond are being disruptive, interupting an exchanbe between myself and Elonka (the very definition of disruptive). My query is for Elonka; if she does not answer i will ask again - as an admin she has an obligation to respond to questions about pledges she made when she came up for admin. If other editors are disruptive and bury my question with irrelevant talk (since only Elonka can answer the question) I will ask my question again. I fail to see how anyone could speak for Elinka on this where she needs to speak for herself. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for entering into the fray regarding Alastair Haines. I'll have to admit that I'm in way over my head here. Alastair's been one of the very few consistently good editors I've seen here. I actually got onto a page he was on to recover from an endless stream of article hijackings from Lisaliel. You can see her solitary versions of the articles and how radically different they are from the previous consensus versions Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic termsHere is a diff showing the difference between the consensus version and right after she had driven off all the original editors. She used several AfD's to try to trump content disputes in which she was trying to eliminate sources, and in fact she finally eliminated the vast majority of the sources. The version left today is nothing left but a redirect. The Shituf page is the same story. She used a mediation cabal to try to silence me and a Christian editor. The page is still a POV disaster after she took that over. No one is allowed to edit unless they have an Orthodox Jewish POV and use only Orthodox Jewish sources. The current Gender of God fiasco is the same. Yes, Ilkali softened up Alastair, but Lisa is the one who found an easy mark for a new hijacking. Any vulnerable editor will do, as long as she can use Wikilawyering to take over a page and win a victory for Orthodoxy.

But I'm in way over my head. This current action is the result of Lisaliel's trying to hijack a third article as soon as she found a vulnerability. If the Arbcom stays focused on Alastair, then Lisa will be free to hijack more pages and use AfD, Mediation Cabal, and ArbCom wars to trump the natural editing process. And as for edit wars -- it would take weeks to track them all down. This is just the latest one.

I'm open to suggestions. Alastair shouldn't be the latest victim here.Tim (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

more thanks!
you must have been super nice around the place lately :-) - here's another note of thanks! I mentioned this at the current arb request - but thought it was probably worth popping by and saying something directly - I really appreciate your help, advice, and editing efforts over the last month (and further back) - particularly over at my mentoring page, so thanks!

I also enjoyed helping out at wiki source with the wind in the willows (and although it took some time to learn the ropes, I hope my small efforts in the Wind in the Willows project were a net positive!) - and look forward to working with you on aussie related projects before too long... you know having someone on the english arbcom who is both active and highly respected on other wikimedia projects wouldn't be a terrible idea - have you thought about it? (I half expect to hear the door slam, the car start, and the squealing of tyres at this point!) - anywhoo... thanks heaps! best, Privatemusings (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks; it's been enjoyable to scratch your itches while you scratch mine. Wind in the Willows will be featured next month, and you played a valuable part in that.  What is more, it looks like the door at the end of the path might actually be opened by the gods.
 * I've thought about arbcom a few times, last year but instead took on clerking as I was too busy with Wikisource, and once recently when the gods smote the ground I had walked on a few moments earlier, which was a little wake up call. It would not be wise to stand while I'm still waiting for an apology from a sitting arb about that - they dont need more internal unrest to delay proceedings further. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

NLP
Sorry, what was the reason for closing that debate? It's hardly even started. Can we keep it open for a week at least? The proliferation of this nonsense is a serious issue for the project, at least we should be discussing it. Peter Damian (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The proliferation of inappropriate AFDs is also a serious issue for the project. It was the wrong forum.  If you cant work it out a merge on the talk pages, then there is no consensus. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why an inappropriate AFD? I can't think of a more appropriate one.  This is blatant commercial promotion of pseudoscience, and we are not giving it airtime.  If I take it to the talk page of the NLP article, the promoters themselves will simply outnumber anyone with a serious scientific background. Peter Damian (talk) 14:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * These articles didnt arrive yesterday; they have been on the air for a while now. They can stick around for a few more days while you put together a sensible plan on how to condense them down into an appropriate number of notable pages. If you're suggestion is so obvious, I'm sure nobody will mind a quick and productive discussion on the talk page, resulting in the outcome you proclaim is right. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've already pointed out that on the NLP page itself, supporters outnumber opponents by about a hundred to one. No way am I going in there. Peter Damian (talk) 14:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * PS I have a summary here of what happened to the last scientifically-minded editor who tried to sort the mess out. Instructive.  Peter Damian (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There must be some notability in there somewhere if there are so many supporters around the traps. In regards to this, it should have no bearing on the discussion of what happens on Wikipedia.  If you dont want to tackle this, please raise the main article at a noticeboard that is appropriate to investigate any problems you think the article has.  But please, climb down before you do otherwise nobody will take you seriously. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a BIZARRE argument. Of course there are a lot of supporters.  NLP is a huge and lucrative industry and Wikipedia is giving it a lot of free advertising.  Google it and see.   By contrast, the people with academic qualifications such as myself (and a handful of others) are small, and besides we have little incentive to try and bring any objectivity to the debate.  Again, see here for what happened to the last academic who tried.   Speaks volumes.  Peter Damian (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You were not bringing objectivity to Wikipedia by requesting deletion of these pages. There are academics that dislike Intelligent Design as well; should we delete our article on that too, in the pursuit of objectivity?  You were asking for a bit of drama.  You got it.  Protestations to the contrary dont help.  If you want to improve Wikipedia's article about that topic, go for it.  If you dont, then leave it to someone who does. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am happy to provide sourced material that would support the requested deletion. I though the obviously poor quality of the articles I linked to would speak for itself.  Obviously it was not obvious.  Peter Damian (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how sources can support deletion, unless a page is an outright hoax. If you feel that NLP is being presented as too scientific, use your sources to improve the article. Suppressing it will simply mean that no-one can learn about it from a potentially less biased source. Should I look to the Wikipedia NLP article for sensible comment, or should I go along to the series of 'official' NLP seminars shortly to be held here in London? AlexTiefling (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Neuro-linguistic programming is not a poor quality article. It may not be perfect, but there is no way you can convince me it needs to be scraped and started again.
 * As-if (NLP) also holds much potential. Personally I would prefer that we had a more general article on the topic which doesnt focus on NLP as if this is a modern concept.  For example, Philosophie des Als Ob should be found and put on the German Wikisource, and an public domain English translation either identified or created and placed on English Wikisource.  That is a way that you can improve the coverage of this topical area without even touching Wikipedia. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * p.s. the German Wikisource requires pagescans, so they must be found before you bother there; English Wikisource has no similar limitation.
 * That article is a CLASSIC example of how pseudoscience gets smuggled in through the back door. Take some academic work that is obscure (at least to the average Wikipedian) and reference it as though it had some connection to the pseudoscientific subject, and hey presto, you have WP:RS.  So long as no one actually checks back the references, you are home and dry.  And nobody will check the references, this being Wikipedia. Peter Damian (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, Peter Damian is continuing to edit and add to the AfD debate after you closed it. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I am questioning why it was closed at all. J's main reason seems to be that I need a sensible plan - I have one: delete the sub-articles, drastically edit the main one. This should be aired a bit longer, given the egregious nature of the material.  Peter Damian (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 'The egregious nature of the material' is simply your point of view, alone and unsupported. That's not really enough to override the procedures and administrative practices of Wikipedia. WP:POINT applies here. (And an aside to User:Jayvdb - I apologise for my own edit which appeared after the closure; I think I crossed with the closing action - it certainly wasn't intentional.) AlexTiefling (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of people in the scientific community who would support my 'point of view'. See, again here for the fate of the last member of that community to take Wikipedia on.  This is a joke.  Peter Damian (talk) 14:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure your source is notable or reliable. However, you don't need to convince me that NLP is bullshit. I already think so. I strongly disagree with your campaign to delete pages about it from Wikipedia, however. You clearly chose to ignore what I said on the original AfD discussion in order to further your own point of view. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies, but I didn't ignore what you said. You said it is notable bunk (as is the flat earth theory), and I replied, "I don't mind the bunk, e.g. if it is crystals or ghosts, but this is bunk passing itself off as science. I'm not sure how you would keep many of these articles, which are purely there to impart a scientific veneer to NLP, without just deleting all of them. "  That is my own POV, of course, but then so is yours.  On the source I provided, it is pretty reliable, and has much source material that is reliable (see his discussion about use of peer-reviewed sources, e.g.). Peter Damian (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries Alex. It is not a big deal to post after the closure unless you're also in a conflict with the admin, or protesting the closure itself.  But, for the sake of simplicity it is appropriate that the page read by viewers accurately reflects the state at the closure. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Still I don't understand why it was closed so soon. There was sizeable minority for deleting the sub-articles (4 people, including one person I recognise as an expert), so why do you say 'consensus'?  There was no consensus.  Could we seek some other opinions please?  Peter Damian (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * At no time have I said there was consensus; I said nothing of consensus. I said this should be tackled on the talk pages.  You may seek additional opinions at "Deletion review" as to whether my speedy keep was appropriate, or you could initiate a discussion at a "WikiProject" that is relevant.  I'll start looking for the right one now in order to suggest it to you. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Here are three that look suitable places to discuss it:
 * WikiProject Psychology
 * WikiProject Alternative medicine
 * WikiProject Rational Skepticism
 * If none of those are suitable, perhaps you can suggest a better one? John Vandenberg (chat) 15:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK thanks for that, the Rational Scepticism one looks promising. Peter Damian (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Privatemusings
Per discussion at RFAR it looks like this might become a three way mentorship. Privatemusings and I are both active on Skype, which turns out to be a good medium for Wikipedia collaboration. Hope to see you there. :) Best regards,  Durova Charge! 15:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't Skype; it's not for me. I'm pretty sure everyone has my email address already, and I'm happy to accept emails.  We can also plan sessions on IRC if that is suitable with you.  I would prefer that the garden path is the focal point of our discussions. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * E-mail or gmail chat is fine then. I never do IRC.  Best wishes,  Durova Charge! 17:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

