User talk:Johnleemk/Archive6

'Welcome to my talk page''; feel free to leave any enquiries/comments/brickbats you feel like leaving here. If it necessitates a response, one will be made on your talk page instead of here. I do not usually watch Talk pages I write comments on, so I typically expect a response on this page. Thanks for co-operating.'''

You can add a new comment to this page here.

Archives:
 * User talk:Johnleemk/Archive1
 * User talk:Johnleemk/Archive2
 * User talk:Johnleemk/Archive3
 * User talk:Johnleemk/Archive4
 * User talk:Johnleemk/Archive5

Joan of Arc
Hi, what does this article need to meet "good article" standards? If stability is an issue, then how long would an article need to remain stable? Regards, Durova 16:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Venus and Adonis (opera)
Hey, I noticed you decided VA wasn't up to GA standards because it didn't have references. I had mistakenly put my reference under "See also". I completely understand if it still isn't up to snuff, I was just wondering if you would reconsider in light of that. Also, sometimes recordings have articles by scholars, so I'm not sure if those would count as references or not. Cheers, Makemi 17:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you know... Lillian Too
Thanks for your comments. I'm new to this so I wasn't sure what to do. But someone wrote me a note warning me that the image would be deleted so I decided to write for permission. In future, if I want to add a fair use rationale, how do I do it? And what do I select from the Licensing drop-down menu? There doesn't seem to be anything suitable there to use for fair use. Thanks. -- S Masters 15:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Please block user 62.49.81.146. He vandalized Münster School of Business Administration and Economics. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lunalona (talk &bull; contribs).

Xchrisblackx
That anon removing Xchrisblackx may have been him. Xchrisblackx (signs as Dr. Mahongany) posted a note to his own talk page announcing his withdrawal. NoSeptember  talk  16:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

MGS PSP
I was wondering if there is any way i can retrieve the information that was in the Metal Gear Solid (PSP) article? I would like it for my own personal use, had I known that there was going to be a prompt oligarchical deletion I would have backed it up. I'm getting together resources for my soon to be running videogame wiki and would like the information. Is it anywhere?Solidusspriggan

Article rating, content fairs
See Wikipedia talk:Article rating for some recent thoughts on article rating & improvement. +sj + 19:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I like WP:GA as a test case, though I vaguely preferred the title of Half-decent articles ;-) We should work on defining how the meta-analysis of GA nominations proceeds.  I'm content with people updating the WP:GA list directly, but they should probably also list their new entries on a WP:GAC discussion/candidacy page, to make it easy for others to see what is new and good -- and to veto if they don't like it.  +sj +

Mark Busse Page Deletion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Busse

Mark Busse’s qualifications have been questioned by means of the authenticity of his “Publications,” he is in fact in accordance with three of the stated criterion:

1. "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field." Mark’s design firm is top notch on a worldwide scale, his clients blanket the globe and stand by his product. Not only is he an internationally known Communication Designer (with awards to back him in print, interface design, and the current highly acclaimed blog.industrialbrand.com), he is also a valued member of the Vancouver art scene, having sold paintings locally and been recognized as a legitimate critic in regards to his degree in Fine Art.

2. "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events." Mark has been actively involved in Canstruction Vancouver in support of the Food Bank since its inaugural year, he is a credited script editor on at least three indie/student films (A Beginning, Eating Crow, and Mega-force), and devotes innumerable amounts of time to the success of the non-profit Canadian Society of Graphic Designers.

3. "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more." A collaborative effort from Mark and Ben from IBC Published Fall 2005 in Graphic Exchange “Why should you have a blog?” in circulation throughout Canada to a lot more than 5 000 individuals. Mark’s interviews of Santa Monica’s Mike Goedecke of “Belief” and Toronto’s “Ze Frank” appear as padding on the IBC blog, but are anything but blog entries. These articles are for the betterment of the creative mind; they dive deeply into strategy, philosophy, and process, where these individuals’ mantras are made accessible to the general public. It is true that some of his articles appear on sites such as if.pfsk and blog.industrialbrand.com, but the fact that they may fall into the category of blog entry is only remotely valid, since the traffic and dedicated readers of these sites far surpass that of most published writers, as does the quality and content of the articles Mark writes.

In accompaniment to the above stated, Mark is on the forefront of Canadian Communication Design; he is a mentor to up and coming designers, he is an instructor at Vancouver Film School, and he is a keystone in the city of Vancouver though charitable contributions and the network of greatness he represents. I can see how some find it reasonable to consider Mark for deletion; however, he represents a new breed of writer/artist. His contributions may seem miniscule to those who are not active enthusiasts of digital culture, branding, design; this is his legacy and an understanding how influential he is may not surface until more people gain insight into his life.

Mark Busse’s Wikipedia page sits in a very infantile stage, it only shows crumbs of his story and appears quite vain. Revisions are needed, but it should definitely not be discarded.

toddsmithdesign 13:20, 9 February 2006

Good Article Self-Nominations
I noticed that you nominated several articles as good. I just wanted you to take notice that I failed all but one of them (Democratic Action Party). I know you have have over 13,000 edits and are a administrator and so you should know better than to flood the self-nominations page with articles that clearly do not qualify for the status. You added an article you had created just twenty minutes prior. Now, I can understand if you put up a somewhat good article on the nominations page and it gets rejected, but many of your pages featured poor biographies or dictionary definitions of Malay terms. I can't express enough the aggravation going through all those meaningless nominations caused.

