User talk:Thekohser/2009

Jimbo Wales, on Gregory Kohs
"For the record, having reviewed the situation, I think that I acted harshly and hastily; I would not do the same today. I believe that my actions got Gregory off on the wrong foot in the community, and that tensions which he feels today have their roots in my action. I hope that in some small way my apology is helpful to him, and to the rest of the community, in looking for a resolution of longstanding conflicts."
 * -- Jimbo Wales (December 18, 2008)

Articles for deletion nomination of Jacobson's
I have nominated Jacobson's, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Jacobson's. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Alexius08 (talk) 06:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How is that working out for you, Alexius08? -- Thekohser 01:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is Alexius aware that you were community-banned, then unblocked by Jimbo, only to be re-community banned despite Jimbo's olive branch? If so, this is a really mean thing to do. Ripberger (talk) 07:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, and they say Wikipedia has no sense of humor :) -Pete (talk)
 * I thought I was community-banned only once? Jimbo's unblock was of his own block.  Or, is a block by Jimbo a de facto "community ban", since the community follows his every decree like a bunch of sheep?  Here's my deal -- you point me to two distinct community ban !votes, and I'll donate $25 to any charity of your choosing that is not headquartered at 39 Stillman. -- Thekohser 18:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose there's not much of a practical difference between being community-banned once and being community-banned twice. :) --Conti|✉ 18:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's actually pretty funny. It's at my expense, as usual, but I'm in a good mood tonight. -- Thekohser 01:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I get Wikipedia's definition of "ban" and "blocks" mixed up. All I recall was the MyWikiBiz thing (which you stopped after talking with Jimbo), Jimbo set you free, and then your new account was banned for reasons that were never clear as Jimbo had let you go previously. I sincerely hope you do get unblocked. You should have never been banned to begin with. Sincerely, Ripberger (talk) 06:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Ripberger. Your sentiments are shared by about 40% of the VIPs around here, but the other 60% would prefer that I stay "community banned", on the basis of a ban nomination that was pushed through by an admin who plagiarized my work, then denied it, then deleted the diffs that proved his culpability.  Go figure.  The ethical ones get banned by the unethical ones who hold the toolkit. -- Thekohser 15:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of unban/stay-banned ratios
Uh-uh. About 10% want you to stay banned (mainly those who remember how damn annoying your socks were in 2007); about 10% want you unbanned, either on the basis that you were unfairly blocked and from your activities at MWB since have demonstrated that you do know what you're doing, or on a more cynical "better inside the tent pissing out" principle; the remaining 80% don't care. What keeps you banned is a mixture of apathy, inertia, and the fact that those who do think you should be unblocked (including me) don't have the time for the inevitable long drawn out fight. This is a hobby, not a job, and you're in the unfortunate position that (Jimbo and perhaps a couple of others aside) none of those who want you unblocked are the type to hang round noticeboards arguing the matter for weeks on end. –  iride scent  16:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's about right. Iridescent, the one thing you left out that seems pretty relevant to me, is that whenever pressed, Greg disavows even the desire to be unbanned, or to resume editing Wikipedia. I have no interest whatsoever in working on someone's behalf, when they haven't really bought into the project to begin with.
 * That, combined with the fact that the last round (that I'm aware of) of negotiations had Greg using his good-faith editing as a bargaining chip (i.e., with the implication that good-faith editing was only guaranteed up to a certain date). That struck me as oddly incompatible with a goal, that is pretty important to me personally, of building an editing community that is largely rooted in trust.
 * Greg, for whatever it's worth -- I keep an eye on this page, from time to time, because it can be entertaining, and because I like you as a person, in spite of whatever drama has surrounded your Wikipedia experience. I also think your various Wikipedia-related projects are interesting. I can't say I usually agree with what you're trying to do, but you're always up to something that makes me think. -Pete (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I hadn't seen your notes until now, Iridescent and Pete. I agree with you, Iridescent.  I understand your position, Pete.  Thing is, I have more difficulty getting "compatible" with a community rooted in trust, when so many of its VIPs have shown me a significant display of untrustworthy behavior.  Before I jump on the wagon, I'd at least like to see that the wagon-drivers aren't sinisterly twirling their Snidely Whiplash moustaches.  If I offered 100 good-faith edits, wouldn't someone who "trusts" Wikipedia's goal also "trust" that the good faith might very well continue to the 101st edit and beyond? -- Thekohser 04:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Greg, I don't have the same experience of "wagon drivers" as you do. Sure, there are lots of people who get lots of attention as being influential Wikipedians, but I really don't see them as "wagon drivers." By and large, I see them burn out and disappear. To me, that's not leadership. Yes, I know that some of these people have a special role as far as you're concerned, in that they have a fair amount of sway over whether or not you're unbanned. However, I'm not convinced I've ever seen anything close to a concerted effort by you to get unbanned. If you ever want to do that, I'm sure you will succeed. If you're ambivalent about whether it's worth the trouble or the leap of faith, that's fine with me -- I certainly am not telling you that you should try to get unbanned.
 * But when you talk about wagon drivers...I think you put your finger right on the major difference in our perceptions of this project. The people you're attaching such tremendous importance to simply aren't all that important (Jimmy excepted, I suppose)...except when you give them reason to be. -Pete (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Pete, I'm sorry you don't see things my way. (You're supposed to see things my way, then we can be friends, don't you know?)  Anyway, last night I submitted my "formal" unban appeal to the Arbitration Committee mailing list, completing a month-long deliberation about how/whether to do so.  We'll see what happens next, won't we?  Should be interesting, either way. -- Thekohser 13:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * :) Sounds good, and good luck. Since it's in ArbCom, I think any offer to help directly on my part would be meaningless...but if you want to talk any of it over, feel free to get in touch. -Pete (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

AdjustShift's action and retraction
MyWikiBiz, you are a banned user. You are not allowed to edit any page of this encyclopedia, including your talkpage. Now you can't edit your talkpage. If you want to appeal against the ban, please contact the Arbitration Committee. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 04:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to say, your action here appears to me as hostile and rude, AdjustShift. Greg may be a banned user, but there's no need for this kind of treatment.  He is not disrupting the project in anyway with his commenting here.  I believe he has tried to get into contact with the Arbitration Committee, but he's received no reply.  Maybe it is against policy to deny him his ability to edit his talkpage, but your method and tone towards Greg was not necessary, particularly with your "Have a Nice Day!" jab after you banned him from his own talkpage. It is exceptionally difficult for me to assume good faith in your action here. Ripberger (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

To AdjustShift, that post carries the uncomfortable tone of kicking a fellow in the pants after he's been shown the door. Let's do a little better. From the start I've had a standing offer to Kohser: if he avoids socking for six months and promises to abide by site policies I'll initiate his unblock proposal. Surely we're all better off if things are less polarized. Durova Charge! 06:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My action is not hostile and rude. Banned users are not allowed to edit their talkpages. See Banning policy. If MyWikiBiz wants to edit the English-language Wikipedia again, he should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Posting needless comments here is a complete waste of time. If the ArbCom decides to reverse the ban imposed on him, he is free to edit the English-language Wikipedia once again. I write "Have a nice day" after finishing my comments most of the time. I don't believe in kicking anyone; I'm simply doing what the banning policy says. AdjustShift (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, he did, that's why Risker undeleted this talk page. So you probably should've checked with him before preventing Thekohser from editing this page. --Conti|✉ 13:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I checked. The fact is MyWikiBiz is still a banned user. The ArbCom hasn't lifted the ban imposed on him. I can't believe some of things you guys have written here. Positing needless comments here is a waste of time. If MyWikiBiz wants to post an unblock request here, he can send an email to any admin (including me), and ask the admin to let him edit his talk page, so that he can file an unblock request here. He can still send emails. AdjustShift (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So, banned users can't use their talk page, but they can send emails? Why not the other way around? Anyhow, I was just trying to say that if ArbCom is involved in this somehow, it might be a good idea to ask them first. You know, in the case they know more than you (or me) about this issue (which, I assume, is true). --Conti|✉ 15:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, banned users can't edit their talkpages. See Banning policy. If you have any problems with that, please go to Village pump (policy) and start a discussion there. The ArbCom may be somehow involved, but that doesn't change the fact MyWikiBiz is still banned. AdjustShift (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Conti, you are a sysop. You should've known what the banning policy says. Yes, ArbCom know more than me, but they haven't lifted the ban on MyWikiBiz. I think this discussion is unhelpful; we should leave this discussion. AdjustShift (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy. --Conti|✉ 17:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason for the policy of disallowing posting to the user's own talk page is to stop disruptive behaviour, such as posting personal information or other kinds of disruption. Common sense suggests evaluation on a case by case basis. In this case, I'm not seeing where Greg is being disruptive in his discussion here. Further, given that Greg is in the process of appealing his ban to ArbCom I don't see the benefit to the project of disallowing posting here. Therefore I plan to change the block so that Greg can use his own talk page. ++Lar: t/c 14:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've changed the block setting. Greg can now edit the talk page of this account. But, Greg can't edit the talk page of MyWikiBiz. I see no reasons why he needs to post comments on both talk pages. I would like to thank Durova, Conti, and Lar for their valuable input. AdjustShift (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, AdjustShift. Durova Charge! 17:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you, AdjustShift. Ripberger (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, thank you, AdjustShift, for shifting your adjustment of my ability to communicate with people who choose to communicate with me here. -- Thekohser 03:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Paid editing alive and well on Wikipedia
At least, until I pointed it out. Some really interesting content being generated in the "for pay" ranks these days! -- Thekohser 18:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Greg, you are not supposed to be making such comments here. I changed the block setting so that you can appeal against your ban. AdjustShift (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So, could you CLEARLY state for the record, that the ONLY edits a banned user may make are to his/her own Talk page, and ONLY comments in the line of appealing the ban? I don't think that's what the new policy says, AdjustShift. -- Thekohser 17:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this really worth it? Above I objected mainly to the glibness of 'have a nice day'. One of the most legitimate concerns that banned users have expressed is frustration at having no legitimate venue to respond when someone pokes the fork in their side after a siteban. That's a fair complaint; we're all better off if we remembered, respectfully, that even if things didn't work out we're all still human beings. Yet--and I mean this respectfully--if you wish to have your ban lifted, Greg, wouldn't it be better to also tone it down a little too? I'd like to propose your unban someday; maybe in the last few months you've started to see that the offer is genuine. Yet regardless of what it would mean for the people who remember events of 2006 and 2007, that's a long time ago by Internet standards. Most of the editors would be looking at this year, and asking questions that boil down to 'Is he more drama than he's worth?' Rootology returned and became an admin because he answered that question to the community's satisfaction. He's a good model to emulate. Best wishes, Durova Charge! 18:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am uncertain whether I am permitted to respond, Durova, so I'll just say "thanks" and reiterate that my formal unban request has been submitted to the ArbCom. -- Thekohser 18:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If there's technical evidence (etc. etc.) that you haven't socked in 6 months, put me in touch with the appropriate checkusers etc. and I'll support it per their advisement. Sometimes the Committee has dragged its heels for a really long time with unban appeals.  So if you're slow in getting a response, ping me after a month and if everything comes up positive I'll take it to the community.  Best wishes,  Durova Charge! 18:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Saw you mentioning Water Lilies at WR...
Re : Since I started this article, and bear some responsibility for watching it, I'd like to explain that the reason I didn't revert that sentence immediately was because I saw this, and thought, "Well, seems plausible." Admittedly, the Guardian isn't the best source on these matters, and it doesn't even state for a fact that Monet could see in ultraviolet light, so I apologize for being too lax. I did a little searching right now, and haven't found any convincing sources about Monet and ultraviolet light. Zagalejo^^^ 06:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure if I am allowed to respond here, but I will just say "thank you for noticing". -- Thekohser 03:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom: Suspension of your community ban
The Arbitration Committee has decided (8/0/2) that the community ban of User:Thekohser be provisionally suspended subject to your full acceptance of and full compliance with the following terms:


