User talk:Johnleemk/Archive8

'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
 * User talk:Johnleemk/Archive6
 * User talk:Johnleemk/Archive7

Sports betting forum
Hi John, you might be interested in the following that I wrote in the 6 May 2006 entry for Deletion_review:

I would like to request that this article be restored.

On 15 January 2006, administrator FCYTravis, nominated the article to be deleted.

The result of the debate as announced by administrator Johnleemk on 20 January 2006 was to keep the article without any qualifications.

FCYTravis ignored the result and speedily deleted the article on 21 January 2006 [].

Critic 20:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOVUW
I updated all the applicable links per Redirects for deletion/Redirect Archives/April 2006. The only ones I left were links that were specifically talking about the redirect itself. I think it's ready to be deleted now. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 17:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Defacing pages
I am not defacing pages. I am trying to shed light on so called facts given on this website which clearly are not true. Chinamanjoe has been spreading lies throughout this website and it is quite easy to prove that he is lying. He claims to be the great-nephew of Annie Besant, however if he were he would be over 90 years old. However on the Justin Besant page, (Chinamanjoe is Justin Besant) he makes not that he is a high school student with a few albums recently put out. There is no possible way that these two facts could both be true. Also, all of his albums are named things like Stuart or Nubice, which are both inside jokes from his high school. When searching up Justin Besant on google, you will find that the only records of him are on sites which are self-editable such as wikipedia and last.fm. There are also recent pictures of him on his last.fm website which will help support my claims. Chinamanjoe has also been deleting talk from the discussion pages in order to keep these truths about him from being put out. He is continually deleting all evidence that proves that he is not who he claims he is. I am just trying to correct the facts on this website and I am in no way vandalizing. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yofoxyman (talk • contribs) 18:39, 22 April 2006  (UTC)

vandalism
It's my messages that are being removed from the discussion pages. Not the other way around.

are you dumb
what the fuck are you talking about. don't do what again? expose the truth and then have someone delete my messages?

obviously i have clicked the link. but you're being dumb. that is one instance out of about 30 that have happened this morning and i was merely replacing what someone else had written there in the effort that someone like a moderator would notice. now clearly one has, so instead of focussing on the one tiny issue at hand here, why don't you come out from under your rock and take a look at the big picture

Opening cases
When you open cases please use the templates at Requests for arbitration/Template/Workshop and Requests for arbitration/Template/Proposed decision. Fred Bauder 16:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Whatever it takes, please fix it. I'm tired of having to put the correct template in by hand. Fred Bauder 16:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks re Hero game
Thanks for alleviating my ignorance about redirects and so on. There's a lot to learn around here! (Also, would you mind deleting User:Chris Chittleborough/Hero (game) for me? Thanks.)

Cheers, CWC (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, always a pleasure. Next time just stick db-author on something you wrote that you want deleted. Johnleemk | Talk 17:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arb.
I came across it by snooping in this twit's edits and mail. []. Never been near adulterer Jim Nussle since. He seems to have refreshed it since. He and TonySidaway (or the some such) are a pair of Dubuque trolls.

If you read it carefully, I seem to have defaced articles on the Julien Dubuque Bridge. My response is that this is an accusation by someone suffering from auditory and visual hallucinations (do read the history). Do read Black Hawk Bridge, as I am interested in Mississippi River crossings. Have I vandalized the JD bridge article?

He's a whack job.

Also see User talk:Dual Freq --FourthAve 08:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

rfa
Thanks for the support on my RFA. Unfortunately, it did not achieve consensus. I look forward to your support in a couple months when I apply again. Holler at me if you need anything. &rArr;  SWAT  Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  01:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the John Ling page
Hi Johnleemk

I was wondering you could drop by on the John Ling page (yes, the author) and help sort out the discussion we are having. Because you are an administrator, I think you are the best person to decide whether the article truly is vanity, and if so, what to do about it.

Thanks!

~Jade~

WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter, Issue 1
Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? - It's all here

Help the Newbie
Hi John,

I am a solid Newbie in the Wikipedia community - truly awesome and very addictive! Having just joined, I could really use your help and obvious experience...I found your profile from a link on Duncharris's page regarding an arbitration on an edit war that he has been in on a biographical page. I have stumbled on an article regarding Kent Hovind and purely out of interest I have begun editing it because I think many of the users have a personal agenda regarding attacking his character. I have tried as best to do research on all the Wikipedia policies in this regard and as far as I can tell, this is totally against everything Wikipedia stands for.

