User talk:TenOfAllTrades/archive19

thirmoseol drug testing before it went to market
Shame of you for vandalism of the thirmoseal page. Yes you did by hiding the fact concerning the nature of the human testing before the drug came to market. The drug company for years used this study to say the drug was safe. You're a bastard and a disgrace to wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.60.104.18 (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Shame on you for using a low-quality source that misrepresents and misunderstands a study, and for resorting to namecalling instead of responding the legitimate concerns I took the time to present on the talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If they used this test to say it was safe, THEN YOU AGREE WITH ME. Quote, "The purpose of such a study wouldn't have been to test the safety of thiomersal." I agree that the study couldn't do that, so why did the drug company say it tested the safety with this test?"

You know its true, and your part of the cover up.


 * Have you read anything on this, yet you claim to be a jack of all trades. PLEASE DO SOME READING ON THE SUBJECT AND THEN COMMENT.  PLEASE WATCH THIS VIDEO.    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpPW0lV0WbU&feature=relmfu  --199.60.104.18 (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * My interpretation of the study's purpose was based solely on your low-quality source. Based on the new information (again, from dubious sources), it appears that the study was also – apparently correctly – used to demonstrate that thiomersal didn't suffer problems with acute toxicity.  That's twice that you've insulted me in two comments; I'm afraid that you've used up my willingness to help you.  Further posts from you on this talk page are unwelcome, and will not receive a response.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I apologize. --199.60.104.18 (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The thiomersal article edit has been open for awhile haven't touched it
I source stuff, nevertheless you say it's not sourced. I suggest stuff to improve the article, nevertheless you say not. Your behavior is edit warring and is constant. You never talk about the specifics. MastCell does; he addresses the issues presented; maybe, you should learn from him. You write to ban and place your rant about not sourcing to mislead other editors there is a problem. IT WORKS I WAS BANNED FOR A WEEK. I provide specific proposals you ignore and retort that I have not provided specific proposals. PS you say I keep posting, but give no credit for moving to the controversy article and leaving the thiomersal article alone. The thiomersal article edit has been open for awhile now and guess what, I haven't touched it, so there. --199.60.104.18 (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In the last two days (since your block expired), you've added two new sections to Talk:Thiomersal controversy introducing quotations. In neither section do you identify the author of the statements, the journal, periodical, book, blog, or newspaper that published them, or the date of publication. In one section you provide a link to a Google search for your quotation, which merely serves to show that bloggers have repeated the quote.  In both cases, you've left other editors to do your homework for you, to try to figure out where you got your material, and to try to determine if it has any basis in fact.  You haven't made any identifiable specific proposals, unless your proposal is to add quotations without sources to our article.
 * Your claim of edit warring is nonsensical. I reverted you a single time on two occasions at thiomersal three weeks ago; I was far from the only editor to do so, given the poor-quality material you were trying to insert.  I have never reverted your edits at thiomersal controversy.  What I have done – and will continue to do – is criticize your ongoing failure to do adequate research before you post to article talk pages.  The fact that you're wasting editors' time at thiomersal controversy instead of thiomersal isn't really an improvement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You say it is nonsensical that you edit war BECAUSE you pose the example that you only reverted one edit to say you don't edit war. Read all your comments on talk how you only complain about the rules as you see them. This is your behavour that is being referred to, yet you make no reference to that! --199.60.104.18 (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Ytrneg
Well this was unexpected. I didn't expect my confronting Ytrneg over their behaviour to have such an impact. Ah well, I guess not everyone's here with the right intentions. BarkingFish 18:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