 * 1) Purpose: The purpose of your return is to help build an encyclopedia and therefore the focus of your editing is to work directly on improving Wikipedia articles.
 * 2) Mainspace:other throttle: In pursuance of (1), you may edit with a 2:1 ratio of mainspace:other editing. You may not make "other" edits until your mainspace edits give you the credit to respond. For the purpose of calculating "other" edits, one comment is one edit.
 * 3) Civility restriction: You may not engage – in either an initiatory or retaliatory capacity – in any form of feuding, quarreling or personal attack.
 * 4) Sockpuppetry: You are restricted to one account. It is a condition of return that you disclose any current previously undisclosed or undetected accounts. These accounts will be blocked and redirected to User:Thekohser, which will be your only account.
 * 5) Paid editing: You are prohibited from undertaking paid-editing of whatever nature on the English Wikipedia for one year. At the end of the year, this restriction will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee.
 * 6) Paid-editing RfC: It is unfortunate that your proposed return to editing coincides with the currency of an RfC on paid editing. You may make a statement and/or proposal in your own section in the RFC providing you conduct yourself with decorum and moderation. You may not use the RfC as a platform for continuation of feuding or quarreling (see "Civility restriction" above) and are instructed to limit your participation accordingly.

You further acknowledge that ArbCom may reinstate the community ban at any time, by simple majority in a motion, if your behaviour, on whatever basis, proves disruptive.

Please confirm below that you accept these terms, and list the alternate accounts you have been using. Roger Davies talk 02:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thekohser responds

 * The principles of these terms are acceptable to me. I have some small differences with the letter of some of the terms, but it is not worth quibbling over.  (For example, the "purpose" of my return is not only to "build an encyclopedia" but also to suggest some degree of restoration of the earlier good reputation of my original account and my real name.)


 * The Committee's view on that would probably be that building the encyclopedia is a way of restoring your reputation and that nothing else is required. Still, as you're not quibbling, the point is moot.
 * Now the requested list is in, I'll unblock you shortly. I'll look at the accounts and sort them out separately, tomorrow now, as it's longer than I was expecting.  Roger Davies  talk 19:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "As complete as I recall". You forgot one.    Will Beback    talk    01:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to mention User:Feline Who Watches You Masturbate From Above is also his   « l | ?romethean ™ | l »   (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, yes, yes! Oh, that was a classic one -- a hilarious caper.  I'll add it to my hall of fame. -- Thekohser 13:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This list is currently as complete as I can recall, however, more are coming in from various fans of my work. If you have other accounts in mind that you are wondering about their provenance, please notify me on my Talk page here.

Some accounts that are not mine, but are/were thought to be mine, or associated with me:

Thekohser_XIV
Is this one yours? 03:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Bad link. Oversighted?  Or, is this a mildly funny joke? -- Thekohser 04:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Thekohser XIV link works for me. It was not a joke, but if it was a joke, it would certainly not be considered even mildly funny even if you had the worst ever case of the giggles.  05:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.150.255.75 (talk)
 * Okay, it's working for me now. Amazing how the mind fails with middle age.  I had forgotten about that one, but at least now firmly recall my "dispute" over the sovereignty of the British Virgin Islands.  It shall be added to my list (which is probably only about 40% complete yet). -- Thekohser 16:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone thinks I'm unblocked
Somebody thinks that I am unblocked (according to their edit summary), and they have altered my User page. I remain blocked, though, so could someone please restore my User page to the "ugly" version? Or, unblock me. -- Thekohser 01:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget...
...; I have a special fondness for that one.

(Also, a premature welcome back. I hope everything works out well.)


 * Oops. I must have put my 2008 WMF Board of Trustees candidacy out of my mind!  Thanks.  I've added it. -- Thekohser 11:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I love that username! Viridae Talk 12:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a tribute, of course, to a Bugs Bunny classic from 1949, Rabbit Hood, where merely by donning a velvet robe and scepter, Bugs is able to not only fool the Sheriff of Nottingham that the rabbit is the king, but bash the mean and intolerant sheriff over the head several times with aforementioned scepter (or, is it a mace?). Hilarious. -- Thekohser 16:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back
Its been a long time, but I think you are experienced enough I don't need to slap here.  MBisanz  talk 19:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey
Did you get banned from Yahoo! Answers?

BTW I've joined Wikipedia now, lemme see what I can do here.. Anon158 (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You said in December one can earn money here, so yeah?

Forgiveness is useful
Perhaps at some point people will be able to be paid to create articles in their user space that can be looked at by others and added to the encyclopedia in whole or in part according to non-paid editors' editorial judgements. Like I suggested to you when you first showed up at wikipedia. Changing policy at Wikipedia is like changing the direction of an oil tanker at sea. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's more like changing the direction of an oil tanker in the middle of a wheat field. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 23:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * *de-lurk* - hey, welcome back, Greg!! ^_^ - (your friend) A l is o n  ❤ 23:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh gawd, you are back !!..so its official now..Jimbo has totally lost it ..and yeah Welcome Back !! [[Image:Face-devil-grin.svg|20px]]...--Warpath (talk) 07:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Seeking your input
Hi Greg, and welcome back. The decision regarding your return has caused a stir (as you've probably noticed) and there's a discussion at the banning policy talk page. Let's do our best to come together and make lemonade from these lemons. Have posted a suggestion that might make the return process saner and less stressful for everyone. As a recently returned user, your input would probably carry insights that I can only guess at. Does this sound fair? Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy. Durova Charge! 23:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just remember to make a spelling correction to two pokemon articles before you make one comment or you risk the dreaded ban hammer. :) WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * an offer for you to email me your password, and allow me to complete a few hundred 'huggle' type edits would, of course, be wholly inappropriate, and likely to result in the re-activation of your ban. I'll add a pleasant 'g'day' to the chorus of welcome backs though :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Watch the advocacy, please.
Hello.

Please refrain from the commentary in edit summaries. Things like this are unacceptable (and hopelessly misleading at best, unless you mean that an article whose entire contents is "poop" is an "awesome article"?). &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm with Greg on that one. It's frankly embarrassing if it was really the case that we didn't have an article on Job sharing but managed to spare 8kb for Color Climax Corporation. – iride  scent  18:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My point isn't that the article wasn't needed or useful (it is), but that the comment makes it appear that this article was created despite having been deleted four times (and, seemingly, facing opposition). "Awesome article that has been deleted four times before" it was not; and naming one of deleting admins was out of place. That kind of commentary is not what the edit summaries are for, especially when outright misleading or false.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Coren, you are right about what is optimum. But we are all imperfect. Give people space to be less than perfect. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I felt that my article was, indeed, "awesome". I also found it interesting that previous attempts to craft any article on the important subject matter were deleted -- not once, not twice, not thrice, but four times.  Without the admin bit, I did not have access to the deleted articles, so my reference to "awesomeness" could only reasonably be associated with the content of my own article.  I mentioned "Wizardman" simply because I thought it was kind of cool that the first article I wrote upon my return had once been deleted by a very famous admin (after all, Wizardman is on the Arbitration Committee and he was mentioned by Stephen Colbert on national television)!  Clearly, I was exuberant on my very first addition back to the compendium of knowledge here, and my edit summary got a bit carried away.  Apologies for that.  I hope that the edit summary doesn't cloud the legacy of the article itself. -- Thekohser 20:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, the deleted versions were:
 * Spam for a recruitment agency;
 * A list of "Simple but basic steps to reach successfully to your career job!";
 * "Poop" vandalism;
 * A redirect to Employment.
 * We're not talking about stifling the next Milton in his cradle with these deletions. – iride  scent  20:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Any idea why not one of the deleting admins took it upon themselves to craft even a stubby embryo of an authentic article about job sharing? I mean, even a quick Google search would suggest hundreds of thousands of hits on the phrase, thirty times more frequency than a similar search for the word "Mzoli's", which survived a noteworthy deletion attempt.  Also, "job sharing" was listed as a requested article since November 21, 2006.  Certainly, it must be easier to craft a stubby stub than to get an admin to look at and delete inappropriate content on four separate occasions, is it not? -- Thekohser 20:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Harder than it sounds, as it's quite a nebulous concept which means different things in different countries, so shouldn't be a ten-minute "job sharing means sharing a job" definition. In an ideal world, yes, someone would create a stub – but when you're trawling through a mess like this for the third time that day, it's impossible to stop and rewrite everything. As you may have heard mentioned once or twice, when it comes to blatant advertising, standard practice is to delete it if there's nothing salvageable. – iride  scent  21:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow! I never thought about how frequently and how much time admins have to spend deleting articles that don't belong in an encyclopedia.  I wonder if something like "flagged revisions" would free up more time for admins to help writing requested articles and improving existing articles, rather than slogging through a pile of non-vetted garbage needing deletion?  Hmm... It almost seems like there's a heaping load of non-encyclopedia-building work for admins to do, almost by design.  That's curious... -- Thekohser 00:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thekohser, I like your sense of humor. Please note that you, me, Jimbo and others all support "flagged revisions". Think of it like the effort to create a decent health care system in America. There is no dictator to make it all happen. The process is by design made hard. This year has seen a successful conclusion to the years old effort to improve the legal copyright status of Wikimedia material. I fully believe it will also see flagged revisions made available in the English language Wikipedia. These things take time. Your humor might be helpful in attaining that. I don't know. I do know that your intelligence will be helpful, even if I disagree with you on your assessment of how helpful Jimbo is. We need more leadership, not less, and your help in providing leadership will be useful. Neither you nor Jimbo has been flawless in past exercises in leadership. I, on the other hand ...... WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me guess... FlaWASless? -- Thekohser 01:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

