User talk:John Vandenberg/Archive 6

WT:MENTOR follow-up
Following up the RfC, I've started a thread at WT:MENTOR here. I've been perusuing the history of that page, and it is quite interesting. Maybe that page should be used more? It also seems to clearly lay out what the difference is between voluntary and involuntary mentorship. It might also help if people link to that page more often (the RfArb clarification thread failed to link to WP:MENTOR). Carcharoth (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

?
look, in my view your posts concerning me have been escalating things erratically over the last few days, to the point where yesterday you said 'a clear statement would be sufficient for this to be closed down' and today I'm 'mostly a trouble maker in both project and mainspace'. You're aware that I really appreciated the work and time you put in on my mentorship, but I don't think it's fair that you're being so unnecessarily aggressive, and your comments are moving beyond the pale.

I don't know quite what the best thing to happen at the RfC is, but if you'd like to 'have something out' with me, let's get it all out on the table as soon as possible in whatever way you think's best. If you just want nothing to do with me, well that's your prerogative too, but please don't escalate any further - I don't think it's right. Privatemusings (talk) 05:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You have clearly stated that you're intending to drop this particular issue, which is great and should mean that the RFC is seen as having obtained the desired result. Still, I feel that you deserve to know my views.  Whether you like them or not.  I do want happy times again, but if you dont take to heart what is being said on the RFC (by others.. not just me), those happy times wont happen. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ah... cool... well I'm glad to hear how you feel (and appreciate you sharing your thoughts, especially the blunt ones) - maybe it's one of those 'hard to read what's going on behind the text' things that led to me feeling a bit vulnerable or something, or that things were getting a bit out of hand. Maybe there's some sore feelings there on my part too. It is all better out than in, and I'm sure it'll all come out in the wash in due course.... best, Privatemusings (talk) 05:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

George Thurston
Hi Jayvdb,

Just found your wikipedia article. George was my grandfather. Are you a relative? I would love to hear from you. My name is Rosalind McConnel, email ros@mcconnel.net.

Kind regards, Ros —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.157.40 (talk) 14:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I am not a relative. I came across the biography about your grandfather while I was researching a different George Thurston, who was a member of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade.
 * I've emailed you. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

ERM

 * Discussion at User talk:Kenllama
 * I just added to our discussion at User talk:Kenllama Kenllama/ (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Psst...'Pander', not 'panda'.
You just offered him a bear. Half Shadow  03:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It wont be a cuddly koala bear if this lobby group stuff has legs to it!
 * I realised my mistake as I clicked submit; there is no edit button for edit summaries, for good or ill. Glad to see my mistake wasnt missed & thanks for dropping by. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up; I have started Arkansas gubernatorial election, 1983 as I agree that his quick resumption of the Governership is an important aspect of his career. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Danko Georgiev MD
Hello. You removed this section from Elonka's talk page, saying there were no diffs. However Elonka provided the diff of the incident herself in the RfC if you check. It was this incident, where Theresa Knott had to remove the attempted outing. As for the assertion about the after-effects, the person with whom he identified me on-wiki and on various mathematics forums in which I participated, was Alan Weinstein, Chairman of Mathematics at UC Berkeley, whom I know personally. All the information in my post is contained on wikipedia pages. I have sent you a copy of the personal email from his acting Ph.D. supervisor sent on July 25th 2007. On the other hand I don't quite see the point of Elonka quoting a diff where I was outed on WP:AN/I as a sign of my own bad behaviour: Georgiev was blocked for a day by an arbitrator jpgordon and then reblocked indefinitely. Did you look at the block log or Elonka's diff before you wrote your edit summary? Were you suggesting that I was a liar? Mathsci (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am abreast of all of this, and as you know from my emails to you, my concern was quite specific and your comment above does not address it, at least as far as I can see. Please be specific in return; via email if you are going to provide any details which are not suitable for publishing on Wikipedia per WP:BLP.  Two wrongs do not make a right.  John Vandenberg (chat) 04:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi John. Thanks for your emails, which I read after posting the above. If there are any remaining possible BLP problems, please tell me either here or by email. I still have no idea why Elonka used this diff. Mathsci (talk) 05:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing the concern that I raised. Cheers, John Vandenberg (chat) 05:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. Many thanks for your very helpful off-wiki explanations! As it's almost morning here in France, it's time for un grand crème. Best regards, Mathsci (talk) 05:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Tmtoulouse RfC
Hello. I have just filed a user conduct RfC for Tmtoulouse. I'd appreciate it if you could certify it, as you were involved in trying to end the dispute. Thank you. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   06:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont believe sufficient work has been put into resolve the underlying problem, and to understand each other. Since the problem last night, I have been drafting Harry Lee Poe.  I kept an eye on Tmtoulouse's (lack of) contribs for a while after the block, but havent reviewed it since.  I will look at them tomorrow morning, and consider whether there is an ongoing user conduct issue that needs work. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Bot problems
It seems to have missed a whole lot of stuff yesterday. DS (talk) 12:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the problem was. Apologies. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Hello! I am from Croatia. On English, my username is The Lord of Universe.--Gospodar svemira (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice to meet you. I will ask for you help if the Universe is giving me problems! ;-)  Feel free to ask me for help if Wikipedia is giving you problems. Regards, John Vandenberg (chat) 21:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Notification
--Tznkai (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The delsort pop-up from your tool is garbled
Overlapping text makes it unusable. It happened in the last week or so. Pcap ping  09:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears fixed now. Not sure what happened. Pcap ping  11:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fantastic! I love it when bugs disappear as quick as they came. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom Election - Questions page
Good morning. I've posted the list of General Questions to your questions for the candidate page; you already had some individual questions there as well. If you'd prefer a different format, or if you want to sort or move questions around, by all means - feel free. Good luck with your candidacy! UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 13:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Email
You got mail Secret account 01:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Lady C
Nice edit, thanks, but actually Kitty nominated an old obsolete version of the page by mistake. Hohohoho. Giano (talk) 09:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strange mistake, but ... no worries; I'll leave it with you then. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Request
Hi. Here's hoping you're willing to help in my continued obsessive attempts to rid Death of Baby P of sensitive information. this edit used the family surname, and was removed here. Don't know if some oversighting can be done without losing everything else that was added. Ta. GDallimore (Talk) 22:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have oversighted those diffs. The result can be seen here.  The additional now appears in your diff, because as far as the public and admins can see, the "Mayalld" never happened, which means that the text that *you saved* contained a post with a signature by "Mayalld".  If there are lots of intermingled posts between insertion and removal, the resulting misattribution of edits plays a factor in whether I do use oversight.  A recent case involved ~800 diffs between insertion and removal, over many years, so I decided that the collateral damage to the edit history was too great, and so oversight wasnt used.
 * Thanks for letting me know quickly. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This is all very complicated :) GDallimore (Talk) 23:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom questions
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article this week, and your response is requested.