you never talk about the issue, but use side issues
Should micrograms and the amount of thiomersal be mentioned in the article? Please explain why the reader should be kept from this. --199.60.104.18 (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This has been covered at Talk:Thiomersal. It's not my fault that you're not getting the answer you'd like. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, you do not state your position. Specifically, that discussion vetoed the mention of how many atoms.  For the record the statement of how many micrograms in the vaccine schedule (which is a common measurement disclosed in most thiomersal controversy blogs etc) was not debated.  Note, most importantly the request for debate is for a different article, the thiomersal controversy article, which demands that context be disclosed.  Intentionally not disclosing this in the controversy article is unfair to the reader.  --199.60.104.18 (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Look, you should probably take a lesson from the fact that you've gotten the article, and now the talk page, of thiomersal controversy semiprotected. That lesson should not be "I should just keep on with my contentious arguing on other editors' talk pages".
 * I'll be very blunt with you&mdash;I'm not interested in wasting my time in further debates with you. You've demonstrated repeatedly that you're willing to cite sources that you either haven't read or don't understand, in order to back up statements that you've extracted out of context from a wide assortment of (generally, though not always) low-quality sources.   You've consistently failed to grasp the importance of giving appropriate weight to different points of view, governed by the use of suitable reliable sources.  I accept that you have some fervently-held beliefs, but you apparently lack the necessary skills to evaluate those beliefs in light of high-quality scientific evidence, or to temper your fervor with a recognition that your views are not representative of the scientific consensus.  When the serious flaws, discrepancies, omissions, and errors in your arguments are noted, you respond with insults and taunting instead of learning from your mistakes.
 * I will, as necessary, rebut any poorly-thought-out suggestions you might make on article talk pages, or revert detrimental edits you may make to articles, should you keep up your campaign after the semiprotection of these pages expires&mdash;but your continued contributions are not necessary or welcome on my talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Again you have not addressed why you think micrograms should not be in the thiomersal controversy article. Rebut means say why you think something, not edit warring.  Why can't the thiomersal controversy article name the amount -the quantity of mercury involved?   Merely saying the reader will misunderstand underestimates readers of wiki? --199.60.104.18 (talk) 04:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What part of "your continued contributions are not necessary or welcome on my talk page" do you not understand? There's a reason why you're no longer able to edit the thiomersal articles and talk pages.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You will like this very much
I speedied 36 of my sub-pages. yrtneg (talk) 03:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violation?
What I posted: search for textbooks in torrents is not everywhere in the world a violation of the local laws. There are plenty of countries where it's legal to download stuff for personal use, illegal is just profiting from it. 88.8.76.47 (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But the OP was asking for recommendations on reading material, not on how to download material, and their IP address geolocates to Australia, where downloading pirated work is illegal. So you weren't even answering the question, just pointing out a way for the majority of our readership to break some law or other. Franamax (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * He was asking at the end about places to download it: "are there any websites where I can download Gleitman's textbook (the eighth edition) for free?". And my answer was on topic. I didn't know he was in Australia and I don't know if in Australia it's illegal to download private copies. Anyway, my answer is not there anymore, so I suppose the topic is closed. 88.8.76.47 (talk) 01:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes true enough, I only read about halfway down through my "popups" display. So yeah, there was a request for a free download - in which case, our reply is "we don't offer advice on downloading potentially illegal material". You can probably see that allowing that loophole of "it's probably illegal, but if it was legal, here's how you would do it" would lead to our project becoming a site for advice on pirating. Franamax (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy notice
Heya. Just wanted and needed to let you know that I mentioned you at the Civility enforcement arbitration case. --Moni3 (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Door hanger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cardboard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Infinitesimal
Thank you for dealing with the extremely disruptive editor on infinitesimal. I am sure that you would have preferred to block for considerably longer if possible, but I suppose that IP appears to be at least semi-dynamic. If there are any further problems such that the arbitrator/checkuser team ought to be aware, please feel free to let us know. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Evidence/Blocks
In the course of an ongoing case, the Arbitration Committee has decided to collect all relevant information regarding Malleus Fatuorum's block log and, as such, has created a table of all blocks, which can be found here. Since you either blocked or unblocked Malleus Fatuorum, you are welcome to comment, if you wish. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Not all gallows are equal
You should pick your words more carefully. "Perhaps he's guilty of egregious cultural or historical illiteracy and wasn't aware of the significance, but it seems more likely to me that he was just resoundingly insensitive" and "execrable judgement and tremendous insensitivity", O RLY?

The answer is in fact none of those, it's in fact the answer you apparently failed to consider - I know more about those particular gallows than you, and seemingly anyone who posted in that thread. Although they are a replica not the original gallows, they are the ones built specially in 1947 for the execution of former camp commandant Rudolf Höss. So you see the particular gallows they replicate were never used for the killing of Jews, but for the execution of a mass-murderer of thousands and thousands of Jews. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:One_Night_In_Hackney&oldid=381313787#Shalom. I already knew this], just in case anyone cares to think I somehow got lucky. 2 lines of K 303  10:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's no problem. Most people would think gallows at Auschwitz were used for some far more malevolent purpose, and you certainly weren't the only person to assume that. 2 lines of K  303  10:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a question of efficiency. When killing millions, the gas chamber is the way to go, as hangings would have taken too long and consumed too much rope. Mass murder works better with a weapon of mass destruction. When killing one, the noose is sufficient. Plus, in the case of a Nazi, it's a lot more fun. "Rudi! What's up? You still hangin' around here?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