In the future, I highly suggest that you exercise better judgement when nominating an article for good article status. If you flood the self-nominations page again with articles that are clearly unworthy of the distinction, I will simply delete all your nominations (good or not) without commenting on each individual article. joturner 23:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Frank Alexander
I've noticed you've deleted the article 'Frank Alexander'. I didn't actually pay much attention to the article; but since User:Malber has felt into the category of purposed defamation, by pointing out an user as a liar, I decided to clean up. Nils Gessinger is a jazz player (www.nilsgessinger.de). He is a famous jazz player in Germany and in São Paulo, Brazil where I live. I'm into jazz therefore I have heard of him. In regards to "Pacifier", someone mispelled it. The right band is "Pacific", a NZ band, the song is Bullitproof, not Bulletproof (of Pacifier) - link http://www.randkmusicmix.com/Artists_P.htm (line 16). I do understand the article doesn't fall into the criteria notability. But I also feel some people have been passing bad judgements on some user or on the artist. Plus, I do not agree with the behaviour of User: Malber on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Frank_Alexander, passage "Stating the obvious is not a personal attack. Here's a suggesion: perhaps Frank Alexander should spend less time on self promotion and pointing himself out as Ashton Kutcher's friend, and more time on doing something that is actually notable. Then he might actually become famous". I believe it none of our business, but it's my opinion. Finally. I got this TalkPage link through an Orkut community. Thoughtfully, Márcio201.1.1.215 09:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * But that's not defamation. It was perhaps a snide remark, but by creating a vanity article (you generally shouldn't start your own biography) you become subject to all sorts of interpretations. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 09:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand. He didn't write his own article. Actually user> peterbradley did it. Please, reply to this subject if you are totally aware of the discussion.

Stresss
Johnleemk stressed out? Anything I can I do? --FloNight 12:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Your apology seems sincere. That is usually helpful. Plus, wasn't this really the straw that broke the camel's back. Lots of high tension around this place for weeks. A regular soap opera! During the DFA discussion, Radiant seemed frustrated by the inaction. I think your summary was just part of the problem. Hopefully Radiant is de-stressing and will be back soon. FloNight 13:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Pietras1988 insults
I ask you for reaction to this user behaviour. This is not the first time he insults people on en:Wiki, I think a 24h block for cooling will teach him a lesson. A.J. 14:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Proofs:
 * 
 * - in Polish they were right insulting yoy becoause you talk like 0.
 * 
 * Wouldn't it be better to take it to WP:RFC instead? Outright blocks are supposed to be only for clear-cut vandals IIRC. &mdash; Kimchi.sg | Talk 14:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Whidden Hall afd
Are you sure there was a genuine lack of consensus on this issue? I got the impression that the appearance of lack of consensus was due to ballot stuffing. &mdash; ciphergoth

Hi...I was just about to ask the same thing. Counting the votes (and ignoring unsigned ballot stuffing) I get 10 deletes to 4 keeps, which seems like a delete consensus to me. Is there a WP:DRV process for AfD's that are contentiously closed in favour of "keep"? Zunaid 15:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough: let me rephrase. Taking into account the opinions and motivations from users with long edit histories and discounting those views from unregistered users, I find that a consensus to delete had been reached and feel that the AfD was incorrectly closed. I feel that in the least you could re-list immediately and include the arguments of the current debate in its entirety. Zunaid 16:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I, too, feel this debate was closed prematurely, but for now will assume good faith and try to get along.

I had a suggestion for how to resolve it that I had intended to place in the debate but have now put on the article's talk page if you're interested in looking at it. Daniel Case 19:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I want some consensus; to do so unilaterally in the wake of a contentious deletion vote would not be civil IMO. Also, I have absolutely no familiarity with McMaster and thus couldn't even begin to expand the article in the proper direction. I don't intend to take any action for a few days (especially since I have other fish to fry here). Daniel Case 19:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to pile on, but I agree with the above comments - the debate was closed too soon IMO (I didn't even see it was posted until it had been closed). Registered users with a history of contributions seemed inclined to delete, and the premature closing prevented any true consensus from developing. TMS63112 19:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

As the guy who relisted it, I had actually thought about closing it even earlier as a no consensus. It was clear where it was going, WP:SNOW might have even been invoked. Perhaps we should move this to the AfD's talk page though, if further discussion is needed, so as not to clog up his talk page? --W.marsh

User_talk:Radiant%21
Props to you for this: but I would not place all or most of the blame at your feet. Everyone's doing the best they can. Thanks for your efforts on behalf of the encyclopedia. ++Lar: t/c 17:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