List of accounts
Greg, as I understand it you were attempting to list all your accounts as part of your deal to get back in good standing. FYI, you seem to have missed one User:Plausible argument. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that one. -- Thekohser 20:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem like the greatest idea to use my reminder as an apparent attempt to take a swipe at Jayjg. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * How is providing a modestly interesting bit of factual meta-data "taking a swipe"? -- Thekohser 01:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding that one JoshuaZ. Where is this swipe? John Vandenberg (chat) 22:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * To save Greg using up one of his precious 2:1 quota answering, I think JoshuaZ means An account blocked by Jayjg, weeks before his disappearance from Wikipedia in the edit summary. If that's a "swipe", I'm a turnip; it looks to me like a straightforward "Jayjg blocked it but then retired so won't be able to answer questions as to why it was blocked". Not everything is a personal attack. – iride  scent  22:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (adding) Actually John, while you're here can you wearing your Arbcom hat clarify whether Greg replying to questions counts towards his quota? It seems pointless for all concerned if he's not permitted to answer questions because he hasn't made two mainspace edits that day, as well as potentially annoying people ("I asked him this question, but he just carried on making mainspace edits and didn't answer!"). – iride  scent  23:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would be happy to have replies on his own talk page omitted from the counts, but amendments need to be obtained via the amendment page. I think it would be more successful to request the amendment after a month of the current arrangement working. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back to en.wikipedia
Dear Thekohser, welcome back to the English-language Wikipedia. I expect you to contribute positively to the English-language Wikipedia. Good luck! :-) AdjustShift (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Besides the point
I didn't realize it was incorrect; I speak it that way. Sometimes people point out my folksy expressions or my inability to correctly pronounce words from romance languages. I usually explain that I didn't go to a prestigious college. Cool Hand Luke 07:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I found a poll on the Internet that put "beside" as preferred by about 55% of respondents, and "besides" by about 45%, which horrified me in the way that "irregardless" does. Meanwhile, I've always been fascinated by this study, so I'm of course intrigued to learn if this "besides the point" thing is regional in some way.  Or, "folksy".  I'm going to copy this and continue discussion "over there", because I'm not sure if my commenting here takes away from my 2:1 provisional restriction on non-Article-space editing. -- Thekohser 14:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand. I didn't mean to distract you. No reply here necessary. Cool Hand Luke 17:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

disclosure of undetected paid content
In regards to your statement at the paid-editing RFC, I am wondering whether you are willing to disclose your paid content to someone who can then speak about the appropriateness of your edits to those articles. A rather simplistic deduction is that you don't disclose your paid content because the community may not agree with your assessment regarding appropriateness, but of course there are business contracts/confidentiality and often inexplicable Wikipedian behaviour to take into account, so I don't blame you for keeping a tight lip about them.

To be honest, I am not confident that you have supplied a complete list of socks, as I suspect that some of the paid content was done by socks or meat-puppets which you have not disclosed, for the same reasons you don't want to openly mention the undetected paid content.

To maintain confidentiality, the reviewer would need to be bound to not edit any of the articles, and recuse from anything to do with the undisclosed socks. It would probably be better to select someone who is predominately a content editor, such as a FA reviewer, so that the community trusts their word on the appropriateness of your paid content.

Also, could you or others provide a list of any detected or disclosed paid content? This would give the peanut gallery some examples to inspect, so that we can make inferences about the undisclosed paid content. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Revealing any "meat-puppets" (as you call them; I prefer the term "unpaid editors in good standing") was initially requested by you one of your colleagues via e-mail, but I responded clearly that I "can't even begin to inform the ArbCom about the identities of these individuals". The terms of the ArbCom unblock issued on this page likewise did not include any mention of meat-puppets.


 * Of course, the reason I choose not to disclose my paid editing is the "often inexplicable Wikipedian behaviour" that you speak of. The fiasco surrounding the article Arch Coal once and forever decided that for me.  Jimmy Wales deleted this, called it "PR puffery" and "corporate spam", blocked me, then savaged my User page.


 * I've given you Arch Coal and National Fuel Gas, there is also Zale Corporation and, more recently, Job sharing. While not paid content, these articles owe their provenance to approximately the same levels of quality and research that I put into my paid content.  Why don't you have a formal review and discussion of these four articles before we consider any further disclosures?  A couple of my known "discovered" paid content articles were at the very, very beginning of my paid editing career.  They don't reflect the talent and effort I later achieved.  They were compiled for friends, and no payment actually transacted, because the work was contested and decimated relatively quickly and, perhaps, it was sub-standard.  These included Norman Technologies and The Family & Workplace Connection (deleted as "corporate spam" by Jimmy Wales).  I'd especially like a public review of that latter one.  Was it "spam"?  Was it worthy of deletion?


 * I've just looked at six surviving past articles that I authored from scratch in exchange for payment. One recently received a "POV" template -- I believe because the Wikipedian who added it felt that the article was being too critical of the subject company!  And another has an "orphan" template, even though two other Wikipedia main space articles link to it.  Could we perhaps compare six randomly-selected original articles about businesses and living professionals that were authored by the same editor, but then not ever "improved" later by that editor (to simulate my being banned from English Wikipedia), and determine how many (if any) of them receive similar "warning" templates?


 * In the meantime, I will be considering if there are any trusted admins who could be held to a confidential review of my paid editing work. Is there a list of Featured Article reviewers somewhere? -- Thekohser 00:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want to go down this route but don't trust Arbcom, you can mail me in private (you have my email address). I'm a reasonably regular FA reviewer and author of 9 FAs, and AFAIK aside from a single reversion on Ikea I've never had any mainspace dealings with you, and unless any of your articles are on female pioneers of the Old West, obscure 70s New York bands or 19th century English engineering, there's not going to be any COI issue. I presume most of Arbcom know me enough to trust that I will pull you up if there's anything truly inappropriate, and you know well enough that I won't cause you hassle unless there's a good reason. If you want someone else who's familiar with the FA guidelines etc, and definitely not an arbcom stooge but still trusted by them, you could try Malleus Fatuorum or LaraLove/Jennavecia, both of whom I assume you know from WR. There's a list of FA writers at WP:WBFAN; while not a list of reviewers, there's enough crossover that you can assume anyone on the list will be familiar with WP policies. – iride  scent  00:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd be willing to look over the content in question and speak to it's validity as well, Greg, and in particular adherence to my personal Big Three, N/NPOV/BLP. rootology ( C )( T ) 01:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As with the above, and as Iridescent recommended, I would also be willing to review Greg's work. I've done hundreds of GA reviews. written a few of them and also have featured content. My current focus, as most are aware, is BLP issues, but I believe the community could trust me to give a fair assessment of purchased content as well. لenna  vecia  03:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * How would we go about a public review of the disclosed articles I've mentioned above? Could some nice admin restore the Family & Workplace article to a subpage in my User space?  I guess a series of open, mini-RfC's on the Talk pages of the articles would work?  Let's face it... if that content is found to be horrid, we can all assume the undisclosed paid content is equally horrid, at best, and there would be no incentive for me to disclose.  If the disclosed examples are found to be average or better, then I may have some incentive to further prove myself via additional disclosure. --Thekohser 20:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable to me. Restored, complete with history, at User:Thekohser/The Family & Workplace Connection. – iride  scent  20:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If Thekohser has revealed all of his sock puppets then the articles should be easy to find. It's a relatively trivial, though tedious, matter to see what articles the accounts have created.   Will Beback    talk    23:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Will, you don't seem to understand the process. While I've authored a good deal of GFDL content in exchange for payment, the vast majority of it was published on Wikipedia by other, non-paid editors in good standing.  That was the "Jimbo Concordat".  See the history of the articles Arch Coal or National Fuel Gas for non-paid examples, which approximate how the paid articles were likewise published by unpaid contributors. -- Thekohser 00:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that link. So are you saying that the new articles added to Wikipedia which you wrote came from publicly accessible pages on your own website? Regarding your examples, both articles appropriately list the source in the edit summaries. If text has been copied from someplace else it should be attributed, even if the material is public domain. Aside from anything else, it's a plagiarism issue. But it's also an issue of GFDL compliance. MyWikiBiz content apparently is GFDL, meaning that a link back to the author list must be included. Could you go over the list of articles which form MyWikiBiz and make sure that the source is linked somewhere, either in an edit summary, the talk page, or the article itself?   Will Beback    talk    00:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, thanks. If you want to worry about GFDL compliance, tell me what you're doing about the disgraceful violation of the GFDL on January 2, 2008. Otherwise, I'm not concerned about a violation of GFDL compliance on content that I created, which was copied and re-published elsewhere by someone I trusted had the content's best interest at heart. Besides, I took down the old "incubator" pages of MyWikiBiz, long ago, before they were overwritten by the Centiare.com directory pages.  I couldn't reproduce them now, even if I wanted to. -- Thekohser 02:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Plagiarized material that violates copyright licenses are in appropriate and violate project policies and guidelines. If anyone is adding such material they are disrupting the project. I had thought you were saying you were putting the interests of Wikipedia first. In this matter you appear to be putting your commercial interest ahead of Wikipedia's, presumably out of fear that the improperly copied material will be deleted.   Will Beback    talk    03:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm confused, Will. Is this your response to what happened on January 2, 2008?  The evidence was very clear as to the admin who was violating copyright licenses and project policies and guidelines against plagiarism, as well as (most egregiously) cover-up of the affront.  As for my fear, my only fear is that my properly copied material will be improperly deleted. -- Thekohser 03:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know what happened on January 2. However any material that has been copied here in violation of GFDL was not copied properly and should be deleted wherever found. Wikipedia maintains high standards when it comes to re-using the intellectual property. If you are concerned about it being deleted then the best thing would be to make sure that the GFDL has been followed and that the authors of the material are credited.   Will Beback    talk    03:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you are either unwilling or incapable of figuring out what happened on January 2, 2008 (which I conveniently linked for you, above), then I'm not sure why I'm even attempting to engage you in conversation. As the author of the paid content, if I am satisfied with how the letter of its licensing was or was not followed, that is the end of the dispute.  Neither Wikipedia nor Will Beback own the content, nor do you hold sway over whether the attribution needs of the author have been satisfied or not.  The author determines this, and the author is satisfied with how the content was published in Wikipedia.  The community also seems satisfied, since none of the articles that were paid for were deleted, and deletion would be the ultimate mark of dissatisfaction.  Now, seriously, I have nothing further to discuss with you, unless you need assistance in figuring out what happened on January 2, 2008, which I assure you, made both the original author of the content and several admins in good standing here extremely dissatisfied. If you do not wish to discuss the January 2nd incident, then you are welcome to set off from my Talk page and begin your quest to find the half-dozen or more articles I wrote for payment that were potentially not attributed perfectly according to your interpretation of the GFDL. (Note -- what would you say if the content appeared with the following attribution: "GFDL content copied from another site, SHA-1 hash code: de9f2c7f d27e1b3a fad3e85a 0bd17d9b 100db4b3"?  That might very well satisfy the original author, who wishes to remain anonymous, yes?  It may not satisfy your urge for discovery, but that's not yours to demand of the author, is it?) -- Thekohser 03:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no need to be cryptic. I'm not sure how the Jan 2 Arch Coal log is relevant- I don't see any mention of GFDL or plagiarism issues. I'm no expert on GFDL, and perhaps we should seek one to see what's sufficient to meet its requirements. I doubt that saying "I release all the material I wrote, but I can't tell you that is" would be useful, but maybe I'm wrong. The issue of how to comply with GFDL material copied from websites that have been taken down may need to be settled too.   Will Beback    talk    05:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * GFDL or compatible material that was brought in, but the original source changed/vanished has already I believe been settled from the Foundation perspective over on Commons, where it comes up often on flickr.com images. People free them under a CC license, but then change licensing later, or pull down their Flickr account. The material, once released and reused, stays under the original license. Like, if I release a song under CC, post it online, then take it down a year later--if Jay-Z or someone samples it and makes $1,000,000 from my work, I have no recourse, so long as he follows my previous licensing. As long as we stick to the original licensing, we're fine.
 * As for your "own" content, theres nothing to settle, really. For example, I make an image of some sort, and upload it here. I can even say it's a derivative of my own work, or any other 'sticky' thing, and I'm fine, nothing else is needed. That actually came up on Commons with me as well, where I labeled a photograph of a seagull's face as a crop, and someone made a fuss over it, even though it was a crop of my own original photograph that I took and had on my PC--they wanted to see the original. I obliged, but I was under no obligation to do that.
 * Last, for that prior event, I think Greg was trying to point out that for any of us to go after, or imply we'd go after him, for GFDL licensing when he's been ardent on doing that right, is silly. Basically, JzG very inappropriately reposted Arch Coal but without Greg's work on it, hence Jimmy restoring the final 2 revisions later. It was silly, and pointless, and bad faith to not repost Greg's content. Looking back I'm actually boggled it was allowed to go on so long. Even the most banned user of all time, hypothetically, has full claim to GFDL rights, and no one can take that away. rootology ( C )( T ) 05:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand how that applies to the situation of improperly copied material which has no required link to the author(s). Thekohser apparently knows the names of these articles, which apparently he wrote and caused to be uploaded to Wikipedia without proper attribution. It'd be great if he'd be proactive about fixing the problem rather than making bad faith comments. I'm not sure why he's concerned about the articles being deleted. Wikipedia has a robust system for evaluating which articles should be kept and which deleted, and at least several of his articles have been kept. Presumably he's been paid for the editing so he no longer has any interest in whther the articles stay or go. I just don't see the problem and why he needs to keep his contributions secret and avoid scrutiny.    Will Beback    talk    00:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not being proactive about fixing the problem because there's no problem to fix. The problem would arise from a dissatisfied author of original content.  I assure you the author is not dissatisfied.  Ergo, no problem.  What is a problem is how Wikipedia demonstrated to me the manner in which it handles deliberate plagiarism and cover-up by an administrator.  That's a problem about 16 or 17 times larger than the so-called problem you're worked up over, Will.  Your indifference to the larger problem, coupled with your very statement that "he's been paid for the editing so he no longer has any interest in whther (sic) the articles stay or go", show that you reside on an entirely different plane of business ethics than I do. -- Thekohser 04:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't spend much time in the plane of buseinss ethics involved in secretly planting articles in Wikipedia. I'm more concerned about Wikipedia policies and standards then in making sure that someone's bcontract for promotional services is fulfilled. I'm not sure I understand your issue with what happened on Jan 2. You seem to be saying that you're upset because your authorship information was removed, but you also seem to be saying that you insist on having your authorship information left off of countless, unknown other articles you wrote. Do I have that right?   Will Beback    talk    19:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you know what they say, "Buseinss is buseinss." You are disparaging me by describing my encyclopedic content creation as "promotional".  It was "informational".  You are misinformed about my business process, because the content placement was not done "secretly".  Multiple non-paid parties knew exactly of the content and its publication.  That you were not privy to this communication doesn't make it "secret", it makes it "private" -- much like the "private" e-mail lists that Wikia hosted in order to facilitate the wiki-stalking of suspicious Wikipedia editors.  That you were not a party to these private communications, Will, does not entitle you to inclusion on them, no matter how badly it makes you feel.  As for the GFDL, I decided that having my rights under the terms of the GFDL temporarily waived was preferable to having my informative, encyclopedic content shit upon by people seeking revenge.  Violations of the terms of the GFDL are the responsibility of the rights-holder to bring restorative action.  If you think otherwise, I invite you to bring a legal class action on behalf of all the readers and editors of Wikipedia, that I have violated their right to hold sway over my personal wishes for attribution of my content.  Neither Wikipedia, nor the Wikimedia Foundation, nor Will Beback hold the authorship rights to the paid articles I created.  Therefore, the only restorative action that will ever happen is if I choose to pursue the non-paid parties who published my works without proper attribution.  I will personally let you know if and when that day comes. -- Thekohser 20:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