TB
Wikipedia talk:Reference desk Von Restorff (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please respond to my comment dated 20:07, 30 January 2012. Von Restorff (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You really don't need to notify me every time you add another post to the thread; I have it on my watchlist, and I will respond as appropriate. Your threats notwithstanding, it appears that there is a broad consensus that your attacks on the original poster's beliefs were unwelcome, inappropriate, undeserved, and far beyond the accepted standards of basic courtesy and civility that we try to extend to all editors at the Reference Desk.   If I take administrative action responding to such attacks by you in the future, I will of course welcome the review and scrutiny of my fellow editors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I hope the discussion there is finished, and I prefer to stop discussing it there. On this page you said I attacked the OP's beliefs; I think we can agree that an attack on christianity is not a personal attack, and christianity is big enough to defend itself against any attacks made by me. I don't actually think "attack" is the correct word to use in this context, but whatever. But on Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk you claimed I attacked the OP. I believe that is not true. Would you be so kind to give me a difflink of me attacking the OP? If you cannot provide it I will ask you to retract your comment. I think that is not unreasonable, if you think it is unreasonable for me to ask for proof of your claim that I attacked the OP then please let me know. Von Restorff (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This, from a guy who keeps lecturing others to "drop the stick." :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hehe, yep, because this is an admin, who even threatened to block me for an offence he made up himself. Von Restorff (talk) 07:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Von Restorff, you don't get to declare the discussion finished and then decide to carry it on on my talk page. If there's anything else you want to bring up, you can do it with the rest of the discussion at WT:RD. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Was that the best reply you could think of? I mean, srsly, is it that hard to admit you were wrong? First of all I did not declare the discussion finished (I said: Well, I hope the discussion there is finished, and I prefer to stop discussing it there.), so you are not making much sense. And you must have noticed the fact I asked the exact same question there. You did not respond. When I asked you to respond to my comment dated 20:07, 30 January 2012 you replied "You really don't need to notify me every time you add another post to the thread; I have it on my watchlist, and I will respond as appropriate" . C'mon man, you are an admin, you made a mistake, just say "oops, indeed, you did not attack the OP" and I will say something along the lines of "no worries, I still love you" and we all live happily ever after. Just be more careful next time. Von Restorff (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's worth pointing out that Restoff states on his user page that he does not understand English. That's becoming increasingly evident. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I could've copy-pasted my question on WT:RD... Von Restorff (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That might work. At your own risk. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec) Bugs, my patience for your needlessly throwing fuel on the fire grows thin. I've already expressed concern about it at WT:RD; it's entirely unwelcome on my own talk page.
 * Von Restorff, I can't control whether or not you heed the very clear and emphatic guidance you've received at WT:RD. Trying to taunt me isn't going to change the warning I've issued, and I feel that the topic has been exhausted.  If you believe that the warning was unfair then you can seek a review at WP:AN/I&mdash;though I would strongly recommend that you review WP:BOOMERANG first.
 * Neither of you appears to have anything constructive to add to this thread, and I won't be responding further to anything that isn't civil, constructive, and not a repetition of something said before. If you want to have a petty slap fight amongst yourselves, do it on your own talk pages.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * We're not fighting. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That was pretty disappointing. I did not try to taunt you, I wanted you to discover the fact that you made a mistake by asking for a difflink to prove your claim. Of course I know you cannot give me a link to a diff in which I attacked the OP because I did not. I recommend that you check your facts next time so that you can avoid making empty threats; you "warned" me for something you made up. Von Restorff (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC) p.s. Now I am going to play hide the carrot with Mr. Bugs, he seems to have a sense of humor.



Warning
Please stop your repeated personal attacks on other editors. 1 2 If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Von Restorff (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please tell me you're joking here Von Restorff, the situation is already resolved, and it wasn't all that serious to begin with. Do you really want me to start looking into all actions by all parties? Franamax (talk) 07:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview
Dear TenOfAllTrades,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Was that trolling ?
Just saw that you deleted my question on the reference desk by looking into the edit history - I am fine with that - except for the reason that you labeled it as trolling, which it wasn't.

This makes me think that I should learn more about asking questions on the refdesk.

But for the casual Wikipedia user I think that's not what is gonna happen.

I'm referring to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&diff=477559397&oldid=477540191

Line 240:

It seems everything from today 18th/02/2012 was deleted.... 85.81.121.107 (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Your diff includes changes made by three different editors. Your question was removed in this edit by WaltCip, and if you want to discuss this further, you should take it up with him.  That said, your post really is nigh-on incomprehensible; it's not clear what you're asking for that the Reference Desk could provide.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Good close on RS/N
Good close there. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Reference desk Protection
It may be worth while at this point to manually remove/archive the section in question, rather than just leaving it hatted. It might not entirely solve the problem, but it will likely reduce the temptation. (As it's been hatted and inactive for a while, I doubt anyone would seriously mind early archiving.) -- 67.40.215.173 (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Citation Requests
I've asked to back up your work twice. Your claim that I have not read category:amyloidosis iz insulting. 137.186.47.81 (talk) 12:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Do not bait me, or I will call you a troll.
You really need to start reading and understanding the articles on these topics before you continue to edit (or suggest edits to) the articles in this area. If you read the articles at APP and PrP (as you've now been told several times to do) you'd know the difference between them. --TenOfAllTrades


 * Back at you. PrP and APP share sequence. Read beta amyloid again. Spend no time openly estimating your opponent. 137.186.47.81 (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't extract partial quotes out of context and tack my username on to them to give the impression that you're continuing a conversation that I started.
 * Don't add fact tags to other editors' talk page comments when you don't understand something, particularly when it's something that's been explained to you in many different ways already.
 * Don't delete other editors' on-topic comments from article talk pages; they are not required to follow your instructions.
 * Don't keep repeating the same factual errors over and over, even when you've been told where your errors lie. As your childish and utterly mistaken "Hah hah. Gotcha." post illustrates, you are continuing to confuse a protein's fold (the shape it assumes) with a protein's sequence (the order of amino acid residues).
 * Don't use the word 'troll' until you understand what it means, especially with respect to your own conduct.
 * Don't show up on my talk page again with any more threats. Ideally, don't show up here again at all.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Reversions are rude, crude, and lazy.
137.186.47.81 (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC) ''
 * Your edit was scientifically and grammatically incorrect. You cannot simply substitute 'prion' for 'PrP'; they are not equivalent. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but your edit changed the name of a paper cited in the article's references. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I did not simply substitute 'prion' for 'PrP' in the first place. I left the vast majority of inspecific PrPs alone. I changed the vast majority of PrPScs into diseased prion. I change the vast majority of PrPCs into normal prion. Apparently, you did not even start reading through my edit. 137.186.47.81 (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