As stated above, my interests lie more in other areas but I feel quite strongly about providing a neutral article on Kent Hovind - it's also a great way to learn about whether the Wikipedia process works and will determine whether I stick around or not. Until now, everyone seems to be acting really fairly and engaging in really useful discussions on both sides of the debate - also being quite conservative and considerate in changes made. Just yesterday, however, Duncharris arrived and began engaging in what I think is referred to as an "edit war" and reverting edits without engaging in discussion. Whats more, the edit is so minor - it's simply the addition of an NPOV dispute banner which I think is entirely justified from what I can gather.

From his user page he seems very involved in Evolution topics which would explain the obvious biase he has to [Kent Hovind]. He also appears to be currently under a warning which he is clearly not heeding. I also think the matter is more serious as I think some of the entries contravene Libel in the article and certainly on the talk page.

I could really use your advice / intervention on how to approach this matter. ALSO, having provided discussion areas which have not been used, if I simply reverted an obvious poor revert would I be open to being banned - it would only be my second revert...if reverted after that it would be his third...how does this work?

Thanks --PappaG 12:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey John, thanks for the help...already engaging in discussion on my user page. Cheers. --PappaG 14:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion to rename "Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others"
I suggest that the case titled above be renamed "Biological psychiatry" since the current title is WAY too long (compared to past cases) and cases involving multiple editors on a single article are usually named after the article, not the editors involved. --207.156.196.242 12:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

MfD headsup (userfied article from AfD you closed)
You closed this AfD on a fraternity chapter with a userfy per my request - I then notified the author that after he'd had a chance to copy it we'd probably delete it. It's been a month so I've put the user page up at MfD, but if you want to speedy it I've no qualms. Thanks, -- stillnotelf   is invisible  18:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

from thewolfstar
Hey, I came across your page through an arbiter link. Then I noticed your stress level is high. I know the feeling well and it truly sucks. peace and good luck with your stress, God only knows we all need it. Maggiethewolfstar 12:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comments on Current events
Hello –

I'm trying to get some discussion going on two proposals regarding the current events page, but so far have gotten little to no response. Since you have recently edited the current events page, I'm asking for your input on these two proposals:


 * One proposal (this is the big one) involves putting the daily events from the current events pages into article-templates, a lá the monthly pages from 2003 to 2005, as well and having a consistent number of recent days on the current events page instead of a monthly archive. This would allow for the current events page and the respective month pages to be updated simultaneously without the monthly archival. For more, see the current events talk page.


 * Another proposal involves merging the content of the regional current events pages (such as British and Irish current events and Canadian current events) into fewer continental articles. For more, see the current events WikiProject talk page.

Your input on one or both of these issues would be appreciated. joturn e r 17:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Big Brother
I reverted you on Big Brother re: OTRS. Please contact me *offline* if you have any questions.--BradPatrick 18:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

LaRouche 2
Hey, thanks for letting me know, John. It's good news. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

