User talk:John Vandenberg/Archive 9

Your comment on my talk page
Thank you for your attention to my contribution FASEB Journal and advises on my |user talk page. Eboireau (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

U'v got email
Emailed you on June 25th. RSVP there. Thx! SoCoColl (talk) 11:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Archive header
May I suggest talkarchivenav instead? -- Avi (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. thanks for the tip. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Only works until you have 50 pages, though. I just had to change my headers [[file:face-smile.svg|25px]] -- 22:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk page archive at Talk:Rachel Marsden
I added links to the two previous archives to the talk page, but I'm not sure if that was correct given the first entry on the second archive page. Flowanda | Talk 03:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The archives were already mentioned in the small print in the second last box at the top, which says: "Archives: 1, 2"
 * But it doesn't hurt to make the archives more prominent. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Linguistic comparisons
Hi John, Head of Dept:I am the only Chairman in Immunology since about 1991 .I hope this will finish soon;burocracy has been shared among us lately.We have two parts in our Dept 1-Microbiology and 2-Immunology.Both parts function separately, so I am the Head of Immunology.If you are going to Edit something I would prefer to be named Chairman.The concept is different in all 3 countries: USA,UK and here.

Fundacion de Estudios Geneticos y Lingüísticos:I am the president.If I wanted to expel a member I could not ;perhaps after a long process.Dumu Eduba showed documents,that I was.

My last 2 books have been published by Fundacion de Estudios Geneticos y Linguisticos .FEGEL or Fegel is a private company:if I do not have time to proceed against the linguists who are after me ;I am not going to proceed to somebody who has worked with me.In addition,Justice in Spain is slow and very expensive.

I am going out and I will have access to Internet not everyday(or may be not even in some days).

In addition ,if you wish documents for your work ,just send me and E mail and I will send you by Fed Exp or any means.But I am not going to answer (with my name,directly) more private or personal questions except about what I have published and I must give an explanation, if requested,through my official E mail.

PS_Unfortunately I am now Head of Immunology and Microbiology also.I will get rid of Microbiology as soon as possible.--Arnaiz1 (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Emailed. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Linguistics--Arnaiz1 (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
When I have said Fegel ,it means Fegel Editions--Arnaiz1 (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC) We are getting too personal.Please E mail me--Arnaiz1 (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Jvdb,

I wrote a note for your mediation yesterday in AAV page. Make this sense? Here is a copy. Sincerely--Virginal6 (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[edit] Other Wrong Statements (like "scientific fraud") Vandenberg mediation does not want web pages as references. There is a web page from Fegel Editions which has nothing to do with Arnaiz-Villena.”Scientific fraud” has been removed because it was taken from this page. In addition the following phrase should also be deleted:

“and advertises that Basque can even be used to translate the Indus script of Pakistan,[24] Rongorongo of Easter Island, and the Mayan glyphs of Mesoamerica,[25] showing that "Usko-Mediterannean technology and religion diffused across the planet."[26”

This should also be removed because: 1-Its only reference comes from the same page. 2-Arnaiz-Villena has never writteen anything about Indus script,Mayan Glyphs or Easter Island Rongorongo language.

This is an information which is wrong and misleads Wikipedia readers. THIS SHOULD ALSO BE REMOVED.

--Virginal6 (talk)


 * I think after discovering this fanatic link,which uses Wikipedia as a source of defamation,

http://www.arguewitheveryone.com/race-issues/58836-100-facts-3-lie.html

(see end of third page)

I would rather change



2-All extended critics are unbased :LAHOZ on ly critics his first book.LAKARRA critics 32 words out of thousands. (and he comes to the conclussion that 85% of the AAV work is wrong) ,since in fact what he says that 85% of the 32 words  are wrong.Pichler (from un unknown Bulletin,refers toan Erratum- The last critic:Jacobsen does not mention to Arnaiz-Villena is a general critic which has nothing to do wit Arnaiz-Villena

3-In view ,of the Wikipedia misuse by phanatics,I would stick to the text propossed by AAV,now and we have always have time to add further.

This is what he-AAV proposes (pasted) 7:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)--Virginal6 (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] REMARKS AND PROPOSAL I would not like to be crucified by months in this page “while we discuss calmly”(Dumu Eduba). Obvious mistakes could be removed as soon as possible.If we write in detail all other article paragraphs, we would fill all Wikipedia.I think that we should size this linguistic section on article.

1-I would like to remove soon languages which I have not even mentioned in my writings and “an invented accusation of scientific fraud stated by me”.The reference is a web page whith which I have nothing to do and my name is not in it. (EDITION A).Scripts names to be removed:Mayan,Rongorongo,Akkadian,Babylonian,Dravidian, Indus Valley, (Harappa,Mohenjo Darro),Proto-Indo-European,Greek,Latin,Semitic languages....If they still state that I have written a word on these languages,they should scan my false writing and show it here.

2-I have nothing to do with Fegel Company,I have contacted them and asked them to remove all quotations to Fundacion de Estudios Geneticos.I expect they remove it.

3-If Iruña-Veleia is to be mentioned, then mention supporters and non-supporters(EDITION B).

4-“Few scholars have found it worth their time to refute Arnaiz-Villena”:this a defamatory opinion.I think that they rather cannot refute (EDITION C).

5-DE HOZ CRITICISM: (1999)references only a small part of my work :the first of 7 books on linguistics.

a)Title of Javier de Hoz commentary “Travel to nowhere througout the Mediterranean:languages that Iberians,Etruscans,and Cretans did not speak”He does not write about Cretans a single word and refers to a single Iberian example to dismiss our whole work.

b)Statements written by Lahoz:

1-...sometimes this type (of books) are written by unscrupulous (“desaprensivo” in Spanish) people...,including people from the Academic World.He is stating I am unscroupolous I consider this a false unbased accusation which damages my reputation.

2- ...(authors) do not know at all gramatical structure of Iberian and Etruscan...(This is the one single time he mentions Etruscan except in title).Grammars do exist as such only after Middle Ages and although some Grammatical features ,not standardized and variable,must exist in the first times, but it lacks standardization.Our hypotheses on this topic are as good as Lahoz ones.

3-...(books authors) are a plain disaster (no further explanations).This is an un based defamation. 4-...(books) are an a aberration in methods and results.No further explanation.This is an unbased defamation. 5-...Public money has been missused to pay the issue of a book with a scientific interest similar to that of using wax puppets and exorcism to cure cancer. This is tasteless joke and a defamation.. 6-A crime has been perpetrated and there must be a responsable person to pay for it.(END) .(He referes to deviation ofpublic funds... or to the authors?).This book was unusually reprinted.This is a defamation;Hoz is not a Judge.. Thus ,Lahoz does not criticise the specific content of the ONE SINGLE book which was out,but attacks the authors ,without any base:he only does not agree with one example( 2 words in Iberian). I accept this.Although ,I believe we were right.He does not mention Etruscan or Cretan (only in title) : only to say that we do not know a word of Iberian or Etruscan grammars:our hypothesis on these are as valid as his.Grammars did not exist by then,and these languages are not firmly and finally translated.Historic linguistic reconstructoins for ancient languages are hypotheses only ,including ours.

I have already (last year, 2008!) complained to De Hoz himself:we had a nice chat and I asked him to phone me up if he had any problem with our writings.We are full professors at the same university.

We should only refer to his opposition he only dismiss work and authors without specific critics,just a general dismissal. .EDITION D.

-6-LAKARRA CRITICISMS: -LAKARRA(in Protovasco,munda...in Ohienart 21,2006,229-322) He has feuds with some others ..His references should not be included in Wikipedia regarding to Dene Caucasian or Basque or in this page.He reflect extreme views.; he states:

a-Page 242:Ruhlen and other seditious Greenberg underlings....Ruhlen is a linguist with different ideas,not a militar.Merritt Ruhlen is a linguistics professor at Stanford University and co-Director of a big project at the Santa Fe Institute of Languages. b-Page 243:He attacks senior linguist Theo Vennemann [29] just because Theo V. thinks that Europe is full of old Basque toponyms, i.e.:Basque or related languages were the ancient European languages. According to Lakarra,Theo V. put forward this hypothesis ,because “eager of success at any cost”.This is an extemist view c)-Page 245 (footnote):he says that from 32 Basque words used by us ,8 are Lating leanings (we hypothezise the contrary) and 5 are invented “ad hoc” by us[30]. Later,he acuses us of forgers.This is an extreme view and also he uses picaresque :he studies 32 out of thousands of words we have researched.Then,he transforms his “ 32 word study ” in percentages and ALL our work becomes 85% wrong.I do not think this is a serious critic.I would edit it(EDITION D).This reference should be removed. 7-WERNER PICHLER-He (?) writes in a Bulletin without adscription, editorship or peer-review “La Lettre D’AARS”.He dismisses “amateurs and specialists”:3 or 4 authors ,including us.We have studied Lybic –Berber Canarian Rock Inscriptions (from page 214 -243 ,about 200 Lybic Berber words) ,he does not critisize any of them and then comes to a clear secretariat Erratum ,which is corrected in any scientific magazine,issues later.There are several hypotheses.1)He has written the criticisms: he,who does not know neither Iberian nor Basque languages,did not notice about the Iberian Guanche inscriptions (he does not mention them).He might be upset abut that.This remark about us and about others would not have been admited in a regular magazine.2)He has not written the criticisms(he is quite old by now)I would remove this unknown Bulletin reference. (EDITION D)[]

8-JACOBSEN-He does not refer to me because its publication was before my first liguistics book was out. He specifically referers to a preliminar Alonso work (see his references),when I and my colleagues did not yet colaborate with Alonso.This paragraph is also very long and reflects only a point of view,about Basque language evolution which does not coincide with Alonso work (EDITION D)[]

-9-HIEROGLYPGHS-No universal claims of discovering were done or pretended by us. This is an editor opinion. Champoillon decipherment is not universal. Not a single Egyptologist translate the same hieroglyphic paragraph in the same way.There are no Egyptian Chairs at Universities:only Seminars. Many more Egyptian scripts has come out since Champoillon and a revision is needed. EDITION E

-10-OTHER SCHOLARS HAD DONE BEFORE THE SAME COMPARISONS THAN ARNAIZ-VILLENA,BETWEEN BASQUE AND OTHER LANGUAGES.

There is no cause for raging ,unless a lynching is going on.

1- All comparisons done between Basque and Mediterranean languages by Antonio Arnaiz-Villena had been done before by others.I do not see here the need of doing a thorough revision of the books written by me (at least in the article page).In addition, curious and spurious statements attributed to me are repeatedly being added:this is a mistake.

2-All European languages have a Basque base according to linguist Venemann.´ Iberian,Etruscan,Minoan,Sumerian,North and South Caucasian and Berber languages all Have been compared (see review in book “Towards a history of Basque language” edited by Hualde et al;John Benjanmins Publishing Co,1995,in chapter written by Larry Trask,pags 65-100),ISBN:9027236348.

3-Egyptian language is also related to to East African and Berber languages by Gardiner,accepted by almoust all scholars In “Egyptian Grammar”,Oxford University Press,1969, [31]

4-Uhlenbeck,Bouda,Lafon,Marr,Dumeznil,Schuchardt,Reinesch,Pokorny and Trombetti have found relationships between Basque and Hamitic languages (Middle East and North African languages ,including Phoenician,Berber etc);Hamitic languages concept might overlap with Usko-Mediterranean languages concept.

4-Bengston and Ruhlen have treated relationships of Basque and Hurrian, Hatti and many other World northern and southern Hemisphere languages,not only Usko-Mediterraneans (see book”On the origin of languages “ by Merritt Ruhlen,Stanford University Press,1994,chapter “Global Ethymology” by Bengston and Ruhlen,pags 277-336;(ISBN 0847-2321-4) [32]

5-Hittite has also been studied in relation to Basque (By Imanol Agirre es:Imanol_Agirre in “Vinculos de la lengua vasca con las lenguas de todo el mundo”.Edited La Gran Enciclopedia Vasca,1980,Bilbao,Spain (ISBN:842480501)

6-I have also removed references:1) to Iruña-Veleia from newspapers and recent web pages,following guidelines.2)to a web page on Egyptian-Bsque,following guidelines.

7-I have added “The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Linguistics” for contradicting our studies.

Please,read the text if see if it is suitable for a Wikipedia section of article.--Arnaiz1 (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * PROPOSAL

[edit] Fringe linguistic theories Arnaiz-Villena and his collaborator Jorge Alonso-Garcia have used Basque to decipher many of the ancient languages of the Mediterranean and Middle East which are believed by scholars not related to Basque, including Egyptian, Hittite, Sumerian, Hurrian, Ugaritic, EDITION A Elamite, and Phoenician.EDITION A .Arnaiz-Villena's Egyptian translations, for example, include the cartouche of the bilingual Rosseta Stone in which Champollion identified the name of Ptolemy, which in his version does not include that name .EDITION E.The Code of Hammurabi contains "no hint of laws" but is a Basque funeral text;[4] They also have put forward to read poorly attested languages such as Etruscan, Iberian, Tartessian, Guanche, and Minoan, which nobody else has been able to decipher with any certainty. They posit that these are all part of a "Usko-Mediterranean" branch[5] of the speculative Dene-Caucasian language family, which they extend to include the Berber languages of North Africa,[6][7][8][9] EDITION A This thesis flatly contradicts basic Egyptological, Sumerian, EDITION A scholarship. Phoenician, EDITION A, Ugaritic, and Eblaite, for example, are clearly Semitic languagesEDITION A; Egyptian along with Berber and Semitic have been demonstrated to be Afro-Asiatic, and some linguists have been unable to find a connection with Basque,but not others :Federico Krutwig related Guanche and Basque and other authors related Basque with Iberian,Etruscan,Minoan,Sumerian,North and 8 South Caucasian ,Berber,Egyptian and Hittite ..EDITION A,EDITION F [39] ,[ Towards a history of Basque language” edited by Hualde et al;John Benjanmins Publishing Co,1995,in chapter written by Larry Trask,pags 65-100),ISBN:9027236348.],[ Vinculos de la lengua vasca con las lenguas de todo el mundo”.Edited La Gran Enciclopedia Vasca,1980,Bilbao,Spain (ISBN:842480501)]. EDITION C De Hoz,1999 ,Werner Pichler-EDITION D (2005) and Joseba Lakarra strongly oppose these linguistic comparisons .Arnaiz-Villena hypotheses also contradict other established theories .[40]---Arnaiz1 (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

--Virginal6 (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Personal vendetta?
John, it would seem that Red Pen is carrying out a personal vendetta against links to MyWikiBiz, even when they are linking to highly informative, instructive pages directly in tune with the Wikipedia article. See here, here, and here. Your opinion? Obviously, I can't get involved directly. -- Thekohser 03:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:COI says that if you are related to a particular point of topic and would like an alteration of some sort (in this case the restoration of links) that you should use the relevant article's talk pages. It DOES NOT say that you should go around to specific users' talk pages attempting to garner support for a change or action. You need to be extremely careful Gregory.  « l | ?romethean ™ | l »   (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is about multiple articles; a bit of a meta issue, and there is a meta discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links. Posts on my talk page will rarely garner support for anything. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Rather than view this as a personal vendetta, it can be viewed as igniting discussion via WP:BRD. WP:EL is a guideline, and I dont think it is appropriate to remove links due to WP:ELNO #12 "Links to open wikis.." as that is guidance for the many crappy wikis around the Internet. There are many well administrated wikis. (A few days ago I noticed that Oracle Corp has one now) As a result we need to evaluate each link separately. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rachel Marsden: in my opinion this link would be acceptable; the MyWikiBiz page contains useful information not able to be included in the Wikipedia page (such as the image), and biogs on MyWikiBiz are more akin to imdb/nndb, especially when the subject has had a hand in the writing of it. However I am not going to restore the link again as I dont like to force my point of view.  Also, the MyWikiBiz page has broken infobox syntax and is a sea of red links.
 * Sum of Logic: Again this was an appropriate link, as any website that hosts a copy of public domain texts is acceptable.  We should judge it based on its accuracy rather than the URL.  However, this incomplete text should be merged into Summa logicae, which is also incomplete.  As I am quite keen on putting public domain works onto Wikisource, I would copy this over to Wikisource myself rather than have a link to a copy on MyWikiBiz, as people are more likely to read and improve the text if it is on Wikisource, and the reader is more likely to donate additional texts to Wikisource than to MyWikiBiz.  I'll contact Peter Damian about this as he might be interested migrating this work over to Wikisource.
 * Sophismata: This one is more interesting. That page doesn't clearly belong on one of the WMF projects; quite the opposite: it would be appropriate on Wikibooks, or Wikiversity, or it could go on Wikisource as an index page.  In my opinion, this link fits more within the intent of WP:ELNO #12; while it is an extremely useful collection of information, .. the encyclopedic information in that page could be merged into Wikipedia, and as an external link it lacks any authoritative appeal.
 * Liz Cohen (mentioned in other discussions): another biog, and again the MyWikiBiz page has useful information we cant have unless the owner of the photos relicenses them. Any chance you could negotiate for one photo to be relicensed and copied to Commons??
 * Question: while the community should "judge it based on its accuracy " what exactly is the difference between me posting a copy of the text on my personal website and some other user posting the text on MWB? I am pretty sure that if I tried to add a link to my personal web page saying "this is an accurate copy and the only copy available on the web" that the link would be removed. -- The Red Pen of Doom  19:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In my experience, we dont give a hoot where it is located on the web. I often see external links to personal websites of someone who has transcribed a text.  I often copy those public domain texts from personal websites to Wikisource, and update the Wikipedia link to point to Wikisource instead.  However the Wikisource copy is no better than the copy on the personal website.  Sometimes I also find pagescans of the original source, and marry the text with the images, and then proofread the text using those images.
 * Only when the reader can view/obtain pagescans should a text be considered verifiable. Removing links to unverifiable texts is counter-productive at this stage, and will deprive readers of useful links. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally feel that WP:EL sets a little higher standard than "we found it on the web and the poster says that its accurate so we can include it". -- The Red Pen of Doom  02:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And I feel that WP:EL is orthogonal to a guideline on links to sources. As far as I know we dont have any good guidance about public domain sources.
 * Are you familiar with which etexts on the Internet are low quality? For example, would you start by removing links to a significant number of the early Project Gutenberg etexts which are quite low quality ?  What about all the sources that are archived on genealogy projects, such as Rootsweb?  What about all our links to the CE1913 transcription that is on newadvent.org?  Or the links to shoddy transcriptions of EB1911 that appear all over the Internet?  I could spend weeks listing all of the links to poor quality transcriptions that Wikipedia is currently riddled with.
 * As I have indicated above, I would love a higher standard where we require that sources must have pagescans to the published edition before we consider them verifiable, however that would mean that most of our articles will not have links to accurate transcriptions that are available on the internet. Vetting links to public domain transcriptions is not easy - one link can take man-years to verify if the book is rare, or large, or in a dead language.  The scale of this problem is overwhelming, and it is extremely unhelpful to have Wikipedians removing these links without understanding the problem domain.
 * Do you seriously believe that Peter Damian's transcription is a problem? Are you aware that the transcription on Latin Wikisource is worse than Peter Damian's transcription?  Please take a look at the discussions between Peter Damian and myself that are lower down on this page, and on the WR thread he links to.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 03:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Focusing solely on External links - which is why I am here (because someone accused me of having a vendetta in removing external links) - We should include external links where we can "judge it based on its accuracy " - those sites that dont come from under the auspices of a source known for its accuracy shouldnt be included. I dont think that we should judge old latin texts differently than pokemon sites - giving it a pass simply because there isnt anything that meets our criteria is weak. -- The Red Pen of Doom  03:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Request
Do you know anyone at the Houghton Library, Harvard? There is a manuscript of Christopher Smart's Jubilate Agno there. Although I have some pieces, and a few others are also copied, it is hard to find a holograph or copy of the work in full. It would be a lovely edition for some eager individual at Wikisource to find. Could you pass on the word whenever you have a free moment? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No I dont. Try WP:LIBRARIANS. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 03:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you think of...
This? I'm uncertain whether it requires oversight.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  06:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So far, this is a very clear case of BLP1E, and .. sadly .. it is not a notable situation as this happens a bit too frequently - I cant see anything special about this case, especially at this early stage with nobody accused. However I cant justify using BLP to trump prod in this case because this isn't unsourced material, and I am struggling to see a benefit of speedy deletion - it is primarily a NOTNEWS issue, and if it cant survive the prod tag, that is a good indicator that it doesnt have legs.
 * I am also uncertain about whether it requires oversight, as the details are all found in both reliable news sources and authoritative databases. As a result, I have emailed oversight-l to generate a bit of discussion and consensus on how to deal with this and similar cases.  Thank you for alerting me.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 07:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you mind letting me know what oversight decide? It'd be nice to know how to handle these things in future. The problem seems to have partly solved itself with an admin speedily deleting the page (I'd query the appropriateness of the speedy, personally, but I'm not worried enough to bring it to DRV).— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  08:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a edge case, so the safest solution is to email the list, but I will let you know what the verdict is.
 * p.s. I actually made a point that I didn't see the need to speedy, and doubted that you would be keen on a speedy, but I also wont take this to DRV.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 08:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oversighters decided not to do anything about this, as it was all information that is readily available elsewhere. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

copyright
{{helpme}|}uploaded umages are owned by me and filed with the U.S. Library of Congress. This includes all photos and cover art. Knightflyte —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightflyte (talk • contribs) 16:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: multi-column templates
I don't know of a solution beyond simply using multicol. reflist has had this problem for a long time now; it uses the same method to create columns as both of our templates do, and it is a much more popular template; yet, there still has been no solution for it. Gary King ( talk ) 22:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ockham's Summa on Wikisource
You should be aware the Wikisource version is riddled with spelling errors. I comment on this here. Peter Damian (talk) 07:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Answered there. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Mail
You have some. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi John. Did you get the message?  If you're too busy, could you just ping me back with suggested Arbcom member who isn't so busy?  Many thanks.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've got it, and was planning on looking at it earlier in the w/e, but a few events overran me and Arbcom. (i.e. most of the committee is a bit busier than we had planned on being) I'm heading to bed; ill make it a priority tomorrow. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright John, not a big problem. Look forward to hearing from you. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi there
Er, I received a polite note from one John Vandenberg thanking me for my "contributions".