His Site
...continues

It's not a proposal. This is how Wikipedia has been run since its inception; if anything, the process is a bit fairer now, since last time we had two dictators (Jimbo and Larry Sanger) whereas now the Board can step in and tell Jimbo to shut it if he really blows it (an unlikely occurrence). And in case you forgot, somebody has to pay for the servers, manage the accounts, buy new servers, maintain them, talk to the media with some authority (honestly, can you imagine an ordinary Wikipedian spreading his personal idea of what Wikipedia should be among the media?), etc. You tell me how the wiki can do all this. Wikipedia has been run as an autocracy since its founding. So far, there is nothing to indicate this should be changed except the paranoia of some people who can't accept a benevolent dictatorship (but have zero problems whatsoever with private organisations and businesses that, just incidentally, happen to have one CEO/Chairman of the Board/whatever). Johnleemk | Talk 18:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You need to read before writing, friend.
 * The "someone" who pays for the servers isn't necessarily Jimbo - he is continually appealing for donations from people like me. He just seeded them, as you say.
 * if people can volunteer to add content to his project, I dare say people can volunteer to maintain servers. they certainly volunteer unhesitatingly to be admins so they can behave like Stanford prison warders, "reverting vandalism" and block people they don't like.
 * Why does Wikipedia need to talk to the media at all?
 * in no way, in any case, does any of this imply the need for autocratic control of content of management of the site. Jimbo could quite easily agree to be treated like any other user. Indeed, he has, on occasion, denied being a GodKing. Are you not putting words into his mouth? ElectricRay 18:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So what do you plan to do? Personally submit your check to a hardware manufacturer, personally take possession of the server, and then...? Furthermore, you are oversimplifying Wikipedia's hardware. As someone familiar with internet servers, I can tell you that for maximum efficiency, the servers need to be as close together as possible (so as to reduce delays when transmitting information between master and slave database servers, etc.). How will we maintain our servers if we have one in Kuala Lumpur, one in Brisbane, one in Timbuktu, one in Chicago, and so on? Again, you tell me. Also, in case you forgot, Wikipedia is among the most visited websites in the world. We are bound to get queries from the media, and if we don't respond, they can very well just grab something random from our talk pages and use it to totally misrepresent our views (not that they don't already do this with some of Jimbo's or the Board's statements). Regardless of what we call him, Jimbo has very real authority over this website. If he preferred to, he could just phone the guys at the Foundation server farm in Florida and tell them to shut down the servers. He runs this website. He owns the hardware that runs it. If you won't respect his authority and think you can run off with this great anarchist experiment in running a website, then more power to you. But don't bring Wikipedia into this. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not be a democracy or bureaucracy (see WP:NOT). Johnleemk | Talk 18:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Walk away. And I don't think I'll be the only one. Indeed, if the above item is anything to go by, you seem to have driven out some perfectly good editors and admins by yourself already. Better get writing your encyclopaedia! ElectricRay 19:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your civility. ^_^ Johnleemk | Talk 19:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry to ask the dumb question, but just so I know, are you being sarcastic or not? I genuinely don't know. ElectricRay 22:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your MJ merges
The result of one of these merges was an agreement to delete the merged information, not add it back in. The information is poorly sourced and unwelcome in the article, and I may have to go back and find it to delete it. --Manboobies 22:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I checked the info, and it seems you only merged in stuff about his house at neverland. Still, the article didn't really need it. Some how Streetwalker made it around 32 KB again so it's all good, tho I'm slightly concerned about where the other stuff went to make it 32KB... :/--Manboobies 14:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Article assessment
Hi there. You showed some intrest in the idea of Wikipedia:Article rating. This has become Article assessment, which has now started and is accepting submissions under the topic "Natural disasters". It would be great if you could find the time to take a little look at it. violet/riga (t) 16:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Noel Gallagher
"The article constantly refers to him as Noel, which sounds very unprofessional." not as unprofessional as if you kept reffering to him & his brother (who is mentioned constantly through the article) as "Gallagher" so eveyone gets confused. also, why bother with all that mdash shit. A line's a line. Stop being petty, you chimp. Also, why get rid of the trivia bit? And i can't really expand the controversy bit or intergrate it, so what should i do woth all the useful and interesting information therein? --Crestville 18:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Where was there a personal attack? Chimp? Or was it because I said "shit"? Neither is intended as a personal attack. You're not one of those are you? Petty, condecending and stuck up admin (ok, that's a bit personal). Despite what you think, the use of "Gallagher" can make the article confusing and makes it seem redundant in places, therefore I have carefully chosen areas where I use christian names so as to distinguish between the brothers. The "obvious" is not always so. Try it. Trivia sections gone, I'll work on the contrvercy section later as another Helpful user suggested a positive solution. In the mean time, take the rod out of your arse and smile!--Crestville 19:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "I've used the method I proposed for handling the naming before on Hey Jude, but I'll admit that it's not always the best solution." - I'm sorry, I don't understand. Could you please explain what you are proposing. also, soz if you thought i was having a pop at you. Calm down man, no need to get stressed. It's just an enyclopedia.--Crestville 20:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Intro for The Beatles
Thanks for bringing the Beatles lead section into line with the leading section recommendations. – ApolloCreed 11:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Mege?
How did you conclude that there was a "rough concencus" for merge, when they didnt even have the majority vote?!