9/11
Can you explain this edit? -lethe talk [ +] 07:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Lethe, it seems someone added personal information on a Wikipedia administrator to the 9/11 article (as well as multiple other articles), John tried to remove the relevant diffs from the database per Wikipedia policy and it seems that the article needed to be redirected to an alternate dummy page while that was being done. Hope that clears up the confusion. TheProject 07:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, see ANI. I just did the same thing for Hillary Rodham Clinton. Hope that clears up the confusion. Johnleemk | Talk 07:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. -lethe talk [ +] 07:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Lou Franklin's Arbitration Case
If "5 votes are a majority" how did the case close with only 3 votes for enforcement? Lou franklin 16:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's showing up on the recently closed list twice. When you guys close a case I guess you really mean it!  +  + Lar: t/c 16:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Your signature on Requests_for_comment/Cyde2
How can you sign something so blatantly wrong? Look at my block log and you can easily see, that I am not a serial violator of WP:3RR blocked as such by three separate admins on four occasions. I've been blocked twice for 3RR. Raphael1 16:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you call these three changes in five days a 3RR violation? Please note, that one of those changes actually adds a link to the cartoons on an article version without cartoons. Raphael1 16:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You say "depending on how you conduct yourself, you may fall foul of the 3RR in spirit". I don't think it's my conduct, but rather my position in this content dispute. Please compare: and . Raphael1 16:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Banned from editing this page
Your notice on Talk:Jonathan_Sarfati is erroneous. I am not 'banned from editing this page', but rather by Arbcom decision, banned from editing the article. The talk pages were never banned, as your notice states. Thank you agapetos_angel 05:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No dunderhead can misinterprete the nature of such a notice. Kindly take it in context: "The user specified is under probation and has edited this page inappropriately. The user is not prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page." Obviously the "this page" in question is the article. Thank you for this well-reasoned and kindly phrased reply. My comments were intended to point out that the wording of the notice should perhaps be changed to the more appropriate wording of 'this article' rather than erroneous 'this page' as the notice now reads.  agapetos_angel 06:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The wording is based on that of a template, so it would make more sense to propose amending the template instead. Consider it proposed. agapetos_angel 06:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The template is used in other locations I think and is normally used to mean complete banning from an article as far as I can tell. Why don't we just substitute the templates in this case and then alter the wording of the substituted templates? JoshuaZ 13:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ron Horsley
I just reverted a worrying personal attack on the talk page of this page (I don't know, or care if it's true). Could you please have a look at it? AKAF 06:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The personal attack is back. I placed a request on the talk page of Zepplin85.AKAF 06:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi
Hi, I just recived a message, from Leyasu on my user page... though he claims that he is currently banned?

I'm not assuming bad faith or anything, perhaps theres a mix up, but it seems rather odd that a banned user is able to edit articles? Maybe it needs a look... - Deathrocker 19:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've just blocked that IP for the rest of Leyasu's current block. I'm not sure if that's ok, but it doesn't look like anyone but Leyasu is using that IP.  Leyasu was blatantly evading his block with that IP, so I thought it would be right to block it. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 18:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Rani Mukerji
Hello, John, I noticed you protecting the Rani Mukerji article because of the debate some time ago. It has been unprotected since, but the situation has not really changed, since User:Shez 15, a fan of the actress, keeps adding information roundly rejected by every other editor, is reverting changes back to his own version of the article and is currently trying to get User:Zora banned. This has been happening for some time and if you check out Shez's contributions page, you will see that he has been promoting Rani Mukerji as superior to everyone else, by putting her as #1 on every list and every credit of a movie, even if she just played a supporting part. Several editors, myself included, have tried to talk with Shez, but he won't listen: his discussion page and Mukerji's discussion page is full tries to get Shez talking. I talked to User:Nichalp, an admin, about this, so he is informed as well, but I think he's occupied currently. I asked him to talk to Shez, but it (apparantly) didn't work, if you check out just what Shez did today (again). Maybe you could warn him or even ban him or find another solution, because, I tried to talk to him and now, I'm really desparate, since all this housekeeping gets anoying and is really exhausting. I hope I'm not breaching protocol by asking another admin for help, but Rani's article looked just fine until tonight and then, he reverted it *again*. I really don't know how I can stop all this, because Shez isn't listening. I hope you can help. Best regards, --Plumcouch 00:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

$pringfield
Hi, John. I posted the 'redirect for deletion'. Did you spot the comma tacked onto the end of the redirect's title? Perhaps I should have specifically stated its presence. Regards. Axl 07:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Rani Mukerji
Thanks for the heads-up, I didn't even know that pages like this existed, since it's the first time something like this is happening to one of the articles I work on. If this is going to continue, I will most certainly consult WP:ANI. Thanks for the reply and for the help. Best regards, --Plumcouch 18:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Invitation to comment
As per your comment, I'd like to invite you to comment on whether user:William M. Connolley has abused his power as an administrator to use the rollback button to remove my messages on his user talk page. Thanks in advance. &mdash; Instantnood 21:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

ISA's 'Handcuff' picture
Hi John, I painted the handcuff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Security_Act_(Malaysia) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by L joo (talk • contribs).

Duplicated effort on CSD:I6
Thanks for helping to set up categories, templates, and the like for CSD:I6.

Unfortunately, Rory096 and Carnildo had the same idea and created a similar suite of templates including no rationale, {{subst:nrd}}, Category:Images with no fair use rationale, Category:Images with no fair use rationale as of 13 May 2006, and I created {{subst:missing rationale}} to go with them.