NLP: Trying again
Articles for deletion: NLP Modeling
 * Please note, to avoid all misunderstanding, that this AfD is for NLP Modeling, which is one of the NLP subarticles. Peter Damian (talk) 06:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see. I've left a comment on the Afd that I am happy to let this run for a few days, to avoid people calling for a preemptive closure for process reasons. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm done canvassing everyone, and doubt I will have much time to participate. I've no strong feelings one way or the other about this specific article. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies for not following your advice. I was very unclear about the right process for deleting a bunch of articles.  This was used later against me, as you are probably aware, and led to my being blocked.  Now we have other people nominating other sub-articles for discussion and it is getting very messy.  Your solution was probably best.  I was acting hastily because can only work between 6-30 and 7-15 UK time (or sometimes in the evening) due to the likelihood of blocks if I edited elsewhere.  Best Peter Damian (talk) 06:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I replied on your talk, but there is one thing I forgot to mention, and that is on the positive side of things: despite the mess, there has been some positive effect and increased focus on that topical area. I'm guessing that some think that is what you had in mind, which is why they consider it disruption, given it was predictable. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou
Just a little note to say thankyou for participating in my successful RFA candidacy, which passed with 96 supports, 0 opposes, and 1 neutral. I am pleasantly taken aback by the amount of support for me to contribute in an administrative role and look forward to demonstrating that such faith is well placed. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Peace process with FT2
I have offered here an olive branch to FT2. Would you be prepared to help in mediating? Wikipedia has always been about forgiving and second chances (I do know a bit of the culture, I've been here since 2003) - I would like to see Flavius and Headley given a second chance. Peter Damian (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont have time for at least three weeks to take on any major mediating, and I think it would be a good idea for you to disengage from FT2 as much as possible for a while too. I've not seen a lot of people given a second chance after they have been banned, but they usually come back under other names.  Arbcom unbanning people does happen; I was involved in Ehud Lesar, which I think is the most recent one that made it to arbcom, and the Poetlister unban.  It is nice to think we could give those two a second chance too, but it would involve a lot of diff reading to understand if that is possible.  I dont have additional time right now, sorry. John Vandenberg (chat) 18:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent - if you're happy, and FT2 willing, perhaps end of September? I have a number of engagements, in particular a book to finish.  Let me know. Peter Damian (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Privatemusings restriction lifted and placed under mentorship
Per ruling of arbcom, User:Privatemusings' restriction is lifted. Solely for the matter of editing biographies of living persons, is placed under the mentorship of User:Lar, User:Jayvdb,  and User:Durova. If no issues arise, the mentorship will expire after ninety days from acceptance of this motion. See full motion and remedies here: Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 00:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

mentor
I left 2 messages to get feedback on a policy talk page. By chance or mistake, I left one at Privatemusing's page before I saw that that user has had some controversy. Seeing that, I also saw you are a mentor.

Would you be my adopter? I have been editing for over a year but got a bit discouraged about a month after starting after getting bitten by aggressive editors. I am back to normal. I am usually nice to others but most people ignore me. How about being my adopter? I won't cause you any trouble and you can, if you refuse, ignore me like everyone else :) . Spevw (talk) 01:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Accepted! :-) John Vandenberg (chat) 06:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Are we copying the Colby text for easier editing? Spevw (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Justice
I thought for some time about your comment that seeking justice on Wikipedia was the wrong thing to do. Having considered it carefully, I think it is in fact the right thing to do. Peter Damian (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to assist mediate if possible, but as I said above: I cant tackle this for a few weeks. Your end of September suggestion above is a good one, timing wise.  Justice may come from this, if we give it time. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Excelllent, excellent. I have asked Dave Souza to look at the issue of the Flavius block.  Finally, note I have made considerable improvements to the NLP article - actually no objections at all and the discussion has been constructive.  See the article and talk page.  I have asked there be no major work on the introduction, or major pruning, until we can get a larger group together.  Thanks J.  Peter Damian (talk) 06:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've spoken with FT2, and he is agreeable to a end-of-September-ish mediation as well. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that. Regards Peter Damian (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Saul B. Newton
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Saul B. Newton, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Saul_B._Newton. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Question
You might remember me, you might now, however, could you help me with something? I want to start uploading some works to Wikisource from the 18th century. Right now, I have a sandbox type page to put together the material, and I was wondering what information I would need before adding it to Wikisource and the rest without there being a problem. I normally upload material first to Wikipedia so I can quickly use it for any pages here, so I would be taking it from the pedia over. Any hints, suggestions, etc, would be nice. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, just a few things - I can take photographs, but I don't know if I am willing to scan large amounts, of 19th century books, but I am a little more weary about my 18th century books (for obvious reasons). Will digital camera images work? What information would I need to provide with them? Its more of a binding issue. Also, I perform work out of the Library of Congress (which is where I get ahold of many of my images for Wikipedia/Wikicommons), so if there are other things that I can eventually get to, that shouldn't be a major problem if I could photograph them. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I produced the text version of Christopher Smart's translation of Horace. I don't know if there is an edition at Wikisource. I have the edition used and I can both scan this edition or take photographs of it if there isn't a scanned version found online. I would need to know the requirements for scanning and where to send/upload the pictures. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Betacommandgate
I know you were requesting community comments regarding this unblock directly on the AN/I thread, but I am just dropping you a line here because I think the AN/I thread has turned into a Broadway show and I don't want to contribute to that.