<-- Outdent. Will, this is getting confusing. If Greg is the original author of any version of the content at the moment it hit Wikipedia, including the version he posted to Wikipedia, why should he have to attribute it elsewhere? He's the author. If I write an article on my own private website, GFDL posted at the time, and then just copy/paste it here, that's my right. I don't have to say, "Originally posted at xyz," since I'm the originator. rootology ( C )( T ) 05:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly, TheKohser didn't post any of the content to WP, except for the couple of articles he's listed. Other editors did so. Those other editors had the responsibility to maintain the authorship information, per GFDL, and an intellectual responsibility to identify the author to avoid plagiarism. Those articles have all been copied improperly and the only ones who can really fix them are TheKohser, because he knows which articles they are, and the unknown editors who uploaded them for him.   Will Beback    talk    19:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * GFDL: 4. MODIFICATIONS,
 * B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement.
 * In your example Greg would publish the document on the GFDL compliant website and then Greg would copy and paste that same document into Wikipedia. At the point that he adds the document to Wikipedia, he is listing all it's principle authors (the one and only principle author, him) and is GFDL compliant. However, in the MyWikiBiz process that's described Greg creates the document and publishes it on his website and then someone else (a Wikipedia editor) copies it into Wikipedia. At the point that they copy it into Wikipedia they have broken the GFDL because they have not listed either five or all of the principle authors. The question was actually asked at the time ("How will the author attribution and grant of license work?" ) but I can't see where it was answered; it's likely that it's already been considered and answered somewhere though. In any case, if Greg (and all subsequent authors while it was on his site) released the Wikipedia editor that added the article to Wikipedia from the requirements of the GFDL then the point seems to be mute. Ha! (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Articles for deletion/Norman Technologies, notability is an issue. Most of the mentions I can find quickly are quite trivial, but I havent looked through the results for "The Norman Group"; feel free to send me any in-depth sources via email and I'll be happy to take it to WP:DRV. p.s. Donald R. Smith might be notable. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. In hindsight, notability was indeed an issue.  I don't think it was a "slam dunk" for deletion, but it was admittedly a borderline case.  I know I have no interest in re-working toward an encyclopedic inclusion of Norman Tech into Wikipedia.  I'd rather see that every S&P 500 company has an article first. -- Thekohser 02:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I count only eight redlinks on List of S&P 500 companies; is that list correct, and only 8 articles remaining to be created? John Vandenberg (chat) 23:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Will Beback and new articles
Will, you seem to have an urge to protect the GFDL sanctity of new articles in Wikipedia. I have created two new articles in just the past few days. I have looked through several thousand of your most recent contributions to the encyclopedia project, all the way back to April, and I am hard pressed to find a single new page that you've created on Wikipedia that was not a User, Talk, Category, Wikipedia space, redirect, or move exercise, except for this odd page that doesn't conform to any of Wikipedia's standards for article structure. Given this imbalance in article construction between you and me, might I ask you if you are deliberately trolling my Talk page to create an "issue" out of a non-issue? Because even if I am to assume good faith, it would appear to me that you are not expert in article creation, and therefore seem a bit out of place in a discussion of attribution rights. Please point me to four or five of the most recent main space articles you have generated from scratch, and I will happily withdraw my assertions just made. -- Thekohser 13:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There are many jobs at Wikipedia. Creating articles, improving them up, deleting inappropriate ones, resolving disputes, etc. Adminsitrators have the self-deprecating subriquet of "janitors" because we often go around cleaning up messes. The situation appears to be that some number of articles were improperly plagiarized from another website without the requirements for GFDL fulfilled. You wrote these articles on that website in exchange for money, and you caused them to be uploaded here. Now you refuse to reveal the identity of those articles because you're afraid that they won't meet Wikipedia standards and will be deleted. That doesn't seem like a good situation. This issue could easily be resolved by releasing the list of the Wikipedia articles you were paid to write.    Will Beback    talk    19:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for providing us a list of the new articles you have recently created, Will. The community appreciates your dedication to this important issue of "improperly plagiarized" content and your undying loyalty to the requirements of the GFDL.  Your hard work in the area of LaRouche movement sub-pages is especially exemplary.  We now look forward to your review of the plagiarism cited above that took place on January 2, 2008, as well as your participation in the public review of the articles I have provided above, which only Iridescent has taken the time thus far to review (one of the four) and comment. In the meantime, while you are working on these aspects of improving Wikipedia, I will be preparing my list of paid articles for release sometime in the future. -- Thekohser 20:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you clarify the difference between the plagiarism problem on Jan 2 and the plagiarism committed by the editors who uploaded your writing without attribution? Regarding my work on Wikipedia, it is open to scrutiny. That is the way Wikipedia works. Avoiding scrutiny is inimicable to Wikipedia norms, and is one of the activities prohibited by WP:SOCK.    Will Beback    talk    21:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Will, I don't see how this is so hard for you to grasp. I feel sorry for you.  Everybody else here seems to "get it".  When JzG opted to come back to the Arch Coal article, while I was blocked/banned, it was FIFTEEN MONTHS after our initial dust-up when the article was created.  Off site, at a place called WikBack.com (I think you're familiar with that defunct forum?) you see, I had pointed out that the edit history showed evidence that JzG hadn't actually re-written from scratch the article about Arch Coal.  JzG on WikBack boasted that he had written the article "ab initio".  As I prepared to show the edit differences that proved he retained elements of my original article, he elected to willfully and deviously use his admin tools to delete from public view the first two edits to "his" article about Arch Coal.  It was a reprehensible action.  And, after I produced my original text and allowed the WikBack community to see how JzG was lying about his claim that his version took nothing from my version, several Wikipedia administrators called out JzG for his affront to Wikipedia's policies and culture of respect for attribution -- but none would revert his sinister cover-up.  I pushed privately to Jimmy Wales that an injustice had been done, and finally after a couple more days of deliberation, Wales restored the original edits, proving to the public that I was the originator of the content that evolved into today's article.  This was important to me, Will, because in dozens of places across the Internet, I had showcased the Arch Coal article as an example of the unfair characterization of it as "corporate spam" and "PR puff" by some of Wikipedia's elite.
 * That's the one hand. Using the terms of the GFDL license attribution requirements to right a gross and deliberate injustice that very nearly went unrecognized and still goes formally unreprimanded.
 * On the other hand, you have my personal decision to, in a few other cases, relax the terms of the GFDL license attribution requirements, because I feel the moral high ground belongs to the preservation of good quality encyclopedic content on Wikipedia (as with Arch Coal), in the face of a vengeful mob that has been shown to delete quality content using as weapons terms like "corporate spam" and "PR puffery". My content.  My choices.
 * If you wish to discuss this topic further, Will, I strongly suggest you do so on a sub-page of your own User space, or out in the Wikipedia project space, because I have grown tired, if not frustrated, trying to educate you on the hard line differences between premeditated revenge against a blocked editor and the expedient preservation of one's creative work. -- Thekohser 02:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your replies. You'll have to excuse me for not having followed your editing career more closely, and so not being in on everything you've done or said here or on Wikback.com, but there's no need to feel sorry for me. I've stayed plenty busy writing and improving content, and dealing with special problems, including serial plagiarists. You've asked to return to this project, a project which does not allow paid editing. I hope your efforts here will further the project towards its own goals. Now that your contributions will all be under your own name I look forward to them.   Will Beback    talk    17:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Will Beback, your claim that "this project [...] does not allow paid editing" is inaccurate. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, WAS 4.250. "Your" correct with "you're" rebuttal of Will Beback.  I note that Will still has not provided links to any main space articles that he has ever created, and I also note that he deals with "serial plagiarists", but I guess "one time in January 2008 plagiarists" do not fall under his jurisdiction. -- Thekohser 23:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The articles that I've written can all be found in the contribution lists of my accounts. It's unfortunate that the names of articles created under contract are being kept private, away from the scrutiny of the community. On the other hand, it maybe just as well since paid editing brings the project into disrepute. Regarding plagiarism, if there are any current examples of it in Wikipedia please let me know. Instances that have already been fixed aren't in need of attention unless it's a address on ongoing problem with a user.   Will Beback    talk    00:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Will, if my paid articles were disclosed, the only thing brought into disrepute would be the illogical obsession against paid editing of factual, encyclopedic content. Until then, "a address on ongoing problem", and keep up the good work.  Also, remember -- opinions are like butt holes; everyone has one, and most of them stink. -- Thekohser 00:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Without endorsing either side in this argument – since quite honestly, I don't really care very much about a single subject in which Will has an interest, and certainly not enough to comment on accuracy – these are the pages to which Will has made the greatest number of changes, and these are all the non-redirect articles Will Beback has created. (The "created" list only includes those created from redlinks, not those where the article replaced an existing redirect.) – iride  scent  00:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Will, as this is getting a bit heated, and one person being possibly hounded about this is unhelpful and inappropriate. If you have more concerns with Greg's actions or views on GFDL, given this is all under the auspices of Arbcom authority, please take this to somewhere for wider review with a fairly balanced introduction in your posting. If Greg ultimately wrote the content in question, and is releasing it freely, that's our only concern. Rather than pursue Greg over old matters, why not just let him start over? Please take this somewhere wider if there are additional concerns that you think need intervention or use of tools from an uninvolved admin. You and I are both involved here, of course, now, so neither of us should use tools in regards to Greg. rootology ( C )( T ) 05:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not heated. Nor am I involved just because I've discussed this issue. I don't see any need to administrative action regarding Thekohser. If there are editors who repeatedly plagiarized information and violated GFDL, then they may need to be reminded of the policies and values of this project. But that's not Thekohser, according to his own remarks.    Will Beback    talk    06:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Will Beback, you are in luck, my friend! I have discovered an entire article on Wikipedia that was plagiarized from a GFDL source, but without proper attribution according to the terms of the GFDL license! You will find that the improper plagiarism took place on July 16, 2007. Note, to satisfy the attribution terms of the GFDL, To re-distribute a text page in any form, provide credit to the authors either by including a) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the page or pages you are re-using, b) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on this website, or c) a list of all authors. I hope you will spend as much time chastizing the editor who failed the terms of the GFDL when he plagiarized content as you have spent here with me. -- Thekohser 01:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Plagiarism requires that you pass off the copied text as your own. Given that Will wrote "move from Cumberland article" in the edit summary, it's obvious that he made no attempt to pass the text off as his own and so your example can't be plagiarism. It's not a violation of the GFDL either. While the source of the text you quoted (the Terms of use) does include a link to the GFDL and a statement that you must agree to the GFDL license, the text you quoted is actually from those Wikipedia terms of use rather than from the GFDL and so, on the basis of the text you quoted, he can only be breaking the Wikipedia terms of use and not the GFDL. He's not breaking the terms of use either though, as the text you quoted is referring to re-distributing text from Wikipedia to outside of Wikipedia. In any case, the edit he made  does include a hyperlink to the page he was re-using; it's the fifth and sixth words in the edit, it says Cumberland, Maryland and it links to the source, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumberland,_Maryland. Ha! (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's great, because the people who copied my GFDL content into Wikipedia never attempted to pass the text off as their own, either. They were using non-meaningful account names that couldn't possibly be attributed to any living individual or entity.  So, it can't be considered plagiarism.  This subject is CLOSED! -- Thekohser 03:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