It was more or less a coinflip between which set to keep, but noting that we currently have no source, {{subst:nsd}}, Category:Images with no copyright tag, and the like, I boldly went for the former set of templates and categories and redirected your relevant templates to the others. I've marked Category:Fairuse rationale needed images and for deletion at WP:CFD.

Incidentally, you missed one tiny thing when setting up the categories. Following the link to create today's category from Category:Fairuse rationale needed images would preload the boilerplate text about orphaned fair use images instead of that about images lacking a rationale.

I hope you're not too pissed at me for going down this road, but feel free to direct flames to my talk page :) Stifle (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

GA spam on featured template
hi, i see that the "good article" spam has been put back in Template:featured despite objections from several users. this seems to be the way the GA project works: boldly putting something into a page that doesnt want it, then claiming consensus is required to *remove* it again (consensus is never required to put it there in the first place).

this is exactly the same behaviour as witnessed on the attempt to create an article space "good article" star, which i & raul654 finally managed to have deleted (a huge effort since they had already spammed a 1000 articles with it), and on the Community Portal where this non-policy wikiproject has pride of place - its apparently far more important than any of the other dozens of collaborations!

they even had the cheek to remove the "non-policy process" template from the top of their project pages claiming they now had "enough support to be policy" - this is despite clear consensus on the talk page that its NOT policy. an attempt to put it back was quickly removed.

i would appreciate any comments on the template's talk page. i'm really fed up with fighting these GA spam battles everywhere, its quite tiring. why do they have to constantly spread their GA spam everywhere? hope you can help! Zzzzz 09:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Featured Articles
Thanks for your interest in my WikiProject Featured Articles proposal. Feel free to improve the proposal however you want in order to attract more participants. — Cuivi é  nen  T, Monday, 15 May 2006 @ 19:54 UTC

Directed Studies
Per Redirects for deletion/Redirect Archives/May 2006, you closed Directed Studies as deleted. However, it looks like you forgot to delete it. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 01:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Bible Way World Wide
Please read the newly edited Bible Way article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thoscsii (talk • contribs).

DRV
You're surely correct w/r/to context; my comment, I suppose, even as it replied to yours, was directed more generally, viz., to those who seemed to think any mention of organization merited deletion. I'm inclined to think Travb didn't have in mind the sort of organization of which I wrote, and I'm sure that any reasonable inference would be that he meant something else; I also, though, appreciate that, though his prose has occasionally devolved into personal attacks, he's generally tried to debate civilly and to propone an understanding of fair use that, though, in his case, self-serving and, in general, irrelevant to the project, is reasonable, if currently inconsistent with policy. I was writing, then, to him as much as to anyone, hoping that he might understand how best to advocate for his position whilst still helping the encyclopedia. You are correct, though, that you certainly qualified your assessment of organization with a reference to the context, and I didn't mean to suggest that you'd not made such qualification. Thanks, finally, for your reasoned reply... :) Joe 03:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Coca Cola
No probs, dude. I thought you had a very valid reason. Take your time to bring the glory back to the article. Also, I never knew that non-commerical free use images were not allowed on wikipedia. Thanks for letting me know. I'll be careful from now on. Cheerios! -- thunderboltza.k.a.D e epu _ Joseph 04:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The irony of Singaporean politics
I was reading the blog of someone who had been referred to in the Straits Times, who is also a schoolmate of User:Mailer diablo I believe (he is a co-illustrator of the Student's Sketchpad if you don't know already))...anyway I thought this article about the PAP as an opposition party in Malaysian politics was particularly insightful. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 14:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Half-Life 2 FAC
Hello,