Because of the initial confusion regarding the actual editing sanctions of Betacommand, I saw Viridaes block as a good faith action. I also saw your unblock as a good faith action, considering the clarification of sanctions (though ambiguity still exists in my mind). But I do really think that you should have contacted Viridae before any unblocking action (as per the blocking policy) and you didn't do that. But filing a RFC over you own actions would be overkill, and expand the scope of Betacommand gate, where the scope should be as narrow as possible.

But why can't we all just get along. Betacommandgate is wasting so many good ressources, both from the pro-side, the anti-side and Betacommand himself. --Iafrate (talk) 10:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. It came just as I was asking Ryan and Sam Korn to review the unblock :-)
 * I also have no beef with the original Viridae block; the community sanction arguably covers it and the confusion at the time definitely warranted it in light of the BC edit rate. I unblocked as the original confusion had been cleared up for quite a while, many "bad block"s had been said, and Viridae hadnt edited for a while.  If I opened an RFC, it would be on my action alone, which I can see nears the borderline of unacceptable because I didnt first discuss it directly with Viridae. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The original confusion had not been cleared up. He made a bad automated edit, requested reversal, and continued making more-or-less good automated edits.  His community restriction, however, was not against making bad automated edits, but making automated edits, or edits that appeared to be automated.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * or edits that appeared to be automated. bzzzz, wrong. -- Ned Scott 21:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's what it said before you changed it. &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Any community sanction on "edits that appear automated" was not enforced, as demonstrated by him still being on the AWB list and his JS being left in place, and he has been very constructively doing semi-automated edits for a long time now. I and many others oppose the sanction being based on appearances, and would never have endorsed such a wording as it leaves way too much room for interpretation by people unfamiliar with the tools.  He has been firmly told that leaving automations run unattended isnt permitted, and he is acutely aware that bad edits wont be tolerated.  Sadly a few bad edits are likely to happen from time to time, and we should be a bit forgiving. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheers
for being bold here. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am concerned here - the user has an extensive intermittent block log for edit warring, and seems to feel that it's ok if they only do it a little and not all the time.
 * I believe that you did them and the project a disservice by not reviewing the situation more closely and at least letting them know that they need to avoid this behavior in the future, even if you did unblock. A commentless unblock leaves the impression that they can keep getting away with the pattern.
 * The block log, edit history for the last few years worth, and talk page history spoke volumes. Badagnani is a good contributor, but one who is responding to on-wiki conflict with intermittent abusive behavior.  Blocks (short, which stick) and warnings (if left) can help modify that behavior.  Just overturning a block without any warning?  Not helpful...  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I didnt do a commentless unblock; a latter unblock of an autoblock was commentless. The two reverts were both to restore text and references, and the user was trying to discuss the matter with the other user civilly.  I see that as improved behaviour, so this should be reason to encourage the user rather than be heavy handed due to past wrong doings. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Any idea
Do you have any idea what this: User_talk:Arthur_Rubin is about? — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 16:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Although your unblock of User:Betacommand was clearly unjustified, I shouldn't have taken any action other than to note that fact back on the main WP:ANI. &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you think any further apology on my part is appropriate, I'll consider it. &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * \o/ I have a block log.  Thankfully I was either busy over on Wikisource, or asleep, and didnt feel the horrible brunt of it. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

speaking of God-King...
I was thinking of you today and of all of the good work you have done for Wikipedia and especially Wikisource (where you are the God-King). You deserve a big thank you. Chin up! - Epousesquecido (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the warm words to go with my morning coffee, and a bigger thank you for helping make the dream go one step closer to a reality. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

S. P. Udayakumar
Hi, can you please tell if S. P. Udayakumar can be used as RS for the politics related article Sangh Parivar. His book is published by reputed publisher and if he is used as source, he will be attributed. My only confusion is that he is not academic or expert in this field, but he is noted social activist.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 10:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks OK, but I am very light on experience in Indian topics. I think you should be bold, add it, and maybe also attribute it to "writer and social activist S. P. Udayakumar" so anyone reviewing hears alarm bells ringing in their head and pays close attention to the diff/passage. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Serious glitch with patrolbot
I've just discovered that it's not patrolling anything by people who've chosen to leave their userpages as redlinks. Can you fix this? DS (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I can guess what is causing this; should be fixed today sometime. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ... and it appears to have stopped entirely. Has its login expired again? If so, could I suggest that you do a manual logout, say... once a week? DS (talk) 14:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is underway again; that wasnt the problem. It was a hardware fault. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done John Vandenberg (chat) 08:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Jayvdb/Deletion sorting tool
Question on User:Jayvdb/Deletion sorting tool. I've been using this for several months now (THANK YOU for such a handy tool!), and the last couple of days I've been getting "bad status" when I try to run the script. As an example, for Nate & The Bloodhounds the full text of the error is:
 * Nominated article name: Nate & The Bloodhounds: Status
 * Check the article "Nate & The Bloodhounds" exists ...: Status
 * Bad status, bailing out: Error

Doesn't seem to matter if I run it from Articles for deletion/Nate & The Bloodhounds or Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 25

Is this something I've *#&$^#ed up on my end without realizing it, some change in the script, or some mysterious Mediawiki issue? Thanks!-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  17:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've tried it on a few, and it is busted badly. I'll fix and let you know when it is working.  Hopefully today. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I didn't want to sit around waiting for a fix only to find out the problem was on my end. :) -- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  23:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so it's not just me having this problem then. Hope you can get it fixed soon, it's such a great tool. the wub "?!"  14:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done John Vandenberg (chat) 11:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not for me in Firefox 2.0.0.12


 * ''Nominated article name: Informed Consent (website): Status
 * Check the article "Informed Consent (website)" exists ...: Status
 * Bad status, bailing out: Error''