undelete userspace?
User:Thekohser/monobook.js and User:MyWikiBiz/monobook.js appear to be the only pieces of your userspace which are still deleted. Do you want those undeleted? Feel free to email your response to an admin to avoid affecting your 2:1 ratio. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, they're fine to keep deleted. -- Thekohser 23:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Citation
Hello, I was looking a the Jack Pierce page and noticed you want a citation. In every bio that has ever been wrote or documented, Jack has been known to have a stern personality. All who have worked with him know this. The links provide all the information.

Electric Japan (talk) 01:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So, fix it. It should be trivially easy to construct an in-line citation for something so well documented, no?  I'm not an expert on Pierce, so I chose not to search for and add one myself. -- Thekohser 02:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Beth Littleford
You may find the reference you're looking for [http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sun_sentinel/access/25331239.html?dids=25331239:25331239&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Jan+13%2C+1998&author=TYLER+GRAY+The+Orlando+Sentinel&pub=Sun+Sentinel&edition=&startpage=1.E&desc=SPICE+GIRL+BETH+LITTLEFORD+GRABS+HOLD+OF+ALL+SORTS+OF+STORIES+AS+A+CORRESPONDENT+FOR+COMEDY+CENTRAL%27S+THE+DAILY+SHOW. here] or here. I don't know for sure, because it's paid access. 207.34.229.126 (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

My first name
Since you asked on meta to know my first name I thought the least I could do it point you to my user page where it has been in plain text for a long time. Be warned though, now that you've asked people may say we're lovers ;-). Cheers Brett 16:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC) ( « l | ?romethean ™ | l »   (talk))


 * So, you are the guy behind Portal Hosting, which merged with a wiki farm website, similar to Wikia? I'm curious how you would explain the inherent conflict of interest of you bashing MyWikiBiz (an alternative wiki) at the same time you have a stake in a competing commercial wiki service? -- Thekohser 16:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Do I also have it correct that you have never created a Wikipedia main space article that was not simply a redirect or a move? That's almost shameful, that you would be dictating to me about article ethics, when you have created nothing here (but trouble). Articles I have created here from scratch serve tens of thousands of readers every month. -- Thekohser 16:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Those are quite good questions. Firstly your concerns about a COI between myself and MyWikiBiz is quite moot given that we are not in the same field of biz, your goal is to host a single wiki to provide business a place promotion and business related info. Where as YourWiki, a site where I do unpaid work, is in the business of providing non-commercial users wikis. We are a wiki farm focused on providing the best possible wiki's possible whilst MyWikiBiz is a single wiki with a completely different mission and purpose. One would think if I was COI about anything I would be about Wikia, though this is also moot given that I defended on of their staff's right to a good reputation on meta, as you are all too aware. Secondly, I don't do much work in the article name space as for it is not what I'm best at, I interest my self in the more technical matters of wiki administration such as abuse reports, open proxies and counter vandalism which is just as important as writing articles. On another note I have taken the time to make a mentor page for you and it seems that a user by the name David thinks that you being somewhat uncivil towards me. Whilst I think it could be better described as a teenager testing his parents (or in this case, mentor) and won't act on it, I think that for better public perception you need to be more careful about your choice of words in public forums. Cheers, Brett 17:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC) ( « l | ?romethean ™ | l »   (talk))

Courtesy Notification
Given your recent conduct and confirmation that you knowingly attempted to feud with me, I have made an Arbitration Enforcement thread accordingly and I invite you to participate  « l | ?romethean ™ | l »   (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please comment regarding this, I feel that it would help make any enforcement mo0t if you did as suggested. Thanks  « l | ?romethean ™ | l »   (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Quick question for Thekohser: Would you please clarify if by your apology and willingness to drop the issue if you are truly intending to drop the whole thing and not take this to other forums (as I believe was mentioned earlier)? Thanks. Shell   babelfish 22:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I refuse to be censored in venues not controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation; however, I am all too happy to envision a future where Promethean is forever appearing smaller and smaller in my rear-view mirror. If he can do it, I certainly can.  -- Thekohser 02:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hermann Frommherz
Ah, now you see why I am revisiting my very earliest articles for Wikipedia. Uh, I could plead that my background knowledge pretty much mirrors the info given by the althistory site.... but the crux of debate is reliability of source rather than validity of info, so that's a copout.

Guess I am going to be spending some time revising Herr Frommherz in the near future.