"'PrP' and 'prion' are not synonyms"
That is like saying "cinnamon" and "cinnamon powder" are not synonyms. I would actually like to agree with you, and make PrP mean "protease resistant protein", like it does in Gajdusek's paper. Now, the cutting part is that even if PrP did mean "protease resistant protein", it would still be equivalent to prion, which is understood to be a protein. Please undo your own edit. 137.186.47.81 (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, your analogy is faulty, albeit in a slightly different way from your article edit. Cinnamon might refer to dried, powdered cinnamon, but might equally readily refer to the dried bark, to fresh bark, or to the entire tree.
 * A prion is one of any number of proteins in their misfolded, infectious conformational state. There's no such thing as normal prion; the term 'prion' only properly applies to the self-propagating conformation.  PrP, meanwhile, is specifically the product of the PRNP gene. It is a unique protein with a specific sequence; PrP's full name is the major prion protein. 'Prion' is not the same thing as 'major prion protein'.
 * I can see how the nomeclature might be a bit confusing, but this is similar to the problem that you had recently with 'amyloid' versus 'beta amyloid'. Until you have a very firm grasp on the terminology used in this area, it will continue to be disruptive and harmful for you to attempt to make these sorts of clarifications or simplifications of our articles. I'm not reverting your edits because I'm lazy or rude, but because you're introducing serious errors without realizing it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Email headed your way
Regarding the discussion on my talk page. Hope it explains things. SirFozzie (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts on behaviour
Hi TenOfAllTrades. I logged on this morning to find your comments at AN, regarding my behaviour with regards to TreasuryTag, and I must say I was surprised. I've commented there, but since you specifically said that my behaviour "strongly disinclines [you] to support any future unblock request that would include WormTT as a mentor", I thought I'd come over and see if I could get a bit of feedback. As I see it, there are to areas of concern, whether my abilities as a mentor in general are problematic and this TreasuryTag situation in particular.

Dealing first with my abilities as a mentor, I am fairly sure I've mentored more people than any other wikipedia user, by a significant margin. I'm approaching 30 different users, the majority of whom were problematic. Admittedly, a few have gone on to be blocked, but a larger proportion have gone on to be productive editors. I'm worried that you would discount all this work in any situation for an unblock request with me as a mentor.

On the other hand, TreasuryTag. When Dweller's conditions were completely rejected in October, TT was quickly indefinitely blocked. I conversed with him by email and genuinely felt I was making progress. I managed to get him to agree to conditions which I outlined at a mentoring page. Thinking there was a possibility of mentorship and hard work, I started an unblock discussion. You mentioned during that discussion that the page was devoid of content, implying that I should be dictating what he did wrong and he should be accepting it, which isn't how I work. The idea is that I work with the editor, coaxing them in to understanding where they went wrong fundamentally, rather than dealing with the symptoms. Either way, you had a valid point and the community wasn't ready for him to come back. When I tried to contact him after this, he said something along the lines of "oh well, that leaves arbcom", and stopped contacting me.

I was under the impression he'd gone to cool off, hadn't heard from him for a while when he asked to try again... in November. I told him it was far too soon, suggesting he left it at least until January, at which point we could chat about it. I didn't hear from him again, though I heard from other admins that he had contacted them, they generally came to me. I repeatedly said that I wouldn't consider anything before January - and maybe I wouldn't be able to help even then, because I was running for Arbcom. TT persuaded an admin to copy over another unblock request. Nothing to do with me. I opposed, pointing out that "he'd say anything that might persuade people to let him back in" and that he'd not stayed away at all.

A few days ago, having not heard a single thing from TT for months, I saw an unblock request. It was more reasonable, matched WP:OFFER, so I brought it to the community. I'm not the only editor who can see him coming back, though the consensus is that he should remain blocked. I didn't offer mentorship, and I have no intention of doing so - partially because I'm far too busy and partially because he has shown that he will not listen to my advice. Since I he won't listen to my advice, there's no point in giving it. My suggestion is that he can come back under strict restrictions, ones that he can't wikilawyer. If he's genuinely learnt his lesson, we get a good editor back. If not, he can be reblocked.