 * Something on my end? TravellingCari  13:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you reloaded your JavaScript? i.e. Shift+Reload button. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's working great for me in FF3.0.1. (I did reload JavaScript first.) Thanks!-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  13:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Took a couple of re-loads and cache refreshing but it now works on my end on my PC. Will check later from the Mac (also firefox). Thanks again for a great tool. TravellingCari  16:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Diff please
Here. The alert was put into place bc the anon reboots his modem to escape admin notice. All of the accounts are SPA attack accounts (and I am the target of these attacks). DreamGuy removed it and posted his usual vitriol, in defiance of his AE restrictions. I am off for the evening, but I will respond to any inquiries (be they in usertalk or via email) in the morning. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  04:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Arcayne has been informed on many occasions on multiple official Wiki forums that having a Dynamic IP is not a violation. Here is the first one - it reads like a Monty Python skit: Here is another:[] Dynamic IP's are simply part of the infrastructure. It's just the way the internet is. I have always, and continue, to claim my edits and abide by the rules and spirit of Wikipedia. I am not comfortable with his multiple attempts at forum shopping in an effort to prod administrators into Official sanctions through back door efforts in hidden unofficial pockets of Wiki. Daily threats and aggressive lobbying against numerous editors by him should be forced out into the light of day. 75.57.160.195 (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt Arcayne is completely unaware of dynamic IPs, but is perhaps assuming two people are one, which is easy to do when they dont log in, and we lean in that direction if there is good reason to do so. A fishing checkuser request is something we all do from time to time; checkusers and clerks have the good sense to remind ppl that it isnt necessary. I'd like to know the nexus of this; I can see this, and this appears to be the latest flare up. Can you give me more. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's an excellent example of why Arcayne should not be making his own presumptions and then acting as an Administrator by requiring other users to wear a Scarlet Letter and walk around with his brand on their chest. A simple glance at Arcayne's personal Police board will show that the first link that you show (to the vandalism) to IP 75.142 is wholly unlike the pattern of all the others. If he feels that the single vandal attack is related to me then he should use official forums. Defending myself 24/7 against his relentless Vigilante Justice attacks and self-appointed Administrator powers to dictate the use of my User and User:Talk pages is getting old.75.57.160.195 (talk) 12:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This edit: sums up my take on this. I've not made any edits to the article itself and am in complete agreement with Arcayne's earlier position for inclusion. One would think we were in an Edit War.75.57.160.195 (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You could always help Wikipedia fight this vandalism and create an account so that your edits dont correlate with this vandal. IPs get tagged; it isnt your talk page; it is there to help Wikipedia. The only case of a IP talk page becoming a user page is User talk:68.39.174.238 which has been static for years.  If you want your own - create an account.  Otherwise, you are choosing to endure this for some reason; a reason that is not primarily beneficial to Wikipedia. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * John, the problem is not that the person doesn't want to create an account - they have already stated in prior RfCs and AN/I's that (s)he specifically chooses not to do so, preferring the "Everyman" of a so-called public account. While it opens the door to the possibility of being grouped with a stray IP vandal who happens to also be making personal attacks.
 * It isn't even a problem of the person being contentious, disputative and disruptive (though the user has been blocked for that in the past under other IP addresses).
 * The crux of the problem is that every single IP that the user edits under since late March/early April have been SPA attack accounts, with me as the focus of a protracted level of intense stalking (up to and including seeking real life information about me - pointedly, my educational credentials) and incivility. The user has brought no less than seven ANI complaints against me, and in each case was told by the majority to take the trolling elsewhere. I have strongly considered seeking the nuclear measure of a range ban, as each new IP that the user starts begins (and usually ends) with an attack or revert of edits I make. I am a grown-up, and can deal with being reverted. But when it comes from a user who continually reverts edits simply because they belong to me implies a person in desperate need of oversight.
 * The problem with instituting the oversight is that the anon user claims they "cannot see their edit history" or talk page (as the anon has on numerous occasions) is thus has a built-in method and excuse for sidestepping blocks and warnings. When (s)he is blocked, they simply restart their modem and continue editing, claiming that they never received the block notice. Also, this block history doesn't follow him/her, as no trace of the previous IPs can be seen in the new IPs logs. When I first brought this up, admins placed - and endorsed - the notation of Southwestern Bell and the previous IPs.
 * The anon doesn't think they should have to "wear a Scarlet Letter and walk around with his brand on their chest". However, Hester Prynne was guilty of adultery, just as Milady de Winter did earn her brand of the Fleurdeliser for her unrepentant bad behavior. The analogy the anon created is apt. (S)He should have to bear the past behavior and edits, just as you and I and everyone else who chooses to edit in Wikipedia. We call it our edit history; the anon tellingly considers it a black mark upon them. It is.
 * The principle guiding Wikipedia is that everyone makes mistakes in their past; the point is that we create something of value that puts that past in the past. We don't move to a new IP and pretend it never happened. We do not stalk an editor who has had us banned on multiple occasions for bad behavior (in fact, we are encouraged to either embrace or avoid them). We are supposed to learn from our mistakes and move on. When the anon does not, (s)he creates an air of arrested development that invites those who are the subject of those protracted attacks to seek protection for themselves - thus my busywork page. Stalking my edits reveals its existence. One would think that with over 2 million articles to edit, the anon could find something - anything - better to do than stalk my edits and seek my blocking.
 * If the anon doesn't wish to create an ID, that is their choice. However, in the absence of logs and an edit history, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that that past is preserved, so as to protect the community from a pattern SPA attacker. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  14:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Untruths, half truths, and exaggerations. As to your most heinous charge that I somehow sought "real life information about me", it was my bringing a formal action against you regarding a violation of the Wikipedia Honesty Policy, specifically it's proscription against misrepresenting ones background. You did both Misrepresent your background AND used it as the basis of an Edit War citing yourself as the support based upon your claimed expertise in the field.


 * here are the specifics: "With respect, I went to Oxford, so i am fairly well aware of Brit English...penultimate being the climax of the story.". Arcayne has made other claims to superior authority in the past, he has also argued forcefully over weeks with numerous editors that the EU is an NGO: "Are you seriously trying to suggest that the EU is not an NGO? ... If you consider me throwing my political science and international relations degrees at you to be derogatory, then I have to say that I am sorry you feel that way. I am not a potted plant; I know the policies of which I speak, ... - Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)"