It's true that from time to time I modify a wikipedia page if for one reason or another I have special knowledge on the subject, or my housebound personal library happens to contain a book of special relevance. It contains for example an original copy of the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica, leatherbound, printed on rice paper, still in its Louis Vuitton case, which I inherited from my grandfather.

In general though, I just don't have the energy to make a wikipedia account worthwhile. My IP address changes every so often; but I will try to sign with four tildes as recommended.

Best Regards, Terry Cole --60.234.132.128 (talk) 10:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Terry. I routinely welcome anonymous editors where I see that they have made good edits to an article that I monitor.  Even if you do not make many contributions, having an account has a few advantages both for yourself and the community, if only because you wont be welcomed frequently ;-)
 * If you have any public domain documents or books in your library that are rare and important, Wikisource is another project you might be interested in.
 * With regards to EB1911, we are slowly transcribing a digital edition over on Wikisource at EB1911, and we have a set of complete pagescans at s:User:Tim Starling.
 * However there are other works on Wikisource where we have text without images, meaning we cant proofread it until someone with a copy of the book appears.
 * Anyway, nice to meet you. Feel free to drop in any time you have questions or problems. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Idea
I was quite interested in your ideas on version control and flagging revisions. I may follow this up. Another idea: as you may know I work on medieval manuscripts. One thing a Wiki environment would be well-suited to is deciphering of these. They are famously illegible and a group of people working together could definitely make better progress than one. Here is an example of one I made public. The disadvantages are (1) there are probably only 5 people in the world who have the experience to do this, relative to any particular area or era (part of the skill is knowing which Latin technical term is being used, and a strong vocabulary is essential in any case). (2) Copyright again. The version I posted there is a digital version that is copyrighted. To get over this I reduced the grain of the image right down from 3M to a few hundred k. Perhaps this would be acceptable to copyright owners, but not sure. Also, when the grain is reduced it makes it somewhat less legible though personally I have no trouble reading the image there. Interested in your thoughts. Peter Damian (talk) 11:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Copyright of scans depends heavily on the jurisdiction. sweat of the brow doesnt apply in all countries, so in those countries it is impossible to copyright scans of a very old text like this.  In some countries the act of scanning somehow results in a new copyright.  Museums often claim copyright when they have no such thing- they usually have contracts, but those contracts can't bind people who don't sign them.  As a result of these contracts, they will put reduced quality pictures on their websites, ban cameras, etc.
 * My guess is that your example is under UK jurisdiction, which leans towards supporting copyfraud sweat of the brow, and would mean that your reduced resolution image is not "free" either. A way to get around this is to add a note on the talk page to ask people who are interested to email you for a copy of the image(s).  This is still "distribution", however it is more defensible as it is a private discussion about the images, which I assume you obtained via a legal means.  The only time that this would not work is if there are contracts which restrict you.
 * A hypothetical way to get around the sweat of the brow is to remove any "sweat" (or water it down significantly) by removing the artistic elements from the scan - i.e. post process the image down to black on white, etc. This hasnt been tested in court, but the sweat of the brow hasnt really been tested in UK court either - everyone merely presumes that the courts will rule in favour of it, and nobody dares establish case law for this, as both sides are worried about the precedent that may be established.
 * However, the transcription would be free irrespective of jurisdiction, and Wikisource would be a host for it. We have done similar projects, however each one of this kind presents new problems due to the difficulty in understanding the original.  It may take a while to complete, but if it is an important text, ordinary scholars can do the grunt work (we often work with Wiktionary folk to get a handle on very technical words), and we can find the five people who can do the corrections.
 * Another option is to find a reprint or translation.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 16:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The manuscript is Worcester 13, which is an important witness to early work on logic in England (probably dated in the 1270's). Some of it has been transcribed, most of it has not.  If you can find other scholars I would be interested.  As to the image, it is a photograph, not a scan, which I commissioned from Worcester cathedral library.  I will email to see if they are amenable to putting a lower-resolution image onto Wikisource.  It would be an interesting project.  You say there are other similar projects - really? Peter Damian (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It's late at night
John, you may have read my post quickly. Please see the link to ArbCom's second draft update of its policy. That is what I cite below the existing policy. It's nothing to do with what I would propose, although I support the change. Tony  (talk)  15:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies if I titled it incorrectly by not understanding what your post was all about. Could you establish another section title?  I was planning on commenting on it, and now that you have clarified what it is, my comment is going to be oh-so-ironic. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have given it a different title. Refactor, but please keep it in a separate section. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Arnaiz-Villena is heavily insulted just copying his Wikipedia frozen page
http://www.arguewitheveryone.com/race-issues/58836-100-facts-3-lie.html

Look at the end of the 3rd page.

Page should be changed as suggested by AAV I have pasted his suggestion it in your talk page ,JVDB

--Virginal6 (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I have been slowly pushing on this biog.  I am sorry if it is too slow, but I will make my way through the list of concerns.  A large part of the problem is trying to understand the concerns. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please,ask me any question;I will be able to solve all technical ones.

I will be these days out of work and will be able to answer rapidly.--Virginal6 (talk) 06:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Renewed harassment by User:Jack Merridew
According to Requests_for_arbitration/Jack_Merridew_ban_review_motion, you are listed as a mentor of the above described user. Following the long discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Jack Merridew-A Nobody, I thought he would leave me alone, but then the following happened over the past few days:


 * 1. I argued to defend the various articles listed at Articles for deletion/Hugo Austin as you can see near the bottom of that discussion and during the discussion I actively worked on some of the articles, in which he neither nominated nor commented and subsequently have been working with various participants in that discussion to improve the articles in question.  Now for some odd reason, after the AfD closed with most articles kept, he saw fit to aggressively and insultingly go after the articles that were not deleted as a result of that AfD and again, he went after these ones that I defended, while at the time ignoring any of the numerous other fiction related AfDs that were going on at the time.  Why of all the fictional character articles on Wikipedia suddenly now and after I argued to defend them, choose these particular articles?  Consider his edit summaries: "shitty template," "Articles for Ridicule," another "Articles for Ridicule," blanket insult that people don't know how to edit, etc.  User:Orderinchaos, User:Matthewedwards, myself, etc. are attempting to civilly and maturely do what we can with these articles and it would help if swearing and mocking isn't being employed by someone who is not working with us in a colloborative fashion.
 * 2. Now he comes to my talk page with this edit, where he insultingly says my username "A Nobody'" is appropriate, i.e. suggesting that I really am "a nobody."  And for the record, the other editor's comments which I removed had on multiple occasions some time back referred to me by something other than my current username.
 * 3. Now notice, I tagged the following articles for rescue or tried to improve them (,, , and ) and sure enough, he subsequently (note the times, i.e. me then him) says to delete or redirect (, , , and ).  By contrast, even though I had initially argued to defend the Home and Away character articles and have been during and since that nomination working to improve them, I have not personally rescued templated nor commented in the slew of copy and paste, indiscriminate mass renominations of those articles by him: Articles for deletion/Sally Fletcher (without any doubt, the most notable character on the show given the same disregard and contempt in the nomination as those that actually cannot be verified in reliable sources, i.e. some antagonistic WP:ITSCRUFT), Articles for deletion/Joey Rainbow, Articles for deletion/Ethan Black (Home and Away), Articles for deletion/Tom Nash (use of "nuke from orbit" hyperbole, Articles for deletion/Kaitlin Dason, Articles for deletion/Angelo Rosetta, Articles for deletion/Emma Jackson, Articles for deletion/Lynn Davenport, Articles for deletion/Chloe Richards, Articles for deletion/Cassie Turner, and Articles for deletion/Dani Sutherland).  What are there, millions, of fictional character articles and so his ONLY focus for now happens to be to either renominate ones I defended in an AfD or to say to delete those I rescue template or otherwise seek to improve?  Seriously and surely, given our history, that cannot possibly be chance coincidence.
 * 4. In these discussions, he even personally attacks/dismisses me: see, for example, here, where he writes, "just a nobody who reflexively opines to keep everything.", which is actually not true, because I have nominated and argued to delete dozens of articles...

I don't know why the sudden resurgence against me, but trying to dismissingly disrupt multiple editors' efforts to improve the Home and Away character articles is not just some slight against me and the nomination of the Sally article is indicative of the indiscriminate and unknowing approach here. But given the past ANI threads between us and given his unblock conditions, I would think making some kind of flippant remark that I really am "a nobody" would be totally unacceptable. He has already been warned, sanctioned, etc. I don't much care to be insulted by someone who long-term harassed another user, nor do I care to have him see fit to target articles I try to improve. At this point, there should be no tolerance for such a thing and especially given the past ANI threads, the fact that he would make such a remark on my talk page alonside a slew of rapid-fire deletes for articles I tagged for rescue (if you check his contribs, the ONLY AfDs he commented in a ROW i.e. in consecuetive edits were either ones I tagged for rescue, tried to fix, or previously defended in an earlier AfD; given the dozens of active AfDs and given our history, well...). Please, please put a stop to this already. The talk page personal attack in itself should be blockable. I am not planning on starting any new ANI thread or anything else beyond this talk page request as I am here to build an encyclopedia and not play games, but I deeply implore you to do whatever possible to reign this ongoing fixation he has against me in, because I do not want to yet again become his new White Cat. Thank you for your time, help, and consideration. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Then there's Sarah's view of the soap opera mess: User talk:Jack Merridew and a shinny pointed thing. This edit is worth a look at. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 05:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * tl;dr

I have looked at this quickly, and will discuss it with the other mentors within in the next few hours. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, please let me know what y'all decide as it is still going on:
 * I start work on an article up for deletion, and he starts removing stuff from the article.
 * I shift attention to Animal Farm related articles a la this and this and this and not only has he subsequently edited or commented in any discussion related to these articles, but also started Articles for deletion/Animal Farm in popular culture. Is he going to go after any and everything I start to work on?
 * I comment here and he comments directly below my comment.
 * It is bad enough he approaches AfDs as a joke and in an insulting manner per, saying to "transwiki the editors behind these to Wikia" with an edit summary of "lulz". I am not okay with someone who is not here to edit maturely following me around and targeting areas of the wiki I work on.  Please help.
 * Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A Nobody: Please realise that while you may not necessarily agree with Jack's nominations of various things, other views may differ. Consider, for example, this request, in which The JPS is requesting Jack's assistance. In case you were unclear, The JPS is a highly respected user, with 30,000 contributions to his credit, who has been here since 2004 and has been an admin since 2006. It's possible to differ about specific items (such as the Animal Farm in popular culture AfD), while recognising the value add of activities in a given area (such as identifying problematic articles in popular culture areas and AfDing them). I think you need to try to relax about this matter. ++Lar: t/c 19:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Other established editors and admins rightly see these edits as disruptive. For example, User:Matthewedwards writes, "I'm rather pissed off with User:Jack Merridew" and multiple editors expressed as much in Articles for deletion/Sally Fletcher that further demonstrate he is either making deliberately frivolous nominations or is not knowledgeable about the subjects under consideration.  Now if it was just about some disagreement over inclusion criteria, whatever, but this targetting fictional universes right after I specifically attempt to do anything with them and given the history between us is ridiculous.  And none of us should have to put up with being mocked on our userpages ("I think your username is appropriate") or in AfDs I didn't even comment in ("just a nobody who reflexively opines to keep everything."), especially when I actually do argue and nominate to delete as seen at User:A_Nobody/Deletion_discussions.  And the community at large should not be told "transwiki the editors behind these to Wikia".  Given his arbcom history condition of making NO disruptive edits, he has clearly violated that, because there is no acceptable justification for going to another user's talk page and saying in essence that they reall are a nobody or saying in AfDs that a whole group of editors are not welcome here.  Even if he wasn't sanctioned under a condition to make nothing even remotely perceiavable as disruptive, such edits would still stretch the boundaries of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not Jack's fault you chose "A Nobody" for a name... see attractive nuisance. We can't help what our parents gave us for names, so I think it's low to tease people about their real names, but if you tape "kick me" on your own back (via a choice of handle), so to speak, whose fault is that? THAT said, I do think Jack and you need to separate, and I'll have some words with him to that effect, reminding him. I'm sure John will too.