I hope that explains my point of view, and sorry for the TLDR essay on your page. If you think that I could or should have done something differently, I'd be very interested in hearing about it. WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I said what you should have done differently in my comment. You shouldn't have immediately copied over TT's latest unblock request.  While I wouldn't blame an administrator less familiar with TT's situation who did what you did, you should have known better.  Having participated in the preceding two on-wiki unblock discussions, you should have been able to tell TT what the problems were with his request, because they were essentially the same problems that had come up the very first time around in October.  It should have been you and not me who stepped in to say, let's hold off for a bit, because we have a broken request that will fail badly without serious work.
 * As well, you and TT have both misunderstood WP:OFFER (which is, in in any case, an essay). The very first provision is "Wait six months without sockpuppetry".  It is not "Be blocked for six months".   TT brought forward at least two on-wiki and one off-wiki unblock request since he was first blocked about five months ago, the last such request was two-and-a-half months in the past.  Part of the standard offer is giving the community a chance to cool down, just as much as the banned editor; that won't happen if we keep getting peppered with requests.
 * Finally, I'm a little bit worried about your willingness to sign off on things that haven't been completely hammered out. This was an issue in your first mentorship proposal, when you endorsed bringing TT back into editing without specifying any of his new areas of interest.  (Indeed, he still hasn't told us where he would like to edit if he were to be allowed back under a Dr. Who topic ban.)  In this unblock request, you added a big bold Support, followed up by a comment that you actually meant some sort of conditional support as long as there were some kind of editing restrictions, but you weren't picky.  The 'unblock first, plan later' approach just won't fly for an editor with such a long history of problems.
 * Your approach may work just fine for your other adoptees; I have no comment on that, and I suspect that they all have very different circumstances to TT. I don't think you've shown good judgement in your approach to this particular hard case.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm glad that this is in regards to my judgement in this case, I read it as being the general case which did worry me slightly.
 * With respect to the copying over, you are right, I should have spent more time evaluating the possible outcomes. I did consider making some suggestions, but since TT has snubbed my advice in the past, I didn't see the point. He had hit all the salient points, just in a very short manner. At the time, I hadn't made up my mind on whether he should be let back in or not, all I did know was that I wasn't going to mentor him. I dropped it on AN and went off to do some investigations. I do see the situations as different though, the October request was asking to allow him to be mentored by me, the December was a straight unblock request which was inappropriately early, this March request was when the December request should have taken place.
 * I do however interpret OFFER differently to you. The way I read it is "This is a forgiving community - if you step back, allow a reasonable period of time to pass and stop disrupting things, we will consider what you say when you ask to come back". Now, I've seen OFFER offered after 1 month, and turned down after 1 year - depending on the severity of the actions and the feeling of the community - as such, I don't see the number as a hard and fast rule. It goes on to say that we're looking for a "willingness to move forward", which whilst unspecific, I did see.
 * Finally with regards to getting things hammered out to perfection, no, I don't work or think like that. The idea that we should sit down for months discussing possiblities that everyone can agree on seems like madness. Much more sensible would be to open the door, tell him he cannot work in areas he's caused a problem in the past (broad topic bans), make him spend some time understanding how to not make similar mistakes (mentorship) and then slowly let him as for the sanctions to be removed. That's dealing with the problem - but putting the onus on him, and any editor willing to mentor him. I get that you don't agree with my way of thinking, maybe it is too idealistic, but it's valid and it can work.
 * Oh, and just in case you are thinking that I'm being an argumentative little sod, I can see your point of view does match the majority of editors, I just thought this was a discussion worth having, in case I end up in a similar mess with another more troublesome mentorship program.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 15:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Good call
Thanks for your added comment here. As you've probably noticed, my comment covered the same issue but was less explicit and clear. Cla68 responded with his own version, including the statement that "Although the majority of uninvolved responders believed that the source should not be used, the opinions were not unanimous" linking to a half-hearted suggestion by Wnt that the source could be usable, though Wnt was "not that fond of Cla68's text" and seemed to think that the DI's "Evolution News" qualifies under "secondary sources of some sort", indicating a lack of knowledge about the topic. I didn't respond to Cla as the Arbs can reasonably be expected to check the links, just thought you might find these comments of some use. Thanks again, dave souza, talk 19:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Gah. I've hatted my comment (but left it in place) since it pretty much duplicates your statement.  (I just love the glacial pace of Arbitration processes.)  My memory was jogged by Raul654's statement, which prompted me to recollect Cla68's similar, more recent performance.
 * Cla68's entire response to your statement holds very little water, and indeed illustrates just why the ArbCom should be reluctant to relax restrictions on him. His declaration that a single revert by you constitutes evidence that you "revert warred" is ridiculous on its face.  Further, that single tepid, equivocal statement from Wnt – which still didn't support Cla68's desired version of the text – came more than a day after Cla68 announced at WP:RSN that there was no consensus in either of the noticeboard discussions he started, and hours after he 'closed' the noticeboard discussions with his backhanded thanks-to-the-regulars-and-neutrals messages.
 * In other words – whether he realizes it or not – Cla68 himself has just acknowledged that he was trying to push a 'no consensus' close through a discussion at a time when it was running unanimously against him, in the worst sort of gaming of our dispute resolution processes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * These are good points, my feeling was that your more explicit statement worked very well, and it might be worth adding this additional reasoning outside the hat. As I was closely involved in the issue before and during Cla's attempt to push the fringe source, my aim was to draw attention to the issue rather than getting into too much analysis or a to-and-fro discussion. Don't know how it works with Arbs, but they may appreciate the diffs showing how he tried to back out of the discussions he'd started while blatantly ignoring the obvious consensus of all who'd commented at that time. . . dave souza, talk 22:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding logging of sanctions
Just FYI: AN thread about sanction and enforcement logging. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Khalsa Heritage Memorial Complex, India
Hi, I've uploaded the high resolution CA-corrected version of the nominated image File:Khalsa Heritage Memorial 176 Edit.jpg. I request you to kindly re-review the image. Thanks. Sanyambahga (talk) 08:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Common Lime Mating
Hello:

The nomination http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates#Common_Lime_Mating requires additional opinion from you. So, please - Jkadavoor (talk) 06:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of Touré's surname in his article
Hi. Since the matter of whether to include Touré's surname has come up again, can you cast your vote here? If you're new to this matter, and not familiar with the arguments for and against doing so, you can read them just above that section, or click here. The discussion is of considerable length, but not too long to get a gist of the primary arguments for and against. I really appreciate it. Thanks. Nightscream Nightscream (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

CVU Academy
Hello there! Your input is request at Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy. You had commented on the re-formatting discussion at WP:CVU but have yet to comment on the progress done to implement a major change discussed during the reformatting discussion, namely the training for new anti-vandals. Any input would be appreciated, thank you. Cheers! Achowat (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing
WhatamIdoing is female. :-) Axl  ¤  [Talk]  19:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You made me laugh!
"their test samples keep getting contaminated with moonlight" - let's just say it's a good thing I wasn't drinking coffee when I read that :D S Æ don talk  19:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

RE: User_talk:Achowat discussion
Hi,

I would like to discuss your responce to my responce.

I have copied your response to keep this discussion in one place.

This is a disappointing showing from the CVU Instructors. Achowat, if you would like to change the way that Wikipedia handles persistent vandalism from IPs – or otherwise encourage particular reforms to the way Wikipedia responds to vandalism – you should question whether it's appropriate for you to use your school as a soapbox, and consider whether or not there might be more appropriate venues for such campaigning. (Using the CVU to, in Mr little irish's words, "shape the 'anti-vandals' of tomorrow" is certainly playing the 'long game' for policy change.) You're blurring the line between education and advocacy; if you're going to do that, then the CVU pages and your invitations and instructions to your 'students' need to be much more forthright and explicit about what you're actually planning to do with and to them. Mr little irish's first response to criticism, meanwhile, is to resort to namecalling. As far as I know, this is my first interaction with him on Wikipedia; in it he goes out of his way to be unpleasant in a petty way, and to proudly call attention to his childish behavior as emphatically as possible. This is conduct that I would have thought would immediately disqualify him from being an Instructor, as a brittle and bullying temperament is exactly the opposite of what the CVU Academy purports to teach. Unfortunately, instead of taking steps to keep the CVU's house in order, Achowat chooses to entirely ignore the misconduct in this thread, and continues to carry on a cheery chat about boozing and football with Mr little irish (MLI) in the next discussion down the page. Condoning MLI's behavior this way – whether because he's a CVU supporter and insider, or because abuse directed at experienced editors is somehow more acceptable than abuse of newbies – is a sad double standard and sets an ugly example for his 'Students' to follow. MLI then goes on to impugn the intelligence of a student, suggesting that "Chip could get confused as to who to speak to now". No, I don't think so, because Chip is allowed to talk to any damn person he wants. If Chip123456 – or any other editor – sees something that he is curious about or doesn't fully understand, he should always feel free to speak up. Every Wikipedia editor is expected to make a good-faith effort to respond to patient, polite inquiries on their talk pages. Any editor – including Chip, admin or not – can start and participate in discussions on the Administrators' noticeboard. Any editor can ask or answer a question at the Help desk. While there is already something of a disconnect between declaring one is "not an authority" and at the same time explicitly creating an Instructor-Student relationship, the nature of the problem is thrown into stark relief once an Instructor admits his belief that it would be confusing for the 'Student' to speak to other editors. For the sake of completeness, I'll mention that I thought Dan653's response was measured and reasonable. (And in response to bullet #3, the decision not to exclude my own opinions when talking about the overall unreliability of advice was indeed conscious and deliberately conspicuous.) On my "contentious" third paragraph, I'll simply ask – probably rhetorically – which parts are contentious because they're not true (or arguably so), and which parts are contentious simply because the CVU wishes they weren't true? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 3:48 pm, Today (UTC+1)


 * In responce to the first highlighted section, that was my honest mistake, please accept my apologies, I didn't read your name properly and came up with TOAD, instead of TOAT.
 * In responce to the second highlighted section, I have not gone out of my way to be unpleasant in a petty way, but to provide my own opinion on your opinion, as I stated at the end of my part of the paragraph. I thought the way you condesended about a project that you are not even involved in was a little 'high and mighty'. This is just how you have put yourself across in your own words. I may be interpreting them incorrectly, but that's how I see it.
 * Third, brittle and bullying temperament? Could you point out there where you think I may be bullying?
 * Finally, in regards to conversations me and Achowat have not in relation to CVU is at the discretion of me and Achowat, and as far as I'm aware, we're allowed to chat about anything in our own talk spaces.