 * Besides the circumstantial evidence, the fact that his claims are utterly, unfathomably and completely wrong - we have the damning fact that Oxford simply does not offer, and never has, undergraduate degrees in political science and international relations. One would have, if one had matriculated, taken the longstanding and famous PPE (Philosophy, Politics & Economics). But we digress.75.57.160.195 (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have not violated the essay on Honesty, nor any other policy or guideline. Period. If I choose to not give you - or anyone else- specifics regarding my background or education, it is my choice. If I choose to offer my experience, you are supposed to say thank you or ignore it. Attacking it is not a viable option, because it isn't going to be responded to. While I cannot prove that you were the one seeking my transcripts in real life, you have been the only - I repeat, only - contributor harping about/questioning/attacking my education when the request was simultaneously made. Sorry, but science pretty much disproves coincidence. I certainly hope it doesn't occur again, as there will be significant real life repercussions which I will sign off on. They take that sort of thing very seriously. It may have been a mistake by you borne out of youth and inexperience with privacy laws; I am willing to give you that last bit of good faith. Do yourself a huge favor and don't bring it up again.
 * Furthermore, I do not use my degrees as a club in debates; when I bring them up, it is because I am noting a familiarity in a discussion (and never an expertise), and know from whence I speak. That you seem to still bear resentment about discussions carried out almost four months ago after you were explicitly told to let it go pretty much proves my point. Rather than call a spade a WP:SPADE, my busywork page documenting your past behavior pretty much does it better than I could, Your anger at its existence is misplaced; you created the environment you now find yourself in. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  15:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Despicable attempt at manipulation there. Your unsubstantiated McCarthyism is inexcusable. You tell me which Police Station and the Officer handling the formal complaint you state currently exists, anywhere in the world, and I will present myself there in one week or less. I ask only that a neutral Wikipedian accompany me. I've called your BS, put up or cease the reprehensible smear. Your legal threats against me are unacceptable.75.57.160.195 (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Further - As anyone, anywhere, making a request for a transcript would need to fill out a request of some type - we can easily close down the legal investigation of myself as a suspect. If the matter you threaten is civil - please direct me to your counsel in the matter. I wish to resolve this matter immediately.75.57.160.195 (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh. No one said there was a police report, or that you were listed as a suspect; if there were, I wouldn't be telling you about it here; I simply appraised you what will happen should another attempt to obtain my private info, as a paper trail will be created. As you loudly proclaim that the seeker is not you, then you have nothing to worry about and this won't be brought up (at least by me) again. Further claims to attempt to draw me out to directly deal with you in real life aren't going to work. The best advice that I can offer you here is to walk away.
 * Conversely, as you cannot prove that I do not have an Oxford education, I would ask you to stop seeking to poison the well. And having made my last comment to you outside a community ban or block request, perhaps now would be an excellent time for you to recognize that avoiding me is the absolute best path for you now. I desire no contact with you whatsoever. Create no more SPA attack accounts and stop stalking my edits, and go about your life. Crowd me again, and I will seek your immediate and permanent block. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  16:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your threats and lies are disgusting. There are no, and never have been any SPA's. Your claim to having attended Oxford, which you presented in support of content edits to Wikipedia entry's is demonstrably untrue. It has been proven to be untrue. None of the multiple degrees that you claim from Oxford exist, it is a complete fabrication. Your threats and warnings are old. Would it be helpful if I posted diffs showing every threat or warning you've made to another editor over just the last 30 days? Would it illuminate if I included a diff from every editor that rebuked you on civility, bullying and threats?75.57.160.195 (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

To specifically address this comment by Arcayne:  "Conversely, as you cannot prove that I do not have an Oxford education" It has been proven. None of the multiple degree's that you claim from Oxford even exist. It's simply not true. It is a complete and utter fabrication. 75.57.160.195 (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe you missed the above (and the half-dozen times I've said it before): if I choose to represent my PPE and my associate's degrees in a form that folk will understadn here in the US, I will do so. It doesn't make it a fabrication. For someone editing from an anon, you are far too interested about invading my privacy. Why not stop now? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please. You've made multiple erroneous pronouncements of Fact and based them upon your specific degrees from Oxford.
 * You've been proven wrong in your claims as to fact. Many times. Wrong about basic facts within your claimed field of expertise and wrong about your claims of British language and custom.
 * You've been proven wrong in your claimed degree. The degrees are not granted by the institution. No one alive possess any such thing.
 * You cling to the only provable fact - That a University named Oxford exists. Why, if you have lied about everything else and have not shown any expertise in your claimed field, at all, should anyone believe your last unsubstantiated, doubtful and dubious claim? You've used the claim to drive, enter and retain content additions to the Encyclopedia. You've used the claim to belittle and attack other Editors. Your abuse has been proven, the inconsistency's in your fabrications exposed. You may wish to take your own advice and let it be.75.57.160.195 (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Please act more responsibly
Per your aggressive post on my talk page which assumed bad faith and demanded an apology for simply stating what a number of admins had already said about Fat Cigar (very, very, VERY clear meat puppet or sockpuppet of Elonka's), you should take note of Bishonen's post on my talk page explaining the situation to you. For all I know he may have placed it elsewhere as well. Either way you should be aware of it and see just how wrong you were. I won't demand an apology from you (I'll give you more consideration than you gave me), but one would certainly be appropriate. DreamGuy (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And, per the Arcayne/IP address fight above, I'll remove myself from that controversy as I see they have a long history. If you as an outside third party want to put the tag at the top of the article then you certainly can, but I think you can see that Arcayne's methods of conflict resolution is to make extremely bullying tactics to try to paint a picture of wrongdoing instead of documenting any real problems, which is why I removed it. And this whole Oxford thing is bizarre... Arcayne claims he knows that "penultimate" means "climax" because he got a degree in Oxford...?!!? That's not what penultimate means regardless of if he got some sort of degree anywhere. Man, here I thought he was just trying to find ways to justify his mistakes and aggressively attack anyone who pointed them out on the articles I was editing, but it looks like it's a more widespread problem. DreamGuy (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

And, actually, I think my first responses to this were a little emotional myself. When they were paired with Arcayne's over the top fals4e accusations and hostility some of his bitterness seemed to bleed over into your words. Bottom line is that you started out assuming I was being uncivil and then later asked if a community of editors had come to that conclusion and if not then I should apologize... All I need to do is point out that a community of editors (including a number of admins) have agreed that Fat Cigar is a meat puppet (or some sort of puppet anyway, I'm thinking meat, others say sock), so once you know of it you also know that I don't need to apologize. Still, the original idea that it was uncivil is uncivil in itself and inaccurate, as we are allowed to point out such situations, especially when they are essential to the understanding of a situation under discussion. My apologies for lumping you in too closely with Arcayne. DreamGuy (talk)

Question
Hey John. Papa Carlo here. I wonder if you can take a look at the behavior of User 71.112.145.102 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#Ethnic_Cleansing_in_Infobox-2. Am I right in assuming that this, this, and this constitute personal attacks, and in your opinion what should I do in cases like this? I really don't want to have these insults (based on a false accusation of sockpuppetry, if you remember) thrown in my face any time I meet a troll in Wikipedia. Thanks.(PaC (talk) 06:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC))
 * I have warned the anon; sorry it took so long for me to respond. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Michael Baxter
As you were a contributor to this article, and one of the few without obvious COI, I call your attention to the current Deletion Review  of its speedy deletion. DGG (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done How weird that even I have an obvious COI, despite my edit not having one. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Was it really listed there?
I'm watching this page and I missed a deletion discussion even though it was added. Squash Racket (talk) 07:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I was testing some fixes to User:Jayvdb/Deletion sorting tool, and there was one Afd which wasnt delsorted properly.  I think this article was the one. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