I have addressed and taken action upon your comments at Featured article candidates/Half-Life 2/archive2. If you would be so kind as to review what I did, I would appreciate it. Thanks! Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 13:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Another RfD Closure
I'm bugging you about another RfD closure. Redirects for deletion was closed by you earlier. This was actually a "malformed" nomination in that the title was not redirect -> target, but two redirects. You only deleted the first one, but didn't say anything about keeping the second in your closure summary so I'm guessing you didn't realize there were two. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 21:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

cool down man, life's an ocean
Why so tense? just wanted to know is there one of those little dealys that says "this user is a Beatles fan/contributer"? You know, like the one you have that says you use Linux and there's a picture of a penguin.--Crestville 15:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Ketuanan Melayu
Personally I think this is very close to FA (even though incomplete - how soon will our standards rise?) and can now shift mainly to the reorganisation phase...my concern is in the amount of subsections it has. When you're ready, I'll nominate it for FA, unless you think you're not done. Do you have any massive additions in mind, or are you going to add small pieces from here on onwards? Because if you are, I think we can proceed with an FAC, which might not make the article go ahead, but it would give it the attention it needs. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 00:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates
Responding to:
 * I think the problem stems from your total misunderstanding of what the proposal is. The idea was never to fork and create two different wikis.

I think the problem is you posting inflammatory comments without bothering to read the discussion first. Just a few quotes from the prior discussion to enlighten you: Static version clearly describes a 'stable' version of Wikipedia which cannot be edited in the same way as the main site can and which could be established under a separate domain name: stable.wikipedia.org or similar. I repeatedly used terms like two separate projects and Forking WP to specify exactly what it was I was objecting to. So, if you actually want to assist constructive discussion, please read what you're responding to before posting patronising insults. — Johan the Ghost seance 14:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * a stable version with approved editors is needed... (emph mine)
 * Some sort of stable version has to be the way to go, with an "official" foreground stable version and a background "unstable" wiki version...
 * if a stable site was set up, ... (emph mine)
 * the fact that it's done via a wiki is secondary. If a stable version would help to produce a better encyclopaedia, it would be totally in accord with the ideals of Wikipedia.
 * a stable version would not be used for creating articles at all, but only for preserving the 'finished' articles.