Now, I did not once disagree with any points you had made before my responce, and I agree'd with both you and Achowat. I stated that Chip may get confused as he is a relatively new editor, who was getting mixed responses from editors.

Again, please accept my apologies in regards to the 'TOAD' reference, I shall go and correct that on Achowat's talk page also. Mr Little Irish (talk) © 16:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * So your decision to call me "TOAD" was entirely an innocent mistake, and not at all related to the fact that you disliked what I was saying? You reasoned that choosing an abbreviation that just happened to also be a mild insult would be a sensible and reasonable way to approach someone with whom you disagreed?  Hm.
 * If that's really all that you were thinking – and on no level whatsoever did you also enjoy, just a little bit, your oh-so-clever bit of plausibly-deniable namecalling – then I would say that you were merely guilty of rather poor judgment. 'Bullying', and being 'petty' and 'unpleasant', described what I thought of your behavior when it seemed you were deliberately being insulting.
 * Similarly, I don't care what you and Achowat talk about on your own time; my concern was that Achowat decided to deliberately overlook your unexplained and apparently deliberate namecalling. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I had not meant to call you a TOAD my any means. And there was not one point that I did not disagree with, if you look back, I did not once disagree. I said that you could have worded it better. I did not dislike a single word you said. I don't know you, and I don't sink to the level of name calling when there is a disagreement. I missread your name and thought it was TOAD. If i was name calling, I would have called you something much more offensive and imagionative. Again, I apologise for the mistake, I was just quick skimming, and busy with work at the same time. Mr Little Irish  (talk) © 20:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Dan653 (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS
Hi, TenOfAllTrades. I am hoping to alter WP:MEDRS. Please comment here. Axl ¤  [Talk]  19:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for your input
You commented a couple of months ago on SirFozzie's user talk page about an issue where I inadvertently violated a topic ban by commenting on another topic-banned editor's arbitration appeal (User talk:SirFozzie). The same issue has come up again but kind of in reverse, where another topic-banned editor has commented on my own arbitration appeal, but apparently without any reaction from the Arbitration Committee or the clerks. I've asked them to clarify their position on the issue, given the apparent discrepancy. See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee. I'd like to invite you to the discussion - if you have any views they would be welcome. Prioryman (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

TB
Just so you know, I have no problem with you darkening my talk page, I would just prefer it if you were a little more civil there. Thanks Mr Little Irish  (talk) 申 15:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

DNA nanotechnology FAC
First of all, thanks for your help at Non-helical models of nucleic acid structure. Your analysis was really helpful in highlighting the salient aspects of the issues there.

I was wondering if you'd be willing to participate in a FAC I have going on right now on DNA nanotechnology. It would be really nice to have extra input from someone with a scientific background, as subject matter experts are kind of hard to come by in this subject. I'd really appreciate it if you could take a look and share your views. Thanks! Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Notification of RFC/U concerning Youreallycan
I'd like to notify you, as a previous blocking administrator, that I've initiated a Request for Comments/User concerning. The RFC/U can be read at Requests for comment/Youreallycan. Prioryman (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Could you explain how proceeding by motion would work? Are there previous examples I could look at? Prioryman (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, they appear on Arbitration/Requests/Motions, but non-Arbs aren't allowed to edit that page directly. I'm a bit rusty at the ArbCom bureaucracy; I'm not actually sure how to get them to produce a motion. Try the talk page? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I hadn't seen that page before. It looks like motions need to come from the arbs themselves, so I guess I'll leave them to it... Prioryman (talk) 08:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about the mechanics; we can deal with that. The essence is that a motion is used when there is no good reason to have a full case, either because the appropriate outcome is obvious or because the situation is urgent in terms of timing. If you think that these circumstances apply, you can say so in your statement on the requests page, and/or in your evidence or on the workshop if the case is opened. On the other hand, you don't need to post anything else unless you have something substantive to add to what you've already written; I think the arbitrators have a good sense of what issues you are raising. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments about recusal
Hi TenOfAllTrades, thanks for your comments about recusing. As it happens, I agree that it would be unwise for me to draft this case, for precisely the reasons you've outlined. My understanding is that we need at least four arbs to open a case, based on the 'net four' rule, and it would appear that we have enough to satisfy this requirement. In this context, I've switched my vote to recuse. PhilKnight (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, though I fear that you've sort of missed the point if one of the reasons for your recusal now is because your vote is unnecessary to obtain your desired outcome, rather than because your participation might interfere with the appearance of impartiality. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * There's a thread at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee that could be of interest. PhilKnight (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a reminder
Just a reminder (re [thimerosal controversy]):

Wikipedia does not have firm rules.