patrolbot
JVBot's down again. DS (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I look into it in the morning; about 6 hours from now. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done John Vandenberg (chat) 01:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Heads up
Request for clarification - amendment Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity
Are you an arbitrator?—  Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 04:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Scrutiny
I left some links here if you wanted to expand the page. Not many, but its what I had floating around. I've been meaning to rely on an article by Leavis that mentions Johnson's views on criticism, so I had that sitting around. I'd have to find some books on the history of criticism to give you some real meat. I don't want to edit the page, because I don't know what way you are going with it, and I don't want to take over it. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Fancy seeing you here! ;-) I am done with that article for now, unless some enterprising person decides to list it at Afd.  I start projects and never finish them, or slowly work on them over years like W. Metcalfe and Son.   Feel free to take over and expand at your leisure, as I know it is in good hands!  That said, I've plenty more to surprise you with shortly, so dont waste much time on this one just yet. John Vandenberg (chat) 19:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine by me. I've been in a slump adding content lately because I have been busy irl, and spent most of my free time tracking down copies of sources and waiting to see how the Johnson FAC turns out. I don't want to be busy in the middle of another project and have something major hit at the last moment. 16 supports, 2 opposes, but if some people agree with the opposes it could instantly go downhill. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2200 pages of public domain text that I cant find online anywhere else. I'll lead the charge to clean up the OCR.
 * If there are any other old works you think would be useful to compliment the article, take a look through this list, as I can upload those titles very easily. Enjoy, John Vandenberg (chat) 20:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I expanded Scrutiny to beyond 1,500 characters and put it up for DYK with you as a co-nom. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked at the list and I am impressed that there is so much. I believe that Johnson's Lives of the Poets series would be the best to start with. The simple fact is that these would be important connections with other poets. His edition of Shakespeare would equally be important. By putting these together, I can work on the Wikipedia pages, and start filling out Johnson's views on some of the biography pages, thus expanding a whole chunk of literary theory and early biography. According to Eliot, the best Critics were Sidney, Dryden, Johnson, Coleridge (and then himself). I would add Matthew Arnold to the list. But, once these critics are all put in their places (Johnson probably having the most to say), a large chunk of early critical theory would be present on Wikipedia, which is more than what most encyclopedias can say. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Lives of the Poets is been digitised by Project Gutenberg, which seams mostly accurate. There is some greek in the original; I wonder if that appears in the PG etext. If not, I can have the PG etext updated. There are many editions, and since the Project Gutenberg has the text, I think we should only tackle this task if we can find a very useful and complete edition with pagescans. I have started investigating the archive.org editions at Lives of the Most Eminent English Poets. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 06:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

German article
Hi, Jay, I see where you speak German? (At least I think that's what your language box says) I would like a translation of this article from the German magazine Focus : http://www.a-dura.com/common/attachment.php?d=i2i&a=303405 that I could use here at wiki to reference. Is there some way of doing that at the German-language wiki or how does that work? Thank you, Tundrabuggy (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I dont have sufficient German language proficiency to be able to translate it all. If there are key passages from that article that you want translated, email then to me (copying them here is a copyright violation). John Vandenberg (chat) 22:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Higher Ed Systems
Dear Jayvdb, I saw Higher Ed Systems on your userpage and I started the page. AdjustShift (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A tag has been placed on Higher Ed Systems requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. Please help. AdjustShift (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Higher Ed Systems was deleted. I was about to expand it, and admin User:Jimfbleak deleted it. AdjustShift (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I also nominated Scrutiny (journal) for the "Did you know". Please see the hook:

... that F. R. Leavis founded Scrutiny: A Quarterly Review, a widely-read literary magazine, in 1932 and remained its principal editor until the final issue in 1953?

Do you like the hook? AdjustShift (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've also expanded "Harold Andrew Mason". If you can find any other source and expand the bio, it may also qualify for the "Did you know". AdjustShift (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Higher Ed Systems has been on my todo list for a very long time, as I have a diminishing WP:COI of sorts with that topic. The article you created has been deleted for a host of reasons.  But the deleted revs are still there.  I will attempt to rescue them this week when I have some time.  Thank you.
 * Scrutiny (journal) is already currently at DYK. Perhaps you could go an propose that hook as an alternate hook.
 * Thank you for expanding Harold Andrew Mason; that is fantastic work. I am pressed for time today, but hopefully we can push this one across the DYK line as well. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 02:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * More to come! John Vandenberg (chat) 03:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words. I'll think about WikiProject Academic Journals later. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear John, please help me with Higher Ed Systems. I'm sure Higher Ed Systems is good enough for a Wikipedia article. Today I had some fee time and I was busy with the bio of Louis Réard, the inventor of bikini in 1946. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 09:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You do shift focus quickly! I have restored the article and redirected it to Universities Australia.  Expand the topic initially as a section of UA, or undo my redirect if you are confident that you have sufficient sourcing available to meet WP:N.  I'm not convinced it is possible and/or easy. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think "Higher Ed Services" should remain a redirected it to the Universities Australia article. I'll work on Universities Australia. It's an interesting article. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Behsan
Dear John, Behsan, a new Wikipedia article, is in Arabic. What should be done? Should the article be deleted or translated into English? AdjustShift (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The simplest solution is to mark it for deletion. But, if you are sure that it is not copyright material, it could be
 * copied over to Arabic Wikipedia (this is called "Transwiki")
 * translated if you can find a translator.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 00:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 08:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:MetalStormLimited.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:MetalStormLimited.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 description 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. --FairuseBot (talk) 06:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

philosophical comments
Thank you for your kind unblock. I have intentionally taken a break. A few minutes ago, I left some comments about the big picture of things of the Henry Ford article. This was not to be for or against the disputed image but to try to analyse the situation of what is a permitted image more.

Some philosophical comments for you.

1. Your kind unblock is appreciated.

2. I think it is much more effective a tool to ask or have a user self-impose a block/rest rather than force it on them. Certainly some/many individuals are not capable of that kind of self-restraint. However, if a user is capable of introspection and pausing, then this can be much more effective than placing handcuffs on someone. Handcuffs only make one struggle. Consider a strong request to ask someone to cease editing for a day in certain cases as an alternative to blocking. This is a novel idea but one that may work with very mature and constructive editors.

I have come back after a day with a clearer head than if I were tied up in wiki-chains and forced to have a wiki-sock stuffed in my mouth.

3. While wikilawyering is strongly discouraged, consider a wikilawyer approach when considering matters of blocking and unblocking. It seems you were tricked into thinking the disputed image was a free use image all along. The truth of the matter was that the tag was placed only a hour or so before you saw it. A lawyer would/should carefully examine the evidence and skeptically consider "does the evidence actually support the accusation; how could the accusation actually be false?"

I've seen similar mistakes in logic or incompletely looking at the facts when dealing with sockpuppet accusations. Sockpuppetry is not allowed but often that is used as an excuse. Have the edits really been disruptive or is someone trying to use that excuse? If an editor is articulate and uses good logic, that editor would be the last to need socks.

Thank you again for your kind unblock. 903M (talk) 06:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Multi page revert tool?
Hi, I saw that you reverted all recent edits by the IP vandal aka Pionier. Did you do that one page at a time, or do you have a multi-page revert tool that reverts all of a vandals changes within a given time frame?