 * However I would be careful about calling edits disruptive unless you are sure they really are. Matthewedwards here seems to be saying stuff more along the lines of "too many at once" than "bad noms". I again will say this... you need to relax. Stop picking at everything Jack does, as it's a very unflattering image of yourself you end up projecting. In the long run it will do you harm. Try to be more collegial, more laid back, more mellow. It's less stressful than running to cry for help all the time. ++Lar: t/c 21:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is clearly the fault of whoever chooses to mock someone because of their username. We don't blame victims.  And as far as labelling edits as disruptive goes, what do you make of declaring that all of us who create and work on fictional elements are in effect not welcome on Wikipedia and these good faith edits are "disruptive"?  It is difficult for anyone to have an academic discussion in an AfD when the good faith article writers are dismissed in such a manner.  You have noticed this meanness yourself elsewhere.  Look, I would be glad to have nothing to do with him, but as Dream Focus identifies below, he keeps showing up after me in discussions and on articles I worked on and I can't imagine why.  By contrast once he commented in the latst slew of fiction AfDs, I have resisted posting in them or rescue templating them.  I do not get why he can't do the same with regards to me.  My concern is that he is fixating on me as he did White Cat and I do not want that, because it is downright disturbing and shouldn't ber permissable given the history.  Hopefully whatever you say to him will be the end of that and I can go back to improving articles and welcoming editors as is far more pleasant to do.  Good night.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * He does seem to be wikistalking you, and you aren't allowed to specifically target another editor like that. And some of his edits, for instance this one, do some rather rude.   D r e a m Focus  22:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wasn't that diff asked about above? ++Lar: t/c 22:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, it is exactly what he is doing and it is still ongoing as seen with . As well as with articles that I am trying to rescue, see this example.  You would think given this discussion one would try to add some distance instead...  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 14:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And still. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 14:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you seek to find offense, you will surely find it, somewhere. Given how argumentative you were about being called on misuse of citing WP:PERNOM to rebut folk who say "per nom" ... someone using 'per nom', then signing the same way you do... with no other comment... is a very mild form of editorializing. Jack should know better, true, and he has been counseled about this before, but really... YOU need to get a bit thicker skinned here. Either that or stop taping "kick me" on your back by doing stupid things like arguing at length in deletion discussions. I would summarize my advice to you as: "Grow up". ++Lar: t/c 20:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I argued with those who did not see fit to actually discuss articles under consideration, i.e. to not give article creators and writers the common courtesy of demonstrating any efforts of looking for sources or considering alternatives to deletion. Editors should come to these discussions ready to discuss the actual articles and specifics rather than to just vote.  I am the only person in that discussion to actually cite specific sources and try to incorporate them into the article or look for places to merge what we have.  Instead of coming here all authoritatively, why not help to improve the article content?  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You assume too much. ++Lar: t/c 20:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Searching for common ground
A Nobody, I haven't been ignoring your posts here. To be honest, I'm still not sure what to do as a mentor here. But I need to do something now, as I fear this is going to end up with Jack Merridew becoming banned on technicalities and minor issues, or result in arbitration which will do neither of you any good. Both of you are working in the same area, and have diametrically opposing worldviews on a raft of issues. Since you work in the same area, you are going to bump heads occasionally. The most obvious problem you raise is the edit-summaries, and I have had a few ideas on how to address that, but not implemented any of them. Feel free to both answer here. To begin with, talk to me rather than each other, and please both be considerate of the other when replying to my questions. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The first is an editor review. Jack has been here for a while, and would probably benefit from an editor review.  I'll see if he is willing.
 * Another option is for me to crunch some numbers to see whether his interactions with you have been excessive (wikihounding) or is he sharing his love around and bumping heads with you as often as he is bumping heads with other people. This will take a while to do (a week, maybe?).  If I see a problem in the numbers, I'll present them in an RFC; if I dont see a problem, hopefully you will be able to see it from a different perspective.
 * Finally, would you both be willing to take a break from AFD (and articles at AFD) for a while (a month?). Or perhaps a timeshare arrangement where one person goes to AFD for two weeks, and then the other person goes to AFD.
 * It would also be nice to see you two working together on some content in a topic which you have common ground in. Topics which you both agree need work.  Or we build a long list of articles that need to be rescued (before anyone AFDs them) and that you both agree should exist, and you work together on bringing them up to standard.  I am sure that we can find some common ground here.
 * John, just consider the latest example. Given I am arguing with someone over a "per nom", to post a "per nom" feels like obvious baiting.  The combination of leaving mocking messages on my user page, still following me around after a couple ANI threads in which consensus came pretty close to us leaving each other alone, makes that he still sees fit to comment after me or after subjects I try to save seem all the more disconcerting.  To be blunt, I want nothing to do with anyone who long-term stalked another editor.  He has nominated many articles for deletion that I avoided rescue templating or commenting in.  It is not really all that hard to avoid someone.  There is thus no legitimate or justifiable reason for him to have to comment on my talk page, show up in AfDs after me, after I try to rescue a group of articles to prod ones from that category, etc.  And I suppose the most bothersome thing about it is he both agreed to "no" disruptive edits (he also was warned for personal attacks against Daedalus969) and was told by another of the mentors to leave me alone.  Thus, I am concerned that someone who agreed by arbcom not to make disruptive edits has and who was told by one of the mentors to leave me alone has gone ahead and continued to follow me anyway.  He has already been warned and already ignored it.  I really don't see anything other than some kind of block to remind him of his agreement and Casliber's talk page warning that will prevent him from persisting.  The concern is not so much me, but that he is indiscriminately going after these things and showing that he does not know about them, which presents a false impression of consensus in the discussions (such as lumping together one of the main characters of Home and Away with those that are not).  And again, I am not interested in coming to some kind of terms with someone who long-term harassed another editor, who has violated his arbcom agreement, ignores warnings from his mentor, has mocked my current and old usernames, etc.  If I can avoid commenting in AfDs he starts or after him, there is no legitimate reason he can't do the same.  If I can avoid adding anything new to his talk page, there is no reason he can't do the same on mine.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are overstating some of this. There are things about Jack that rub some people the wrong way. Try not to get too upset about them... There are things about you that rub some people the wrong way as well. You would be well advised to just chill out instead of calling for blocks of people just because they rub you the wrong way. ++Lar: t/c 20:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am calling for blocks for someone who has violated his agreement to make no even perceivably disruptive edits and for ignoring an administrator's warning to leave me alone. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You have not conclusively demonstrated that Jack's edits are disruptive, nor that his edits are targeted at you. You need to get a thicker skin, take the "kick me" sign off your back, and the chip off your shoulder, and grow up. I mean that most sincerely. ++Lar: t/c 20:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, you have demonstrated that they are disruptive, or else you wouldn't have warned him to "knock it off". And to suggest such edits as on my talk page or mentioning my username are not targetted at me is absurd.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You cited something I said on 31 May. That has no bearing on now. Please provide conclusive evidence of disruption since then. Or, better, drop it. You need to get a thicker skin, take the "kick me" sign off your back, and the chip off your shoulder, and grow up. I mean that most sincerely. ++Lar: t/c 20:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I already have provided it above; I have no idea why you are ignoring it. I can show someone a bananna and if they say it is not a banana then I don't know what more I can do.  The best way forward is he avoids me and leaves me alone and then no problems all around.  John suggested neither of us start nor comment in any AfDs for a month.  Actually that sounds like a good idea that should be enforced.  If John says he will enforce that to prevent this unnecessary hounding of me from continuing, I will gladly agree.  Wikipedia is a big place.  It does not need any two editors to have to contribute to any particularly aspect in order to survive.  Any way, good night for today.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked at the two diffs you provided. I would not characterize them the same way you do. It is my view that much (NOT ALL) of the issue here lies with your own inability to let things slide, to not take offense easily, to remain calm, to just chill out. You need to get a thicker skin, take the "kick me" sign off your back, and the chip off your shoulder, and grow up. I mean that most sincerely. ++Lar: t/c 21:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is ironic to talk about growing up when copying and pasting the same thing three times... Lar, look, you do not know me in the real world, and I do not know you either.  I HOPE you have not experienced what I have.  And because of what I have experienced, it is ludicrous to think that my feelings, if they can even be hurt anymore, would be hurt by postings made by one made up username to my own made up username.  My concern here is that I want to edit a serious encyclopedia and have mature, adult discussions in the process.  At academic meetings, we do not just vote about papers or other items we want to produce.  And we certainly do not invent nonsense non-words like "cruft" to dismiss each other's contributions.  Moreover, we do not show up at each others' offices (say user talk pages for Wikipedia's equivalent) taunting each other, or for that matter baiting each other in the actual discussions.  If we want to be taken seriously and not just be here for fun and games, then we cannot humor or excuse even if you think it mild mocking of other editors or approaching discussions not as discussions, but as votes or in some other non-adult WP:ITSCRUFT style of non-serious arguing.  And certainly not when someone has a long history of problematic editing.  Myself and others have had to contend with this stuff that came up in multiple arbcoms and ANI threads for years now.  You may have had positive experiences recently or elsewhere, but others of us have not and we were obviously not just fantasizing about a problem, because MULTIPLE abrcoms and ANI threads resulted in actual sanctions across multiple accounts.  Thus, it makes it that much more unreasonable to expect us to have to just be okay with signs of continued ill-behavior, because you have had some positive interactions.  What may seem minor to you follows and builds on what ultimately did result in sanctions and what the community must have a low-tolerance for.  It is not about being offended.  It is about being able to have serious discussions with those familiar with the subject matters and who are seriously interested in improving the content if possible.  And it is certainly not about differences in opinion over fictional subjects even, because I have argued to delete more often than I have seen a number of these accounts argue to keep, as seen at Articles for deletion/Keith Starr, Articles for deletion/Tony Cunningham (Tony & Friends), Articles for deletion/New Gaupher Eels, etc.  I nominated or argued to delete over fifty times under my previous name and at least a dozen or so since being renamed as "A Nobody."  But in every scenario, I both check for sources for at least several minutes and even see what I can do to the article, even if it is just grammatical in nature.  And I usually stay away from subjects I am not knowledgeable on.  Thus, inaccurately dismissing as "always arguing to keep", by someone who rarely argues to keep and does so perhaps less frequently than I argue to delete, in an Afd is just not true and it is that tendentiousness that is problematic.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Walls of text are an invitation to gloss over, pick at bits and pieces and the like. Succinctness is a virtue. A few points. Sometimes repetition is the only way to get through to someone who isn't listening to you. So if you see repetition, perhaps you're not listening? If your feelings aren't hurt by misuse of your username? Man up and ignore that instead of dwelling on it as you have. Most of the rest of that isn't really on point. He's not stalking you specifically... (don't flatter yourself that you're that important in his scheme of things) and asking for restrictions as if he were? ... is the ludicrous thing here. ++Lar: t/c 17:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just how long a leash has Jack been given? Is Jack's ignoring of administrative cautions to be now condoned?  You may yourself not see him as pushing the limit, but as his latest target, I find his actions to be disrupptive to my efforts to improve the encyclopedia... and others agree.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * An appropriately long length. I think you flatter yourself when you see yourself as a "target". Not everyone shares your view that your efforts are uniformly improvement oriented. I start to wonder how long a leash you need. Until you realize you are part of the problem here, little progress will be made. Man up, it will do you a world of good. ++Lar: t/c 18:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Those who are here to build an encyclopedia recognize my efforts as "improvement oriented." So long as you continue to blame the victim, I agree progress will not be made.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A reality check: I am here to build an encyclopedia, yet I do not recognize your efforts as 100% "improvement oriented". That puts paid to that notion of yours that everyone holds you as the impeccable pinnacle of behavior. You are not perfect, you are just like everyone else. We are all imperfect. As long as you insist that the problem lies 100% elsewhere and 0% with you, no progress will be made. You must recognise that you are part (not all, but part) of the problem as well, and work to find a reasonable way to go forward. However, if you continue on insisting that no blame whatever lies with you, it won't just be that you won't be able to resolve this issue, there may well come a point in which you are subject to sanction over it. Keep that in mind. ++Lar: t/c 06:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As of the time I started typing this reply, you last edited an actual article on 25 July 2009, i.e. over five days ago. Since then, at least a quarter, but maybe even a third or more of your edits have consisted in making unhelpful comments here, agreeing for deletion in one of those 1632 Afds Jack started, or arguing with me in the Grail Afd that closed as no consensus.  By contrast, I have made numerous fixes to actual articles, as well as my comments in these conversations, and posted many welcome messages to encourage new users.  Thus, it is not surprising someone asked me for help on my talk page, another posted some kind of nice appreciation template, and another editor seconded the template.  You are not making a persuasive case and if anything are making it that much harder for any actual worthwhile mediation to occur here by manufacturing a distracting disagreement with me.  I don't know if you're just trying to have the last word here or what.  I will trust in John and Casliber's judgment as objective parties, and I reckon Jack will as well.  So, no, neither I nor anyone else has to agree with you.  Going back and forth with me does not make you right and nor are any of us required to agree.  In any event, a reasonable way forward is for us to just avoid each other and on a place with over 2 million articles, that isn't really all that hard to do.  After all, I haven't lost any sleep from avoiding commenting in the various fiction AfDs he recently started.  Also, I did already try helping him in the past with an article on an Indonesian drum and while we brought the article to DYK status, things deteriorated soon after.  Thus, it is probably best we just avoid each other and mutually take a break from AfDs for a month and instead focus on article improvement, which hopefully John and Casliber can set some agreeable and enforceable terms to that effect and I will go along with what they recommend as they are by and large unbiased here.  So, I encourage you to not disrupt that effort any further and urge you to help us with article improvement as well.  We are supposed to be here to focus on building an encyclopedia or articles, not a compendium of aggressive discussions.  Good night.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 08:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're confused about what "here to help build an encyclopedia" actually means, there is more to it than just working on articles. Your unwillingness to admit that you may be part of the issue here is what is blocking forward progress. Internalise that. ++Lar: t/c 19:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I cannot admit what is not true. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are none so blind as those who will not see. ++Lar: t/c 03:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not here to build an encyclopedia
 * Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you both agree to disengage from AFD for a month, I will consider it a binding agreement, and enforce it. It may not help, but it will both give you some time to think about something else for a month, and I think it will do you both a world of good.  I am also a rabid inclusionist; I built delsort.js in order to try to help everyone rescue articles.  We could even try an experiment in my userspace where Jack Merridew lists a batch of articles that they think should be deleted, and we have a peaceful discussion about them, without the threat of them being deleted. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree to not nominating, not prodding, not commenting in, or rescue templating any articles under discussion. I am an admin on several other wikis, so I would still transwiki articles under discussion and we both should still be able to help reference and improve articles under deletion discussion without commenting in the AfDs and not the same articles, because improving articles is what we should be here for and hopefully someone in the discussions will notice any improvements.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See John's third point above; the deal on offer includes not editing article at AfD; his emphasis. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with you or anyone trying to improve articles under discussion by correcting grammar, adding references, etc.--even if they are ones I happen to be editing. My concern is just trying to get rid of ones because I want them kept and/or targetting areas of fiction I seem interested in, because I am the one interested in it, i.e. after having never edited those particular articles on say Home and Away, for example, showing up trying to delete them only after I work on them.  You are more than welcome to improve articles as I would never take issue with anyone working to better our content.  So, if we find references or come across an article with improveable grammar, if adding that reference or improving grammar betters the project, then that should not be discouraged and I would not raise any concerns if you did so.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You did not address my, or John's, comment about you not editing articles at AfD — a concern manyopen teh box; down to nested box others oldid share. As to your view that my views and comments re fictional elements are driven by you — bunk. Read Larry's comments again: you are not that important in my scheme of things. Please agree to John's AfD proposal. fyi, I have no issue with you trans-wiki-ing articles at AfD to where ever. Also consider the other proposals here abouts. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * O'Hai. Sure, I've been critical in some edit summaries: here I was referring to the fact that a table was using id="toc" class="toc" (which are for the *real* TOC) instead of class="toccolours" which is for tables that someone wanted to just look like a TOC. The former approach produces an invalid page; so, ya, we let anyone edit this site, regardless of ability — it would be nice if more of them knew what they were doing. Most of the rest of that diff is fixing the table headings to *be* table heading elements. Sheesh. This crappy template didn't close the small and noinclude tags. nb: someone had *moved* the page while it was at AfD and this resulted in the disambig page being deleted by mistake. I informed the user of the goof and another touted him for it ;) What claim this particular usage of "Nash" has to that spot in the template namespace is beyond me; it's not like that soap opera family is the original use of the name "Nash"; some editor just got there first with a ridiculous topic. One of the articles I mentioned "Articles for Ridicule" on has been deleted; (wonder why;) In this edit I clean-up the wiki-text of an article I have a low opinion of. See Respect all articles.


 * I've peeked at Editor Review and can see some use of giving that a try. There certainly are some reasonable people on this project and I'm open to their suggestions. I'll agree to a month off AfD; we have August coming, so we should go with that. From what you've said above, this would be no starting new AfDs, no commenting in any AfDs, and no editing articles at AfD. I'll not start any effective now and feel that current AfDs that we've already commented in and/or edited while at AfD are still fair game. They will play out in less than a week.


 * You mention the idea of us working on some articles together and I feel that's a fine idea. We should avoid pop-culture stuff, obviously, so how about some real stuff that has gotten poor coverage. Gianyar Regency is a stub about an area lived in by a half a million people, including myself. The word Gianyar actually covers a number of things; it is a regency of Bali that is made up of a bunch of subdistricts (kecamatan), one of which is named Gianyar, and it is the name of the capital city of the regency. The city is where I took the picture of a dog in desperate condition. See also: Kabupaten Gianyar, Gianyar, Gianyar, Desa Gianyar. There are also articles such as Sunda Strait Bridge which consists of four short paragraphs about what will be the longest suspension bridge in the world (assuming it is built, which it won't be). I certainly feel that there are a lot of articles that need improving and that I am open to working with A Nobody on.


 * Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Bali's street dogs source doesn't exist
 * I recall that A Nobody had a dog on his user page at one point; mebbe we could collaborate on this?
 * Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Jack. You have no new messages at John, you can remove this thread at anytime ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * ''I'll take these comments on board and make a proposal soon. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

distilled proposal
It looks like we nearly have an agreement on a voluntary withdrawal from AFD for a month, however A Nobody wants to still edit articles at AFD, without participating in the AFD discussion. I would really like to see you both volunteer to avoid articles at AFD; a month away from that venue will do you both the world of good.

I know you both are pretty keen on building this encyclopedia - you are both here for the right reasons. For a while I've been trying to convince Jack Merridew to be an inclusionist (I am a masochist), and I think that A Nobody can help me with that. Taking my original idea of working together on some content, and including A Nobody's desire to work on articles that are at AFD, I propose: John Vandenberg (chat) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) We set up a page in my userspace where either of you may list an article undergoing AFD, if they believe it should be rescued, stating why.
 * 2) Neither party touches those articles unless both parties agree that it should be rescued.
 * 3) If the non-listing party declines to rescue it, they must give a good reason why.  The non-listing party can decline based on topical _preferences_ only if they have agreed to other listed articles.  I will badger until a good reason is provided, but the listing party will not badger. (I might enlist Casliber and DGG to help as well)
 * 4) Neither party will be rude to, or bait, the other party
 * 5) With your powers combined, many articles are rescued.  And I will pitch in and help with library resources.


 * I'll agree to this. And I'll throw out Mycroft Holmes (computer), a fictional element, currently at AfD; I've already opined 'keep' and it looks like I'm in the majority, but the article isn't really very good. So, this is an opportunity to improve it. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of this and it's been years since I read it.
 * fyi, note my 500 or so recent edits in the area of WikiProject Intertranswiki which is rather about including appropriate content. I *did* advise Dr. Blofeld that I was not much interested in importing articles on Indonesian Soap Opera couples ;)
 * Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My one concern is that if he or I agree to not edit articles nominated at all, it would invite others who do not like either of us to seize the opportunity to try to delete them. So, with regards to articles we created or have a history of working on, we should still be able to improve them even if we avoid the actual discussion.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see the potential problem. To avoid it, both would need to be a bit conservative in which ones you list, and because the non-listing party needs to provide a good reason for not participating, Cas and I will be carefully looking at the pages which are list.
 * How about we have a discussion at the end of the motion about any listed articles which were deleted?
 * If Cas and I are not happy with any of the deletions, we could initiate a DR. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In any event, he is still going after those I rescue template: compare with .  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you expect Jack to keep track of everything you do, to the extent of ensuring he doesn't nominate anything you previously templated? In other words, what IS it you expect here? Specific to the example, you put that template on the list on 4 August. Subsequent to that, not one thing has been done to that list, including by yourself, to improve or even change it in any way. Strikes me that just slapping a template on an article without subsequently doing anything is possibly a misuse of the template, as it gives a potentially false appearance of interest in the page that is up for deletion. ++Lar: t/c 13:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You really have me baffled here. You keep defending someone who obviously gets under the skin of others per Wikiquette_alerts and who instead of defusing such disputes just laughs at and mocks opponents (note the "lulz" in edit summary and "much hullaballoo about nothing", i.e., as I italicized, specifically using the name of the opponent).  Back when White Cat correctly identified JM as a sock used to harass him and I agreed with his assessment, we had to contend with the usual hyperbole against us only to be proven correct.  Having to put up with ANYTHING subsequently is a slap in the face.  So, now we're left with this account that pokes fun of being a sock all of its userspace, mocks other editors (getting into disputes with not just me, but Daedalus, Hullaballoo, etc.), frequently approaches AfDs in an uninformed or non-serious manner, and yet for whatever off the wall reason, you act as if we should somehow legitimize this behavior.  A while back many of us defended Ecoleetage in his RfA and similarly scrutinized Húsönd for opposing only to have the latter's concerns proven correct.  Please do not be blinded here only to end up burned as I and others who defended Ecoleetage were.  We already have multiple arbcoms of evidence and even if flashes, flashes nonetheless, of continued antagonistic behavior against others that cannot possibly supersede any good edits given the history.  Imagine if you were right about something was mocked for what you ultimately were proven correct about and then had to contend with it all being excused nevertheless.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Lar here, and have mentioned this before. You two are going to keep bumping into each other occasionally; if we are talking once or twice a week, and you are both acting in predictable ways, then I see no reason to step in.  Only if he is routinely following you to odd corners of the project, or has an unusually high overlap with yourself, then it is worth complaining about.
 * How do you feel about the proposal? Can you commit to it for a month? John Vandenberg (chat) 14:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmph; moar? I prefer this diff ; my first, today.
 * See also: This ludicrous AfD that closed as 'keep' and compare the improvements to the article over the course of the week. It is *all* plot summary with *no* sources. Sheesh, Jack Merridew 14:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * John, the funny thing is, I don't seem to keep bumping into him, i.e. I am not rescue templating nor commenting in AFDs after him nor nominating articles he seems interested in for deletion. Anyway, as I said, set a date, and I will gladly refrain from prodding, speedy delete templating, nominating, or even rescue templating any articles.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparent bad faith
This edit: shows bad faith, A Nobody characterized a good faith warning by me as "trolling" in the edit summary of his deletion of the comment (rather than replying). This is typical behavior by A Nobody in response to criticism and shows that Jack is not the sole source of the problem here. It's entirely possible that A Nobody was just following Doctorfluffy around, a review of his contributions suggests he visited a large number of AfDs where Doctorfluffy commented, just to disparage Doctorfluffy's comments. One example would be Articles for deletion/Johnny Ridden, an AfD he was not participating in until he arrived to trash another editor's input. In summary, this sort of ignoring warnings and disparaging the input of others (whether it be via warnings, contributions to discussions or what have you) is not something the community, or I, should have to put up with. - Josette (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't you find calling my attempt to encourage discussion "trolling" itself bad faith? And if you noticed in most of those AfDs, I had commented in them prior to Doctorfluffy and as far as the other fiction ones go, I typically comment in fiction AfDs.  What we shouldn't have to put up with is editors coming to AfDs with hyperbole laden edit summaries that do not discuss specific sources in articles.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't change headings, leave that to John, I changed it back. I think you are confused. I used the word trolling because you characterized someones else's work as trolling. As for your "attempt to encourage discussion" I don't consider deleting my comment from your talk page, without further comment, but with an edit summary calling it "trolling" as encouraging discussion. Rather, it's discouraging discussion. You need to stop the behaviors you have been warned about, it's that simple. Josette (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not willing to play who used "trolling" first games. And this just represents how lame Jack's defenders have to seek to distract from him by attacking others.  I commented in three of the five AfDs you allude to above first, i.e. before Doctorfluffy and you have the gall to somehow allege something against me and make something out of five out of dozens of edits in one day.  In any event, neither I nor anyone need heed warnings made hypocritically or in bad faith.  It is that simple indeed and no, we need not humor or legitimize nonsensical attacks either.  As far as AfDs go, they are discussions not votes.  In discussions, editors discuss specific sources and options.  And in discussions editors interact with each other, they do not just make a list of votes.  I strongly urge you to discuss in AfDs rather than vote and to avoid hyperbole edit summaries like "sick of all the bs" or whatever.  Thank you for your time and consideration, now I am going to eat some steak with me family.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What does Jack have to do with this? He had nothing to do with that article. This is about how you treat others. - Josette (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This thread is about John's efforts to mediate between Jack and I. You posted this thread as part of a subheading of that larger thread I originally started.  Moreover, your comments here follow up on your defense of him elsewhere:, , , etc.  Please do not distract from John's effort at mediation.  After all, I am not having my wiki friends comment here on my behalf.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Still following me around
The following from today are obvious reactions to my comments and all made right in a row:, , , etc. You would think with all of the above discussion. He would at least not be so obvioius. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Waa! John, he's stalking me. Also note that I was commenting on a group of AfD's all listed at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements. I'll make an effort to review everything listed there and comment on them all.