 * 1) What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?
 * 2) Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
 * 3) Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
 * 4) How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year?  Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why?  Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?
 * 5) What is your opinion on confidentiality?  If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case?  Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?
 * 6) Why do you think users should vote for you?
 * 1) How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year?  Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why?  Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?
 * 2) What is your opinion on confidentiality?  If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case?  Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?
 * 3) Why do you think users should vote for you?
 * 1) Why do you think users should vote for you?
 * 1) Why do you think users should vote for you?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press on Tuesday, but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Andre Oboler's BLP query
Hi there, I noticed that you removed a thread from Talk:Jewish Internet Defense Force. There is another thread on that page where someone has raised issues about something alleged about him. I suggestd he went to the BLP board to get an expert opinion. He's gone there but all that's happened is some of the people from the JIDF talk apge have continued the argument over there. I got the impression from your previosu action that you are a BLP expert. Could you maybe help?--Peter cohen (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Is this in regards to the WP:BLPN#How to fix an archived problem? thread?


 * An unrelated issue was taken up with WP:OVERSIGHT, but this User:Oboler aspect may also need similar treatment if he wants complete and utter redaction, revising the public record of conversations been. If so, he needs to email the oversight list, which will permit him to speak more freely without further public disclosure and/or frustration.  From a quick look at the BLPN, it looks like he isnt seeking oversight, but would like to ensure readers of talk discussions dont make assumptions about linkage via facebook, which isnt a RS shouldnt have been used on Wikipedia in the first place.  This should be corrected, even in the archives.  I'll need to look more closely to recommend a specific solution (I am thinking that  in the archives might be appropriate?).  I'll take a closer look at this in a few hours, by which time I should have the first jidf oversight issue off my plate. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. Yes. That's the thread.I'll draw AO's attention to this thread so he knows he's not forgotten. As I posted the material at the root of the current oversight issue, then I would appreciate knwoing what not to do again if you do decide you need to remove my edits. --Peter cohen (talk) 23:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi John, thanks for your time on this. I'd be happy with a solution if you feel that would the least disruptive change that is also sufficient. Perhaps a strikethough can also be applied to the specific statements that amount to false claims? Reading yoru suggestions, I'd imagine a side box would explain (i) this incorrect use of Facebook in WP (ii) the fact that in this instance the information was incorrect as was later clarified (iii) the need to be careful when dealing with BLP, including in discussion on talk pages. Feel free to drop me a message on my talk page or via e-mail if that will help, and thank you again for your time on this. Oboler (talk) 07:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks John, that looks like a good solution and I believe this is now resolved. Thanks for the help. Nice Sesame Street reference as well. :) Oboler (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

JVbot
This sequence should have patrols of ‎Deucalionite and ‎Drilnoth but it appears the bot missed them.  MBisanz  talk 14:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like it is only patrolling the main namespace. Sorry.  I'll try to get this fix within the day. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No rush, I would rather you do ACE stuff right now.  MBisanz  talk 20:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Greek sourcing
You still doing it? Want me to look over anything (was going through old threads). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi again, we have a category for them now on English Wikisource: s:Category:Pages with missing Greek characters. The ones in the "Page:" namespace are accompanied by pagescans; the EB1911 pages usually have a link to the pagescan on the talk page.  Cheers, John Vandenberg (chat) 00:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Virginity
Apologies, the phrase "queer theorists" rather threw me. Abtract (talk) 08:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Reverting a good edit and calling it vandalism is unacceptable. If you have doubts, please raise them on the talk page. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice reply ... I can do no more than apologies mate. Abtract (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Wiki help
My wiki is messed up. Rock Island Public Library. When I click on heading it is not updating. Jacksonbs (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion
Greetings Mr. Vandenberg

I continue to attempt to place this paragraph on the Wikipedia article about the Jehovah's Witnesses translation of the Bible, the New World Translation:

"The Koine ("Common") Greek words "aion" and "aionios" are generally--though not invariably--translated as "system of things" in the Christian Greek Scriptures of the New World Translation. "Aion" and "aionios" are time-related words. One can confirm the meaning of "aion" and "aionios" in Strongs’ Greek Lexicon #165 and #166. "Aion" corresponds to the English word "Eon" (or Age) and "aionios" corresponds to "eternal" "everlasting" or even "age-during" as in Youngs Literal Translation, or "eonian" as in the Concordant Version. One may also confirm this by consulting nearly any modern translation of the New Testament other than the NWT. Examples: Compare Matthew 13:39,40,49,28:20 Ephesians 2:2,7, Galatians 1:4, Hebrews 9:26 of the NWT with the New American Standard Version, the Revised Standard Version, The New Revised Standard Version, The New International Version, The Amplified Bible, New Century Version, the English Standard Version, the New King James Version, The Message, the Concordant Literal New Testament, Youngs' Literal Translation, JN Darbys' translation, the Emphatic Diaglott (Once published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society), the sublinear of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures (Created and published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, but now out of print), or most modern translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures."