 * I think the problem here is that no-one has specified exactly how their proposal would work, either the "separate wiki" proposal or your "stable sub-page" proposal. They are quite clearly two separate proposals, however.  You were perhaps "clearly referring to the plan outlined at WP:STABLE", but it was only "clearly" to you, not anyone else, since WP:STABLE hadn't even been mentioned in that discussion, by you or anyone else.
 * The quotes I gave "are ambiguous and could go either way" perhaps in the case of the one example you refer to; but "a stable version with approved editors" obviously refers to a separate site with separate user permissions; and I think it's quite clear what User:Worldtraveller was referring to during the discussion, as he started an article to describe his proposal. You obviously had a different idea, but before you came along User:Worldtraveller and I were talking about the same thing, albeit one pro and one against.
 * In any case, I still don't get what you're arguing for. "The stable version would not be editable" makes no more sense to me now that it did earlier.  Someone has to be editing it, or else how to changes made in the unstable version get into the stable version?  You seem to be implying that articles on "unstable" get improved to perfection, vetted as FAs, then transferred over to stable.   But you also say "the unstable version can fall apart in a bitter edit war".  This seems contradictory, and your assumption that "stable" won't require editors doesn't seem justifiable.  Someone is going to have to trawl through thousands of changes made to the unstable version to figure out -- by researching, presumably -- which edits are good, so that they can be incorporated into the stable version.  You seem to be suggesting that the transfer of articles from unstable to stable is more or less a button press, but I don't see how that could work.  But I don't know, since you haven't specified this process in any detail.  Stable versions talks about the mechanism of making an FA stable in the beginning, but there's nothing about maintenance -- unless stable versions are fixed for all time, and getting more and more out of date.
 * And yes, I agree that "overwhelmingly crap", or to use your original phrasing "most of our million articles are crap", could be seen as inflammatory; I found it to be stunningly negative, and a huge slap in the face to every poor sod who's been labouring to make Wikipedia better. But I was referring to your "silly" comment, arguably a violation of WP:NPA; a very small one, yes, but I still found it patronising and insulting.  That isn't helpful.  — Johan the Ghost seance 15:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi again, thanks for the message.  I certainly agree we were "talking past each other"; hopefully we're on the same channel now.  I apologise, too, for losing it somewhat in response to your "crap" comment.  I guess it's a question of perspective / expectations.  It's certainly true that the overwhelming majority or our articles are not up to FA status, and since all articles at FA is the logical goal here, that's certainly frustrating.  But, coming to Wikipedia on the basis that it's a free, net-based collaboration, I continue to be impressed by the generally high standards; it seems like every time I look for information, I get back something that's useful, and usually up to "Good Article" standards.  So I think there's plenty of value here, even with the relatively tiny number of FAs.  It would certainly be worth exploring whatever means we can to get more articles through FA.
 * As for the WP:STABLE proposal, I think it has merit, I just have concerns that the details haven't been worked out, either of the goals or the mechanisms by which it would work. Your response helps a lot — it seems to me that you're not looking to reduce the article maintenance overhead, just periodically go through a "mini-FAC" process (or "FA re-verification") and just checkpoint the article if it passes.  That certainly makes sense, and would work, as far as I can see.  The problem is that other folks seem to have slightly differing views of how this would work, right up to a separate domain name for a stable WP.
 * Reducing the FA maintenance workload would also be valuable, but here we run into problems with the concept of "finished" articles. It's clear to me that there will never be a "finished" article; on the other hand, the work that goes into an FA shouldn't be lightly discarded.  We encourage novice users to come in and make changes, but the notice on the talk page of an FA isn't really enough to counterbalance that, in my view.  I'd be in favour of creating another user class for people who have got articles through FAC; ie. a "supereditor" class, above basic users but below admins.  These people would have the perms necessary to manage FAs (not just their own).  The new class is easy in MediaWiki; the FA-related permissions is a little trickier, but shouldn't be hard.  I might have a go at this on my own Wikis.
 * So, in this model, once an article gets to FA, "supereditor"s would be able to make stable checkpoints of it. Or, maybe we apply protection to FAs so that only "supereditor"s can edit them; other users would then propose changes on the talk page.  Changes to the atrticle would then only be done by "supereditor"s, and only after some amount of discussion.  This would be more like a "rolling FAC" process, and would have the goal of allowing an article to stay bang up-to-date while keeping FA quality.  In this case, stable versions wouldn't be needed.  There would be much less tendency of FAs to deteriorate, and so less use of FARC, which I think the stable versions proposal doesn't address (it preserves the last "good" version, but allows the "current" version to fade).  I guess I just have an intrinsic dislike of forking in any form, if some better alternative can be found.
 * BTW, sorry for the slow replies; this is due to limited net access, as I'm travelling. I'm about to get on a 17-hour flight, and the bad news is that if we go down in some remote location, there really will be polar bears... ;-) — Johan the Ghost seance 16:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm back... no polar bears here, though it's certainly cold enough. Anyway...
 * My use of the term "supereditor" was rather misleading, I'm afraid. A "supereditor" in my scenario is someone just above a regular user, and way below admin level.  Basically anyone who's got an article to FA becomes a "supereditor".  This would mean that there are quite a few "supereditors" around to help keep the FAs up.  I found out that setting up this extra privilege level is actually really simple in MediaWiki — just a config file change.  I just need to find a better name for it — "editor" would be perfect, but that's what we call our regular contributors.
 * Anyhow, I agree totally that "editors can make many helpful edits to a featured article"; it's just trying to find a way to block the chaff and keep the wheat without requiring too much active participation, because if the actrive participation doesn't turn up, or just gets overwhelmed, or fed up, then we get another King James Version of the Bible. Requiring clearance by "editor plus" users would, IMHO, help; and this would be done through the article's existing talk page.  (I also totally agree with the instruction creep problem.  Hey, let's get Wikipedia up to ISO 9000... ;-)
 * That WP:STABLE "provides an incentive for editors to ensure their edits to the unstable version are of high calibre, because otherwise they won't be included in the stable version" is true, but many editors won't know or care, and will hack the article anyway; leaving it up to someone to sort out the good from bad edits.
 * "It's time we started limiting backend processes of Wikipedia out of sight of readers": absolutely agree. There's too much of putting maintenance tags in the article namespace.  This is OK (IMHO) for stubs and articles that really need cleanup, but not so good for Roman Catholic Church etc.  So, with WP:STABLE, how would readers get to the stable version?  Would there be a "this article is pretty trashed up, but there's a stable version" link on the article?  Doesn't that impact the readers' experience?  By "slightly-protecting" the article itself and keeping it up to FA standard, we'd avoid that.
 * "it's the final product - the encyclopaedia - that counts": that's a philosophical point, of course. I guess I don't know when the "final product" arrives, since Wikipedia will clearly never be "finished" — I guess I'm more of an immediatist.  But I'm all for finding a way to preserve the work that's been done on a good article and prevent it from sliding backwards. — Johan the Ghost seance 12:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Metal Gear Solid (PSP)
As it can be seen the removal of my Metal Gear Solid (PSP) article was premature as only a few months later the official name was released and the article can now be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Gear_Solid:_Portable_Ops

I don't understand why the original report from IGN and Konami press release was not credible enough to warrant a fledgling article. Please be considerate of the facts on this issue of new video game releases in the future, as I have press access to a number of publishers sites.Solidusspriggan 22:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * my bad, I thought Konami's tentative mention was sufficient for article material, sorry.