If this tool does not exist, its construction should be proposed, to reduce admin efforts. You should have the "upperhand" to revert a vandal with 10% of the effort it takes him to make his changes. In general, is there a thing called ''The Wikipedia Admin ToolBox?" Thanks History2007 (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I loaded each diff, reviewed them all, and then clicked revert on each in succession. I like to be sure of my edits, even when tackling vandalism, as vandals can sometimes be sneaky.  The "upperhand" is that I can block the vandal, and others will re-enforce my block. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but I wish you had to spend less effort. That would have been a 2nd upperhand. I think the key is to make it so effort intensive for them, and almost effortless for you. Some of his previous work still floats around, I will get to clean them little by little. But he does take up time... so we must make them use much more time, and we use less time. Cheers History2007 (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, he came back as: Special:Contributions/83.67.44.70 again, I posted, but he ha snot been blocked... very time intensive.. His changes still persist... History2007 (talk) 05:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That IP has already been blocked for a week. Feel free to leave a note here or email me if he strikes again. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks so much for at least temporarily getting rid of that guy. He's been at me for days under different IPs, but a little rest is always nice. -- Enzuru 09:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just in case you haven't seen this his previous actions are here. -- Enzuru 09:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pinging me. I've just blocked 193.188.117.64/29 for a month, so that one shouldnt annoy you for a while.  I dont often plug myself into AN or ANI.  Feel free to ping me via email if he comes back again, as soon as he comes back, as I'm now familiar with his mo, and I will jump on the ban hammer.  But of course I cant help when I am asleep, but I keep odd hours so it is worth a shot. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys, I appreciate it. -- Enzuru 17:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Goodone121
Hi, this is a follow-on request from ANI 2 days ago. , whom you have warned in relation to his activities on Huntington's disease, continues to disrupt and change the status of that article. I was wondering if you could have a look at this recent changes, and consider a short-term block if deemed appropriate. JFW | T@lk  14:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * User given a final warning. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ping ping
Here we go! -- Enzuru 22:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 31 hours. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Just came here -- Enzuru 22:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Now here, can we just lock these articles for a couple weeks? -- Enzuru 23:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sigh, here. More protecting? -- Enzuru 06:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * After a nice vacation, they're back. -- Enzuru 09:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The fun doesnt stop. :/ I have blocked 64.55.144.50/24 for 72 hours. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Website
Dear Jayvdb, I know some websites are unacceptable on Wikipedia. Is this website acceptable? How can I know which website is acceptable and which is unacceptable? Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The rules are fluid. On an article like Henry Bohlen, a link like that is fine.  On a well developed article like Samuel Johnson, a link like that would be rejected as "unnecessary". John Vandenberg (chat) 01:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 08:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Delsort error?
Maybe just me. It's working from the log with no problem but the delsort tab on the AfD itself just adds a #sign to the end of the AfD URL and doesn't load the menu. If it matters, Firefox 3 on a MacBookPro TravellingCari  01:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I successfully listed Articles for deletion/Purgatório using the delsort tab at the top of the Afd page. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No idea then. I cleared the cache after installing it (I'd taken it out of my monobook while I was trying to work out which played nice with others and determined the culprit). I just tried it in Safari and the tab brought up the menu but then returned: Can not determine article name for "Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/Zele_Ismail", aborting: Error on the mentioned article. Not sure what that is as the article name matches the AfD. Ditto here: Can not determine article name for "Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/Peek_email_device", aborting: Error SO not sure what either of those mean. I keep having to force refresh to get the delsort tab to show on my AfD pages in Safari. TravellingCari  03:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I was able to delsort those two using Windows Firefox 3, so it is a Safari only problem.
 * I made a few fixes recently to improve Safari support, but I didnt finish that. I'm downloading the Windows version of Safari 3.1.2 now and will see if I can quickly make it work. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! No rush whatsoever. I'll test my Firefox issue on Monday when I should have access to a PC and let you know how that goes. TravellingCari  03:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Just got back online. I think the issue I'm finding with the delsort tab vs. in-log delsort is that when I mouse over the tab, the link I get is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Motherload_Metals_%26_Minerals# for the referenced AfD. Is there something I've messed up? TravellingCari 02:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I just tried another, and it worked correctly for me. I've added a reminder to add Safari support (I need to wait until I have access to a Win XP box). Could you please add the following to your monobook.js and tell me what it says when you visit an AFD page.

DelsortConfig = { debugLevel : 1, shortcuts : ['Authors','Lists'] }

John Vandenberg (chat) 04:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Tried, I get the following:

Adding delsort button ...: Debug ul = LI: Debug adding shortcut "Authors": Debug adding shortcut "Lists": Debug done: Debug

and then when I try to delsort on the list I get this which I wasn't going to clutter your tlak with. This is on a PC, Firefox 2. Thanks again for all your help, no worries/rush on Safari. I'll live without it. It's a fun tool but shouldn't be a hasle for you to get it to work for me. TravellingCari 15:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Image problem
Hi John. Could you please help resolve a problem with this image: Image:Khan Nakhichevanski.jpg. I have a better version of this image at commons, but it has the same name. We need to delete the one uploaded here to make the other displayed. Thanks. Regards, Grandmaster (talk) 05:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Done! John Vandenberg (chat) 05:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. Grandmaster (talk) 05:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiport returns
See my most recent ANI thread here. Thanks. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I blocked the user for 24 hours after this. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Third time charm?
See third ANI report on Wikiport here. Thanks for all your work, I know this gets old. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This one has more eyes, and the baiting isnt as bad this time, so I'll let others deal with this. I'll keep an eye on it. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Arellano University Logo.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Arellano University Logo.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) 05:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Article rating
Dear John, I've worked with many Wikipedia articles, but I've some problems. Some articles I started or expanded appeared on the DYK. All of them are "start class" articles. How can I make an article "B-class", "good article" or "featured article"? Let's say, I expanded an article. Can I change it's rating to "B-class"? AdjustShift (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The overarching quality measurement guidelines can be seen at Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment. B-class and A-class are often managed by each wikiproject.  As an example, looking at your newpages, you should look at WikiProject_Cuba/Assessment and WikiProject_Malaysia/Assessment for ‎Nemisio Guillo and ‎Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Malaysia) respectively.  For ‎The Cambridge Quarterly and ‎International Studies Quarterly you would need to come talk to WP:AJ about A and B class rating, and we would tell you that we havent figured out a rating system, so you could write your own rating system. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

my welcome/warning
I regret that on my last edit I was distracted by ringing phones, etc., and forgot to sign my name and fill out the edit summary! It was only an oversight. FYI I am a professional writer and experienced proofreader; mostly I correct poor spelling and punctuation in a wide variety of articles and only occasionally offer corrections of fact. You will be glad to know that I do NOT alter articles by British writers who emply 'whilst,' 'favour,' etc.! Billcito (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Request
I request the following: Wordsworth's Lyrical Ballads 1815 edition, History of a Six Weeks' Tour (which can be found here, and Keats's 1820 Lamia, Isabella, The Eve of St. Agnes, and Other Poems. That should cover most of the current work that I am doing, and I would like to link to them in the same way as I linked to Prometheus Unbound (Shelley). Also, is there someway on Wikisource to have a connection to a page like this with this? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Prometheus_Unbound will be radically overhaulled as soon as s:Index:Prometheus_Unbound_-_Shelley.djvu is nearing completion.
 * s:Index:History of a Six Weeks Tour.djvu is underway.
 * I'll not get to look at the others for a few days. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

After our talk, I had an idea. (lets use Prometheus Unbound as an example): Wikisource page titled "Prometheus Unbound" - have a short summary, have a link to the raw text and then a link to each of the sections listed, then a link to the editions with the sections of the editions listed. Any further editions would go below.