This paragraph meets Wikipedia guidelines but continues to be deleted even though I attempt to contact the person doing the deleting. Since the article in question is mainly a sectarian panegyric to said translation, not a proper encyclopedia entry, I conclude my addition is being deleted for sectarian reasons.

I am on a tight writing schedule, currently collaborating with Dr. Eldad Keynan on a book investigating the Talpiot Tomb (the "Lost Tomb of Jesus". Attempting to master the byzantine Wikipedia maze is beyond my time constraints, though I have attempted to navigate it. As for my qualifications I hold a Ph.D. in Comparative Religion from the University of Sedona as well as a Master of Metaphysical Science from the University of Metaphysics. I'm the author of two books, and I'm a retired Buddhist priest of the Hongaku Jodo sect of Shin Buddhism. I signed the roster of those willing to work on this project.

I would appreciate a response. Thank you.

Cordially, Nathaniel J. Merritt SunTempleSeer AT aol DOT com

Nathaniel J. Merritt Ph.D. (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Alas University of Sedona and University of Metaphysics are both redlinks. Who said Wikipedia was almost complete? -- Hoary (talk) 00:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A quick look suggests they probably don't meet inclusion requirements. Oboler (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * And this message was brought by the letter "N"?
 * Maybe not; I do like topics like this.
 * I'm still undecided about associations and institutions like this. See Ulam Quarterly. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There was me, about to ask about the relationship between (a) these universities and (b) mathematics, when I chanced to notice that we're talking here not about mere metaphysics but instead about metaphysical science. Crumbs. Meanwhile, admins can get an eyeful of this. (Sniff. They have such pretty websites too. But if you look around and have at least half a brain that you're willing to use, wouldn't $4,500 buy you a degree from a real university?) -- Hoary (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbVotes
Thanks so much for the note and information; it's past my bedtime, but I'll look into it first thing tomorrow. Best regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 06:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. It was more enjoyable than answering questions :-)  Maybe not more profitable..
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 06:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom vote
I don't see my FM-C68-SV answer as conflicting with my desire for speediness. The issue with speed there wasn't the case, it was the Committee. The Arbitrators lacked the will to solve the case and make the hard decisions we elected them to make, and as such the case languished. That case didn't mean we need simpler cases, it just meant we need smarter arbitrators. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The two cases had similarities, but .. would you merge an Israel-Palestinian dispute with an Azeri-Armenian dispute?
 * The complexity increased by merging them, which in my opinion was always going to cause delays in the case.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 22:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously not with those two cases you mentioned, and now that we know the mistakes of this case I wouldn't do it again. But in my opinion it wasn't the merging the cases, however ill-planned and ill-formed it was, that doomed that case. It was ArbCom's weakness afterwards in taking control of the situation and resolving it that made that case so god-awful. If the ArbCom had the willpower and the chutzpah and the boldness to continue to deal with the case and address the issues, we wouldn't be discussing it right now. But instead, it stagnated and dragged on so long that only Newyorkbrad's return and intervention could resolve it. I hope I can bring his same level of can-do spirit to the Committee should I be elected. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 07:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate you dropping back here to clarify your thoughts.
 * I'm in full agreement that they could have done something useful with the merge, but it was evident that they would not, at least from where I was sitting at the time. (I mentioned this in my answer to the same queston *)
 * I also hope that you, me, or whoever else ends up on the committee, will have the guts to make good and quick decisions. There are so many good candidates this year, but it is so hard to read their minds and understand their vision, so we shall just have to hope that somehow the seven that we select end up making a difference. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Notification of AN discussion
Hi John,

I've raised an issue concerning possible irregularities in the pattern of voting on your ArbCom candidacy on the admins' noticeboard. Please see WP:AN. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks ChrisO. I've been aware of it since the first hour of the election, but not much can be done unless I adopt similar tactics. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I can understand your frustration. However, I think airing this problem is a useful first step to tackle it - it's better to have it out in the open than under the radar. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you Durova. The reason is simple: I voted for those who are likely to take my seat.  See here. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Here here! I second this well-deserved barnstar and applaud your courage and strong sense of ethics. Kafka Liz (talk) 03:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Better than ArbCom
I just wanted to note that after next Thursday, I will be back in full force for a month. I plan on putting quite a bit onto Wikisource, and I will be demanding some of your time. Of course thats way better than sitting on some ArbCom, so you should focus your mind on me and only me. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Great to hear it. I think I need to add a subpage somewhere for all of your requests; they are becoming quite numerous, and they are not the easiest ones to fulfil.
 * p.s. Horace needs you. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I know I know. Milton got shoved onto my plate, but thats just a big weekend thing. End of next week and I will be your slave for just about anything at the source. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You have mail. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

mixup?
In your last comment here, I could be wrong, but I think you meant "as there are open seats" rather than "as there are candidates," no? Or maybe I've just misread. Mackan79 (talk) 10:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom vote
Not sure how much this matters, but as promised, I have re-examined the evidence, and clarified my position on the voting page. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to re-evaluate. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom Vote
As a new user I spend most of my time reading talk pages (user, article and project) and discovered the Arbcom voting discussion through the AN/I board. I only wish I had spent more time editing so I would have the requisite 150 to cast a vote in your favor. Watching some of the trivial and inane back and forth on WP it's easy to develop a cynical outlook. Your fair and quietly stated posts on the voting discussion page is encouraging. Best of luck. Tide rolls (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We spend all this time writing articles and you spend most of your time reading the talk pages!!! cripes. ;-)
 * Thanks for dropping into this talk page. It is always nice to see a new face in the crowd.  There is always next year.  In the meantime, can I tempt you to come and join Wikisource?  It is a "sister" project to Wikipedia, producing digital editions of old public domain books.  For December, we are working on s:Index:Our American Holidays - Christmas.djvu - and it has a talk page too!  John Vandenberg (chat) 16:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well actually you don't spend too much time actually writing article now do you? Abtract (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In the last month I have created nine new pages on Wikipedia, and 23 on Wikisource. There is a never ending torrent of new little articles coming from my quarter.  See User:Jayvdb/New pages for the full list; Rationalist Association of India was my most recent. John Vandenberg (chat) 19:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