Articles for deletion/Misconceptions about the Shi'a

--Striver 18:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Three weeks of admin tools
Today three weeks have passed since I was granted access to the administrator toolbox. During this time I have made use of it in the following way:


 * Protections and unprotections: 1
 * Blocks and unblocks: 4
 * Deletions and restorations: 69
 * Rollbacks: 246

I've found that the rollback tool is much more useful than I'd thought for vandalism patrol. In fact it makes that task so easy that I've been doing it more than before. On the other hand I've been surprised by how little the blocking tool is needed. Having done a significant amount of vandalism patrol I have still only blocked one solitary vandal. The great majority of addresses which send out a vandal edit do so only once. Those who do it more often usually stop after a warning or two. Only rarely is a block actually needed and in those cases someone usually beats me to it.

As a side note I haven't retired from writing articles either. I'm still hoping to bring Freyr up to featured status but even though I've already performed more edits on it than on Hrafnkels saga back in the day, a lot of work remains to be done. Community expectations for featured articles have gone up and so have my own ambitions. I'm currently waiting for a couple of books I ordered to arrive and then I may be able to make the final push.

I'm trying my best to live up to the trust you showed in me by supporting my RFA. If ever you feel uncertain whether I'm using the admin tools in the best interests of the project, let me know. I am at any time willing to relinquish the mop and reapply for it to address concerns people have and ensure that I'm not using the admin tools without being trusted to do so. Haukur 22:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Selector calculus AFD closing
Just a courtesy notice that I commented (mostly favourably) on your closing of Articles for deletion/Selector calculus at User talk:Chan-Ho Suh. I don't want to gossip behind your back; much more fun to do it in your face ;) Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

David Saks
Mr.Meek, You were hasty in deleting the article about David Saks. His prominence in Memphis Music history is without parallel. If you had taken the time to review the intensive "notability" bashing by three seasoned wikipedians you would have been able to arrive at a distinct point of departure from their lack of investigative prowess in the matter of this most worthy gentleman. Mr.Saks is not only highly regarded in his own community, but his works are in the Library of Congress. Please take the time to review all of the corresponding material on the Memphis, Tennessee talk page, including all of the cross references, which vindicate him. You should take time to review all of the corresponding elements substantiating the claims for the article, including verifiable sources. On the talk page, it was suggested by one of the compulsive editors,that a visit be made to city hall to verfy the claims. The claim verification was most certainly provided. One of the sources, the Commercial Appeal, was ridiculed as a "small paper" by one user. It's circulation tops 1.5 million readers in the metro community. In the AFD discussion the voters for "delete" are ambiguous and appear at times vindictive in their tone. Mr.Meek,You refer to yourself as a "waffler" in your biography. The Urban Dictionary defines a "waffler as:"0ne who waffles, from the verb waffle, meaning to never settle on a stance on one (or more) issue(s); A waffler usually goes from one side to the other and back again, usually multiple times." At no time could I think of an application of your self-characterized demeanor be better implemented than in the matter of David Saks. (66.239.212.131 02:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC))
 * Your friends in Memphis, and, fans of David Saks.

ps....We are Beatle fans as well...good show on your Beatle work.

Thanks but no thanks
Delete my user and talk pages. freestylefrappe 03:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Johnleemk, I just wanted to let you know that I undeleted and blanked his talk page, since it's generally agreed that talk pages shouldn't be deleted. Hope that's OK. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 01:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

DYK

 * Congrats on getting so many of your articles onto DYK! :D &mdash; Kimchi.sg | Talk 05:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Response to :"Point of This"

 * This is pretty straightforward. I am proposing a Project to edit articles relating to dispute resolution. As in real life, not internal-to-wikipedia methods, forums, interventions, cabals, patrols etc.  Write encyclopedic articles on mediation (article needs a lot of work) community mediation, labor arbitration (articles do not exist).  Sorry if this was confusing. --Edivorce 22:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge
I have a propblem with a single person (you) declaring wich side had the better arguement, totaly ignoring the amounts of votes casted. Could you please refer me to the relevant wikipolicy that proves me wrong in demanding the votecount to be respected? --Striver 04:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey Jude article
ok, I'm a total newbie, but I went to the trouble of creating an account so I could comment on "your" Hey Jude material. Maybe this isn't appropriate to an encyclopedia, but it is a cultural phenomenon of the time period in question (1960s and 70s)and so as a history student, I am inclined to think some mention should be made of the fact that many (at least in the US)teenagers of the time believed that the lyrics of "Hey Jude" refered to drug use, specifically "mainlining" heroin. (i.e. "..let her under your skin, then you can begin to make it better"). Until I read the article in wikipedia saying it was about Jules, I had no reason to think otherwise. I was a teenager at that time, too. Everyone in my peer group had "heard" the story, and the Beatles were believed to be a part of the drug culture that was so prominent in that "psychedelic" era. "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" was supposedly about LSD. Maybe this is how urban legends get started. I remember arguing with several friends who insisted "Puff, the Magic Dragon" (a Peter, Paul & Mary song)was about smoking marijuana. I said it was just a cute folk-song about a little kid's imaginary friend ... but I digress. I realize from reading your user page that you're waay too young to remember any of this--I feel like an old, old woman contributing to an oral history project about ancient times. EllenT 08:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway
Hi. Since I noticed that you edited the workshop in this case, could I, as a participant, ask you to check it and make sure it gets properly opened. What happened was that Aaron Brenneman opened the workshop page and started adding material. I joined him and asked on IRC for someone to open it as I cannot do that myself. FCYTravis obliged and did a great job but there are some things missing (the parties haven't been officially notified, for instance, and themapplication is still on the main RFAR page and people are still editing it). Could you sort this out?