@AN; grow up. You've failed to agree to any of the proposals John has put forward. You also made lame comments in those "discussions" — you troll AfD discussions and this is why you need to be removed from the AfD realm (including the editing of articles at AfD). Sincerely, Jack Merridew ;) 02:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by MBisanz
I've been watching this AN-JM feud for about 10 months now as both editors have blazed a trail across the wiki. Among other points, A Nobody has violated sourcing, COI, and sock/rtv policies with some borderline civility comments. Jack Merridew has violated edit warring, civility, hounding policies. However, given that neither of them is associated with a powerful group of friends, no one really has cared enough to take it any further in the dispute resolution process, since there isn't a strategic goal and it would probably end up being a very boring and tedious arbcom case like PHG or Prem Rawat 2. One of the failings of our DR system is that RFC doesn't work when two users are both at fault. I'm not sure it is at the point where Arbcom would take such a case, but given the intransigence of both sides to admit fault and accept meaningful restrictions, I suspect that is where it will end up. And it is probably worth noting that generally Arbcom restrictions tend to be more severe than voluntary restrictions.  MBisanz  talk 04:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal
John, I think it is apparent that his trolling of AfDs and ongoing badgering of myself and others needs to stop and be deescalated. Thus, I urge a revisiting of his unblock agreement, either through arbitration enforcement or request for comment, becasue enough is enough. He was given a second chance after long term abuse and harassment, and continues to mock others and edit unconstructively. We should not have to put up with this any longer. It is clear he and I will not get along and so the best way forward is to as Casliber earlier warned him, to extend the arbitration ban of him to avoid me as well and again, to also initiate an Rfc or editor review on his unconstructive edits regarding fiction. We should be here to edit as mature adults, not play games mocking opponents. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I thought these were constructive edits:  ; note how much inappropriate content the second one removed ;) Best, Jack Merridew 04:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Counterproposal: Implement the restraints on A Nobody outlined above, and if that doesn't work, start considering blocking A Nobody. Because he keeps bringing up Jack's block log, but we shouldn't forget A Nobody's block log either. Trolling on AN/I, Socking, and lots of other things... he sounds pretty self righteous but he lacks the ability to admit fault. ++Lar: t/c 04:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That you are defending someone's harassment of other editors and blatant trolling of AfDs is shameful. I really expected better from you.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're distorting the situation... it's just as easy to argue that you're harassing Jack, and that your constant harping on other editors about how they comment in AfDs is a kind of trolling. You need to learn to admit that you are, like the rest of us, imperfect. ++Lar: t/c 10:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Lar, you are choosing to ignore the date stamps. in this newest round A Nobody edited a page first, then Jack characteristically followed A nobody, and responded directly to A Nobody. How you can interpret this as A Nobody stalking Jack does not make logical sense on any level, how can someone stalk someone else when they make the edit to the page first?
 * From User talk:Casliber
 * {| class="wikitable sortable plainlinks"

! AfD ! A Nobody ! Jack Merridew
 * Alien Shaplay
 * 20:23, 12 August 2009
 * 05:37, 13 August 2009
 * Hapes Consortium
 * 17:11, 10 August 2009
 * 05:32, 13 August 2009
 * Todd Williams
 * 15:39, 12 August 2009
 * 05:26, 13 August 2009
 * }
 * 15:39, 12 August 2009
 * 05:26, 13 August 2009
 * }


 * In each case, Merridew is specifically responding to A Nobody's claim:
 * "Non-notable" is not a compelling reason for deletion on a paperless encyclopedia.
 * By writing:
 * Non-Notable — ''delete.
 * Ikip (talk) 12:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the pecking party, Ikip; you just validated a point of mine. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not say "stalk", I said "harass". A Nobody harasses a number of people, including Jack. Please take note of the increasing number of people taking issue with A Nobody giving folk who say "non notable" or "per nom" a hard time. This behaviour of A Nobody's is verging on disruptive enough to merit a block, if it comes to it. A Nobody needs to back off before someone decides to invest the time and effort in justifying same. ++Lar: t/c 14:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If Jack would had not followed A Nobody to these AFDs, and responded specifically to A Nobody's postings, we would not be here.
 * Was there a specific agreement that Jack and A Nobody should not be posting on the same pages? If so, Jack clearly broke this agreeement. All the other accusations and cross accusations are irrelevant to this question.
 * Where is this agreement? I haven't followed this case. Ikip (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * None-such; a bit of fiction made up at school one day. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Going through these edits, I do see that Lar defends your personal attacks above, which makes me question his impartiality. Editors have been booted for less.
 * Okay, so there is no agreement. I see some move toward an agreement above, but if that fails, maybe it is time to bring this to RFC. Ikip (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks ;) Have you met Lar?
 * A Nobody has balked at the above proposals and an RfC/U for him is overdue — although other ideas may obviate that. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that JM has already violated his unblock agreement by making clearly disruptive edits, he already should have been blocked, not to mention, ignoring Casliber, one of his arbcom appointed mentors to "leave you know who alone" at User_talk:Jack_Merridew/Archive_3. You would think after an arbcom appointed mentor tells you to leave someone alone you would.  And indeed Jack replied with "Sure."  Yet another lie.  He ignores his arbcom appointed mentor and continues to ride me.  Given the history, we should not have to put up with that.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing the 'clearly disruptive edits' from Jack you refer to. I DO see disruptive badgering, though. From you. Please keep your many warnings in mind. ++Lar: t/c 17:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * One need look no further than, or User_talk:Jack_Merridew/Archive_4, User_talk:Jack_Merridew/Archive_3, etc. Now look again at Requests_for_arbitration/Jack_Merridew_ban_review_motion: "5.  User:Jack Merridew agrees to avoid all disruptive editing."  Even you, his most ardent defender had to tell him to knock off the "sneers" in signatures.  If you had to tell someone to knock something off, then it must have been "disruptive" and if it was "disruptive" then it violates point five of his unblock agreement.  Also, keep in mind "6. User:Jack Merridew agrees to a one year mentorship by Casliber..."  Casliber told him to "leave you know who alone" at User_talk:Jack_Merridew/Archive_3 and yet Jack ignored that instruction, thus violation number 2 of the unblock agreement.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. If I had felt those edits were all the way to "disruptive" I would have said so. They could have been improved, and Jack should have knocked off showing how clever he is. You, on the other hand, are quickly getting all the way to disruptive with this campaign of yours, and no amount of advice from anyone else seems to be able to dissuade you, and now you've started forum shopping this to multiple pages again. Give it a rest. ++Lar: t/c 18:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your blind defense of him across multiple venues and total disregard for the concerns of myself, Hullabaloo, and everyone else he gives a hard time to is preventing any actual resolution here. Even if you removed my complaints about him, you still have the Wikiquette Alert, the MfD, the dispute with Daedalus, etc.  How many times are you going to defend him before realizing that maybe the community has a legitimate beef?  There is no valid reason after his being told by an admin and arbcom appointed mentor to leave me alone to remain so fixated on me that he has to find ways to bait me.  That is unhealthy and wrong given his history.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Lar, I'm going to give my summary of the situation: AN can be annoying; JM is often disruptive. AN tends to politely go on at wearisome length ; JM works with concise nastiness. There is a difference. If i were the recipient of AN's style, I would simply respond briefly & politely the first time, & then ignore, unfortunately JM can do only the briefly part of it but is unable or unwilling to do it politely.  History shows that if AN weren't here, he'd be picking on others. If I were the recipient of his style, I would be very hard put not to see if I could be more cleverly nasty than he--though I'm not sure I could match him, I probably would come close enough to satisfy myself. He is welcome to play it with me, and there are probably a few others here who wouldn't mind it either, but most people do.  (Obviously, bother of them are easier to live with here than they would be in RL, but even on the web, what JM is doing can hurt, while AN is easier to ignore. )    DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * and mine is that both users can be annoying, in very different ways. I am unclear on what constitutes 'disruption' on Wikipedia. Personally I am less annoyed, (upset, stalked, hounded etc) by a sharp or abrasive comment than an unctuous, faux-civil one. But in either case I would hope that I would be able to focus on the content of the message rather than the manner in which it is delivered. pablo hablo. 23:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (John asked for a pause, if he reverts me... so be it, but I feel an answer is needed) Briefly, I find myself in agreement with both DGG and Pablo, to an extent anyway, but I find AN to be the bigger long term problem. Nastiness, short and sharp, is easier to deal with than faux civility repeated ad nauseum and used as a bludgeon against all and sundry. ++Lar: t/c 16:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Given your indiscriminate defense of Jack across multiple venues, you are hardly unbiased or objective here. Moreover, you are inaccurately assuming bad faith.  And between us, I can at least show that this month I am not simply dwelling on these discussions, but reverting vandalism, welcoming new users, fixing grammar and format in articles, getting the occasional DYK credit, etc.  That is why no one without a conflict of interest sees any problem and why as my userpage attests, so many more editors recognize and appreciate my efforts.  I really hoped you would be more fair, reasonable, and honest in these threads.  The best solution remains that as Casliber already told him to leave me alone, and as a number of editors endorsed that on the ANI threads, that warning is reiterated and hence forth backed up.  I avoided commenting in his Wikiquette alert, the various mostly frivolous AFDs he started that go against WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE, the Mfd on his userspace, etc.  There is no need for anyone to have to fixate on anyone else and nor is it on a site with 2 million articles actually that hard to avoid any given user.  I do also endorse John's earlier suggestion of an editor review on him if not an RfC to see if these WP:JNN style of votes, use of "sneers" in signatures, calling an editor a "dick," saying much "hullabaloo" about nothing when arguing with "Hullabaloo Wolfowitz", etc. are in the case of the former indeed being indiscrimantely applied to fiction afds and in the case of the latter needlessly escalating disputes with multiple editors.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

email
Ping. rootology ( C )( T ) 18:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

DID I SAY YOU COULD EDIT MY USER PAGE!!?!?!?!
Thanks - I need all the help I can get seeming halfway intelligent. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

From another talkpage, thanks for the welcome. Toolsother (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Wikisource
(Short version: You did fix it, Wikipedia just took a while to notice.) —Paul A (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Great, however I am still curious about the cause. We need some more technical folk to take a look and pinpoint the cause so that any other similar problems can be fixed as well. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA reminder
Thanks for signing up for the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! --Jayron32. talk . say no to drama 22:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

CU result?
Hi John, I engaged with you on Jimbo's page, remember, and I see you are a checkuser. I honestly believe that MusicInTheHouse is not the same user called Wikipeire, the reason being that both deny that it, I AGF; and MITH with 3,000 edits is a pretty well established editor by now, so no need for him/her to be somebody else, and it seems bizarre to contemplate. What I'm asking of you is this, "is it germane to recheck the CheckUser results on MITH, as the CU involved only said "likely", and likely appears weakish to indef block a 3,000 edit user, imo. MusicInTheHouse cannot edit outside his talkpage at the moment, and is relying to a certain extent on "the kindness of strangers". Hope you can help move this forward. Thanks! Tfz     01:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am the arbitration committee member who initially looked into the Wikipeire appeal and found that there was very strong evidence to support MusicInTheHouse=Wikipeire. The ban appeal subcommittee decided that rather than decide this within the arbitration committee, we would initiate a SPI and let the community and an uninformed checkuser investigate it.  The uninformed checkuser also decided that it was likely, and MITH was banned by the community.  MITH can appeal his ban to arbcom, and there are plenty ways he can privately prove to the arbitration committee that he is not Wikipeire.  I would love to learn that MITH is not Wikipeire, but the arbitration committee wont interfere unless he contacts us and convinces us that he is a different person. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

email @ your gmail
Hi! I sent you some email @ your gmail address. Could you take a look? I'm getting nervous about this subject. Please respond via email, if that's OK with you. EEng (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm looking at this right now. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

About Xinjiang Article
Hello. The 1st section (history) of the article Xinjiang is redundant since there is also another article History of Xinjiang. Most of the sentences are identical in both pages. I think the first section should be moved to the history article, including new additions, refs. etc. Xinjiang article better be just related to current Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, as Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region is redirected to Xinjiang. Maybe a new name "Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region" fits better to page, afterwards. Otherwise, Xinjiang article becomes lengthy, and subjected to vandalism by people who do not want to see names of earlier states of a region belongs to their country (PRC).Obuli (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Our article Xinjiang should include a summary of History of Xinjiang. If you think that the History section of Xinjiang is too detailed, please trim it down. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Phineas Gage
For this photo not to be in the public domain would require a child photographer (unlikely) of a Gage near his own death in 1860 (unlikely), who then went on to live to be at least 95 to die in 1939 (unlikely). Making likely assumptions about these ages results in a photographer who had to live longer than 100 to die in 1939, 70 years ago. I think this is strong evidence, that, absent more info, this is a public domain photo under U.S. law. See the Gage talk page. S B Harris 02:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!
Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:


 * T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
 * WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
 * WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
 * WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
 * WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32. talk . say no to drama 02:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

how to write articles w/templates
Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * BPsection:About the Gazettes
 * (see usage;)
 * and teh TfD

My assist
Apologies if you felt I was too keen to assist here - thought you might have gone off-line. Best wishes.-- VS talk 09:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help; its been a while since I have done an unblock, and I got stuck half way through as the template was telling me I needed to comment first, before replacing the template. All is well that ends well. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, so many things to remember in this job at times. Cheers!-- VS talk 10:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

WHY FREEZING A FALSE INFORMATION AT ARNAIZ_VILLENA PAGE ?
I believe you should help in this untenable situation. Arnaiz-Villena has said he has not written a word about Rongorongo,Mayan and other languages. You have said that this information source is not valid. Why don't you delete it? This is not a matter of voting about opinions ;this is preserving Wikipedia quality.--Virginal6 (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See The Wrong Version. J.delanoy gabs adds  16:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I froze the page to prevent it becoming worse, and so that we could learn about the problems.
 * I am sorry that it has taken so long, but it is now fixed, and we can work on the next problem.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 12:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kangarli Khanate


The article Kangarli Khanate has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

SFan's Massacre tagging
Hi. You addressed this image and link destruction for a 6 month period and have probably researched this the most. Please stop by to add your presumably well-informed view and/or act on this. Incorrigible, perhaps? --Elvey (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello?   Oh, whoops.  I linked to the old AN/I above.  I meant to link to my new AN/I notice, which I'd like you to review.  Have the cycles to spare? --Elvey (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I will look at this today. Cheers, John Vandenberg (chat) 01:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have had a long look through his contribs, and much of the work is good, and he does engage people who complain in order to help them resolve the image problems. I will talk to him about some of the occasional mistakes he has been making, so he does less of them and more of the good work. Thanks for letting me know. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, he does some good; it just seems to me that he does more harm both to the content, and to the creators of the content (wikipedians), than good. In trying to get this addressed, I have had to withstand 5 trumped-up attacks from one of his defenders, who shares his views.  Not fun.  SFan is angering large numbers of valuable contributors in short periods of time, as the links I put in the AN/I showed. I leave it in your capable hands to deal with him, and will drop the issue.--Elvey (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Message
I saw your comment here and have responded here. I can see how you got the impression that you did and want to apologize for personalizing things as much as I did there. I know you're a good guy doing good work here, I just think you got it wrong on that occasion. I was annoyed and I'm afraid I let it show. Anyway, just to say, there are no lingering bad feelings towards you or your work here on my part. I just hope I can get back to editing and put all this behind me if possible, even though I've quite enjoyed my wiki-break. All the best to you. --John (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

RE: Borders of Azerbaijan
Hi John. This category also has only one article (the same river) which makes removing under such ground that the category does not exist weak. You could not have ignored the borders since you created this article and on external links you added No. 6497 agreement. The word Abbasabad is used only twice, second time to highline Aras being the border. Your adding of that No. 6497 agreement is irrelevant to the article as it says nothing about the fortress itself, the only message it conveys is the dispute of certain groups on the borders of Iran. Your creation here further pushes that claim, we in fact see here Malikbek who had a similar intrusion on Khachen adding the same unreliable source you added on that article. You also added the weasel words which will leave people to think it was not in Iran, which it was. BTW, do you plan on fixing the copyvio here. Neither did you find relevant to add the word Iran somewhere because the original from where you copied it had the word Iran in it but you removed those sentences. Besides, the Khanate of Maku was a Kurdish Khanate not Turkic, it was falsely associated with a Kangarli Khanate given that this wording is practically hard to find anywhere in published works... will you be kind enough to tell me what prompted this reaction of yours to create such an article with such a wording? Thanks. - Fedayee (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Socks
Can you see the last two SPA fellows who just popped onto Talk:australia-India relations please? Thanks  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 04:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It has been reverted; let me know if it continues and I will start digging around. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Hey, I sent you an e-mail. Please read it and respond, it explains everything. Afterwards, I'll send another for I came up with a solution.Thanks Schnitzel MannGreek. 22:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How's it going('please respond via email)?Please refer to these posts [],and []. They will be of most help and I have User:Inferno, Lord of Penguins willing to back me up because he said--"Not only do I simply trust you, but behavioral evidence suggests that to me as well."Thanks. Schnitzel MannGreek . 13:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I am willing to back him up too. Spongefrog ,   (talk to me, or else)  14:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As was mentioned here already, I am very willing to back him up on this. Inferno,   Lord of   Penguins  00:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification
I know that I wasn't exactly helpful at the later points in the "Search soon to begin" discussion. And how else will further issues be solved without my own input when people only get one part of the issue.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 05:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * ''Discussion moved to Clarifications page John Vandenberg (chat) 05:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * .— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 06:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Question
Hi, question for you here in case you miss it. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 07:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

g'day john
(and egads! t'would seem I'm following Slim around - just serendipity, promise!) - I asked FT about the sockpuppet thing here. He previously mentioned that folk should ask you - perhaps because he feels he's unable to talk about it? Anywhoo - there seem to be some questions remaining to me (having had a look at TBP diff.s and stuff)... so I thought I'd swing by here and ask you if there's anything I should know, or where's a good spot to ask them. Hope you're good anyways - are you GLAMing at the weekend? Privatemusings (talk) 06:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am looking into it informally. see
 * FT2 is not able to comment further, and has said so. I view your post there as badgering, and I would appreciate it if you would remove your post, and refrain from getting yourself involved in this dispute.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 07:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * coolio :-) - I'll leave you to it for a couple of weeks then - I'm sure the questions that pop into your mind are the sensible ones anywhooo... I'll also leave susan (for it is she), my pet badger, here for you to mind - from my perspective you have a fairly low badger-bar - so be gentle with her :-) Privatemusings (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * you have removed susan! I think that's illegal in some states (and be careful if she bites - I think she may have TB... ;-) - I was also going to mention that I really like your userpage layout and pic - very modern 'n classy :-) Good luck sorting everything out, and I'll pop back in a fortnight (or maybe comment wherever you kick off a public discussion?) Privatemusings (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 10 days down... any word? :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No. But I have most of the data I need to chew through... which is a start. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