My oppose
I hope you know, it wasn't a personal thing. It's (opposing your fellow candidates) probably not something that should bother me, but it really does. If you're appointed, I'm sure you'll do a great job. S. D. D.J.Jameson 20:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I dont mind at all. I dont like it, or agree with it, but can certainly understand it, and know it isnt personal. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you mind my asking what your thought process was in deciding to lay out so many opposes, so quickly? Even though the only one you opposed that I considered supporting was SirFozzie, it just seemed like questionable judgment to me, and left a bad taste in my mouth, you might say. As I've already decided on my slate of seven candidates, I can't see myself switching to support, but I could definitely see myself simply abstaining. I really do like your style, and I think it took some political courage to wade into the whole AA mess, especially if you already knew you would be making an arbcom run at that time. S. D. D.J.Jameson 20:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I voted as if I was not a candidate. For more detail, see ACE08 Q&A#Question_from_Majorly


 * I did not plan on running for arbcom until a week before the I threw my name in the hat, when a few things changed, and even then I wasnt really considering it until I was wide awake at midnight, and started drafting a mission of sorts, realised what it was turning into and around four am I clicked save, and listed it, to the surprise of more than a few close friends, perhaps myself as much as them. The AA stuff is from long ago - you can see here how I got involved and my last three months of contribs - I'll be filling in the period in the middle as well, and finishing my report here because this sudden AA bisso strikes at the heart of our system, which is to determine consensus by fair minds coming together.  Ironically, if I do not end up in arbcom-land where I would be recused from any AA topics, I will be left to my own devices and am more than willing to counter this bias once again. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 21:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have struck my oppose. While I still think it unwise to oppose people with whom you may well be serving shortly, your explanation here, as well as the blatant canvassing being perpetrated by the POV crowd is enough to gain my abstention. Good luck with your candidacy. Best, S. D. D.J.Jameson 21:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, Dean, I would be far more deeply concerned if John withheld his vote in order to gain an advantage in future dealings with ArbCom/fellow members of ArbCom. That would seem a lot more Machiavellian than an open vote through his candidacy ID. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  15:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have had much less a problem with supporting himself and six or seven others, and abstaining on the rest. I really don't like the "%support" method we currently use. I think it should be the candidates who garner the most support throughout the process, which would have removed this problem altogether. S. D. D.J.Jameson 18:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

A day in the life
the beatles article A day in the life is supposed to be symphonic rock since it says so in the article symphonic. but they don't let me put symphonic rock and even blocked me from editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rochabeatlesfan (talk • contribs) 03:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Moral support
I can not vote in arb election. I not have enough edits, but if I could I'd vote for you.  — JoJo • Talk  • 22:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you JoJo! John Vandenberg (chat) 22:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

?
Was this intentional? Or did something get lost in the window there? --JayHenry (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree with your stance on the Bill Clinton article
I do not agree with your stance on removing Belinda Stronach's name from the talk pages. You can see my stance here: Talk:Bill_Clinton User5802 (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've replied there. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Your candidacy
Please note I've posted further questions - if you could answer them within the next couple of days, that'd be great. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I ask that you review your answers to my questions (to ensure that all of them have been addressed). 24 hours from now, I will be reviewing each candidate and preparing final votes. This is a courtesy note to make you aware that I will not look at any further answers or modifications once this time has lapsed. I apologise for an inconvenience caused, and hope that you've been adequately notified. Thank you for your time, Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE
Hi, I think if you look again at Abstract's edit you'll see that it mostly improved the article ("Mr. Nott" is substandard; "wrote" is an improvement over "was the author of"). Wouldn't it have been better to have fixed the syntax and reordered the sections without a wholesale revert (which, again, is deprecated at WP:REVERT). This would have been a more civil approach and would have incrementally improved the article. Even a problematic editor like Abstract can add value to the overall project. Best regards, Buck  ets  ofg 14:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:REVERT is a help page; it is neither guideline, policy or essay. It is a "meta" page which means that it is a general document which is suitable for any wiki.  So I had a look around, and this essay also doesnt tell me that undo/revert are now deprecated.
 * Anyway, if it merely needed improvement, I would have. I love helping newcomers get a grasp of it.  That isnt what this is about.
 * The breakage in MOS, and the breakage of the syntax, make that edit appropriate to revert back to the previous working version. Rolling back is a way of recording in the history that the revision was broken.  Even if I was going to incorporate some of this ideas, I would have reverted and then made the edits again with an e/s that gave a little credit.
 * It was a problem edit, and he is known to make a lot of them. We dont need to encourage him to continue with this practise.  This edit justified a revert, however I did an undo with an explanation.  He is welcome to try again, and he has, and that is good. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

RFAR
Hi John, to clarify: I hadn't offered to mediate (and doubt all parties would consider me suitable for that role even if I were to offer). What I offered to do was to open a request, if both sides were agreeable. Then Risker dropped by, quoting WJBscribe, to express that the prospect of mediation shouldn't be used to gain leverage in a dispute. Since I had already mentioned arbitration as a possibility, Risker's reminder was an appropriate one. Good faith is in short supply at that dispute and I didn't want to appear to coerce anyone into mediation.