Also Aaron has been adding material that should be on the evidence page into the workshop. I obviously cannot move it to the right place, but someone should. Thanks. --Tony Sidaway 11:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, I've been sinking the boot into you a little bit. I hope you don't take it too hard, I took off the steel caps before I did so.  Tony may be correct in that the list of diffs is "evidence" but I'm sure you've noticed that he is tremendously controlling with regards to what goes on ArbCom pages.  Having the material removed wholesale without even leaving a section header like "summary to be inserted" does give a different impression than trying to work with me, can you agree? I like you and (in general) agree with the way that you handle things and would hate for you to be pissed off with me. Oh, and I notified an arbitrator that I had created the workshop page, both on-wiki and on IRC.  Sorry that you still had to clean up the mess.  If you'd turn your spam filter off so that unregistered scum like me could PM you, I'd have told you that. ^_^  brenneman  {T}  {L}  06:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And I've just seen Articles for deletion/Hootenanny (store). Brilliant. - brenneman  {T}  {L}  06:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Your edit summary on the paedophile userbox affair
Hi John, I just want to thank you for your rewrite of the summary, and also your gracious comments at Radiant's talk page. I'm not sure what Radiant had in mind regarding his own comments, and only offered an opinion when Tony sought one. I apologise for pointing the finger so readily, I hadn't realised you wrote the summary, you're an editor I tend to look up to and it appears that where our paths have recently crossed I've fouled up. I hope Radiant will return and enlighten us all a bit more clearly as to the what and the why he left. I hope my comments don't cause you to leave; it would be a shame if the whole mess snowballed any further. Steve block talk 19:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Your Comments
I want to thank you on your comments on my manifesto, and please let me know if there's any way to make it acceptable to you, but I honestly don't know how to respond to most of your comment(it was fairly large), so i'll hit on what I saw as the main two points.


 * 1) Democracy. I don't think Wikipedia should have any kind of Democracy in it. In Democracy, you have a bit of control, but the same control as an ant would in an ant colony. We can do better than that, and we already do through sociocratic processes (basically any three letter combo with an f in the middle of it nowadays, such as afd, rfc, rfa, rfb, etc.) Just making a "blank for blank" for policies/guidelines(the lower house idea) and an arbcom-esque body to have a check on the "blank for blank" so there's balance.
 * 2) Fear towards the Foundation and Jimbo. It is there, hell i've had it. For the first few days after the wheel war, I had nightmares about Jimbo, in my nightmares he was a drug pusher and he was threatening to cut me off from this place that I love so much and have put so much into. Hell, i've tried hard to stop people who felt like they were just being duped into helping build a product as slave labor for Jimbo that they should try and fix things rather than just walk off in anger. Hell, i've even gone on Wikipedia Review and tried to end the anger over there and get some productive thoughts on how to fix things going on over there. Anger sucks, i've seen too much of it over my life.Ultimately though, if we have too much and too rigid hierarchy, especially if that hierarchy is insulated from ideas, we'll grow stagnant. One of the great things about a wiki in general is that it's collaborative, it's a circle. Each person adds their own part, and that part becomes integrated into a new whole. Don't get rid of the circle with a pyramid, or people at the bottom will lose out on that feeling.

Ok, talk to you later. I think Kim has more comments. Karm a  fist  02:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your response to the proposal that I submitted to the Village Pump yesterday on how to attract older, experienced conributers. I really appreciated your kind remarks. mbeychok 16:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

We'll Just Have To Agree To Disagree Then
Because I don't think we're connecting here. I am a living example of Jimbo's bad judgement. If he were truly a constitutional monarch, he would have followed policy in regards to Joeyramoney (AGF and BITE, Joeyramoney was a 16 year old kid with under 100 edits who was unaware about the seething mob developing around him), but he didn't. He wheel warred, and when I tried to remind Jimbo that he was just a kid, Jimbo had a hissy fit and stole my adminship.

The very fact that Jimbo could arbitrarily get rid of someone is my concern, Wikipedia is getting large enough to be soon in anti-trust territory: one person should not have that much control over such a large information source, especially one who is becoming insulated from differing opinions (by people such as yourself).

If he wants to talk, that's fine. I'm here. Until then, i'm keeping my guard up because i'm addicted to this place and Jimbo might have another temper tantrum at any moment. Karm a  fist  20:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

DYK Mania!
Congratz on your awesome string of new entries in DYK, John! You're giving the entire Wikipedia-reading world a lesson in Malaysian political culture! Babajobu 08:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFA/Quarl
Hi John, thanks for your encouraging support in my RFA, which succeeded. If I can ever improve or help in any way, please let me know! :) —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-16 11:53Z 

blocking 24.105.166.19
Hi - 24.105.166.19 continues to add the same nonsense to the Robert Johnson page. Can an anonymous user be blocked permanantly? He certainly deserves it. Thanks, --RobHutten 15:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Proposed decision
Hi John. If you have time, do you think you could pop into this page and perform the majority calculation for my case? You need to work out how many arbitrators are svailable at present (probably 14 out of the 15, but check anyway on Arbitration Committee) and how many recused (none, I think). Then the calculation is quite simple. --Tony Sidaway 00:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Then
Further discussion appears unlikely to be constructive since you seem filled with nothing but anger in this issue. I just hope you can understand that this place has become bigger than any one person before it's too late, both for the project and for yourself(if you disagree with Jimbo in the future, which is inevitable since all people disagree with each other at some point.)