< coolio... I guess it'll take a little while, so I'll pop back in sometime next week - I'd like to ask a few small questions at that point, if that's ok.. :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm now trying to catch up on the WR thread which seems to have moved these things on a bit - though your examination of the socking thing is really wholly independent (and in my view has clear relevance to FT's 'trusted' roles today) - I feel like I've got to read all the latest stuff to try and clarify a few things - have you had any further thoughts about how / where to have a chat on-wiki yet? yours in a 'keeping tabs lazily' sort of way! - Privatemusings (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC) ps. you a cricket fan? - sometimes I love being a pom in australia! :-)
 * ping pong... Privatemusings (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * been bobbing around in the middle of nowhere, but am wondering if there was any on-wiki conversation about any of this? - From my little news catch-up, the wiki has been as bonkers as ever, but I remain curious :-) Privatemusings (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope it's cool with you if I head back to FT's page in a little while, because I really do think there's something worth clearing up here. Apologies if I've missed anything, but I presume you've just been way too busy with all the other stuff going on to get to this :-) Privatemusings (talk) 09:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No it is not OK, for the same reason as before: read FT2's final word on the matter from last time. As I understand it, this has already been reviewed by a number of people, without anyone concluding it was a sock.  When I am done reviewing it to my own satisfaction, I will let you know.  You can keep pressing me, or you can find another functionary to bother (be sure to tell them that I am currently investigating this), but approaching FT2 about it again is harassment. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

< looks like I might have to call the wiki-word police on you, john :-) - to define maybe 3 or 4 posts concerning a question about admin / arb socking over the period of several months (looks like your investigations just tipped over the 2 month mark) as 'harassment' is a bit of a stretch in my view - and seems to me to actually make it much harder to resolve than just a really simple bit of communication. I reckon it should be easy to either state clearly that you've had a look at the situation and do not believe there is any question of dodgy wiki-behaviour, or say 'I've taken 2 months on this one, and it looks like I can't really get to the bottom of this at the mo' - whaddya reckon? Privatemusings (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I didnt say your posts here are harassment. However FT2 has said all he needs to say, and is limited in what more he can say, so approaching him about it is going to be seen as harassment.  This has not been my highest priority of late, so it isn't done "at the mo". John Vandenberg (chat) 12:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that this is all I've seen from FT directly in response to the matter - now I've only spent a few minutes browsing the on-wiki links from this off wiki page - it's a mywikibiz page maintained by he who shall not be named (at least around FT ;-) - but it seems quite hard to me to figure out a simple explanation for some of those diffs - how TBP was a sort of sock / co-editor who edited with FT, but isn't FT, and disappeared after a while. You've stated that you would view it as harassment for me to raise this matter in any way directly with FT, I presume because it was Peter Damian who collected the diff.s that I've browsed through (I don't really agree or understand why it's therefore impossible to talk about socking etc. - but there you go) - I was thinking of writing something up for the Signpost, who I see have some great new staff and columns - whaddya reckon? Privatemusings (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The Signpost is a tabloid? John Vandenberg (chat) 20:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * heh.. well I wouldn't be quite so uncharitable - though they do have 'drama' and 'troll' sections (unfortunately the 'Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations' and 'The Report on Lengthy Litigation' always make me cringe somewhat, mind!) - we'll see if there's any interest - I dunno..... I do feel [the allegation] that a functionairy (and ex arb) having run a sock in a clearly pretty dodgy fashion (even if ages ago) is something that's worth looking into, and clearly discrediting if without basis - mileage may vary.... Privatemusings (talk) 09:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "having run a sock" - no, it has been rejected a good number of times. Until I have come to a conclusion, it is only alleged &mdash; and the last person who made a fuss about it has been sanctioned repeatedly for it. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (I added 'the allegation' to my post above, which clarifies my intention - sorry for not being clearer) - re 'it has been rejected a good number of times' - I haven't actually seen it discussed on wiki at all, to be honest- though I have seen notes about the reasons it can't be discussed.... (the 'harassment' stuff) - would it be possible to point me in the direction of any of the chats? - My impression is that PD was sanctioned for rather enthusiastic pursuit of what he would, I suspect, view as resolution in this matter - I'll take care to not follow a negative lead, and trust in my natural laziness to help preventing me getting too hot under the collar :-) Privatemusings (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely you don't need anything from me at this stage .. you have done your research and are ready to roll ... John Vandenberg (chat) 10:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

< heh... 'ready to roll'? - nah - not quite! Just wondering what the good folk of the signpost might think (tabloid, or not!) - what would be ideal from my perspective (from you) would be to hear your conclusions on the matter - would another couple of months help? Privatemusings (talk) 10:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ps. would it be possible to point me in the direction of any of the chats about this on-wiki? Thanks :-) Privatemusings (talk) 10:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to start researching, and I dont recommend it, the arbitration committee decision in this matter is good place to start A good portion of the history is private, and I am not sure how much of that history was considered by the arbcom members who voted on that motion.  Irrespective of that, the committee instructed both to disengage, onwiki or elsewhere.  As you know, PD has not done this, so FT2 has responded to the allegation quite clearly, and I am reviewing the private evidence.  Don't hold your breath, and don't accuse FT2 of lying unless you have proof that contradicts his explanation.  This hasn't been my highest priority.  I have unread emails from both sides, and there are still a few aspects that I need to look into.
 * p.s. A little badgering is OK; too much results in time being wasted. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have had a look at this situation. User:TBP is an admitted sock puppet account. . If I stumble across that diff in the normal course, I would block the account indefinitely on the spot.  There is no way to know with absolute certainty who controls it, but the pattern of editing appears to suggest a strong connection to User:FT2.   I think you need to investigate this more thoroughly, John.  It is not acceptable for an oversighter and checkuser to have operated an abusive sock puppet account.  There are instances where the streams crossed between TBP and FT2.  Check the diffs before and after.  Note the incessant tweaking of own posts, strongly characteristic of FT2. Also note that FT2 seems to have concerns about me (the nature of which I don't understand). I am not to be considered a neutral observer here. Jehochman Talk 13:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Was it bad for Geogre to have an alternate account that he was using currently? Yes.  Was it bad for Law to run for admin without disclosing his past?  Yes.  Should FT2 be held to answer for actions that are 3 years old and which stopped before he held any positions of trust?  That is not as clear to me. Thatcher 14:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Could we get a definitive answer then? Yes, this was historical sock puppetry, but it has since stopped. What I dislike are the ongoing denials that appear to be counter-factual.  I'm also not sure FT2 would have been elected to ArbCom in December 2007 had this 2006 sock puppetry been disclosed, nor do I think he'd have gotten checkuser and oversight access. Jehochman Talk 14:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, if you are in the practice of indef blocking declared socks on the spot, you need to hand in your tools :-) because you would not be respecting the current WP:SOCK policy. Also, times have changed.  What was acceptable in 2005/6 is not always acceptable now.  p.s. I got a smile out of the irony of your claim that you will block accounts like Privatemusings, and pursuing the same agenda as him here.

Your use of words like "denial" and "counter-factual" indicate that you have made up your mind that FT2 is guilty of using TBP as a sock, and that his recent statement is a lie. And yet you know that there is private information that you haven't seen. If you are going to persist with this sort of language, make your own assertions about what you consider to be credible evidence to support the sock allegation, and state where you see that the two accounts were abusing the sock policy at the time, assuming that they were operated by the same person.

I am investigating it quite thoroughly, and I don't appreciate suggestions that I am not. I hope I havent said anything which would given that impression. Time is always a problem, and both real world and BASC/AUSC tasks have taken a priority. A definite answer will come from me when I have finished reviewing the private evidence. Ideally this would be an Arbcom task, however I took it on because I suspected that they would be extremely uninterested in revisiting something this old.

Fwiw, FT2's current use of the tools is subject to monitoring and audits where there are reasonable grounds for concern. That doesn't completely address the trust aspect you raise, which is why this does need to be reviewed. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It will be good for Wikipedia if there is a clear resolution of this doubt. Either state, 1/ yes this was socking but it was stopped and it was very old, and is now forgiven, or /2 no, this was not socking.  The matter is closed either way.  As I said above, there is no way to know for sure who controls an account, but if the info above were on an WP:SPI report for an ordinary user, there'd probably be a finding of sock puppetry, the sock would be blocked, and the user would be warned or blocked for a week.  Obviously we won't do that for something three years ago. Jehochman Talk 14:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * would you mind setting a vague-ish timescale for this one, john? I'm concerned otherwise that 2 months could slide into 4, and then gently reverse into the 'it's too hard, too long ago, and not worth bothering with' pile (if you feel it's there already, I reckon it'd be better to say so at this point rather than letting it slide... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC) your sense of irony around jhoch's statement that he would block me is made all the more delicious because of course, that (a ban) is exactly what happened! ;-)
 * conversation has gently continued over at wikipedia review, and at thacher's talk page. A note on timescale would still be appreciated :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ps. I think WMAU may be able to do something interesting in partnership with CarriageWorks - more anon :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 11 days since your last post on this one :-) - how's it going? can I help? (is this badgering? ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 08:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC) and would you like a cup of tea? [really rather witty youtube link removed] ah go on.... ah go on..... ah go on... etc. etc.
 * I trust the absence of both badgers, and youtube clips is noted in this gentle ping. Privatemusings (talk) 08:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Another reminder :-) - I think I may try and figure out if I can approach someone else about having a look at this? - T'would seem to me you're probably a bit busy, and it's rapidly coming up to 4months as an open matter... lemme know any thoughts... Privatemusings (talk) 03:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Follow up: was this investigation resolved? Did the resolution or non-resolution have anything to do with FT2 resigning all his ops? FT2 has been attacking my ArbCom candidacy vigorously.  When resigning he claimed not to have time for using the ops, but he seems to have plenty of time for attacking me and calling me dishonest. I need to know if he is acting in good faith, or pursuing a vendetta against me. Jehochman Talk 15:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My investigation has not been completed, however I have not found anything actionable so far, and that is taking into account his public explanation given this year. I have a bit more to do, and then write it up for Arbcom and a public statement.
 * FT2's decision to put down his tools was his own; the committee had nothing to do with it. In the other cases where the tools were resigned under a cloud, this committee has explained the surrounding events and made themselves available to answer questions.
 * I am not sitting on a cover up. Please think that through very carefully, because that is what you are implying here.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 16:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not think it would be a coverup for somebody to resign quietly. That rumor has been going around via sources besides me.  It is good that you confirm this was not the case.  Some amount of strife could have been avoided had I known this earlier.  Please look into the other matters I emailed the committee about today. It is very important to avoid unnecessary conflicts and disruption. Thank you.Jehochman Talk 16:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Reporting a moderator
Hi, John! I dont know if you remember me, you had helped me get into the Latin work on Wikisource. I would like to report a moderator by the name of Zaxby, who, after I made multiple correct edits on a page and then made one mistake edit, slapped a warning about vandalism on my discussion page, which is still there. Then, after questioning the warning, I was derided and ignored, also to be seen on my discussion page. Yes, I then made the error of returning some fire, at which point, after insulting me, he slapped me with a warning for attacking editors, ie, him. Can you straighten things out here? Im a huge contributor to the Latin Wiki and I hate to get banned because of this guys misunderstandings about my edits to a page and his bad attitude. I certainly dont think he represents the spirit of the Wiki. Thank you very much. Please let me know what you think of the situation. CeleritasSoni (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, sorry I havent responded to your call for help sooner. It appears this dispute is about Pedro Martínez.  I dont understand why user:Zaxby is warning you, and you should ignore them or remove them from your user talk page.  If it continues, let me know. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey
You've got mail. AdjustShift (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight Unblock
I would like to voice my opinion on your unblock. CoM, for an hour, threw personal attacks at every user, admin and ArbCom person within arms reach. This wasn't a little fit throwing, this was blantant violation of WP:NPA. The block should have been either changed from a ArbCom violation to violation of personal attacks or lessened to 12 hours for those personal attacks. CoM wasn't going to attack once he was unblocked, he got what he wanted and you handed it to him. I would ask that the personal attacks from tonight be addressed and something be done cause this isn't the first and certainly won't be the last time he will hurl a personal attack at someone. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 08:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As I stated in the message I was working on when you unblocked and the discussion was closed, it wasn't just the Obama-related discussion, it was the attacks he was throwing around in that discussion that caused me to block. The ones afterward -- eh, comes with the job description.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 08:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The block rationale explicitly stated that this edit was the reason for the block, calling it a violation of a topic ban which didnt obviously apply to that edit anyway.
 * Unless the arbitration violation is extremely clear, the problem should be taken to WP:AE for discussion, or a separate thread on ANI or WQA.
 * You blocked the user six hours after the "problem" diff. They had made many more comments on ANI after that time, and they had not commented further at ANI for over an hour.  i.e. six hours had passed and nobody thought that diff needed a block, and all of their comments had sat there for an hour, and nobody was calling for a block.  Here is what ANI looked like at the time.  The section containing the problem diff had been archived,  had filed a clarification request, and discussion had moved to the ANI thread "Stalking hounding and harassment".
 * While that diff may have been "the last straw", none of the straws were violations of a topic ban. The appropriate way to prevent further drama would have been to say clearly on the users talk page: "Your earlier comments at ANI were disruptive, and there is now a clarification request. Please don't launch any further personal attacks on to ANI, otherwise I will take this to AE."  Caution notes and warnings are the appropriate way of dealing with these types of situations, especially when a lot of time has elapsed, and/or when the user has moved onto a different task.  Note that at the time of the block, CoM was submitting a statement to Arbcom on that clarification request.
 * My unblock was almost two hours after the block. If you had a better rationale for the block, and the blocked party was ranting and raving saying that a better block rationale was needed, you had plenty of time to provide one.
 * I can appreciate that some think a reblock was necessary, however as CoM had "endured" two hours of a block which wasnt justified, based on the rationale given, I figured it was not worth reblocking for a different, more valid, rationale. That just rubs salt into the wounds.  I didnt handle it perfectly because I have been a bit busy this evening, and didnt immediately recognise that he had started posting about it again, however with a little communication CoM disengaged from this situation without a reblock.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 11:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The main reason I didn't expand my rationale any earlier was that I didn't want to throw fuel on the fire, especially since CoM had responded heatedly. If my block reason had been "attacks against other editors during violation of topic ban", with the single diff I first gave, would that have been better, or would it have had the same issues the first summary did? If not better, how about "attacks against other editors during discussion about Obama article, from which he is topic banned"?
 * I didn't take it to AE because I wasn't a party to the discussion at hand -- my Obama editing has been fairly limited. I think the only time I've really gone up against CoM was in a CAFE discussion that Grundle2600 was driving, though we've crossed paths at other times. (Wonder if there's enough info on the toolserver to see when people have posted on the same thread in WP: or Talk: - WikiStalk.py only says if you've edited the same page, which isn't terribly useful for something like AN/I...) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * He was responding in that manner because the block was enforcement of the arbcom topic ban, which didnt clearly cover this. You then logged it as a enforcement, and said it was due a violation of the topic ban.  The topic ban doesn't clearly cover this, and we will need to clarify or amend this.  However if it isnt clear, the review process at WP:AE allows for admins to base their decisions on previous violations and comments from the party and others.
 * I dont know of a tool which can find close intersections between two people, however you can use this tool to see how involved you are in Obama articles.
 * Here are a few.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 17:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Bookmarked, thanks -- I forgot about that one. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutralhomer, your accusation on ANI that CB=CoM was also a violation of "Wikiquette". And then this "non-apology" .. hmm.  I think you can do better than that if you wanted to mend fences.
 * Are you at ANI to solve problems? I've not look at your contribs, but your involvement in that thread is mostly stoking the drama.  As I have said to SarekOfVulcan, problems like this should be sent to WQA, or if an admin is going to unilaterally block for civility/personal attacks, they need to be sure to present a good block rationale and listen to the blocked person rant and rave because ... they might be saying something useful. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It may have been a violation, but it is something I believe. If you notice from last night, neither of them were on at the same time, both have the same style of editing, and both use the same tone of language.  But as I told another user, I don't have enough to prove it.  So, I let it go.  I won't apologize for something I believe in, even if it offends someone.  This isn't grade school where we apologize then go play in the dirt...this is real life and you don't always get an apology nor deserve one.