If this makes sense, it would do the following: allow someone to search for a line through the whole text if they want, or allow them to look through multiple editions of the work (if multiple editions are uploaded). Of course, the books would need to be filled out with image and text. I find that this would be best when there are multiple editions of a work, or when a book contains multiple works. The raw text pages should be renamed accordingly. How does any of this sound? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

delsort error
hi Jayvdb,

i'm trying to install delsort using firefox 3.0.3 and when i add the following line...

importScript('User:Quarl/wikipage.js');

i get a message in my error console (and yes i did refresh the cache)...

Error: wikiDoc is undefined Source File: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&title=User%3AQuarl%2Fwikipage.js Line: 229

i tried turning on debug via the delsort config options but that didnt provide any more information (that i could see).

on the delsort page you state that that import is optional but also say that "wikipage.js has been used for the Afd log page feature." what is the "Afd log page feature" ? and is it ok to just go ahead without it?

thanks Mission Fleg (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The AFD log feature is the ability to perform delsorting from a log page, such as Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 14. It will work fine without this feature. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * oh i see, ok, yes i can live without that :) Mission Fleg (talk) 03:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am using Firefox 3.0.3 as well, and have just now delsorted a few Afds, without error. I'll look into this more today. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * ok, no rush, i was just looking around for something else to do yesterday and hit on this as i've started to get involved a bit with afd's. if i get time today i'll start commenting out some of the other stuff i've got installed (eg twinkle) to see if that makes any difference.  btw one other piece of info, i'm not an admin would that make any difference? cheers Mission Fleg (talk) 03:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

new page patrolling after a tag is added
Hi there. I started a discussion on the New Pages Patrol talk page. I has been suggested that your bot might be able to address a problem that I and other users have come across. When some patrollers find a new page that needs tagging (either a speedy delete, PROD, notability tag etc etc), they tag the page, then go back to the new page list. This means that the article isn't patrolled, and someone else then comes back over the article only to find it's already been seen.

Would you bot be able to scan new pages for articles that have a tag on them, and then mark them as patrolled? My limited understanding of your whitelist indicates that this might be possible. If you could reply at the discussion so that others users can see it. Thanks in advance! --Ged UK (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hi Jayvdb, I just wanted to leave a note saying thank you for fixing my faulty links on the RfC/U. Non Curat Lex (talk) 05:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No probs. :-) John Vandenberg (chat) 05:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Kaschenism
I dare ask you, why have you deleted an article Kaschenism and changed it to mere redirect to a hardly relevant article Runet which contains merely nothing about Kashenism? And you've done this without any discussion, as I can see. 30 GGY (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. compare with Padonki, for example, which article is safe and sound. 30 GGY (talk) 11:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I redirected because I thought that the article was not able to be sourced to academic sources at present. I know a little Russian, and did a little searching, but my language skills are very poor, so I have just tagged it as unsourced this time, and I will cross my fingers that someone else can add the sources that I couldnt find. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Noroton
I saw your note at User Talk:Noroton, indicating that you'd like to look into his 3-week block. I'm also a bit concerned about it - Noroton has generally struck me as a solid editor with a good history, though I think he'd been getting overly worked up as of late. It would be a shame to see him get slapped with a long block and leave Wikipedia if things can be de-escalated or handled with a bit more finesse. I don't have the time to adequately review and discuss the situation this weekend, but I thought I'd chime in and see if you were looking into this from the same perspective. Thanks. MastCell Talk 22:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is high on my todo list for today; overnight I received an email reply from Noroton and I hope to turn this around a little. For the moment the best approach is for everyone to cool off/de-escalate/etc. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. I'm glad you're on the case. I'll look in on Monday. MastCell Talk 04:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm interested in knowing how it goes too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Ping!
He's come back a few times, and I'm not sure if you are the one who has been fighting him, but he's here again. -- Enzuru 01:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was tackling it, and will keep doing it, but User:Elonka hit that one for me while I was afk. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Page Move
Hi John. Could you please help to move the List of Azeris back to the original title of List of Azerbaijanis? It was moved without consensus. I explained on talk why the original title was better. Grandmaster (talk) 07:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Fath Ali Khan
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Fath Ali Khan, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.dreamalchemy.com/theghajarz.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

List of missing journals
I saw this on Giano's page (even though I am new here I read Giano's page always with interest). List of missing journals/A-C - you cannot be serious. None of these are mentioned? Americanlinguist (talk) 15:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of them are mentioned on Wikipedia, but we do not have an article about those journal (yet). e.g. Special:WhatLinksHere/Annals of Physics shows that Annals of Physics is mentioned on List of scientific journals in physics. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 23:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have created Nordic Journal of Philosophical Logic, and there are a few others to work on. Note that many of the journals mentioned on that list are not particularly notable, however Americanlinguist (talk) 09:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Notability" for journals is a tough topic which we have discussed often at WT:AJ, with some recent advances in coming to agreement. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Congrats
Congrats on getting the oversight mop! Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  11:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * yes, way cool!  — Rlevse • Talk  • 11:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Congratz! Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Admins on Wikipedia
Dear John,

I was doing some research on Wikipedia admins, and I found that many admins have left Wikipedia. I also found that many admins have reduced their activities after they become admins. Even though we have 1600+ admins, many are inactive. How many admins are active? Do we have any statistics about this? And congrats on getting the oversight mop! Have a nice day! :-) AdjustShift (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There are stats, somewhere, I just am forgetting. Last stats I saw showed about 900-1000 active admins at any one time.  MBisanz  talk 17:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * User:NoSeptember/The NoSeptember Admin Project is the best I have seen.
 * User:NoSeptember/List of Administrators has some useful info, but it doesnt list me, so I wouldnt trust that research ;-)
 * Beyond that, you could build your own by looking using Special:listadmins. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 00:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:LOA groups admins by active, semi-active and inactive. Daniel (talk) 00:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Azerbaijani people
In all fairness, I thought I was only moving it back, as another editor moved the page without consensus. The Scythian 17:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit f---ing mad
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Americanlinguist&diff=248689145&oldid=248256636
 * See my talk Americanlinguist (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It seemed like a good edit...
While it may be Kurdish propaganda, I think this edit was fine, and can just be sourced later -- Enzuru 07:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I reverted because the Encyclopaedia of Islam (the first ref) supports the original statement. I dont have much knowledge to lean back on wrt whether it is correct or not. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Privatemusings
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Requests for comment/Privatemusings. --  MBisanz  talk 01:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy 's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:EVula/Userboxes/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 02:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)