Until your attitude changes, which I hope it does, I will delete all comments from you on my talk page. I am ashamed that I ever considered such a closed minded person my friend. Karm a  fist  03:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Retroactive Valentines Day Greeting
Not to be left out, I hereby give you a Valentines Day greeting retroactively. Ask and ye shall receive. --Durin 17:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

question about closeAFD from WP:JS
are you sure it's workign fine? I copied it exactly I'm building a monobook with only modules from WP:JS and after adding this one when I edit AFD pages, like Articles for deletion/The Chicken Alliance I get these tabs: so it seems that all CloseAFD does is to duplicate existing tabs. Do you have an updated version? -- ( drini's page &#x260E;  ) 04:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * [last] (from last diff script)
 * [afd] (from autoafd script]
 * [last] (¿Again??? this wasn't showing before I added Close AFD)
 * [afd] (¿again?)
 * Nevermind, it seems somebody updated in on such page, but forgot to mention the dependency on the main listing, so I missed that (now it depends on addLinks), it's fixed. Thanks for your time. -- ( drini's page &#x260E;  ) 05:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for footnotes in McDonald's urban legends
I've just dipped my feet into the footnote waters (Subway and McDonald's), and it looks like your method uses a different system than Footnote3. I'll have to see which one's easier for me and other users. TransUtopian 05:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Canada
My source is a portuguese book :

OCEANOS Terra Nova A epopeia do bacalhau

Numero 45 - Janeiro/Março 2001

Comissao Nacional para as comemoraçoes dos descobrimentos portugueses.

Please, respect the true history &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.66.189.16 (talk &bull; contribs).

alright, no problem &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.66.189.16 (talk &bull; contribs).

Is it right now? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.66.189.16 (talk &bull; contribs).

wait, I can give you a ISBN &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.66.189.16 (talk &bull; contribs).

I cannot give you the ISBN because I can't find it but if you think that I might be experiencing problems with the autor of that piece of article I tried to translate from Portuguese to English, then just make it disappear of the page, I don't want to have troubles for that little... &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.66.189.16 (talk &bull; contribs).

My RfA
Hi. On behalf of my right eye, I'd like to thank you for giving me your support on my recent RfA. It ended with a final tally of (73/2/2) and therefore I have been installed as an administrator now, and I'm ready to serve Wikipedians all over the world with my newly acquired mop and bucket. If you have any questions, do not hestitate to forward them to my talkpage. Once again, thanks for your support.  Soothing R  20:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: FAC
Thank you for your message; I'll review it when I look at all the FACs again. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 00:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Canada
Except the english that is bad, the facts are really true and should be put on-line so anyone can be aware of the other versions of the discovery. But I'm afraid the autor could sue me or something, did that already happenned to people who participate to wikipedia? Because if it hasn't you should put it for the improvment of knowledge of everyone. I already put it in the french wikipages of Canada and the guys seem to be okey so I guess it's not really a matter. I found other information about the book where I took the piece of article:

Redaction and administration

Rua Jardim do Tabaco, 23-1° 1100-286 LISBOA telefone: 00351218810900 FAX: 218881023 e-mail (!): oceanos@mail.telepac.pt

And there an online version of the whole article here!: http://www.cncdp.pt/oceanos/

You seem to be a kind of wiki moderator, you could put on-line what I copy from the book and ask them if it's right that way. (The book was edited in 2001 and up to only 10.000 exemplaries.

YOu see, here in Europe, French claim to have discovered Canda with Jacques Cartier but as Portugal is a little and less influent country OUR official story is not-recognized by arrogant historian frenchies, and if it's not by France, then you presume that the entire world won't know anything about it, at least in that subject. We can't deny Jacques Cartier was really the main piece of Canada's birth and so on, but before there is a lot of history before him that France CAN'T be proud of.... So I thought wikipedia was a good and free and the only! way to enrich the world's culture with verifyable facts...I'm sure this thing would easily get to be known in candaian classes etc &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.66.189.16 (talk &bull; contribs).

Xoloz
Hi, John. I you can spare the time, do you think you could look at the evidence presented by Xoloz in my case and format it so that it shows approximate date of event and the article to which it refers? I'm trying to prepare rebuttal evidence and it's difficult to do so without that. --Tony Sidaway 16:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Omega Directive AfD
Hi ... I'm just dropping you a note because I think something odd might have happened with the Omega Directive AfD that you closed earlier today. For some reason, it's showing up in the February 20 AfD log, which is rather weird given that it was nominated on February 13 and you closed it on February 19. Should I just cut-and-paste it into the February 13 log, perhaps? --Aaron 01:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right, I didn't notice those dates all said January instead of February! Anyway, I looked at the log history; Perfecto added a tag to today's log, for reasons unknown. His user contributions page shows he was nominating other pages properly just a few minutes earlier, so I suppose he just made a mistake. I'll delete it from the log and let Perfecto know about it on his talk page. Sorry to bother you with this; if I had noticed the January date, I would have investigated further myself instead of just dropping you a note. --Aaron 02:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Bandar Utama references
Say John, there's a few contentious unreferenced paragraphs that I could not find a citation to. Could I have a hand? Borisblue 05:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Template deletion
Hello! I'd like to express my opinion about your two recent deletions:
 * 2006-02-10 19:02:39 Johnleemk deleted "Template:User participant userbox war" (ok, I have had it. non-encyclopedia related userboxes are one thing, and those that present a political POV are another, but this is way out of line. TFD IS NOT A WAR. WE ARE ALL WARRIORS ON THE SAME SIDE IN BUILDING AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. FUCK FACTIONALISM)
 * 2006-02-19 16:29:43 Johnleemk deleted "User:Cjmarsicano/UDUIW" (blatantly divisive; speedying under CSD T1 ("Here at the UDUIW, we support individuality and freedom. We are in direct opposition of Jimbo's decision to oppress the uses of userboxes. We welcome any user that agrees with us." -- from the category))