Carl Anderson
The photo came from the Knights of Columbus website. The page it was found on is there so that others may download it and use it. This site is listed on the image page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Briancua (talk • contribs).

Reversion = minor edit
Hi Johnleemk: I've seen your edits around and I thought I'd ask you a question that I've been wondering about for a while; is it usually acceptable to label a reversion a minor edit? Are the conventions about this matter published anywhere?--Anchoress 05:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought, thanks!--Anchoress 06:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

RfC.
Kindly don't call me "buddy" as I don't even know you. I'm not your buddy and I'm not your friend. If you read the comment in the RfC immediately preceding mine, I was called selfish (namecalling, which is incivil, which even an admin should know not to do) for choosing to use the signature I use now. Being told to use another browser, etc was completely beside the point. I'd like to note that Exploding Boy asked me to change my signature on my talk page, and all through this, he attacked, attacked, sniped away at me, was incivil, etc while we were trying to solve the problem (and I gave up and someone else solved it for me).

Please read comments more thoroughly in future. Cheers. — Natha n  (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

re: Okay, acquaintance
To be blunt, you're not even my acquaintance. I've only talked with you twice, and this is the second time. Wikilove or Esperanza or etc has nothing to do with it. I don't know you and I have no idea who you are.

If you look at the conversations with Exploding Boy, I was not the one to tell him to "get a new computer". Therefore, you have falsely attributed that comment to me (see this, I don't lie, you really did falsely attribute that comment to me). Also, your comment can be read as a personal attack, no matter how you sugarcoat it. It's for this reason (and the fact that you're bringing a dead issue to my talk page - the signature issue has been resolved and my talk page was archived - that your comment has been removed from my talk page).

You could have checked your facts before storming on to my talk page and pointing fingers but you did not. Please do so in future.

Please note:

''You seem to be having a problem on your end. Maybe you should get a new computer or browser. IE6 works fine for me and everyone else I've asked. If you upload a screenshot like everyone asks, your comlaints/requests will be taken in better light. Chuck(척뉴넘) 19:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)''

Chuck isn't me, and I'm not him. I don't see why you're bringing this up on my talk page except to a) falsely accuse me, b) spread negative feelings, c) bring up a dead issue, d) Oh since I support Chuck's comment, I must be selfish too? Not at all.

FYI: The signature issue was resolved, even though Exploding Boy was incivil through the whole thing and said a lot of very attackish comments. Prodego determined that there was a typo in my signature and so I changed it on my talk and on the RfC (I did that as a courtesy for which I only received a very half-hearted 'thanks'). If this isn't enough proof to you that I didn't deliberately change my signature to be selfish, I don't know what is. Please don't come to my talk page to bring up a dead issue again.

Good day. — Natha n  (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Rejected RfD on typo redirect
Reference: Redirects_for_deletion/Redirect_Archives/May_2006

My point was not that the redirect should be deleted because nothing links to it. The redirect was created by me as part of an article renaming process and to figure out how to rename an article I used the guide at Merging_and_moving_pages. This guide mentioned that the automatically created redirect could be listed for deletion, except if the misspelling is a common one. The point I tried to make in my RfD comment was that I think the misspelling of Dimesjon instead of Dimensjon of this musician's album name is not a common misspelling, so in my eyes the redirect is just cluttering Wikipedia.