 * Anyway, back to CoM....so, what you are saying is personal attacks after a block are perfectly OK, should go to a "non-binding noticeboard" where he would get nothing more than a slap on the wrist and a "don't do that again now" and sent along his way. Nothing he said was "useful" nor was the slightest bit polite.  That deserves an apology....and some form of punishment.  Had I done that during a block, not only would my talk page been locked, my block would have been pushed up further just for the personal attacks.  He needs to be held accountable for his actions. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 15:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So you wont apologise for something that offended another contributor, but you demand an apology from CoM, who I am guessing believes in what he wrote as fervently as you believe in what you wrote? John Vandenberg (chat) 15:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See, you are comparing the two, what I said is not a personal attack under WP:NPA, a policy, it is "Wikiquette" violation under WP:WQA, a "idea" kinda...no one is sure what it is. You can't compare the two.  His went on for an hour solid, non-stop, and directed at everyone....mine was posted in plain view on ANI to one person and I was admonished for it and stepped away from it.  Compareable to a small child kicking and screaming in a store until he got the toy he wanted, CoM hurled personal attacks at everyone in reach until he got what he wanted.  When the kid in the store got the toy, he stopped....same with CoM, he got unblocked, he stopped.  Doesn't make it right.  Also doesn't compare even close to what I said to CB. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 15:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." - you alleged that CB=CoM without any basis. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So, you are comparing the two...nice. So, if I apologize to CB, will actually take this seriously or are you going to let CoM slide on the whole hour long personal attack thing? -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 16:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that what you and CoM have said is equivalent, as they are comparable only in that both are inappropriate according to the same policy.
 * If I saw you making allegations like that regularly, I would warn you, and expect that you are blocked if you persist with tossing unrelated allegations into ANI threads. CoM was blocked for a violation he didn't commit, without a warning.  I don't doubt that SoV had good intentions, and that he had a better basis for the block, but he didnt communicate it very well, which meant that the ability to appeal the block is removed.
 * If you can build a good rationale for a reblock, and convince uninvolved administrators that it is needed, feel free. But I am of the opinion that the two hour block(?) is sufficient (doubly jeopardy, perhaps), and CoM has been sternly cautioned by myself and Ncmvocalist about the way he has approached this.
 * Your hypothetical is only comparable if someone blocks you for your questionable behaviour hours after your allegation, and without warning. If that happened, I would take into consideration the colour of the froth, but I would be focusing on how to solve whatever was causing the frothing.
 * Also I want to point out that I have not condoned how CoM used his talk page while blocked, and I had nothing to do with it remaining unlocked.
 * Finally, I am not going to respond further here tonight, as I have other issues to focus on. Please give my talk page a miss for a while; I'll be happy to talk more about it tomorrow.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 16:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight
Hi John. This diff seems to be a continuation of the personal attacks that CoM was placing on his talk page prior to your unblock. It's very hard to make any sense of it. ChildofMidnight has edited two articles created by me, Chateau of Vauvenargues and Butcher group, in their very early stages. Neither of the topics - French culture/Art history and mathematics - are within his normal interests, so although I wouldn't go so far, this editing - both unhelpful and uninformed - could possibly be described as wikistalking. On the other hand, as an academic I happen to know a lot of academic economists, including the late James Meade (an honorary fellow of my college whom I met at high table), Willem Buiter and Robin Wells, the wife of Paul Krugman. I have spent a little time trying to ensure that the BLP of Paul Krugman is as neutral as that of the other winners of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics. I have also tried to improve the articles of Meade and Wells. I also created Robert Hall, Baron Roberthall some time back. Mathsci (talk) 09:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This was discussed already in an ANI report where Mathsci and Connolley's behavior was determined to be inappropriate. I will try to dig out the link tomorrow. Mathsci has been seeking confrontation with me ever since. Hopefully Arbcom will do something about Connolley in the arbcom case you're hearing as he's at the core of the problem. He seems to do a lot of good editing, but does what he pleases without restraint as far as admin actions go. He and Mathsci are close friends on and off Wiki, but teaming up as they do shouldn't be acceptable. By all means investigate his diffs in the context of my helping out on new page patrol and making basic copy-edits. I suggest checking my contribution history from that time period. And by all means check out Krugman's article as well. I'm a good faith content contributor and happy to collaborate with anyone. But Mathsci's abusive rehashing of this incident where he also outed another editor is problematic. I have no idea why he continues to try and create disruption in this way, but perhaps he thinks this is an opportunity to go after me. Pretty sad behavior. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at this within an hour. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ChildofMidnight is misrepresenting both WMC and me. I have edited namespace in the usual manner: there has never been any problem with my namespace edits, which are in diverse encyclopedic topics. Handel House Museum was my last article and I have started Handel organ concertos Op.7, which will develop slowly. Even on your talk page CoM continues to make fallacious and histrionic innuendos. As I recall CoM was blocked for making the first edit to Talk:Butcher group. The highly problematic nature of this edit was pointed out subsequently in an independent review by User:Charles Matthews on WP:ANI (I'll find the diff if need be). His own editing even now is highly problematic. I briefly tried to neutralize the lede of Paul Krugman, which is in a highly unstable state, veering from neutral to smearing and back again, partly due to ChildofMidnight's edits. BTW I hardly know WMC: when ChildofMidnight writes that he is a "close friend" that seems to be something CoM has fabricated and is again an example of his disruptive on-wiki behaviour. I do know Charles Matthews slightly: we have indeed been fellows of the same college and faculty of the same department, but at different times; we have both been firmly put in our place as mathematicians by Alexander Todd. User:R.e.b. is the only wikipedian who is a close friend of mine in real life, as far as I know. Mathsci (talk) 10:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The massacre of the Cathars
Hi. Would you consider undeleting the above? I believe that I created it as a redirect to something (not sure what). The target may need adjustment at this point. I am linking to it from my sidebar and think it a valid search term. I'm open to ideas as to the target and will go looking; Catharism seems likely. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done John Vandenberg (chat) 08:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I just updated the target per teh current wiki. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI
Well, Okay. But can you please let me know when things are being done? I keep ending up in situations where I'm told after the fact that things are happening. Usually after continued problems cause the situation to become much worse. For instance, the Homeopathy statement. Had it been dealt with within a day, a sentence or minor edit would be ample. But now quite some time has passed, and any edit is going to be to an obscure archived page - which means that the possibility of relief is reduced to miniscule proportions unless there's a public statement, which is far more than the problem actually deserved. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 187 FCs served 03:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't give you a timeframe on when something will be done; we aim to conclude matters so that they do not need to be revisited time and time again, yet you keep raising this in public time and time again.
 * I am sorry that we have been slow in getting back to you at time. We have been working through a review of the second case.  Please realise we have an extremely busy workload, trying to prevent new problems, and your case is not the only one being reviewed at the request of parties (you know of at least one other).  This takes time.
 * I will give you an update twice per week until we have finished handling your outstanding requests. The first one will be within 48 hrs time, once I have caught up with recent events.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 04:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't need a timeframe, it's just I need to know things are happening, or, at least, that it's not been forgotten - a lot of things I've been told were going to happen eventually never did. (Also, in this case, it wasn't me who brought up Hoffman, but Risker. If an Arbcom member decides to try and hurt me by suddenly talking about how he thought the Hoffman case was right, and how the whole statement was just an effort to get me to shut up, then me talking about Hoffman again is going to happen, and I think you'll agree it's justified. Indeed, if I'm correct, every time I've brought up Hoffman since December has been because of outside forces forcing my hand. If another site is using it to attack me; if Risker decides to make a statement about how the case was valid in order to try and upset me, etc, etc, then I don't think it's unreasonable to talk about it again.) Shoemaker's Holiday Over 187 FCs served 04:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want to discuss this with you at the moment, and definitely not here.
 * Sorry, but I fear this has done more harm than good. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikisource Question
I wanted to import the decision from Northeast Bancorp, Inc. v. Governors, FRS to Wikisource to complement my Bank of New England article. The text is PD and I would remove any headnotes/footnotes, but wanted to make sure it was ok.  MBisanz  talk 04:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Go for it. see United States Reports/Volume 472
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 04:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  MBisanz  talk 04:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

BS
P.s.You got email;) Schnitzel MannGreek . 17:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please respond--did you get my email? Schnitzel MannGreek . 19:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello/---Are you even getting my messages?Once you respond to my last email---I have something important to discuss so please don't ignore me. Schnitzel MannGreek. 14:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have received your email, and will answer it, like I have answered all of your previous emails. But it will not be tonight. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I have something important to say once you do get the chance;) Schnitzel MannGreek . 14:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally,I don't think this can wait for long. If you can please spare some of your time? Schnitzel MannGreek . 15:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If it is something new, please email me. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion sorting tool
Hi, I'm probably missing something obvious, but I can't get the tool to work for me. I'm on Safari 4.0.2 and latest Mac OS X.

Here's what happens when I try to use the tool: Nominated article name: Hungary–Mexico relations: Status Check the article "Hungary–Mexico relations" exists ...: Status done: Progress OK : Status Grabbing edit form for Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Hungary: Status Error: TypeError: Result of expression 'query.toSource' [undefined] is not a function.: Error

Here's my : importScript('User:Quarl/util.js'); importScript('User:Quarl/wikipage.js'); importScript('Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Add LI menu'); importStylesheet('Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Add LI menu/css'); importScript('User:AzaToth/twinkle.js'); importScript('Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/delsort.js');

Twinkle is enabled in my Gadget Preferences.

Any idea what I'm doing wrong?

Thanks. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there has been problems with Safari. There are a few Macs around my office; I'll see if I can test this in the next few days. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Appreciate it. :) --Cybercobra (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can now confirm it doesn't work on Safari 4.0.3 and does work on Firefox. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried it (4.0.3), too and got "Can not determine article name for "Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/Simon_Dunn", aborting: Error" (I clicked "England"). Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Erich Feigl
Hi, I recently made this edit on the Erich Feigl page, which essentially restored blanked text, and had it reverted by another editor with what I consider insufficient rationale. I saw you were working on the page at precisely the same time, and you did not seem to take any stance on the matter. I just wanted to ask, am I out of line? It looks to me like a nationalist editor is pursuing a political agenda there that constitutes a fringe view; am I mistaken?

Did you not notice this was going on as you worked on the page, or do you perceive me to be in error? I am loathe to get involved in these things beyond a single edit, but in this case I am interested in your opinion. Cheers, DBaba (talk) 03:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I dont think you are out of line, however I am also considered to be a nationalist editor, so don't listen to me ;-)
 * These content disputes usually need to be talked about on the talk page. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In this sort of content dispute, I would have higher hopes for scribbling on the wall of a public bathroom, than I would of taking it to the talk page. I was hoping I could nudge you into acting as a sort of unwitting emissary, so that the rank beasts who lurk in the execrable darkness of the talk page might ravage you with their peculiarly verbose hatreds and, worse still, occasional morally-oblique support.


 * Well, I guess you know better, haha! It is a stink that does not easily wash off.  Take care,  DBaba (talk) 04:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the laugh. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The content in dispute claims it is a Simon Weisenthal report on Erich Feigl which it certainly is not. Its actually a review from a magazine published by the SWC.  The article itself isn't even about EF but he is mentioned in a footnote.  It's misleading.  I dont oppose its inclusion but it should be described accurately and claiming its a report on him from a famous nazi hunting organisation is wrong.  A discussion on it is already taking place in the talk page.  Discuss it there instead of reverting and making offensive remarks on the edit history.  Dont dare call me a racist and a bigot just because we dont agree.  As an ethnic minority where i am i have come across these types a number of times and to accuse me of one because you have no argument is deeply offensive and disgusting. Xaghan (talk) 13:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

indefinite semi-protection of Daniel Choi
Would you be willing to reconsider the indefinite semi-protection you placed on Daniel Choi to something more like a week or two? My understanding is that such an indefinite semi-protection should only be placed if there is persistent and recurring vandalism over many different time periods. Victor Victoria (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that it's already been semi-protected for over a week now. Victor Victoria (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not willing to revise it at the moment, but I will reconsider it in a few months time.
 * Due to his public appearances, and the circumstances, this article has a significant potential for WP:BLP problems which cause distress on the subject, and result in Wikipedia looking like very poor custodians.
 * We should have Flagged revisions soon, which will mean semi-protection isnt necessary.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 16:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont quite see how flagged revisions would make semi-protection unnecessary, but regardless, I can only see a couple of cases of vandalism attacks. I cannot see how an indefinite semi-protection is justified in this instance. If you are willing to revisit this issue in a couple of months, why don't you set the expiration time for the semi protection for a couple of months from the date of the original protection? Victor Victoria (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Flagged revisions will mean that undesirable changes are not "published" immediately, which means we dont need to prevent undesirable changes with protection measures.
 * There are parts of the history of that article which you can not see, because they have been Oversighted.
 * Adding an expiration means that people know in advance when to come and attack the biog. As a result I have found it is better to not give people a lot of advance notice.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 23:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a hard time believing that there are people out there who have nothing better to do than to mark their calendar when they can start vandalizing an article, but since you've been here almost 5 years, you must have seen a lot more things than I have. Victor Victoria (talk) 02:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Jack Merridew
Hi. You about? I'm being hassled about my latest user page by User:Prodego; he's even edit warring with me and threatening me ;) See: User talk:Jack Merridew. nb: I'll be off in about an hour for some hours. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Handle as you see fit. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  07:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon proposal at ANI
This message is being sent to inform the Arbitration Committee of a sanction proposal forbidding me from editing Arbitration Committee pages and talk pages. Discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Mythdon  ( talk  •  contribs ) 05:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey
You've got mail. AdjustShift (talk) 07:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppet case
Sorry to drag you back into the drama, but you previously warned this user about sockpuppetry and a further case has occurred: see Sockpuppet investigations/Jw2035. Cheers. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) <sup style="color:#0B7C08;">Join WikiProject Athletics!  13:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent events
Many thanks for your assistance settling out the matter of SlimVirgin's concerns. Durova 306 00:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of ZooBank
Hello! Your submission of ZooBank at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Smartse (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Bullet points don't count as prose either so I've removed them so that they can be included. I've also destubbed it as it is at start class now. It's good to go at DYK now though. Smartse (talk) 01:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply
Thankyou for your message.

I used to log in and edit pages, but that caused me grief. There are people out there (probably IN there) who have the ignorance and arrogance that comes with a little power. One such deleted the last article I created. When I pointed out that I had meticulously written within the rules, the article was re-instated. No apology, no explanation.

So now I don't log in, just occasionally fix spelling and English.

Wikipedia should have better use for my 5 university degrees, but I've found that it doesn't. 121.44.1.84 (talk) 07:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am sorry that your experience hasn't been ideal.
 * I had a similar experience with JasperReports. I didnt create it, however I knew it existed, and was shocked one day to find it had been deleted without explanation.  You can see my exasperation with an admin here (under JasperReports), and then it was deleted again due to Articles for deletion/JasperReports, which happened while I was on holidays.
 * I decided that the system was broken, and set about trying to fix it. It wasn't until six months later that I plucked up the courage to ask an admin for assistance.
 * I understand "the system" much better now, but it is far from "fixed".
 * I would like to review the situation that caused you grief. Let me know via email if you would prefer.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 10:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Again thanks for your understanding, but I've "moved on." I have 5000 web pages to research and edit in my spare time. Perhaps, as I don't tolerate crap from others, I'm just not "a team player." The best thing is that my kids, although graduates, regard me as a walking wikipedia! 121.44.1.84 (talk) 12:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Interview
Hi. I'm doing a study about Wikipedia (particularly about sysops) for my Masters in Communications and Media Studies at Monash Uni, and was wondering if you would be so kind as to take some time to talk to me, assuming you are in Melbourne. I'm mostly interested in what your day-to-day activities are and your relationship with other sysops and editors. It shouldn't take more than 30 minutes.

Please let me know if you're interested/willing. It would be immensely appreciated :) Cheers, --In continente (talk) 08:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want a face-to-face, I will be in Melbourne at the end of October.
 * Otherwise, we can talk via phone or teleconference.
 * If you like, we can arrange it via email.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 09:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * John, thanks very much! I just sent you an email. Regards, In continente (talk) 08:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Dates? I will fiddle my calendar. BEER!!! -- billinghurst (talk) 07:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Haha.. well ... umm ... I drank that case because you didnt turn up to the wiki-meetup. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

DJ and Sister AfD
You mentioned a merge of one of these articles into another. Perhaps a merge into an article called, seeing as how that is the real name of the persona as admitted by himself in an official promotional notice about his radio show as DJ Pusspuss? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If we keep one or more of the articles, his real name will likely end up on them given that they are all linked by promotional material by himself and by organisations he has worked with, and he has published under his real name.
 * As a result, I am willing to vote delete if he wants out.
 * p.s. I have courtesy blanked his name from your post above. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

A message to the Arbitration Committee
This message is being sent to all non-recused arbitrators.

I have sent a message to the Arbitration Committee at the amendment page, that mentions what I feel that I need to say to ArbCom before the ban takes effect.

The message is here.

Thank you. Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 22:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content
FYI. This RFC is based on, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses which you participated in. If you already have commented at the RFC, my apologies for contacting you. Ikip (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

:-)
Dear John, you know where I'm from. What chances are that I'm pro-German? You know that I'm not a German, and I can't ever speak a word of German language. Please read this comment of Jacurek. Do you think there is ever a zero percent chance that I'll be aganist Polish, and support Germans on the basis of their nationality? :-) Please don't say where I'm from, but can you conform that I'm not a German here? AdjustShift (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi the ANI thread is now closed, so I will just comment here.
 * This is a difficult question.
 * I don't know your nationality or identity, or what languages you can or can't speak. If you want me to give a more definite answer about your identity, you need to disclose it to me.
 * What I do know with a high degree of certainty is where in the world you reside currently, and that would suggest that you don't have a pro-German bias. However the true test of any bias is your contributions.  I am not familiar with your contributions to say one way or the other, however User_talk:Sciurinæ is an unacceptable piece of evidence to say you have a bias.  I have also been accused of being pro-something because I have written articles about the topic, and it is just silly.  If it happens to you again, simply tell them to provide better evidence of bias.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 22:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

/Log

 * ''handled at User_talk:Betacommand. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Appeal for neutral party
Hi,

I appeal to your good name to look at Ching Hai wiki page. There is malicious updates by an anonymous and assisted by Yellow Monkey that makes many dubious updates that is clearly in violation of Living Bio policy.

This issue has persisted for a long time and they even undermine Gusi Peace Prize which you updated just so that it is removed from the Ching Hai wiki page. It is one thing to have a contentious update and totally another when it is a systematic continuous undermining for the person and totally dominating the wiki page.

Sorry but I don't know where else to turn to.

user:Truthexplorer ( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.43.12 (talk • contribs) 2009-09-18T17:25:03 )

Gusi peace Prize Foundation
Howdy. I note you reverted some edits to the talk page for this article following a change in title for the lead article and redirects. This resulted in the talk page being associated with one of the redirects rather than the main article. I have corrected this. 59.167.42.2 (talk) 01:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Awesome ref in that business mirror article. I've added the award back into the ching hai article as it does indeed seem to have more legs than was apparent. 59.167.42.2 (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Nareg510
Is this really yet another sock of Ararat Arev? If so, what on earth is he doing being unbanned? Curious. --Folantin (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...
Well, after some time, (and major computer-problems..), I finally got around to trying your solution for the Template:Palestinian_Arab_villages_depopulated_during_the_1948_Palestine_War ...and it works! It is a bit different from before, but I have tried it for a few hours, and I can sort of find my way around again.. So a big thank you for your help!

I hope you will enjoy a nice cup of tea? Thanks again, cheers, Huldra (talk) 04:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm thrilled to see you back, and thanks for the [[Image:Nice Cup of Tea.jpg|50px]]
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 08:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello again, May I ask you another favour? When I navigate after the 1948-template now, I notice my eyes get much more easily tired than before...as the colour-difference between the two types of villages is not so large as it used to be. Before it was blue-red, like this.....which isn´t pretty, but is -visually speaking- very clear. Sooo; is it possible to change it so that the Blo-stubs appear other than black for those of us who have the "skin" implemented? Say, red, pink, yellow--anything that contrasts strongly with blue? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To make it red, this will do the trick. Or you can use a HTML color like this. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 05:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wonderful! Works like a dream...thanks! Huldra (talk) 05:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Eh, help! --again. When I logged out 2-3 days ago; everything was fine. When I logged in today; the whole 1948-template has turned completely blue -again! And no; the template itself has not been changed (I have checked the history), nor is User:Huldra/monobook.css changed. What is going on? Do you have any idea? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 12:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. I altered span2 today, in a bad way.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 12:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * heh, I have no idea about the technicalities here, but I see it works fine again, thanks! Cheers,  Huldra (talk) 13:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Editor review/Jack Merridew
per your suggestion ;) Sincerely, Jack Merridew 09:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio? PD?
Hi. :) Kandyan Treaty of 1638 is copied from a book originally published in 1929. Are you able to help determine if this is PD? I know you are very, very gifted at that. (picture ingratiating grin here) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting!
 * There is a copy of it here. The Google Book is a reprint, by publisher Asian Educational Services from India
 * The author Richard Gerald Anthonisz (1852-1930) is from Sri Lanka
 * the original book appears to be 1929
 * A lecture on the topic was printed in 1905 by C.A.C. press in Ceylon.
 * the original text of the treaty was likely in Dutch. The question is which jurisdiction does the English translation belong to.
 * If the 1929 book was the first printing of the English translation, it comes under Sri Lanka copyright laws. According to List_of_countries'_copyright_length, that is life+50, which means it fell into the public domain in 1981, which means it is also public domain in the US.
 * However, the treaty is also recorded in Report on the Dutch records in the government archives at Colombo (1907). That is printed by the Government Printer, which means it is likely crown copyright (I'll need to review the Copyright Act 1911), which would mean it is PD in 1958.
 * Irrespective of that, the 1907 edition of the treaty translated to English is PD in the US under PD-US-1923-abroad.
 * Complicating matters, the 1907 and 1929 translations differ, with the 1929 edition containing an extra article at the end (What The--?!).
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 00:27, 25 September ←That was a great comic book. :) Thank you so much for your incredibly detailed reply. I guess that lacking clarification, we'll have to let that one fall into the "unsure" category and either rewrite it or remove it as per WP:C's "If in doubt...." It shouldn't be too hard to rewrite (she says, arrogantly, knowing very well that it probably will be that hard to rewrite), and I'll take care of it if necessary (even if it is that hard to rewrite). Would be awfully nice if the 1907 translation were on google books, so I could verify if the text is taken from it.

While I'm here, I've started to wonder something this morning based on a recent copyright question, pertaining to Public domain and Non-U.S. copyrights. The latter says, without disclaimer, "Any work published before 1923 is in the public domain in the United States, regardless of its source country...." The former says, with footnote, "In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world is in the public domain." That footnote further adds: Strictly speaking, only U.S. works published before January 1 1923 and foreign works published in compliance with U.S. formalities (registration, © notice) before that date are in the public domain in the U.S. For non-U.S. works published without compliance with U.S. formalities (i.e., without &copy; notice), the situation is a bit more complicated: Also, the 1923 cut-off date applies only to the U.S. This means foreign works first published before 1923 are in the public domain in the U.S., but may still be copyrighted outside the U.S.
 * If published before 1909, such works are in the public domain in the U.S.
 * If published between 1909 and 1922 (inclusive) in a language other than English, the Ninth Circuit has considered them as "unpublished works" according to Peter Hirtle and following the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case Twin Books v. Disney in 1996. The case was about the book Bambi, A Life in the Woods; the decision is heavily criticized in Nimmer on Copyright (ISBN 0-820-51465-9), the standard commentary on U.S. copyright law.
 * If published between 1909 and 1922 (inclusive) in English, they are highly likely to be PD, given that the aforementioned controversial case was only about a work published in a foreign language.
 * Additionally, any work first published outside of the United States without copyright notice prior to 1989, when the U.S. joined the Berne Convention, is in the public domain in the U.S. if it was in the public domain in its country of origin on the URAA date (in most cases January 1, 1996). See the section on country-specific rules for more information.