Meanwhile one of the parties had accused me of trying to sweep matters under the rug. Then that same party announced an intention to add admin conduct issues to the discussion (regarding the same person I was accused of protecting). I got 80% of the way into a reply at AE--how the board isn't equipped to handle admin conduct, etc.--and then thought better of it. If a person believes I'm partisan, then that would look like giving the run-around. The one way to demonstrate that I wasn't shielding anybody was to open RFAR. The dispute was big enough to merit that, and even though I share your desire to resolve the matter on the community level that just wasn't happening. A fair number of disputes go to arbitration because the waters get so muddy that the community doesn't want to wade near them. Durova Charge! 02:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah... I misunderstood your comment "I'd open a mediation request if the parties are willing?" The mess didnt need to be on AE and I was going to close it, and I think there is even less need for arbitration at the moment, but if the community wants arbitration (which will at least resolve the outstanding SSP/CUs), so be it.  At least it should be a quick case. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes I sure hope the case goes quickly. Best,  Durova Charge! 04:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion
The above-linked ban review has been closed and a motion passed. is unblocked, conditional to the restrictions and mentorship arrangement set out in the motion, available in full at this link. The three mentors assigned are, and yourself.

For the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 10:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
I appreciate you banning the harasser, I don't even know who it is. -- Enzuru 05:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * np. If that is their first edit, I dont want to see their second. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sandy
This is your note that I posted this. Its my version of things and my feelings. I don't claim to be 100% right, so keep that in mind. I don't have much time to focus on the idea, because I am busy trying to hedge off people trying to radically change the make up of DYK without going through proper community consensus first. Le sigh. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. You have captured the "why" part very well. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

the lucky guy

 * Discussion at User_talk:YellowMonkey

Requests for arbitration/Scientology
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbQuote
Thanks for answering my question so quickly. I'm very familiar with Hunter Thompson ( and the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago) - hence my uneasiness regarding the quote. I originally enjoyed his writings, but later came to feel that he was having an overall net effect. But I see you are not American (and we differ in age, I suspect), so I appreciate the inspiration you may have drawn from them.

And you reminded me of one of the big reasons I wanted to vote for you originally - your block of Tony Sidaway/RegenerateThis, standing your ground despite the opinion of a sitting Arbcom member, and your subsequent resignation. I thought you handled the situation with class. You will have an opportunity to use your experience with the underbelly productively, I hope.

I do disagree with your stand on "joke accounts" as I had been on Wikipedia nearly three years (and 55,000 edits) before I recently learned they were allowed and condoned. You might consider some form of allowing joke accounts, since you support them, which would inform the new user of their existence. It is disillusioning to learn of them, after so much heavy emphasis on wrongness of sock puppetry. A new user can can remain clueless to the intricate workings of Wikipedia, and the inexplicable in-group behaviour of entitled editors, as not all editors know about or want to follow the Wiki politics. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 17:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for following up. I'm in my thirties (response to Giggy), so this was all very much before my time and I'm  not into critical analysis of American modern history, so I dont know how much good or bad effect he had.  I do draw inspiration from the fact he tried to have an effect, and that he (ab)use the tools of his trade to try to make a difference.  I also think he understood the unwrapped human nature very well.
 * Thinking a bit more about this, I see my "platform" is a little bit based on "freak power" in that I have proposed things that no fat cat would want, like the removal of access at the end of the term. I hope that unlike HST (Hunter S. Thompson) in the The Battle of Aspen, I will be elected so that I can make the changes that I feel the community is unable to make!  Oddly enough, the fat cats arn't the ones in fierce opposition. (Although I am pretty sure I could write up a HSTesque conspiracy theory about this for giggles!)
 * With regards to joke accounts, fooling around is not my cup of tea so I wouldnt say I "support" them. I wouldnt be concerned at all if they were not permitted.  This is a community decision, and may change over time as the community changes.  (here was my answer)
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 23:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's the ideologue part of Hunter Thompson that I hoped was not the basis of your admiration! But he certainly was exceptionally talented, definitely his own person, and sought to influence using the tools he had according to his beliefs. (Flexible thinking might have been missing though.) I don't know what HST refers to, but change is what is wanted on ArbCom by those of us in the Wikipedia masses. I personally support the removal of access at the end of a term. Your "fierce opposition" seems peculiar to me, rather scattered and founded on questionable issues, like impartiality over AA and the blocking of Armenian users. I think you are flexible in a good way, that you think issues over and are not afraid to have your own opinion, so I do hope you get elected.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 00:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ma fust post tuh yur paige
Hey, I noticed some formatting issues on; and tweaked it. I see a whole year is missing; if you like, I'll rough it in. Idea is any Middle East-Caucasus edit; w/date, diff, nature of edit, plus edit summary? Seems kinda rote. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Jayvdb/Middle East-Caucasus edit history
 * That would be lovely. The most important period that is still missing is March-May 2007. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll take a poke at it; tweak as you see fit. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * ...and you're typing out "cheers" each time? whoa...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * {| style="background-color: transparent;"


 * - style="vertical-align: top;"
 * John:
 * I add a few weeks of March '07. Mostly you were editing programming languages then; trying to make a point? See also. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * - style="vertical-align: top;"
 * Cas:
 * Really; it's not part of the sig. I type the tildes, too. Seez? Jack Merridew 11:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * }


 * Congratulation; you seem to have lost; do you have any idea how much work this is going to be? oh, right, you do. Seems to have been a nice boost at the end. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

RFarb page
As you may have noticed, I have collapsed a few of your comments into boxes so that your statement is nearer to the word limit - please note that I did not want to see any statements removed in entirity from this particular request (re: Haines and re: Abtract). Fortunately, even if you don't appreciate what I've done, when you get time, you may remove the boxes and make your own adjustments to ensure your request/statement is closer to the word limit. :) Apologies for any inconvenience caused, Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Personal thanks
Hi John. Congratulations on your ArbCom candidacy. I don't know if you were following it, but that was a hectic final evening of voting in the ArbCom elections! I wanted to thank you for this vote, and also the kind comments on my questions page. I'm going to post a general note on my talk page thanking those who voted on my candidacy, but I wanted to thank you personally, as you were a fellow candidate. Best wishes. Carcharoth (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the welcome.