Aprogas 10:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

failed mediation attempts??
There has been no failed mediation attempt. The listed mediation attempt has not even started yet. I am sorry, if it my comment wasn't obvious enough, but a pending mediation request and a poll result page, which has been archived before I joined Wikipedia can hardly be called "an attempt in dispute resolution", can it? Raphael1 18:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Uploading Pictures
How can I upload pictures to wikipedia? Do you think google maps can be uploaded?Wai Hong 01:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Favorite Songs
My survey has changed. I am now continuing my mission for the best songs, but now I am accepting all genres. I'm giving you a chance to revote for your top ten favorite songs of any genres (not just classic rock which is still the best). I've made a executive decision to keep the existing survey results and just add on to that with the new entries. My feeling for doing this is because classic rock is the most influential genre in music currently so it should be expressed more in the survey. Thank you for contributing in the past, and hopefully in the future. ROCK ON. RENTASTRAWBERRY  FOR LET?  röck  03:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

List of Japanese female porn stars
User:Dekkappai has kept the text of that article and created a subpage in his namespace for it. That is OK, but he also put a redirect in the original page to his namespace page. I've blanked it out, but he'll probably put it back in. Is that redirect in violation of any rules? Hong Qi Gong 15:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sex crimes against Asian women
User:HongQiGong has kept the text of that article and created a subpage in his namespace for it. That is OK, but the article was redirected and then restored. Is that in violation of any rules? Dekkappai 16:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe I misinterpreted your note in the edit history: (create stub to replace redirect)
 * In either case, the article seems to have been marked for deletion, saved in the user space, and then a new article put in its place a week later. Is this OK with the rules?
 * (If it means anything, I see no reason for that article to have been deleted in the first place. Wikipedia loses by its absence as it does from the deletion of list. Can this anti-(Asian)-porn campaign be some sort of vendetta brought on due to the deletion of the sex-crimes article?) Dekkappai 16:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, my mistake about the redirect, John. Am I to understand that the article can be re-instated after polishing and providing verification? It seems to me that Hong is making a project out of sanitizing Wikipedia, at least as far as Asian porn actresses go. He's now targeted Kyoko Aizome, who, according to the article, has even appeared in American videos, making her not just a Japanese actress, but an international actress. If this goes through, the vast majority who only appear in Japan will be completely deleted. Obviously, some people will be happy with this, but Wikipedia will have certainly lost its stated no-censorship policy. Dekkappai 17:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

jp list
Articles for deletion/List of Japanese female porn stars why didnt you just move it to the wikiproject namespace, as i suggested? Seemed sensible to me. Just curious. =) (reply here) --24.68.65.246 17:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There didn't appear to be support for this, and there's no indicating that the WikiProject would find it particularly useful. If they're interested, I'd be more than happy to oblige. Johnleemk | Talk 17:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Conservative Underground/Democratic Underground
John,

I was looking for the article on Conservative Underground and found it deleted. The discussion page read as follows:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservative Underground

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I am curious as to why it is now deleted. Thanks.


 * AfD decisions are not binding. It is possible/probable that a future AfD, or the Wikimedia Foundation, decided to delete the article. Johnleemk | Talk 18:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you please find out? I'm thinking it is the work of a vandal. Unfortunately there seems to be wuite a battle between folks from Conservative Underground and Democratic Underground.


 * Admins typically aren't vandals. Anyway, Articles for deletion/Conservative Underground (2nd nomination). Johnleemk | Talk 19:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting an admin did it, unless Ben Burch has become an admin. He's been bragging about how he "got the entry deleted." Thanks for your response.

Please do explain
Please do explain to me how I was more "prominent" in Esperanza than anyone else. I fail to see the point, or logic in such an assertion. Everyone is equally as "prominent" - Advisory Committee members excepted. Cheers. — Natha n  (talk) 06:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:SIG
Hi - regarding WP:SIG I generally agree with you and have myself asked a few people to alter theirs. However I ceased after this rebuttle, which seemed to be making a very good point. More important, however, is that it is World Cup time; and so for the next four weeks all other things in the world take secondary importance to football. If you are American, then I appreciate that you might not understand. If you are from anywhere else, I trust that you do. Regards, DJR (Talk) 12:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok Malaysia then! In any case, this rebuttle from another user seems to explain the situation very aptly. DJR (Talk) 12:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Merdeka
You might want to take a look at this article I created - I might submit it for DYK (along with Singapore general election, 1959) ... it's an article that espouses both the Malaysian and Singaporean concepts, but you might want to contribute more so ultimately there can be an integrated perspective (as a whole for the "downfall of European imperialism in Asia" kind of thing). Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 02:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)