Given the footnote at the former, the statement at the latter seems misleading. My work never really dealt with the early stuff, so as you know I have no strong base in this gray area. Is 1909 effectively a cut-off date that we might consider that any work from anywhere is safe? If so, what do we do with stuff published in 1910? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to let you know that I've decided to raise this one at WT:C, since depending on the answer it may be appropriate to revise the guidelines a bit. If you have input, you might want to answer it there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ta. I'll keep working on the Treaty, and hop on over to WT:C if I get a moment.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 12:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The Homeopathy case
You promised to keep me up to date on the problems with patently false statements about the case (The claim that pointing out a filing under a user's previous nick, still in the user's talk page archive to this day, and prominently linked to the user's new nick throughout the site on my part was supposedly in revenge, and exactly equivalent to users edit warring to out me after I left Wikipedia due to real name issues.) being presented as fact. I have trusted you to get this sorted. What's going on? Shoemaker's Holiday Over 208 FCs served 23:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll give you an update this weekend. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry this hasnt happened yet. The usual excuses, and a long weekend coming up. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Antonio Arnaiz-Villena
Hello there. I noticed that you indefinitely fully protected this page on 23 June 2009. I was wondering if you think it would be safe to unprotect it now. Regards, <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 22:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have dropped it to indef-semi protection. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Of course the vandal might be right, but anyway you have restored my image and your actions are noted. ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My first image restoration... ;-) --01:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

azeri names
Before you blindly revert my edits next time, I ask you to look at what you are reverting. In particular, can you find cited evidence of use of those "azeri" names in any encyclopedic or significant context. or, are they random words that have no factual accuracy or are simply wrong.

but at the same time, you have no qualms reverting, or ruining similiar articles with citations and armenian spellings. at least pretend to be impartial as an administrator instead of the raging azerophile impression you give. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.33.90 (talk • contribs) 2009-09-29T00:52:51

Email
You have it :)  MBisanz  talk 18:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed I do. ;-) John Vandenberg (chat) 00:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Question
Question for you here, John. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 12:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I have answered them all now. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Unsolicited Advice
John, if you want to preserve the anonymity of the functionary who contacted you - as seems appropriate - might I suggest you stop dropping hints that only encourage amateur sleuthing? Respecting her or his desire to stay publicly away from this ever-growing mess is the right thing to do, unless some really important factor later dictates a need for you to provide an identification. Unless that happens, please go with your instinct, it is the right one. EdChem (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for saying this when you did; I realised that I should have said less as it was in the audit-subcoms hands already, so I took your advice and went on with other things. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sameera Aziz
Hi. There is an AfD discussion going on regarding this journalist from Saudi Arabia. I noticed your work other Asian media articles, and wondered if you might have any input. Cheers! -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 06:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It does look interesting, and related to other topics I have worked on. Thanks for alerting me. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

MSN
Hi! I'm a Wikipedia user and I want to talk with users of this wiki. If you can, please add me: mateuzinhow_@hotmail.com. Thank you :) Tosão (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello. I do not use MSN.  You can talk to me here, or via email or Google Talk. (jayvdb@gmail.com)
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 01:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI
(transcluding nobots won't have any effect, it needs to be hardcoded onto the desired page). Also, since mostly established users edit the FAQs, SineBot wouldn't try anyway (it ignores users with over 800 edits) –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 14:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Image Policy
What is the current policy of wikipedia on fair-use of copyright protected images of dead persons. --122.161.41.130 (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry forgot to login.. I am --Vssun (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The policy is here: Non-free content. All of the criteria must apply.
 * If someone is dead, no free equivalent can be created, however it is often possible for old photographs to be released into the public domain. If reasonable efforts to do that have failed, and an photograph is important for the reader to understand the topic, then a low resolution copy of the photograph may be acceptable.
 * If you are not sure, I can give you a personal opinion about a specific photograph if you email it to me. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC
- Risker has been removed, could you please adjust accordingly? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way - the RfC is not about Geogre seeking admin or the rest. It is about not informing the community of a breach of 3RR and Consensus in matters she was directly involved in and benefited from/defended Geogre over. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have archived my view.
 * In regards to the other aspects, it would be good to see some analysis about whether Geogre did significantly alter consensus with his comments from the UL account, and evidence that Bishonen was aware of those instances. e.g. did she participate in the discussions relating to the article where 3RR was violated?  It is possible that it slipped her by.
 * John Vandenberg (chat)
 * You can read it for yourself and see, but I used it as evidence that Bishonen was defending edit warring - "Then why did this editor see fit to reverse them three times, without providing any basis other than claiming that his edit was complete based on unsubstantiated expertise?" She was involved in the discussion. Geogre's edits were brought up a few times. She was speaking about the article. Loki posted on the talk page too. The ANI thread on the matter involves both Bishonen and Risker. The edit warring over the status comes up also. The WQA thread shows that others mention the edit warring. The edit warring was highly visible. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Email replies?
You've had mail. RSVP! SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Your Mentee
User:Jack Merridew has been disrupting an legitimate attempt to handle personal attacks at a page he is involved in. The page is also an MfD of a page that Moreschi, his other mentor, has previously deleted and has made threatening comments over.

ArbCom has stated: "5. User:Jack Merridew agrees to avoid all disruptive editing." This is a serious matter and I would request you, as Mentor, to ensure that it does not continue. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Jack was pretty clearly trying to stop disruption. Btw, see User_talk:SB_Johnny ... - Josette (talk) 02:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * By "stop disruption" you mean close a valid WQA against the directions of WQA? Then edit warring afterwards? That is the very definition of disruption and directly invalidates his prohibition. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My reading of the situation differs greatly from yours. I tend to agree with the majority who chose to respond there. p.s. Jack is a wise old man - it would behoove you to listen to him. - Josette (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And Josette, why are you posting something that has no connection to two individuals claiming that I have "harassed" Bishonen without any proof or evidence, especially when my direct interaction with her is almost nil? Ottava Rima (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ottava, it seems to me you have been reminded to 'change your approach' many times in the past - the link I provided is just one example. - Josette (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, this weekend you have been creating chaos in the community faster than you normally create content. It has been hard to keep up. Some people respond to that by ignoring the rules and shutting down the chaos generator. While I do not agree with the RFC being deleted the first time, your recent block, or the use of MFD, I don't doubt that the people involved meant well. Accusations that everyone is "involved" are inane when the majority of the highly active community has been either dragged into the disruption, or seen it spilling out onto talk pages everywhere. People wanted it to stop yesterday.

The recent RFC is the first time that I have ever felt it necessary to submit a view to an RFC. I was preparing to write another one before the rest of the RFC was deleted. I don't even know what sparked this mess. If you want to talk about that, I'll be happy to do so in a few days. If there is something meaningful underneath all this, it can be presented much more calmly, after proper (read: meaningful) attempts at dispute resolution. If you don't have time to engage in dispute resolution properly, avoid disputes. It is possible. This is a very large project, and there are sister projects.

As for Jack, he has a mind of his own, and expressing it is not disruptive editing. I haven't looked at everything Jack has said and done this weekend, but he voted keep on the RFC MfD. As you know, Jack has had nothing but time for you, and I am sure he will continue to assist with any worthwhile endeavor where you have common interests, and there are many. I am also sure that his project-space edits in this recent scuffle have been trying to do the right thing, as he saw it. And I have to admit, I think he did the right thing in the circumstances. WP:WQA is supposed to be an early stage of dispute resolution; when a matter has already been given its own AN subpage and an RFC, it doesn't need a WQA subpage as well. The next logical step would be RFAR, or a scorched earth approach. If Jack didn't close the WQA thread, someone else would have, and they may not have been so kind. If you want to frame his edits on WP:WQA as edit warring, then you will be measured by the same yardstick. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC) p.s. I am going back to bed now, and have engagements in the morning, so don't rush to reply to me.
 * Nevermind. I'm not dealing with you ever again. I find your actions highly disappointing. Good bye, John. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome message
Hello. Thank you for the welcome message. Actually, I am a very active user in Spanish Wikipedia (+12000 edits) so English is not my first language, but I'll try to contribute here as well. Thanks again and regards :) Mel 23 (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

ping ; )
Hi. Care to opine at:


 * User talk:Jack Merridew or
 * User talk:Fram

His prior comment that he finds finds me 'despicable' is rather telling.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Jack Merridew
I'll drop this for now, but perhaps you could check why he choose to comment at User talk:Serendipity81 three times plus one time on a subpage, when that user had the week before been adopted by A Nobody. It doesn't give the best impression, and I can't find a good reason why Jack Merridew would have stumbled on that user except by following A Nobody around. These are edits from te end of last month and the beginning of this month, so quite recent. Fram (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC) I also have A Nobody's talk page on my watchlist, having posted there before, and noticed this user (whose username at the time was  LivingWell4U). I then posted on this user's page (before Merridew) suggesting that they change their name. None of this had anything to do with A Nobody, though if my actions here are also perceived as suspicious I will apologise personally to Serendipity81, A Nobody, and anyone else who's affected. pablo <sub style="text-shadow: 3px 3px 3px rgba(255,255,0,0.75); color: #c30;">hablo. 08:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fram: If you're dropping this, why not drop it? Draw a line on your calendar as of now and don't look at things in the past. ++Lar: t/c 15:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Fram (talk) 06:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So that would be "not dropping it" then? ++Lar: t/c 23:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know Fram.
 * He may have followed someone else there, or have noticed by watching A Nobody's talk page, and watchlisting more pages as he saw them.
 * As I said on your talk page, this isn't a problem per say. He appears to have been quite helpful there, and not interfering.
 * However I am sure everyone has seen your point that it is simpler for Jack to take a wide berth rather than crossing paths. That said, I can understand the frustration of Lar and Jack that people are concerned when Jack is helping in non-controversial ways.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 12:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * AGF is nice, but when the only person you are "helping in non-controversial ways" in this manner is an adoptee of someone you are in conflict with and have been warned to stay away from (in the meantime "adopting" his "sincerely" signature as well), then there is not much non-controversial anymore, and I doubt there is much genuine frustration there either. I think baiting is a more correct description for it. That it is done more subtle is not necessarily an improvement. Once you are sufficiently on someone's nerves, the merest touch, innocent though it may seem to an outsider, can be enough to trigger a reaction. Fram (talk) 13:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * AGF is nice — you should try it sometime. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 03:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am another person whom Jack Merridew helps in non-controversial ways, mainly correcting my code formatting. He actually seems to do this quite a lot.
 * Did you also have a previous history of problems with A Nobody, with a lengthy ANI discussion where a lot of people supported either a full ban of you or a topic ban (staying away from A Nobody?) I didn't think so. But if you are all happy ignoring the context, be my guest. Fram (talk) 09:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, just pointing out that my route to that page, and my reasons for posting there had very little to do with A Nobody, and there seems to me little to indicate that Jack Merridew's did either. (He may even have followed me there). In any case, even if there were a ban preventing from interacting with A Nobody it surely would not extend to "not interacting with anyone else who interacts with A Nobody"? That would include a huge proportion of active editors.  pablo <sub style="text-shadow: 3px 3px 3px rgba(255,255,0,0.75); color: #c30;">hablo. 10:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How many adoptees has A Nobody? Three. Fram (talk) 11:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How many of them were clear SPAs who nevertheless asked for help, and followed up with me? Jack's help of that user is to be praised, not condemned. But we can't rely on you to do that because it interferes with your narrative of Jack as some despicable stalker, can we? You really should drop your campaign against Jack. It's tiresome. Perhaps spend more time helping others, the way Jack does, instead of worrying about him. ++Lar: t/c 23:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

So anyone still believes that he is not following A Nobody around, when the only AfD he comments in is one A Nobody is heavily editing, the only RfA he edits is one A Nobody opposes, and one of the five last articles he edited is one where A Nobody had commented on the talk page only 3 hours before? That's three out of Jack Merridew's last eight visited pages where he commented very shortly after A Nobody had edited them... Fram (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but I only noticed this because I'm stalking Ikip (it's a mutual thing) who's stalking Fram, who's stalking Merridew ...  pablo <sub style="text-shadow: 3px 3px 3px rgba(255,255,0,0.75); color: #c30;">hablo. 23:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, keeping an eye on a problematic situation, and noticing, after he turns up on two pages I edited as well as A Nobody, that he did the same on a third page as well, is stalking? That's a novel interpretation... Fram (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fram, this is all in the hands of my mentors and others, so besides a nobody, the only problematic editor here, is you (and Ikip, who retracted his shit-stirring ;). Methinks you should drop this. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 09:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And I brought something of potential concern to the attention of your mentor. What's problematic about that? Needlessly calling A Nobody a problematic editor here isn't really helping you... Fram (talk) 09:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't bring A Nobody up; you did, and you seem to have had plenty to say recently about him that I concur with. So, it would seem your issue is not with what I say, but with me. I've tried a number of times to get a dialogue going with you, and you're not interested in that. I'm still open to it, if you're agreeable, but your constantly trying to stir-up shite without any effort to resolve the situation is problematic. As Pablo say, you're 'stalking' me, although the preferred term these days is 'hounding' (and I claim some credit for encouraging that terminology tweak; this is a stalker). Sincerely, Jack Merridew 09:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your issue is not with what you say, nor is it with you, it is with what you do. I have been asked to discuss potential conduct issues with your mentor instead of elsewhere, and I agreed to that. I'll wait to see what he has to say about it. I am not really interested in the views of you or any of the other regular commentators on this. As for trying to resolve the situation, there was a very simple solution, supported by many people: leave A Nobody alone, don't follow him around, focus on the millions of other pages. Fram (talk) 10:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Jack should not comment. But he's not the big problem here. A Nobody commented no less than 30 times (!!!) in the AfD of the Battles page. The comments were extremely repetitive and added little, if anything, to the debate. What is to be done about that? Perhaps if A Nobody didn't hound others over and over? NO ONE should comment 30 times in the same AfD! A clear outcome of the RfC was a finding that he needs not to disrupt AfDs this way. ++Lar: t/c 14:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

To everyone commenting here now: this discussion is extremely unlikely to a) improve the encyclopedia, b) improve relations with each other, or c) be something that I want to follow.

Jack, your last few comments and edit summaries on this page are not helpful; you should avoid commenting on other users, especially people who you don't like. Please ... John Vandenberg (chat) 10:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * John: Your first paragraph is also not at all helpful. Fram was asked to bring concerns here, to you, and he has done that. They merit responses, which others have done, and you should be reading them instead of whinging about them. ++Lar: t/c 14:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Very true & my apologies, especially to Fram. I was referring to the more recent comments which were quickly descending into a circular logic about who is stalking/hounding who, and who is the bigger problem.  Jack's recent response here was directly talking about A Nobody, and it was unnecessary.  As a result, this triggers my previous promise to start or endorse an RFC. ;-(
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 16:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Because Jack Merridew's unban motion is approaching a year and there are suggested proposals in Ottava Rima restrictions case, I'm planning to contact all of Jack Meridew's mentor's about doing a formal unban review. I don't think that it is wise to include anything about JM in the OR restrictions case because it will take the focus off of the core issues in the case. I think a unban review is a better way to handle the various issues rather a RFC (which will be open ended), and better than going to AE where arbitrators don't have direct means to alter the restrictions. I already had contacted John, and will contact Jack, Cas and Moreschi to get the ball rolling. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Jack Merridew one year unban review/mentors page; I'm awaiting furthur comments. And humour. Happy Editing! Jack Merridew 05:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Note the timestamps ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * you
 * me
 * Wow. The components of the timestamp total to be 2071.  Those digits add up to 10.  2071 + 10 is a prime number!
 * Finally solid proof that we are not sockpuppets!
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 14:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Does that mean wiki can have IP-Sockpuppet-Exempt for all timestamps? At least all going forward? It would solve a lot of problems. We'd need IP-Underbridge-Troll-Exempt, too. If these could be implemented in MediaWiki and automagically-applied to problematic user accounts; we might get to focus on the encyclopedia that's around here. Somewhere
 * Sincerely, Jack Merridew 14:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Charles Dawson
I hope that you've considered this carefully, and not been led up the garden path by a prankster. Wikipedia is not in need of more patent plagiarism (taken word for word from Mariner's mirror), that is then flat out denied. Similarly, this can be traced to books such as Björn Landström's The Ship, even if the references to book figures scattered throughout aren't dead giveaways. Are you yourself willing to clean up the mess if more plagiarism ensues? Special:EmailUser/Uncle G works and should be usable by that account if necessary. For obvious reasons I don't hand out mailbox addresses. Uncle G (talk) 14:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You refuse to have an email conversation with me about this unless I reply via the Wikipedia email system? Are you nuts?
 * I want to CC: you in an the arbcom-l discussion about this, and I can't do that via the Wikipedia email form.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 15:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC) p.s. As I explained in my email, this is in regards to a ban appeal.  I am an arbitrator.
 * It may or may not be relevant that the historical Charles Dawson was a forger involved in the Piltdown Man scandal. It's certainly possible that this is also the user's real name, but it seems suspicious to me, especially in conjunction with this person's copyright violations. <b style="color:#1111AA; font-family:monospace, monospace;">*** Crotalus ***</b> 16:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I had not noticed that, and it is interesting. I will double check this before proceeding.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 00:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that the name issue will have to be put down to coincidence. Research by me shows that Charles has been using that name and the existing email address for about ten years, with his research in this area of interest in which he is attempting to contribute.  To me, it would seem that the person has expertise in this area, and refining this to WP's style and the appropriate references is the work needed here. This is not a young vandal looking to cause trouble. -- billinghurst (talk) 10:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not been able to put my hands on a copy of Björn Landström's The Ship, so could you please provide a specific example of plagiarism in this diff. Thanks, John Vandenberg (chat) 11:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Oversight
Could you please oversight this edit. It makes no sense in German, looks like a machine translation of another language, but nevertheless contains abusive words in its attack edit summary. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just saw that all edits by this IP use the same attack edit summary . Skäpperöd (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have suppressed a few of them quickly, and emailed the oversight team for review and further action.
 * In future, could you email the oversight list directly as I could be unavailable.
 * Thanks, John Vandenberg (chat) 13:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you both. Obviously, this was the "penguin-eater" vandal again, User:Wikinger. He's been a nuisance again of late. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello
When will the Asmahan arbitration continue? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Shortly. Sorry for the delays; another issue stole a large portion of my time since the weekend.
 * Tonight I will finish reviewing everything, and will provide an update before I hit the sack.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 08:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ok, thanks for letting me know. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * btw, I'll be getting engaged on the Workshoping after work, which is in a few hours.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 03:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't really understand question 4 on the workshop. erroneous --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * erroneous: false/inaccurate/mistaken. Does that help? John Vandenberg (chat) 09:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Since one week has went by since you posted the questions, shouldn't the case continue now?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it should. I have a few followup questions which should be posted tonight or tomorrow. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:Resolution
Hello John, thank you for your kind words. The resolution only contained two pages. Yes, an English translation would be nice. To tell you the truth, I don't mind if the article about me is deleted, it happens. What I do mind is the personal vendetta/witch-hunt which User: YellowMonkey, who voted against the article, has taken against my person as evidenced by his dedication to making sure that every photo or mention of me in Wikipedia is eliminated [evidence]. These are not random acts of editing, he has taken it to a personal stage and no one has done anything nor told him to put an end to it. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Somos Primos
Hello John, In regard to Somos Primos, I found the following statement here:

HISTORY OF SOMOS PRIMOS

"Somos Primos was first published as a quarterly in 1990. January 2000, Somos Primos went online. Somos Primos will continue to publish current events and articles  that reveal the reality of all those historically connected by their Spanish ancestry. Somos Primos currently is being received by major libraries and archival collections across the country, such as the Library of Congress, Smithsonian Institute, National Archives in D.C., Bancroft Library, Sutro Library, and many universities and colleges."