I am excited to participate.

I look foward to learning more and sharing what i know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.173.138.244 (talk) 03:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Help needed on Discrimination against atheists
A user is deleting my WP:Original research tags on Discrimination against atheists. Can you please help us settle this out? We both broke 3RR, however he posted a warning on my talk page and then this revert happens. Please check the IP. The user then called me a theist during our debate over WP:Original research and asked me to interpret a Qur'anic verse for him. This seems rather out of line to me. -- Enzuru 03:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The user is now stating that I am lying to myself. Please help as soon as you can. -- Enzuru 03:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm working on it. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have checked the IP, and it is not AzureFury. Neither of you have broken 3RR, as you are both on your third revert.  Obviously, please dont revert again.  With the 3RR aspect out of the way, I will look deeper into the content side of things, and the comments. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, things have calmed down, he said he asked a friend to make that revert (is that okay?). But the OR issue still stands, and his previous comments have been amazingly rude. -- Enzuru 04:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It isnt "ideal" that he asks a friend to do it; that is essentially meatpuppeting, but.. best to let it settle down further, so you can discuss the meat of the dispute a bit better. I'll be chipping in soon. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. While he is starting to source some things, he still seems to deny that taking verses and putting them on Wikipedia is WP:Original research. I don't feel the sourcing will turn out well either. -- Enzuru 04:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to give you an update, while the attacks on me have stopped, me and another user are still trying to prove to Azure that he is breaking WP:original research. I know you're busy, but if you can help in anyway we'd appreciate it. -- Enzuru 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work! Lots of my primary concern is the use of primary sources in the scripture section to prove points, rather than secondary sources proving that's how the verses are interpreted. -- Enzuru 10:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am working my way towards that section ;-) -- John Vandenberg (chat) 11:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * kk, sorry for bugging you so much! -- Enzuru 11:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay; I had asked someone else to look at it a few days ago as I was a bit busy; that didnt happen, so thanks for coming back and bugging me. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the warm wellcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishflowers (talk • contribs) 11:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

OTRS issue, strange one
Hi. Can you help out with a somewhat complicated OTRS matter? If not, can you tell me where I might find somebody who can? I'd be most grateful.

Background: A contributor has added to Charter 08 the full text of a translation of a Chinese manifesto with 300 authors. He reposted an e-mail (subsequently removed for privacy concerns) from the translators granting permission here. The issue was raised to me via e-mail by a contributor who knows that I volunteer frequently at WP:CP and asked me to look to see if the release was sufficient. It isn't, not only because it didn't go through the permissions process, with an OTRS ticket logged, but because it doesn't satisfy GFDL requirements. We may able to get permission from the translator that does.

The complications:
 * 1) Translations are, of course, by US law derivative works, and only the original copyright holders have the right to authorize derivative works. The contributor is uncertain of the copyright status of the original manifesto. (see User talk:Arilang1234 and subsequent section for more.) If the New York Review of Books chooses to grant GFDL rights to their translation, do we move forward under the presumption that they can legally do so? Or do we need to try to track down one of the original authors for permission as well? Should I check with Mike Godwin?
 * 2) Presuming that we do acquire a sufficient release, where do we e-mail it? Contributors to the article have determined at its talk page that wikisource would be the proper place for this, rather than our article here. Does wikisource have its own permissions address analogous to permissions-en, or does permissions-en cover text permissions for all English language Wikimedia projects?

I know you're a sysop on wikisource as well as a member of the OTRS committee, which made you seem the natural person to bug about this. :) Any assistance would be much appreciated. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The people involved should email permissions-en, as that queue is used by all WMF projects. The ticket might get shunted to me or another person familiar with Wikisource, but a number of the OTRS volunteers know what they are doing with these types of tickets.  If New York Review of Books asserts that they are the copyright holder, and they release it under GFDL, we would assume that their legal team knows what they are doing.  In regards to the original, it is the type of document we put under the PD-manifesto license, which assumes that the original creators deliberately intended for it to be autonomously & widely distributed; i.e. the authors have disclaimed the benefits of copyright by the means in which they released it.  An opinion from Mike Godwin would be lovely, either about "PD-manifesto" or this specific work.  I love being bugged about this sort of issue ;-) John Vandenberg (chat) 22:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. :D We'll get on trying to get GFDL-adequate permission from the New York Review of Books. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Just an update to let you know that I wrote Mike to ask for his feedback and invited him if he has feedback to offer to either reply here or through my e-mail. If he replies to my e-mail, I'll most definitely let you know. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Very swift response from Mike! He says that the public domain manifesto assumption is unlikely to be risky. If the translator will do GFDL or equivalent, we should go for it. (paraphrasing, obviously.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Great news! Wikisource also accepts CC licensed texts, so CC-BY is the least restrictive license accepted by Wikisource.  Of course, PD-release would be even better, but most translators like to lock in attribution, and it also encourages copies to link back to Wikisource. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have a minute at some point to offer feedback, I've drafted a note that the contributor can use to request permission from the publisher here. (I'm going to be traveling, or I'd write her myself.) Since I've never done a wikisource permission request, I'd be grateful for your eyes. I know matters can get complicated when a permission letter lands at the Communication Committee that doesn't quite meet our guidelines, and I prefer to keep the fuss and bother for people granting permission to a minimum. :) If you get a chance to look and see anything that needs improvement, please improve. I've asked the contributor for the url of the original publication. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added information to your letter about PD and CC licenses, but understand that going down the "so many options" path can cause more problems than it fixes, so feel free to drop this or trim it down. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I noticed this all of three day late. Very observant, me. :) Thanks for your help. Let's hope that they feel like sharing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Testifying in Court.
Regarding your recent edit to Discrimination against atheists, the reason I added that section originally was because it is not common knowledge that affirmation is a possibility. Indeed, the section is written in such a way to explain that the witness'es oath is not discriminatory. I had a discussion with another editor about this earlier. The section was labeled "current examples" before implying that this was discrimination. I changed it to "current issues" to remove this implication. I want to keep this here not to point out how segregated atheists are in the US, but to inform atheists who come to this page that they have options besides swearing to god. Basically I'm saying, yes, it's not discrimination, but it is relevant and people who come to the page will want to know this.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 21:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In order to be relevant on that article, you need to have a secondary source which mentions the oaths/affirmations and discrimination. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I never called it discrimination. I said it was relevant to discrimination because many people think it is.  I don't need a secondary source calling it discrimination because I never do.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 23:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You need a secondary source to say it is relevant. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The essence of judgment
In this interval between the close of Arbcom voting and whatever comes next, this could be a timely opportunity to share a bit of wisdom attributed to Tokugawa Ieyasu, the founder of Japan's Tokugawa shogunate. I modestly offer a translation of the calligraphy -- with an emphasis not in the original:
 * Life is like walking along a long road shouldering a heavy load; there is no need to hurry.
 * One who treats difficulties as the normal state of affairs will never be discontented.
 * Patience is the source of eternal peace; treat anger as an enemy.
 * Harm will befall one who knows only success and has never experienced failure.
 * Blame yourself rather than others.
 * It is better not to reach than to go too far. --Tokugawa Ieayasu, 1604