While the first deletion I support (this is not a war), the summary you used I find absolutely inadmissible. Regardless how much you may hate userboxes, please restrain yourself from shouting and using swear words in summaries - they're an official documentation of the process.

Regarding the second, the deletion was obviously unjustified, as CSD T1 applies only to the Template: namespace which was not the case. Also, please be notified that a deletion review entry has been filled in.

Thank you. --Misza13 (Talk) 13:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Userfication and main-namespace categories
Please remember to remove the afd template, as well as any other article-namespace-only categories or templates that include them (like stub and its cousins) when userfying content, per Categorization. &#8212;Cryptic (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Cjmarsicano/UDUIW
John,

I've had some very fair and civilized dealings with you, and I like you as a person, so I am none too happy to discover that you are the one responsible for the deletion of this userbox.

There was absolutely nothing divisive about the box or what it stood for. Mr. Wales is a fine individual but he is quite frankly wrong to be telling many of his site's longtime contributors what they can do on their own userspace. The userbox merely represents a growing clique of pro-userbox, anti-censorship people that are creating a growing concensus for this matter, and was not, and is not, a personal attack on Mr. Wales.

There is also the personal matter of violation of my userpage space, which was hosting the userbox, so you can imagine how offended I am where this part of the matter is concerned.

With all that in mind, I ask you to do the truly right thing and restore this userbox within 24 hours. It would be a damn shame to have to bring an otherwise cool and likable person like you into mediation or arb over what I see as a misinterpration of userbox, organization, and Wikipolicy (albeit a really STUPID and easy to abuse Wikipolicy).

With all due respect, CJ Marsicano 17:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * John,

You're punishing, or aiding in the punishment of, the wrong people. Your misinterpretation of both the policy and the userbox are forgivable though; if you really want to do the right thing, I again ask you to restore the userbox in question within the time frame requested in order to avoid any truly divisive actions.

--CJ Marsicano 17:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Whatever language that could have been misinterpreted as anti-Jimbo was long removed by other parties and not restored. You're more than welcome to check. Cjmarsicano 18:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Censorship
You don't really allow people to edit, unless they agree with the POV in the "articles". Example: if I added more insulting rumours to the entry on Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, would you allow them to stay?

Breton4real

Spinnwebe
It seems that people associated with the site came back and recreated the article that had already been deleted by AFD (Spinnwebe Afd). The webmaster of the site seems to have recruited tons of people associated with that website to go to the Speedy deletions page to contest the deletion. It really is ridiculous, one person seems to have registered just to vote and there are a few blank red links voting. Since you closed the afd and are an administrator I thought that you'd be interested to know. I also put a template for speedy deletion but they removed it. They seem to have gathered around another page I put on afd and are resorting to name calling. "Kids these days"...it really is getting a bit ridiculous --Jersey Devil 20:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop
Looking at the history of this case this morning, it seems that Aaron Brenneman has removed several remedies proposed by others from the workshop despite my repeated expression of polite opposition to this. Would you please restore them?


 * 3) Tony Sidaway to be desysopped
 * Proposed by me
 * 6) Userboxes limited
 * Proposed by David Gerard
 * 8) Tony Sidaway banned
 * Proposed by me

Thank you. --Tony Sidaway 10:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually please don't. Why, for the love of peat moss, would we do that? The job of the clerk is meant to be to make things pellucid, not facilitate a fillibuster.  Numbers three and eight are  pure histrionics and have not the slightest chance of passing, and number six has been overtaken by events in the form of Pathoschild.  If someone on the arbcom wants them back in, they watch the page, they can put them back in.  brenneman  {T}  {L}  12:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Please reconsider. I know it's been a long case (or at least it seems that way), and the page just keeps growing.  As the second greatest contributor to the page after Tony, your drive to refactor carries as much appearance of shaping the discussion as anything else.  I appreciate you see some of the recent entries as a fillibuster, and possible histrionics. Please consider that perhaps Tony really does take these issues that seriously.
 * No, nevermind, put that aside. Consider this: if he's fillibustering, there's no greater evidence than to see such on the Workshop page.  The alternative is countless "moved by abrenneman" links. I appreciate the difficult job the ArbCom has in this case, and I, too, want to make it easier...I'm just not convinced that discecting the Workshop or Evidence pages is the way to do it.  I think it's best to keep all comments from all involved in the open, and I think it's very near the voting stage anyway.  InkSplotch(talk) 15:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That is certainly astonishingly apt evidence of Aaron's continued and admitted bad faith towards me. Of course I'm serious.  If I cannot recognise when I have made bad decisions, I should not be a sysop.  If I disrupt the wiki, it is reasonable that the Committee should consider a ban.  I do not see how either suggestion can be viewed as "hystrionics" or philibustering.  They're the most important remedies that the committee must consider.