Seipjere (talk) 10:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

re thimerosal, building consensus
Ten.,

A topic ban would be very ill advised. Consensus will be achieved for every change. And if necessary, when appropriate, mediation will be patiently sought. Moreover, I'll keep my general discussion of the subject limited to the specific improvements that I intend to make, and the justification there of. (And I'll familiarize myself with the policy guidelines that have been invoked to date.) Sorry for taking wikipedia's 5th pillar too much to heart. And again, sorry for inferring that you were a newt.

All the best, Seipjere (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * MastCell's responses on his talk page pretty much cover anything that I might want to say to you.


 * As an aside, you should note that while you may temporarily maintain content in your userspace if it is clearly related to the improvement of Wikipedia articles, you are not free to use your user or user talk pages as a permanent resting place for content that you can't put into an article. This is true regardless of whatever misunderstanding you might have about how to apply WP:IAR constructively. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll do my best to get up to speed on (and stay in compliance with) all the policy that's been thrown my way.
 * Though I confess, my curiosity (re thimerosal) is considerably more interested in (1) ball-bark inorganic-brain-mercury baselines, from worst-case scenario thimerosal schedules, based on the Burbacher primate studies and, relative to the accepted EPA fish consumption safety standard; And (2), sea and soil Hg levels (re food-chain bioaccumulation) which are, presumably (and regrettably), still on the rise.


 * All the best, Seipjere (talk) 02:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Rob Ford spamming
Hi,

In response to the 'edit warring' on Ford's page. The bias against that politician is glaringly obvious. Whereas other politicians (like Jack Layton/Adam Giambrone) their 'scandals' are followed up by 1-2 paragraphs of 'context' in an obvious attempt to 'play down' the severity of the accusation.

Ford on the other hand is not granted any of this 'massaging' of the facts, instead we are given what reads like a list of war crimes...and the weasel words is mindblowing.

Do yourself a favour and read Adam Giambrone's page (for example), the guy was caught in an overt sex scandal which shamed him out of his run for mayor...the wiki page was written under the tone that 'society wronged' Giambrone or some other garbage.

Either way, I routinely donate each year to Wikipedia...but I am now (obviously) rethinking that as I found the level of bias far too obscene.

Claimsfour (talk) 12:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

X-ray computed tomography
I've put on three months of semiprotection due to apparent IP socks of you-know-who. If you think this is excessive, feel free to adjust. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Nenpog, who has some Tel Aviv IPs in his SPI report. You gave him an indef block in July. looks to be not far from Tel Aviv. EdJohnston (talk) 01:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:RD/S
Per your archive commentary, I removed my comment on the space shuttle, rather than leave it in place. Hopefully a full removal will avoid any further off-topic commentary, which seems like a good objective. Thanks for the feedback. Nimur (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I just hated to see an engineering discussion get dragged off the rails into a political fight. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

not sure about this...
FYI:. Regards, —MistyMorn (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Beats me. I'm not sure how it could happen by accident, but I'm not sure what it was supposed to accomplish if it was deliberate.  Obviously, creating a new account in order to allege suppression of information doesn't exactly help his credibility.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * _Well, I've seen funnier... —MistyMorn (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Adminship
I didn't make the proposal, and have only commented (not supported or opposed) a handful of times, and on fairly specific points, I think. How about you deal with the thread as a whole, and answer other editors, rather than taking every opportunity of making it into another "bash Duncan" thread from you? We both know why we don't like each other, and I'm sure you don't want all that dragged up again. Cheerio. DuncanHill (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, actually, I don't know why "we don't like each other". Sure, I recognize your name, but I had to do some Google searches to find the Wikipedia archives where we've overlapped.  Do you really think I'm holding some sort of long-standing personal grudge over a disagreement from five years ago on the Reference Desk?  What other "bash Duncan" threads have I been creating, exactly? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Chemtrail conspiracy theory
I think the IP I blocked for 3RR is also a proxy, at least it was a year ago. Which makes me wonder how many actual people are involved in this edit war. SPI perhaps? I'm off to bed though. Dougweller (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I concur. I just blocked today's IP editor, and yesterday's another was blocked by another admin.  (I admit I got suspicious when I saw three different IPs from three different continents all show up to make the same revert within a couple of days.)  I'm inclined to just semiprotect for a while if he comes back again with a new address or account, but SPI is an option. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've semiprotected the article and talk page, since he started using a fourth open proxy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Administrators
I've long thought that you were a calm and sensible voice. You've provided me with further evidence. --Dweller (talk) 07:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You've been implicitly mentioned at
WP:ANI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 11:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Your comment re: teams on ArbCom
This has to be one of the most insightful comments that I've seen in recent years. I'm almost tempted to suggest that you should run for ArbCom yourself; but you probably understand the system too well to ever want to get personally involved with it. Kirill [talk] 13:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'll just say here that I acknowledge and appreciate the supportive comments I've received – here and elsewhere – from other editors about those remarks.
 * On further reflection I'm very concerned about the way that Jclemens' misuse of the private ArbCom mailing list may have – consciously and wilfully or not – distorted the pool of candidates in the upcoming election. I've noted my concerns at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Jclemens.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (It still would have been rewarding to be given the opportunity of voting you into that assembly :-). ---Sluzzelin talk  23:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)