Georgejdorner (talk) 04:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

DVRs
Wouldn't this be the most common search (23 million), or people searching simply for Tivo, which has the brand recognition (and 14 million hits)? I know people could search for the system that push out content over the network with things like DRM controls the like (like a Comcast DVR) but I'm for the life of me can't recall anyone ever talking about a "network DVR" in any context, except in the context of pulling saved video from their Tivos or AppleTVs to their PCs to burn or push to laptops, or in the context of watching something like Netflix streaming on their Xboxes. I'll be honest--most people probably don't even realize that some of the boxes like the Comcast and Cablevision ones don't actually store some of the media locally, but pull it via services like OnDemand, if I understand correctly how they do it myself. rootology ( C )( T ) 20:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, rereading those articles I think we're thinking of different technologies somewhat here. This is actually pretty cool stuff that is tempting me to write it... rootology ( C )( T ) 20:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Root, I don't mean this with any sort of offense, but it doesn't sound like you have a firm grasp on DVRs versus OnDemand, and I would advise that you really ought to read much more about the technologies before you try to unify and expand an article about Network DVR. I'd write the whole thing myself, but as I said, I have a severe conflict of interest, and I'm thinking more in terms of my employer than about Wikipedia.  This is not easy-to-understand technology, and the legal implications are monumental, thanks to complex licensing laws and agreements (at least in the United States). I feel as if I have finally personally experienced the proverbial Wikipedia article that really ought to be left to a panel of experts, but we're shunned away thanks to various COI guidelines around here. (And I'm hardly even an "expert" on this, but I do know more about it than probably 99.5% of other Americans.) -- Thekohser 20:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I usually don't even start work on articles I already know about without drumming up a ton of sources, material, and reading them at length a couple of times, before I'm comnfortable enough to begin pulling them apart and synthesizing them for wp. I'm just thinking of putting it on my todo, since it's so interesting. rootology ( C )( T ) 20:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to tell me if you don't want me to post on your talk page but I've redirected NPVR to Remote storage digital video recorder since I saw nothing of value in the first article that wasn't in Remote storage digital video recorder and they were about the same subject. As for COI, since you're probably as involved in this on a professional level as anyone else would be and as long as you're just adding factual stuff I see no reason why you can't edit it. I'll be happy to copy anything you want into the article if you aren't comfortable editing it yourself but I honestly don't see the problem. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You can post on my Talk page, you Basterd. My concern about authoring a much better article about Network DVR (or whatever we decide to primarily call it) rests not with what's best for Wikipedia, but what is best for my employer. -- Thekohser 01:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Devious, shadowy, and unethical
I just knew that comment would get a response from you -- only not for the reason you gave. Concerning "shadowy", at this point in time, paid editting on Wikipedia has a shadowy reputation: people suspect it exists, but few people actually have direct experience with any of the details. And to get paid content into Wikipedia, one has to be devious -- like Nichalp was, sad to state. And as Bob Dylan once sang, "But to live outside the law, you must be honest" -- many people living inside the law aren't that honest.

No, I expected you to comment about mentioning your name as if you introduced paid editting to Wikipedia, the snake who introduced the apple to Eve. Which was not what I intended, but I didn't know any other way to present the contrast. (And the LaRouchies & Scientologists have been far more of vicious threat than any other group -- unless you were the one who vandalized my Mustang convertible ten years ago. :-) -- llywrch (talk) 04:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Rollover Minutes
Hello, Just for curiosity - do you know if your editing throttle has rollover minutes?

"Mainspace:other throttle: In pursuance of (1), you may edit with a 2:1 ratio of mainspace:other editing. You may not make 'other' edits until your mainspace edits give you the credit to respond. For the purpose of calculating 'other' edits, one comment is one edit."

Was it intended to be a day-to-day throttle?
 * So when you wake up each day at midnight - you start fresh and need to make 2 mainspace edits before you can make 1 "other" edit for that day and any unused "other" edits do not carry over to the next day

Or was it intended that you could rollover your unused "other" edits?
 * So when you make 1000 mainspace edits - you can make 500 other edits any time in the future

Maybe someone could code up a user box widget for your user page that would show your available "other" edits. Example text:
 * "Thekohser has 230 unused non-mainspace edits available for discussing Wikipedia improvements"
 * "Thekohser has 0 unused non-mainspace edits and will not be able to discuss Wikipedia improvements at this time, please check back later"

Uncle uncle uncle 18:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent question, Uncle x 3. Because of how smoothly and non-dramatically the Arbitration Committee interacted with me during our secret private discussions, I have been acting under the assumption that I do have a rollover plan, so that, as long as my mainspace edits are at a ratio of at least 2:1 during my probationary unban, I am free to make edits in non-mainspace space.  I also saw that a provision has been suggested that edits to my own Talk page do not count "against" my mainspace edits.
 * I think the user box widget is an excellent idea. But, I am clueless in such coding tasks, and I doubt there are any good Wikipedians who would be so moved to assist me with such a complicated assignment.  Because I am not carefully tallying my ratio, I do live in constant fear that at any moment, and ArbCom review will swoop down upon me and re-ban me, for tallying at (for example) a ratio of 1.98:1. -- Thekohser 20:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Greg, has it occurred to you that you may be a reincarnation of Franz Kafka? -Pete (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC) (p.s. Don't feel compelled to respond to my offhand remark, lest it drop you into the 1.98 ratio zone!!) -Pete (talk)

Your "Counter-Protest"
I'm not entirely sure what you're doing. From your message on the NODRAMA page, this appears to be some sort of revenge stunt against the ArbCom? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the logic in place here confounds me. What is this "Counter-Protest", how are you enforcing it and why? a little  insignificant  17:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please stop trying to stir up drama on my Talk page. The MAXDRAMA period has not even begun yet! -- Thekohser 18:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is very important that this no-drama movement be given proper attention. Therefore to promote no-drama it is essential to create as much drama about no-drama as possible. Wikipedians at their finest! WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I came here expecting a show. I want my money back. -Pete (talk)

WP:NODRAMA reminder
Thanks for your comments at Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. We appreciate your commitment to "mind the shop" while other Wikipedians are busy working on article content. The non-article areas of Wikipedia are vital for the good of the community, and the work you do there is much appreciated, especially during this campaign while other Wikipedians are busy abstaining from them to work on articles. --Jayron32. talk . say no to drama 22:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Your userbox
Sorry - no non-free images outside of article space. I've made a substitution that seemed appropriate to me, though of course you're welcome to change it to an image you find more suitable (as long as you balance it out with a couple of article edits, of course!). Cheers, Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 00:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Thekohser/MAXDRAMA
User:Thekohser/MAXDRAMA, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Thekohser/MAXDRAMA and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Thekohser/MAXDRAMA during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 00:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively here, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did with this edit to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Thekohser/MAXDRAMA. You may wish to read the introduction to editing for more information about Wikipedia. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 03:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How is a "404 - Not Found" page a "personal attack"? -- Thekohser 03:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He meant . He swapped "diff" for "oldid", so the link didn't work.  MBisanz  talk 04:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have seen some of Thekohsers comments, and I have not seen him to be mean spirited. I would assume that he did not know that the picture on Jeff G's page was a recent picture of Jeff G and was trying to be humorous. Many (probably even most) people have pictures on their user page of someone other than themselves. I think that the picture looks a good bit like Tom Selleck .  When I was in college I knew a guy with a mustache, and although no one made comments about it, I always thought that rude comments would have been mean.  Don't you agree? Uncle uncle uncle  04:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm so confused. Why do people like Greg and Jeff even bother talking to each other, or interacting at all? They seem to be from different planets, and entirely uninterested in learning from one another. What's the point? </rhetorical -Pete (talk)

Delete Review
I don't know where to post this - so I'll post it here and elsewhere. If you read it elsewhere - no need to read it again. I see that in the closed deletion review here

The text states: "The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. "

Why does it say that no further edits should be made to the page, but that subsequent comments should be made in a deletion review? It is already a deletion review - it makes no sense for it to request that future comments go in a deletion review.

I don't know wiki language very well and a heap of editors are taking part in the WP:NODRAMA avent and are therefore unable to work on this for the next couple days. Do you know how to edit the template or whatever the wiki thing is that is adding that confusing text? Uncle uncle uncle 05:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Lemme spare Greg the need to answer this -- a deletion review is distinct, in Wikipedia jargon, from a deletion discussion. A review happens when somebody thinks the initial decision was incorrect, or similar. (Sort of like a court of appeals.) So, basically that note says: this discussion is over, if you have something worth saying, start a new discussion. See WP:DRV for a more complete explanation. -Pete (talk) 05:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Got it - so your third discussion refers to a review type discussion, but the first two discussions refer to discussion type discussion. Uncle uncle uncle 05:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah - now I understand. Prodego said the same thing as Peterforsyth (thank you Peterforsyth). A deletion review is different from a deletion discussion . A deletion discussion would come first and then possibly a deletion review. I was confused because in some cases a review is a discussion but here a review is a discussion, but not the same kind of discussion as the original discussion.  Uncle uncle uncle  05:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikivoices Invite
Hi ,

On behalf of Wikivoices, a community podcast based on the English Wikipedia, I would like to invite you (and all the other Board of Trustees candidates) to a round table interview on Skype to be held at 10:00:00 p.m. Friday July 24, 2009 in UTC. The format of this interview will be question-answer style whereby interested members of the community will pose questions to one or all of the candidates involved. If you would like any further information about the process or Skype, please contact Durova or myself on the English Wikipedia. Please be advised that spaces are limited and the sign up page can be found here. We look forward to your attendence at this event. Cheers  « l | Promethean ™ | l »   (talk) 05:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, I wanted to thankyou for signing up and we look forward to seeing you at the event. Perhaps 24 hour time could have been better but that is a cosmetic thing, as I'm sure all the candidates are smart people :)  « l | ?romethean ™ | l »   (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

revert
Just to explain this I was looking through your contributions and was scrolling down with the wheel in the middle of my mouse and accidentally clicked a rollback link with it. Pzrmd (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just don't let it happen again, you understand? -- Thekohser 02:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're saying that jokingly aren't you? I can never tell. Pzrmd (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know. What do you think? -- Thekohser 13:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I just saw I reverted another edit. When I click things with the scroll wheel it opens it in a new tab which is why I reverted two things without knowing it. Pzrmd (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You are truly testing my patience and my ability to assume good faith. You really expect all of us to believe that your "stalking" and "harassing" me is attributable to a mere scroll wheel?  Harumph! -- Thekohser 19:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to report your incivility if you continue to attack me, you jackass. Pzrmd (talk) 06:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You forgot your "humor tag", Pzrmd. Be well.  Have a great day. This was fun. Good times, good times. -- Thekohser 10:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is so disappointing when people mistake jokes for something else on the internet. Sometimes I think we should have a contest for who is the greatest clown on Wikipedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

SD of Bob Bain
I left a comment when reverting your edits to Bob Bain, saying that you can't blank and redirect the page to a disam page where he doesn't feature. Looking further I see that you are the author, so i have therefore listed the article for speedy deletion (see WP:CSD) as author request. I thought this would be a better alternative, otherwise it would just get confusing. Contact me if your unsure. Thanks Patchy1  Talk To Me! 21:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Signpost interview request
Greg, I invite you to answer a set of questions for the Wikipedia Signpost about your board candidacy: Wikipedia Signpost/2009 Board elections/Gregory Kohs. If you choose to do so, please let me know. I also encourage you to respond by 26 July; interviews with all candidates who respond will be publicized in the 27 July issue of the Signpost.

Faithfully, ragesoss (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary at Sonny Lester
Do you really think the bit about the Boca Raton Historical Society is worth mentioning? It's not even clear from the source if he made a live appearance (or, for that matter, if it's even the same guy!) I assumed you were just making a point about Jimbo's selection for a topic. Your Bob Bain stub was just a stunt, was it not?