 * Please restore them, John. I gave no permission for the withdrawal. --Tony Sidaway 18:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't get to give "permission". There is no ownership of a proposed remedy, and when you edit it says If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.  The fact that these have been restored neither by any of the other contributors to the page nor by the arbitrars is telling.  There is clearly no chance that these remedies will pass.  We should not be facilitating melodramatic gestures that impede serious discussion. -  brenneman  {T}  {L}  22:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And yes, I'm the second highest contributor by count of non-minor edits... but look at the actual numbers below... that's a far distant second. I am trying to shape the discussion, no question.  I'm trying to move it away from pointless black and white statements towards actual discussion of the issues.  In what way is the new and shiny userbox proposal relevent, for example?  I'm not the bad guy for calling out someone who's using year eleven debate tactics here. -  brenneman  {T}  {L}  23:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Editor           Count  Percent Tony Sidaway       212      36% Aaron Brenneman     67      11% David Gerard        51       9% Nandesuka           44       7% Fred Bauder         31       5%

SpinnWebe AfD
Hey John-- I'm sure you're aware of the ongoing SpinnWebe flap, but as the closing admin in the original AfD, I thought I'd let you know that if you have any thoughts on the process there they would be welcome. I think there's more heat than light being generated in the new AfD, and the "keep" side (of whom I am one) is not as opposed to deletion as they might seem. A calm voice might go over well there. rodii 16:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That was quick! Thanks. rodii 16:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

About 66.109.245.29
66.109.245.29 has vandaliszed Cotton ClubThe Fox Man of Fire 01:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Michael Jackson Vandalism warning
"Thanks for experimenting with the page Michael Jackson on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Johnleemk | Talk 16:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)"


 * Sorry if this is in the wrong place but I was sent a "warning" against vandalism on the Michael Jackson page. I wonder if this was sent to the wrong person, as I only added a little to the page and it was in no way intended to be a "test" or vandalism. I didn't realize the page was so busy, but the information I posted I did so in good faith, as I got it from a 1980's bio on the singer titled "Michael!." Sadly I cannot locate the title on Amazon since he's had so many bios. If the info needs stronger support fine, but please don't accuse me of something I haven't done! Thanks.

PS: I see now that many people can have the same IP address. So perhaps it wasn't me you meant after all. But I wondered because I did add to the Michael Jackson page (but then so are a million other people every second). Weird. Well anyway, thanks for reading!

No, No POTW
John, you're a good person, so i'm sorry if I caused you harm during the past few weeks. Ultimately I moved it there last time because of two reasons from my viewpoint


 * 1) I was wicked frustrated because there was alot of things going on, and I just didn't want to deal with it at the time.
 * 2) I thought that you didn't want to listen to me, so I was reciprocating.

Human beings often have miscommunications, but I seem to have more than the average, so if my perceptions differed from yours, let's correct that error.

As for the oppose, I don't mind if you oppose as long as we can communicate what we each see. Those philosophies are ultimately just what I see, and I sincerely hope they change over time and get more rosy, because they're going to be as honest as possible. However, honesty can still be more polished.

Me and Jimbo had this discussion a bit last night, but ultimately what I meant there is that whenever policy decisions or perceptions on policies are made outside of Wikipedia, suspicions arise. Whether those suspicions are unfounded or not is irrelevant, the very prescence of suspicion is enough for the problem of Cabalism to be there. And ultimately, I think this comes largely from technological ignorance and information overload.

For one, most Wikipedians are pretty smart, and can figure out IRC or AIM, or Yahoo Messenger or signing up to the e-mail list or whatever, but I can guarantee you that there are people on here that are technological dummies(I know I still have alot to learn). When things like that happen, those who are on the outside of that understanding feel left out of the loop, and when someone is left out of any loop, there's resentment. Ignorance + Resentment = Belief of Cabal.

This to me is basically like saying you no longer have the right to vote because you don't have a car and you can't walk to the polling place.

Secondly, let me ask you something -- how many e-mails do you have right now? I have three e-mail boxes, with around 150 in total I have to read. I also have information coming in at me in real life too on many, many fronts. Jimbo told me that he almost never reads his talk page anymore and he has over 1,000 e-mails in his box. That's almost like guaranteeing an overload. And when your perceptions falter, you miss things.

If you miss something, and something happens, there's going to be resentment partially out of information fatigue(people are far more susceptible to anger when tired in any kind of way) and partially from feeling like they were left out of the loop like I mentioned before.

What I want is to fix this, not damage control saying that "there is no cabal", but making sure that nobody's left out of the loop, there's no resentment, that if someone wants to create a policy or change a policy, it is insanely easy to initiate, even if it will take a ton of discussion and oversight to actually do.

I hope we can talk more later about this. Karm a  fist  15:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)