I hope this becomes helpful in the year ahead. --Tenmei (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for sharing some of the wisdom of the ages.
 * This would be a lovely text to add onto Japanese Wikisource. To do that, go to s:ja:ページ:Ieyasu precepts.jpg and transcribe it.
 * And your translation can go on the English Wikisource, where I have set up a red link at s:Author:Tokugawa Ieyasu using the page name "Ieyasu precepts", but perhaps you can provide a more descriptive page name.
 * Again, thank you. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've pasted it over w/image. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Protecting pages
Hello. I want to protect the Chris Brown disambiguation page, as it is constantly vandalised. Could you help? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 10:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow; that is pretty bad. I've semi-protected it for a month.  If it happens again after that, let me know and I'll try something more drastic. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that, Boleyn (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Interfaces
Your proposed new interface looks a lot like the one that Brion Vibber said was too resource-intensive; I strongly suggest you check it out with him. DS (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

:)
+1 (or, even, +3 :D) for AusCab. Congrats! Daniel (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate. Now we just need Cas to join the WM-AU chapter to ensure that members obtain "value for money". :) John Vandenberg (chat) 00:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats and Best Wishes.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Edward VIII
John...I just entered this edit at the talk page for the User:ProtectionTaggingBot thinking it was your bot. Apologies for the misunderstanding. If you think it's worth an answer, please do. Otherwise just ignore it.

''hey John...just curious. I have see that this article was protected by a bot. ProtectionTaggingBot. May I ask why? This article is on my watchlist as it's the only one that I have been able to make a quasi-substantial edit to. I don't see any real controversy on the talk page and the article has been stable for a while (as far as a newbie can tell). So I am just seeking enlightenment.'' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tide rolls (talk • contribs) 05:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * dang it...forgot to sign again, sorry...this is my post Tide rolls (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've unprotected it. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks, John...big misunderstanding on my part, but I'm learning (my POV,anyway) Tide rolls (talk) 08:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Thanks for welcoming me :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.173.18 (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

like a spif new set of fezzes?
See User:Casliber and User:Rlevse — as I know you have ;)

Like a set of your own? If so, point me at an oversight icon; trout's optional. Don't just copy mine; I've still got to cut the imagemap usages. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Not for me; not at the moment.
 * There is an oversight userbox on my userpage with an icon to boot, but I doubt it is Fez compatible.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 21:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. That icon would work, I think; I'd be nicer as an svg. Just remember, I'm the one who started putting an icon to the left of the user name. At least, I've not seen it done before. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day Of Winter!
Happy First Day of Winter! Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Winter 2008!

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Summer not Winter then I wish you a happy First Day of Summer 2008! To spread this message to others, add to their talk page with a friendly message.

Congrats on your appointment to the Arbcom and Best of Luck :)! --Mifter (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Your bot
I was scanning NPP and I found a user who I thought was on your patrol whitelist creating a new page. I checked your bot's patrol log, and to my surprise, I found that it hasn't patrolled anything in 8 hours. I just wanted to see if you were aware of this. Regards, - NuclearWarfare  contact me My work  17:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The server has gone to bed. Im not sure why, and I'll be unable to look into it for a day or two. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought I'd let you know that it has unexpectedly restarted :) NuclearWarfare  contact me My work  02:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good to hear it all came back up ok; I had lights out a server back home and was on the road (and am now suffering on dialup); a few long phone calls and it came back up. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats!
Congratulations on getting elected to the Arbitration Committee! I wish you luck with your new responsibilities.--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs ) 18:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFAR
An editor that you have been involved with in the past has been taken to WP:RFAR. You are welcome to express your comments at the specific RFAR case. Thank you, seicer &#x007C; talk  &#x007C; contribs  21:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

fyi re captions are off-center
Remember the caption issue I encounter on id:wp? I've proposed fixing the core issue here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki talk:Common.css

Per your 1 year, per arbcom, mentorship of User:Jack Merridew,
You may want to see this diff, in which the editor in question replaces a picture with another simply because he doesn't celebrate the holiday it corresponds to. I would see this as a very, very, very, very weak form of POV pushing.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  10:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * How many 'verys' makes for a non-issue? ;) I restored the image extant prior to an anon placing it there.
 * User talk:Jimbo Wales
 * Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays


Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; I shall look forward to working with you on the Arbitration Committee in the coming year. Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement. Best, Risker (talk) 22:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * a fine Xmas message for all of us to be mindful of.... hehehe. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)



So much well wishing already. :) Well, I hope you have a great holiday. Have a good boxing day too, if you can. :P I should be back in action coming up soon, so, just wait. I have a lot of stuff that I owe you. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 05:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas from Promethean
<div style="font-size:85%; display:block; vertical-align:top; background:cyan; border:2px solid #003366; margin-bottom:4pt; padding:2pt; margin-top:4pt; padding-top:2pt;"> O'Hai there, Merry Christmas! <div style="font-size:85%; display:block; vertical-align:top; background:; border:1px solid #003366; margin-bottom:4pt; padding:2pt; margin-top:4pt; padding-top:2pt;"> , I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year. Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future. Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)  All the Best.   « l | Ψrometheăn ™ | l »   (talk)

Thanks / The use of pseudonymous
First of all, thank you for the welcome message you left me on my talk page. Second, I was reading your user page, and you recommend that people sign their edits using their own name. But, you also say that there are good reasons to remain anonymous or use pseudonymous. Can you elucidate me on those reasons? Thank you again! --Henrique Camargo (talk) 02:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See USERNAME. If you are identifiable in the real world, you need to be prepared for real world ramifications of your edits.  As a worst case example, imagine that you edit a biography of someone who is rich, powerful and not concerned about abusing their power, and your edit pisses them off - you may find that you are harassed in some very scary ways - people might start calling your place of employment casting your editing in a bad light, or they might find out the address of your home and publicise it on the internet with the intention of encouraging others to scare you for giggles without even understanding the basis of the original misunderstanding/dispute.
 * If this sounds like it might affect you, you should create a brand new account. i.e. dont rename your current account, as that is traceable. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

President Bush and Stephen
Hello. I was wondering if you think the vandalism to these 2 pages justifies some level of protection? Thanks for your help, Boleyn (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Stephen is very likely to be usefully expanded by IPs, so I dont think protection should be considered there except for very short durations when there is excessive vandalism. President Bush has only been vandalised three times since you expanded it to a dab page a few months ago (btw, I concur with your reasoning for the redirect->dab), however I can see semi-protection being more appropriate for this page as there are not too many useful additions which can be made to that page.  I'll be happy to semi-protect if the vandalism continues at the current rate for another few months, or increases at all.  I've watchlisted the page to help with the vandalism.  John Vandenberg (chat) 23:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it for me, Boleyn (talk) 10:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom note
Hello! You can see his AfD contributions in chronological order here. One thing that should also be considered is that a number of the ones that closed as delete really look a lot more like no consensus or merge results. Please consider Articles for deletion/Rubber-Band Man (Static Shock). That discussion seems much more like a no consensus, a merge, or at least a redirect, but somehow closed as delete with no explanation given. Or Articles for deletion/Sennon in which pretty much everyone seemed at least okay with a redirect, but again closed as delete with no rationale as to why a redirect wouldn't be okay. Thus, given these and other questionable delete closes, TTN's "success" rate at AfD is really even more suspect than the raw stats suggest. Best,--A NobodyMy talk 03:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I did look at the raw numbers from that tool, but am well aware of its limitations. I've asked user:SQL for improvements before, and he coded them up, so I'll ask him for some more and cross my fingers.
 * I have now looked at that Afd, and agree that "delete" isnt an "actual" outcome; it was merged, and the closing admin had to restore it. (Rubber-Band_Man_(Static_Shock) had zero sources so even I, a rapid inclusionist, would have been happy to delete it if it was an isolated Afd and nobody had merged it).
 * I suspect that the number of deletes is biased due to Afd being used where merge discussions should have been used; i.e. the wrong forum predetermines a more favourable success rate as Afd leans towards deletion. And overloading Afd will only make matters worse.
 * What would be helpful is a wikipage listing all E&C Afds, with a column to indicate who initiated it, and another to indicate the actual outcome rather than the stated outcome. I'll start adding motions on or soon after Jan 1. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

A bit late

 * Thanks, John Vandenberg (chat) 22:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hamas
Jay, considering the situation in the ME these days, it looks like every anon IP and his brother will be trying to edit the page and insert his/her POV into it. It has already been a contentious article in recent weeks. I was wondering if we could put some kind of semi-protection on it during this intense time? Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed the recent alterations, and dont think semi-protection is warranted at the moment. Remember to welcome anyone who isnt really vandalising! John Vandenberg (chat) 21:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

What I hadn't realised is that this article December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes was started and the talk page is already as big as the whole middle east, lol. Thanks though for looking at it even if our opinions may differ. Is there someway to know if new articles are being started? Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Special:WhatLinksHere/December_2008_Gaza_Strip_airstrikes shows that the article is now on the front page, which is a good place to look for high profile events that are "In the news". -- John Vandenberg (chat) 05:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

feedback requested at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Committees
Hi, if you have time, I'd appreciate any feedback on a slightly crazy idea I had at Wikipedia Committees. It's related to the Arbitration Committee. Thanks! <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 18:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent! I've got a similar crazy idea that dovetails with where you are going.  I'll put it together and publish it, hopefully today. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Erivan Khanate
Hello,

Thank you for welcome. i noticed that you deleted my correction of proper spelling of name of khanate. I am wondering why you did this. I am fixing this because I do not understand error, my persion spelling was correctly written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahin Giray (talk • contribs) 22:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies! I carefully reviewed this edit, but didnt notice the Farsi text had been changed, so I assumed you had only added two blank lines to the top, which is undesirable.  Try to avoid adding blank lines when you make content changes, as it results in a bad diff.  See this diff which is much easier to read. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I see. I did not notice I added more lines. I will read more carefully the materilas you posted on my page. Thanks again. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahin Giray (talk • contribs) 00:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)