I don't know if this helps. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In regard to the posted here: . The document that serves as proof of said quote is this one: File:Certificate JTF Guantanamo.jpg. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Was there a certificate that accompanied the USAJFKSWCS Medal of Excellence? John Vandenberg (chat) 05:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

What we did for Tibet
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Hello John Vandenberg, Rjanag has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm not sure if this was just a Friendly error, but in any case it gave me a good laugh, since User:ZhBot is a bot. "especially what you did for Tibet", hehe... <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 21:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hiya. The edit was intentional (Someone has to welcome the tireless bots!), but I can see the irony.  Thanks for sharing the smiles.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 01:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Request
John, first of all I would like to thank you for all the work that went through in posting the references in my father's, Tony Santiago, article, however I am requesting that you notify the user who does not seem to understand who did this of your actions and how the removal of the references could affect the out come of the AFD, please. Thank you. Antonio Martin (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The editor is right; using Wikipedia as a source for a Wikipedia article is very weird, and should be avoided. Wikipedia pages can only be used as a primary source - it simply provides verifiability, but not notability.
 * The simple solution is to obtain the complete speech transcripts and the certificate (as requested above) so that these images can be replaced with Wikisource documents:
 * File:Speech by Luis Fortuno.jpg
 * File:Memorial Day (2008) Speech.jpg
 * File:ExcellenceMedal.jpg
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 20:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The Voyage of the Beagle
Hi, I saw you tagged and rated this for WikiProject Academic Journals, but the article seems to be about a book, not a journal? Cheers, --Crusio (talk) 09:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * We had a fragmented discussion a long time ago about the scope of the project, and we cooped a few other related types of professional, scientific and academic publishing. IIRC, we specifically included research output in addition to research venue.
 * I don't mind if we drop this article and any others like it; we have more than enough to do! ;-)
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 10:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Note
[please insert message placed at Risker's page about tallies on Rfarb page]; except compare and. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * [insert image of socks being pulled up]. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 19:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh. :P Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Collier
I went ahead and closed the DRV and restored the article... the DRV IMO is a waste of time (although I don't blame you for going there as I have the retirement template up.) In the future you can simply add a source or material and recreate CSD'd materials. DRV is only needed if the article to be restored is to be the essentially the same as the one deleted... if you add a few sources the article will avoid that fate. I'd also suggest trying to give a reason or to as to why they are independently notable. Being swallowed by a company that is swallowed by a notable company isn't a claim to significance, it happens all the time in the business world.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Your RfCs
John, please see my posts at the RfC talk page and the election talk page. Tony  (talk)  02:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your opinion on the "grandfathering" issue, among other things, would be appreciated. Tony   (talk)  03:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Barber/Edits to sock policy
Hi John, just a ping to see my response to your comment on the JohnWBarber arbitration. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahh, those lovely clerks have removed it so I will comment here quickly.
 * I saw the error of my reading when JohnWBarber pointed it out. You and SV re-iterated my error.  To me "in place" is an extremely poor phrase for this - "in effect" or "in force" would be more appropriate.  The joys of the English language.
 * My vote was not going to change as a result of this. An AUSC review should be sufficient.  I am pretty sure that JohnWBarber meant well, but he also didn't take heed of the cautions irt freshstart.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 13:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Email
Hey there. I sent you an email about 30 hours ago. Do you think you could get back to me please? Thanks, <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 03:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll do so now.. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied a few hours ago. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Arab Cowboy is away
Hello John! I have just gone through the Asmahan Arbitration Workshop and noticed that you are expecting answers from Arab Cowboy. I think I should let you know that he left a post on my talk page on the 3rd of November informing me that he would be preoccupied with other matters and away for few weeks. So I don’t think we should expect any contribution from his side for some time. Also, I saw today on Supreme Deliciousness talk page that he was blocked on the 10th of November for 24 hours due to edit warring. Trust me, I don’t think he will ever stop, unless he is banned! – Nefer Tweety (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the update. I will be posting a draft set of proposals within the hour. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey
I saw you adding text to the workshop, there has been a RfC, This link [here] shows several posts not shown [here]: for example: "Annyong, please explain what is involved in this RfC process." "The RfC is open now. It gets listed at a central location, and people will come here and read the discussion and leave their opinions below." "This is my first contribution to Wikipedia, but I have been following the debate for some time. My position is that I support the current version of 15:48, 2 July 2009" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

And there has been two mediations, one with Diaa abdelmoneim and Al Ameer son. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed. thanks.
 * Was the mediation conducted by WP:MEDCOM or WP:MEDCAB ?
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 13:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I dont know about the mediation with dia, I made a post at admins talkpage after he blocked me, and he responded  right after Dia showed up at the talkpage to mediate, I dont know if it was the admin who requested through the medcom or directly to Diaa. I personally made a request to Al Ameer son to mediate.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Why does it feel like
you haven't read anything of the evidence page? There is no problem with the ethnicity or nationality of Asmahan, the problems are with details inside the text that Arab Cowboy has changed against the mediations: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * While you may not believe there is a problem with the way that ethnicity or nationality is described on Asmahan now, the evidence shows that ethnicity and nationality is a very emotive topic for both of you, to the point that you will edit-war across many articles.
 * It is not my job to fix the "Asmahan" page - it is my job to create a strategy that prevents this problem happening again on this or any other article.
 * The proposals are written to prevent either of you from altering ethnicity or nationality without good sources, and will catch any socks that do it as well.
 * The proposals place Asmahan under "article probation", which means that anyone who disrupts collaboration may be page banned. As a result, if anyone changes text against the mediated compromise, admins are empowered to take action.
 * I've read all of the Evidence page a few times, and reviewed all of the contribs of both the main parties. I have chosen to not incorporate all of the past problems into these proposals because I think you are both new users who are learning quickly, and will be good users if you both avoid identity disputes. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * By "changes text against the mediated compromise" do you mean all the things that has been agreed during the mediations? Like: these things? or is it just the "Syrian-Egyptian" in the lead?
 * The proposed decision places the page on article probation, and allows admins to ban disruptive contributors from the page(s). It could be a single word change (anywhere in the page) which proves disruptive.  The admin might topic ban the person for one week or six months.  It is up to administrator discretion when to act, and how to act.  John Vandenberg (chat) 15:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * _But this "is prohibited from changing the ethnicity or nationality of a person for 12 months." is referring to "Syrian-Egyptian" right? But there is no dispute about this at Asmahan. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this a part of the "mediated compromise"? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

John, "mediated compromise" is it only referring to "Syrian-Egyptian" and nothing else? You apparently do not see the two mediations we have been trough as real mediations as you have not posted them at "Proposed findings of fact" at the workshop. In those two mediations several things was agreed, are these things also part of the "mediated compromise" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you add your comments under "Comment by parties" for each proposal. talk page discussions are important, however they are not formal mediation. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review close of Andantius
Guy has already closed the deletion review after only a few hours,. I';ve protested this to him, I do not support the journal; I think the arguments in its fact are not correct, but there were   several  comments by reliable eds. including yourself partially supporting the journal. I think this clearly wrong--there needs to be time for discussion.  DGG ( talk ) 18:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The notes I had compiled last night are at User:John_Vandenberg/sandbox.
 * I don't agree with the conclusion that this is a newsletter. It is one of the periodicals included in the recent Scopus arts&humanities expansion.
 * See these for searches which will bring up more useful results
 * Not to worry; I'll keep working on it and take it to the salting admin.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 21:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

 * Though you were unable to find enough significant coverage in secondary sources to satisfy WP:NOTE, your efforts are most appreciated. Cirt (talk) 01:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Troubles troubles
You said at the current case amendment discussion that it might be helpful to see something like the Deacon's User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/North-East Europe AE threads relating to the Troubles. I've started one at User:Angusmclellan/Troubles. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the initiative. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Your gnoming is appreciated
Cheers. Steve Smith (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries. You're in good company. --22:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks from me too. :) AGK 22:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Cinephile (disambiguation)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Cinephile (disambiguation). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Cinephile (disambiguation). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Question about your recusal
You recused yourself from the EEML case because "I am recused because user:Russavia is a member of m:Wikipedia Australia (see User:John_Vandenberg/recusal#AU)". But I cannot find Russavia listed among m:WPAU members, nor does he seem to be active there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The membership list of the WMAU is not public; that is why I had to seek his permission before explaining my recusal. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Understanding & comprehension
These words were sent to ArbCom in June, but they produced no response:


 * "ArbCom fails when, at the end of any ArbCom case, parties are left uncomprehending. In the final analysis, the modest remedies of this ArbCom decision are no burden. I don't need to understand or agree in order to comply. However, until I can discern a relationship between the adduced principles and findings of fact, I can't accept this decision. I can't move on.


 * "I feel cheated because I can't square the adduced principles and findings of fact with explicit core policies. This sense of being tricked is exacerbated by my inability to assess the impact of issues which were not addressed because I didn't know that the locus of dispute had been changed nor did I know that the scope had been enlarged.


 * "This lingering uncertainty affects every aspect of my Wikipedia participation going foreward; and the difficulty is amplified because I'm deprived of formerly meaningful wiki-catchwords and wiki-terms which might have otherwise helped me to evaluate what happened. I'm forced to guess that the decision-making was affected by other factors which remain unknowable; and that's impossible to parse."

In the context of the six months, there should have been some kind of follow-up. There was not.

In the absence of any reply to any question, how could anyone have converted this into a teachable moment?

A minimal level of understanding is needed in order to comply with ArbCom's decision. Arguably, I thought I had some grasp of what was expected. Obviously, I don't; but it points out ArbCom's collective misjudgment more than my own.

If this is part of a pattern affecting more than just one ArbCom participant, then the problem needs to be addressed. --Tenmei (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Tenmei, the posting of the Final Decision is the natural ending point for when arbitrators stop discussing the case with the involved parties. You were offered several mentors to assist you in understanding the issues related to the arbitration case, but you did not accept their offers to help. It is on you to follow the remedies in the ruling if you want to continue to participate in Wikipedia. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 09:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * FloNight -- No, your assertion is not factual. You must be confusing me with someone else amongst the many you deal with.
 * The fact of the matter is that no response was offered to serial questions.
 * The fact of the matter is that I was not offered several mentors.
 * The fact of the matter is that I have not rejected several of anything.


 * The objective of this posting is somewhat differently intended. Allow me to re-focus your attention on the last sentence:
 * If this is part of a pattern affecting more than just one ArbCom participant, then this cannot be an issue which ArbCom continues to overlook.


 * FloNight, when you are seen to fabricate mistaken "facts" in response to this kind of general inquiry, it tells me and anyone else who reads this that I have managed to put my finger on an issue which is meaningful and credible. --Tenmei (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Is patience wrong in this context? --Tenmei (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

JM one year unban review

 * Page for Jack and his mentors to work on the unban review and any new motions. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Principles of care and justice
You recently voted on a topic ban. I feel it important to state the following:

Facts


 * the clarification request clearly demonstrated that abuse had occurred.
 * administrators were to watch for further instances.
 * harassment/ false accusations continued.
 * harassment/ false accusations were part of two amendment topic ban requests against me, which the very same administrators were overseeing.
 * harassment/ false accusations were part of the administrative topic ban proposals. The same administrators were overseeing this sanction process also.
 * In a half year there are hundreds of examples of false accusations/harassment through at least half a dozen sanction processes. I have made numerous administrators aware of this and no direct warning has ever been given.


 * even though numerous allegations were made against me during two arbitration amendment requests, no action was deemed necessary.
 * an administrator agreed to hear my amendment request as part of the two amendment requests.
 * this administrator was asked repeatedly to confirm that I would be allowed to file the request. No response was given and the amendment proposals were closed without my proposals being heard. It had been stated clearly that my proposals were to deal with harassment/ false accusations.
 * administrators who were part of the amendment request then filed a topic ban proposal. They offered no specific evidence and answered no question, even though they were repeatedly asked to do so.
 * they never formally communicated with the accused during the procedure.
 * The only evidence offered was by an uninvolved administrator who offered one diff which was shown to be totally bogus.
 * Reasoning was given for the topic ban but again the logic behind the conclusions never had to stand up to any scrutiny.
 * a year long topic ban was given to myself. The other party received no sanction, no warning, no advisement.

Questions

1)By pointing out harassing behaviour it has been assumed that there is, "a failure of either to work together or disengage”, and that "breathing room" was needed. Why must one have breathing room when one is being harassed? Why has no administrator ever intervened in any way against many false, blatant, and spiteful comments against me?

2)How can one disengage from harassment, especially when part of the harassment is the filing of sanction processes that include a number of bogus accusations?

3)If administrators discounted numerous allegations of wrongdoing during the two amendment requests, why did administrators make further accusations and propose a new topic ban?

Principles of care and justice

1)In a community, those in charge have a duty of care. No one should have to endure months of ongoing abuse.

2)A basic principle of any form of justice is that those making claims can be challenged, and that they must respond.

3)A basic principle of any form of justice is the separation of duties. One party can not start a process, make accusations, not communicate with the accused, and then vote for sanctions.

The sanction process is a "blunt instrument" but it shouldn't be an indifferent instrument and punitive instrument. I view the year long topic ban as unjust. How would I appeal it?--scuro (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

NPA
Not quite sure what you mean by your comment about me here. Did I do something wrong? Asking someone to correct an obvious mistake - which they have at last acknowledged, it would seem - is not of itself a bad thing. When they refuse to do so, it is likely one might ask again. Perhaps your comment would be better directed at the admin who caused all this nonsense in the first place - it was not only me who noted how ridiculous it was, I believe about 15 other people said much the same. And of course, now the issue has been sorted out, I have no reason to be involved further - as frequently pointed out, I was never an involved editor on the article itself. Following the discussion threads usually makes such things clear. Cheers. --Nickhh (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

ps: if you had looked into this, you might also have noticed that User:Off2riorob is the one who has since described other editors as "IRA editors", and that User:Sarah777 seemed to be basing her call for Troubles protection on the fact that obscure "Irish" articles had been so tagged, kind of a WP:OTHERCRAP thing. Whereas all the 15 other involved and uninvolved editors who commented agreed that it was all a bit daft. But you know, cherry picking and favouring the contributions of the abusive and aggressive is how much content here comes to be. --Nickhh (talk) 00:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Note 2
noted and changed. The reason he left is not material to the point I am making. Strife leads to bad results. People should try to get along. Jehochman Talk 22:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps best to have a chat now
John, if you want Jack Merridew to stay on Wikipedia, it may be best if you have a chat with him. After he deleted all his userpages and gave the impression of leaving, he has now gone back to some, well, rather negative editing. Editing a since long historical page to add yourself as a "rogue sockpuppet", or restating (in a not very cryptic way) that you still believe someone to be a pile of shit (follow the last link he gives) will not endear many to him, and the text of his new user page doesn'( give much confidence that he will do more constructive work on the encyclopedia. I can understand that the arbitration discussion is stressful and that he may feel that some people create a portrait of him that's quite different from how he really is, but now he's just throwing in his own windows. Fram (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!


I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The road to hell...
Am I walking that road... or are you? Tcaudilllg (talk) 04:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Very good question. I will form an opinion on it once I have reviewed the evidence and "findings of fact" proposals. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

PD Status, old book, dead author, London publication
Hi. :) I tried to answer this one solo (and have done), but I'm not confident enough yet to fly without asking for review, and there is still a question of whether the book was published also in the US. Rather than ask you to view over my page, I'll just reproduce my note here and ask if it seems okay to you. This is the book in question.
 * Summarizing (for the benefit of any friendly stalkers who may like to help out :)): this is an autobiography by a man who died in 1931. The book was published in 1932. It was originally published in London, where it is now PD as the author has been dead more than 70 years, but the United States does not recognize the rule of shorter term. It may protect material even if it is pd in its own country. (Thanks a lot, United States.)


 * According to Cornell's handy chart, a pivotal question is whether this material was PD in its home country on 1 January, 1996. In many cases, it would then PD in the US as well. But I figure it PD in the UK 1 January 2002, if the UK also dates to the beginning of the year following expiration term. So under US law it would be under copyright for 95 years from publication if it meets any one of these conditions: (a) “published in compliance with all US formalities” including notice & renewal; (b) solely published in the UK; (c) also published in the US but “more than 30 days after publication abroad.”


 * If it was published “less than 30 days after publication abroad” we use the US chart, at which point the condition of publication becomes pivotal. If it was published in that span in the US, it is public domain if it was (a) published without copyright notice or registration of copyright within five years of publication, or (b) published with notice but no renewal of copyright (I searched and  and found no evidence of renewal, fwiw). Otherwise, it is protected for 95 years from publication.


 * I never had much to do with these gray areas prior to coming to Wikipedia, so I'll see if User:Jayvdb has time to weigh in, because he is an absolute whiz at this kind of thing. I bet he knows how to find out if and when it was published in the US. And he should certainly be able to correct my summary if I am misunderstanding anything.

Have I got it right, basically? Do you know how we might find out details on any US publication, if there was one? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Question is still outstanding, if you don't mind giving feedback. :) If you'd rather I ask elsewhere, please just let me know, and I'll pester somebody else connected with Wikisource. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll look at this shortly... 10-15 mins. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Gah ... some silly stuff called me away ... and sleep beckons.
 * It does appear to have been published elsewhere at a similar time . The "30 day rule" is a nightmare because databases usually don't store the month and day, so it requires a physical copy to obtain the granularity required, and often even that doesn't help if the book only includes the year of publication.
 * Also, the author lived and died in Canada?, and may have been a citizen there?, in which case Canada has a claim to being the jurisdiction.
 * If it is considered "first published" in Canada, it would slip into the PD much earlier via that route.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 16:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, John. And just to be clear, I'm not being at all insincere in my willingness to pester somebody else. :) I really would not mind if you shooed me away if I catch you at a bad time. I'm happy to knock at multiple doors if I need to find somebody who is at a good point to help out. :) If you do have time for more, in spite of, Tom MacInnes seems to have been the editor. According to , the author was Christian Klengenberg, which seems supported in the title Klengenberg of the Arctic: an autobiography. I guess that the Canadian editor might suggest Canadian first publication? If so, this would have gone PD in Canada (from Klengberg's death) in 1982. I believe that would make the text usable, would it not? (From MacInness, it would be PD in 2002, which I think would not). Is there a way to determine the jurisdiction?


 * Also, do you know how to figure out the copyright status of the images in the book? I believe what's wanted most is photographs of Klengberg. The images were published, but unless a copyright owner is indicated in the book it may be difficult to determine the photographer. Oi. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We need to know how much of role MacInnes played. If he played a role, it cant be PD in the US.  If we can verify it is PD in Canada, Wikisource has a sister project in Canada and it can go there: wikilivres (it is run by Wikisource folk)
 * A photograph in a book are usually considered a separate work that is either published earlier, or first published in the book. In both cases, the copyright rules are the same as if the photograph was not published in the book. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, John. I do appreciate your time. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hotel Grand Chancellor, Launceston
Created, now for the parent articles.  Aaroncrick  ( talk )  Review me! 05:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! John Vandenberg (chat) 14:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

RE:Fact of the Day II?
Sorry for the incredibly late response. Since my take on the project died a long time ago, feel free to use the page. Just make sure that my old version is properly archived and linked to in case anyone wants to take a look at it. Let me know if your project gets off the ground. - Mgm|(talk) 10:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and no worries about the delay - I've been pretty busy anyway. We'll see what 2010 brings. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)