If you intended that addition to Sonny Lester as a sincere contribution, then I apologize for not writing more in my edit summary. But I still believe it was a piece of trivia. Zagalejo^^^ 02:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

wikia
I agree with you on the Wikia thing. However, I fear, that for obvious reasons that is not going to happen.  Triplestop  x3  02:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Obvious reasons" to mean, "cult-like fanaticism" that surrounds the Co-Founder and all his ventures, many of which fail miserably? -- Thekohser 02:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think most links to Wikia can be removed anyways as they fail RS and EL policies. However we will see where this goes.  Triplestop  x3  02:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on the matter.  Triplestop  x3  03:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Do yourself a favor
Just unwatch MyWikiBiz and let whatever happens happen. It's not worth getting into quarrels. Jehochman Talk 16:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's funny. I could just as easily tell you, "Just unwatch Wikipedia and let whatever happens happen.  It's not worth getting into quarrels."  You're a card, Jonathan! -- Thekohser 20:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! If I quarrel, I do it about things that don't really matter to me, such as What caused the K-152 Nerpa disaster? Jehochman Talk 21:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Final warning
Fixing typos and bad grammar is fine, but sarcastic edit summaries like this and this need to cease. Consider this your final warning from arbcom.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 22:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

More details on this
A routine review of your edits was carried out on 1 August 2009 by ArbCom. Of your 600 edits since 30 June 2009 (your first day of adding content after your unblock) to date, only 363 have been to article space (371 including deleted edits), therefore failing to meet the 2:1 ratio of article space to other edits.

You pointedly created a BLP article, followed a few hours later by blanking the article with the edit summary "Courtesy deletion and redirect. Musician Bob Bain doesn't deserve to be made vulnerable to nonsense here on Wikipedia, and the article added less to knowledge than the bio source at SpaceAgePop". The article was subsequently speedy deleted.

You have also repeatedly used pointed edit summaries when carrying out wikignoming tasks (examples: "Wikipedia just isn't competant", "Attend this dance, in preparation for MAXDRAMA", "This looks like garbage; however, I'm too lazy to format it into a table without payment opportunity.")

ArbCom is urging you to respect the 2:1 ratio and to avoid repeating any of the above-mentioned problematic edits. Any further occurrence would lead to a re-ban. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 23:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought that writing replies on my Talk page did not count against the 2:1 edit ratio, sort of like the "walk" in baseball. Could you recalculate my ratio, if my edits to my own User and User_talk pages are taken out of the formula?  Thank you, FayssalF. -- Thekohser 02:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thekohser has made 99 edits to Wikipedia or Wikipedia talk spaces. It looks like his ratio is more than 2:1 if you exclude User and User talk contributions.  You can't hold it against him for answering messages on his own talk page. Jehochman Talk 03:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the need to be flexible about this. Thekohser's edits to user talk pages included an extensive discussion of the Mywikibiz article on Flowanda's talk page; suggesting to other English Wikipedia editors that they commment on a complaint of Thekohser's about (inappropriate) editing at Metawiki; and suggesting an editor who announced a wikibreak, and who supported positions against paid editing on the relevant RFC, should remove his wikibreak tag. These are examples of why talk page edits are counting as non-article space edits. Risker (talk) 06:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * @Thekohser, if we exclude edits to your own talk page then you are a little below 2:1 at 64¼% (363 / (600 - 35)). However until we amend the probation as I suggested a while back, edits to your own talk page are included.
 * I put you down as someone who would be fixing BLP problems rather than participating in them. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would echo Jonathan's comment; responding to comments on his talkpage should not be included in any count, since it is beyond the control of Greg on who posts here and not replying may give rise to complaints (to ArbCom or the Noticeboards) about thekohser being unresponsive to legitimate concerns. Further, it will eventually occur to someone that by posting to Greg's talkpage often enough and eliciting responses they will create such a situation that might result in Greg being rebanned... The limitations in place for Greg were devised to limit the potential for disruption by targeting his contributions toward article space, and not for permitting a means by which the unblock/banning conditions may be gamed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. We'll try to revise this. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 15:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just call me Cassandra. – iride  scent  22:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Good luck on your trustee elections

 * Good luck on your trustee elections! i support what you are triyng to do with regards to greate r exceptance of paid advocacy as welll as your desire to professionalize WIkipedia and make it more accessiple to trained experts and professionals in their field. i hope you succeed in your efforts and I Voted for you so that mayne we can work on redeeming Wikipedia as a project that holds itself to higher encyclopediac standards rathern than just drama. Smith Jones 16:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Comcast picture
Why would you remove the image of the Comcast Center without explanation? I would have just reverted it if it wasn't the second time I did it today. Medvedenko (talk) 04:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the picture is an abstract, artistic rendering of the building using HDR imaging that the Wikipedia "community" has determined to cause more confusion and disorientation among readers than it adds to human knowledge about the building. Please, do not re-add the image to Wikipedia.  Feel free to add the image on some other site that does not purport to be an encyclopedia of human knowledge. -- Thekohser 13:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm aside, Greg is right, this image is not a good one to use as one of very few images in that article. A more representational image is a better choice. Do you have a version of the image that doesn't have the artistic effects added that you can share? People want to know what the building actually looks like. ++Lar: t/c 01:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Change does happen
Thekohser, I'm not terribly active on Wikipedia but we have interacted in the past and shared some concerns. I see you're back, albeit under restrictions. Thought you might like to see that change in some of the areas you have been involved in does happen with time: compare Articles for deletion/Silicon Storage Technology with the DRV for Arch Coal. Best wishes, Martinp (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely
This account is blocked indefinitely for using it against the spirit of the unban conditions accepted duly before the recent unban. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  21:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Which facet of the spirit of the unban conditions has Greg violated? If there is private correspondence about this then sobeit, but there doesn't seem to be anything that I am aware of. Further, and it isn't made clear on the wording on this page, is there an allowance for an arbitrator to make such a determination individually (like admins are permitted in certain circumstances) or did there need to be a discussion? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You may read the unban conditions (above) and you may check his contribs to get answers to all questions. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  22:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It was probably the sarcastic edit summaries warned about. Here is an example: "(I love Wikipedia with all my soul, and I pledge allegiance to the ArbCom.)" Ottava Rima (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And reasonable admins won't defend any edit summary that is irrelevant to ActionScript. Web developers and readers would get confused. Do you accept that as an admin? -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  22:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * FayssalF: Could you rephrase that? I have no idea what you just said, apologies. ++Lar: t/c 23:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If it helps, this was the final warning. I'll leave Fayssal to explain what he said. Carcharoth (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * FayssalF is referring to the edit summary used on "ActionScript", which is just one of many. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 00:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, per John. I chose (randomly, seriously - I've not checked any other one) that specific example to show LHVU why an irrelevant and inappropriate edit summary is not a good idea. If you check that diff, you'd see that an IP followed up with another inappropriate one. Total waste of resources and time with such edit summaries (admin intervention, readers confused, etc...) That is totally contradictory to the spirit of the unban conditions. TheKohser was back to help us; not use edit summaries to disrupt and attack. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  00:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If he's cleaning up the articles, what's the harm if he blows off a little steam in the process? Attacking editors in the summaries would be a problem, but he doesn't seem to be doing that. Letting him do this seems to provide a net benefit for the project. (And a COI disclaimer I'd never would have thought I'd have to say: I recently won a $10 from Greg.). JoshuaZ (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok Joshua :) We then have to override all our policies and guidelines and probably get rid of them just for the sake of letting people correct typos and mislead other editors with totally irrelevant edit summaries (wp:point and all that). All this for the name of "making a user happy" and encourage him to continue on that path. He must then at least tell you when he'd start using appropriate edit summaries. I have a question... you were an admin and you know how would you do in case you find someone using irrelevant ES non-stop. Who would care if you'd block them after 2 warnings? What is different between that would-be user and TheKohser? -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  01:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I'm not sure this actually breaks policy. WP:ES isn't policy and even then nothing it says there seems to say you can't do this. I confess that I'm not a perfect expert on policy but I'm not aware of any policy or even guideline that says that edit summaries must be helpful. If they violate CIVIL or NPA that's one thing. But there's no policy WP:NOCRITIZINGWIKIPEDIA, or WP:RANTINGINEDITSUMMARIES or even WP:SARCASM or even WP:WIKIPEDIAIZSERIUSBUZINESS or WP:NOHUMOR. I also don't see anything disruptive in this behavior. If there is an actual policy or guideline he's violating then so be it. If I were an admin today I'd probably ignore it unless I had reason to believe it was doing harm to the project. And I really don't see that right now. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Policy is little relevant here; and I don't believe it should be used to wikilawyer with. This is the story, Joshua. Thekohser was under ArbCom conditional unban -that overrides regular application of a policy; that is the thing which is relevant. He's been warned twice in no less than a month. We've been explicitly crystal clear with him. It should be a slap on the face on the people who assumed total good faith and gave Thekosher a new opportunity.
 * Now, Thekohser might believe that it was his right to come back. That is not a problem although he believes that some people (the community) banned him unfairly. I'd have opposed his ban indeed. But today is 2009 and he is already editing Wikipedia - he's not banned and he was set editing as he promised to do. So why not act as everybody should be acting? It is clear that the edit summary is not the biggest issue; it is the spirit. If admins cannot make that clear difference then we've got a big problem. I rarely do participate in RfAs but admins should be able to have a good judgment and a minimum of wisdom. Thekohser has shown no sign of keeping with his promise. If he's serious enough, he could be doing great edits as every respected editor does. Now, please don't forget WP:NOT. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  01:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm not happy with his behavior. His direct statement that he intended to creat "MOAR DRAMA" during the "dramaout" really didn't endear me to it. If it were my choice he'd probably be still banned. But banning him for some silliness with his edit summaries that a) don't create disruption and b) don't disrupt policy isn't helpful. The question to ask is will allowing him to edit benefit the encyclopedia? I don't know the answer to that, but I know that sarcastic edit summaries aren't going to substantially alter the answer to that question. Frankly, I don't care if Greg's spirit is completely against the project and he intends to edit just out of spite for the users who don't get along with him. Or if he Greg intends to help edit because he believes that when the encyclopedia reaches a certain number of articles the stars will  be right for Cthulhu to rise up out of his watery grave where he sleeps dead but dreaming. The end result needs to be what is best for the encyclopedia. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Joshua, it's been proven that that is disruptive; there's no need for anyone to use irrelevant editing summaries before an IP comes to leave another irrelevant and inappropriate edit summary before an admin needs to intervene and before an editor clicks to see what's going on coming from their watchlist. This is not what the encyclopedia was made for and if we can accept these kind of actions then we'd be fooling ourselves. I believe it is disruptive and we do block for disruptive actions, let alone a unbanned user under restrictions! -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  02:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously nonsensical edit summaries don't take up more time on a watchlist than no edit summaries. (Unless one argues that people will waste the time to read the summaries anyways). Would it hurt to have a policy or guideline against this sort of thing in edit summaries? No. Does it make sense to block someone for that by itself? Not really. In any event, given your more compelling argument below in reply to Lar where you lay out the general pattern that this is an element of, I'm not inclined to argue further about this block. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles should be left for their encyclopedic purpose. I'd seriously have no single problem at all having those edit summaries posted at my talk page. I won't care if I'd receive 100 a day, seriously. Articles should be respected; they are owned by many and co-editors and readers should also be respected! -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  02:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I confess I'm not very keen on the edit summary usage, it's clearly sarcastic rather than a heartfelt sentiment, but it seems rather a picayune matter to block indef over. As does the somewhat questionable math around contribution ratios. I suspect Greg is trying to push the envelope of what is allowed rather than sincerely trying to contribute, but build that case (the edit summary is one example in a series) and build it well, rather than blocking over technicalities. ++Lar: t/c 01:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said above, it is about the spirit (block log says user edits against the spirit of his unban conditions). Anyway, in a nutshell, let's talk about the technicalities:
 * Prior to the ban, ArbCom entered in a good faithed dialogue with Thekosher;
 * Thekohser agrees and accepts duly a set of conditions;
 * Thekohser starts editing in an inappropriate manner that any Wikipedian would be warned for (mainly edit summaries);
 * Thekohser receives no warning;
 * Thekohser goes further and keeps using inappropriate edit summaries;
 * Gets warning from Arbitrator Coren;
 * Thekohser goes on and keeps using inappropriate summaries;
 * Thekohser recreates a deleted WP:BLP;
 * Thekohser gets warned in a very explicit manner;
 * Thekohser goes on and keeps using inappropriate edit summaries;
 * Thekohser gets blocked.
 * So you mix all of the above (in a blender/mixer) and you get the formula: that Thekohser was back to make a point; not to edit the encyclopedia (these are both wp:point and wp:not; these are not wp:redlink). -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  02:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Phrased that way, that's a much more compelling argument. This gives an actual pattern of problematic behavior. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with JoshuaZ, much more compelling when put this way. Thanks. As for those of us who were willing to AGF... I'm willing to be proven wrong from time to time, heck, even MOST of the time... because sometimes when I AGF, it works out. Good trade off. That's not to say I'm not willing to occasionally cut my losses when AGF means being a damfool. ++Lar: t/c 02:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

-- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  03:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've had a look at his contrib list since his unban, and on the whole, clowning comments aside, the content of his edits looked good to me. Thekosher's edits did help "build an encyclopedia," his comments to the contrary only paradoxically affected "the earlier good reputation" of his "original account and real name." However, for whatever that is worth, Thekosher did not violate his civility restriction, and more importantly, at no point did he agree to become a vassal of Arbcom. The Arbcom seems to have acted spuriously in this matter and for the record I do not support this block. Amerique dialectics  05:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fueds... Please check a couple of contribs where his edits seem directed at Wikia's guy in a clear violation of the restriction. As for wp:point, the first edit ever after the unban (outside this talk page) was directed at user:Wizardman. Everyone can dig further for more. Those are clearly not good faithed edits. wp:point was excessively violated. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  10:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you look a bit harder e.g., where he makes a rather childish and offensive pun on my name. It certainly violates his civility restriction. It was also followe a series of retaliatory edits against articles I edited because I reverted one his edits when it came up on my watch list. Justin talk 09:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Shorten the block please - forever is such a long time (we love ya Greg!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.194.14.36 (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (response to FayssalF - I went to bed after posting) I recognise that Greg is a special case, since he is a recently unbanned editor and under restrictions in the manner in which he conducts himself, but... edit summaries as the principle example of an assumption of bad faith? I am in trouble, then (yes, I know ArbCom does not make either policy or precedent), because when I have done my sixth or seventh addition of the words "United States" into some random articles in an evening my edit summary is invariably "counter hickism"... Of course, there are those who post no summary, or deliberately misrepresent their edits, and this does not often form part of the violations they are sanctioned upon. However, as I acknowledge, this is Greg - so I shall now concentrate on the application of indefinite; is the ban reactivated, or is it indefinite as in "to be lifted upon confirmation that concerns are addressed"? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Edit summaries are just part of the problem. I wouldn't block just for edit summaries. As explained above, there are a few other problematic issues which include excessive pointy behavior and persistent feud. The unban deal was clear. And there were enough clear warnings. That said, ArbCom was indeed discussing discounting talk page edits from that ratio (I am still not sure if the whole idea of the ratio is beneficial). I indeed agreed with you up there when brought this point.


 * As for the status of the block I'd say that this is an admin block (no 'ArbCom block' was noted in the log). Therefore, this is not reinstating the ban. He's now indefinitely blocked and not banned. Since this is a special case (ArbCom unban) it is up to ArbCom to pass a motion to enact a ban, keep the status quo (see #ArbCom: Suspension of your community ban), admonish me or admins discussing with me a reduce/unblock possibility. As an admin, I can still accept an unblock but I am not ready to see this scenario gets repeated. There should be an end to all problematic behavior; same as everyone (yourself, me and all the rest of users who don't get into this). Now, you say this is a special case but I say that I make no distinction between users. I certainly would block users for such behavior (you probably would as well). I've asked above but still got two pertinent answers "why should we treat users differently?" and "why can't he just act as the rest of us?". His behavior creates an atmosphere of a battleground which violates the NOT policy. He's indeed very welcome but he should not treat co-editors as inferiors (children, kuntz, etc...). If Wikipedia got problems (a thing no reasonable person would deny) then fix them and we'd thank you for it but doing it at the expense of others (belittling them) is not acceptable. If people are ok with edit summaries like that then at least they should disagree with the pointy behavior. The ball is in Thekohser's camp. If he's really keen to "restore the earlier good reputation of my original account and my real name" then he's welcome and we are ready to help and do our best but what he's been doing up to today is unproductive and doesn't help the reputation he's talking about. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  13:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The point
Okay, what many people above seem to ignore is the obvious - ArbCom allowed Kohs back with restrictions. These restrictions were to guarantee that Kohs's attacks on Wikipedia would not be brought into Wikipedia. These attacks continued. The sarcastic edit summaries is just the final taunting. He knew it was wrong. Everyone here should know it was wrong. He dared ArbCom to block him. That is not the actions of someone who honestly wants to edit. And guess what? ArbCom -did- block him. Kohs asked for it, Kohs got it. That is all there needs to be known. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And to the policy loving people - WP:CIVIL ("Judgmental tone in edit summaries") and WP:POINT. Both were clearly crossed. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a note: inappropriate commentary in edit summaries qualifies as disruptive editing and is a blockable offense. Consider the impact on an ordinary editor with a passion for certain subjects: they check their watchlist and see "the worst article on Wikipedia" as a headline? In what spirit will the ordinary editor now approach the situation? Geez, mayhap they will be defensive and confrontational? Inappropriate use of edit summaries is unacceptable. It poisons the environment and to boot can never be changed. Good block. Franamax (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears he was blocked for repeatedly making mock pledges of loyalty to the ArbCom; if insults were a factor at all, they were no doubt secondary. Everyking (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And who cares that he was making lots of good edits all the while? I mean, writing articles isn't really all that important anyway, is it? No amount of good work can compensate for such a serious political offense! Everyking (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. Making good edits to improve the encyclopedia is fine and dandy. Using the edit summaries to shit on everyone else is not. There is no "me" in "Wikipedia". Kohs is using a software feature to make a deliberate point, he's a smart guy and knows quite well he doesn't have to do that to contribute well. He's sneaking in a maleficent payload with his beneficial edits to the actual article space. IMO, that's deliberate testing of the limits and as such is disruptive. Shall I now make a sarcastic edit summary to prove my point? Franamax (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't feel that I was shit on by his edit summaries&mdash;do you? In any case, if someone is blocked for politically incorrect use of edit summaries while making good edits, it's impossible to argue in favor of the block without arguing that content work is less important than a politically acceptable meta-presentation. Everyking (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an unfair question. Personally, I think you're all a bunch of idiots, so I don't read anything special into edit summaries. ;)
 * More seriously, we're not talking about only the wiki-elite who are well versed in the political intricacies. We're talking about the great unwashed who actually do the writing. They should only and ever read an edit summary which pertains strictly to the content of the article, and "per talk page" is included in that. References to ArbCom in particular, as distinct to references to Arb case rulings, are unproductive and confusing. Is there any dispute that the edit summary should addreass and explain the article edit? Franamax (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Everyking - he disrespected his own edits by connecting them to such edit summaries. If an individual cannot respect his own additions, how can he be expected to respect those of others? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * He likes to be a class clown. I like to be a gadfly.  We all have our quirks, which can be amusing or annoying depending on how you react to them.  Probably the best way to react to them is to try to ignore them, not to get punitive about them and escalate the drama. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dan, if you are saying he is being a class clown then his edits cannot be taken seriously, right? He was allowed back only if he seriously edited. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's possible to wisecrack, joke around, have fun, etc. while still taking the project seriously and contributing in the best way possible. Even if one is the class clown. However, on the face of the evidence available to me at this time, I don't see that as Greg's intent. We can never judge intent with certainty, only outcomes, but the outcome so far of letting Greg back hasn't been uniformly positive. Or even, some would argue, net positive. If Greg truly wanted to redeem himself, this wasn't the way. (that raises the question of whether he did actually truly want to, or whether he should have truly wanted to, given everything, (there's that pesky intent again) but he said he did) ++Lar: t/c 01:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Kohs, we talked a bit. So please, why did you do it? Did you think it would be fun? Testing limits? Honestly didn't care? Thought it was the right thing? I would like to hear something on the matter. You know how to contact me if you don't want to talk about it on Wiki. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ottave Rima. Thekohser is discussing the issue with me in private. You've said your part but I certainly believe that insisting can never be helpful. What you are doing now would probably result in extending feuds and we all know that it was one of the main reasons why Thekohser was blocked for. I personally believe that a better atmosphere is essential. The encyclopedia is built by humans and for humans to work in the better conditions, the atmosphere should be clean. Whoever is not caring about preserving and maintaining cleanliness is not helping build the encyclopedia. Unfortunately, this is the thing that gets ignored by many established users and yet everyone insists that it doesn't matter much or at all. Many established users would argue year after year that what is important is content and yet they arrogantly ignore the fact that you can never produce good content inside a waste container full of garbage. What many of us here do is emptying that garbage and say "I am working... why are you looking at me? don't you see me working? Go to work!". -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  03:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It strikes me that much of the disputed behavior was presented as humor, good-natured, sarcastic or otherwise. Wikipedia is very far from being a sober-minded and scholarly project, but if it were, a good case could be made that edit summaries, since they present the history of the works being created, should be invariably be earnest and serious in character. From this idealistic perspective, Thekohser, like many or even most contributors, has fallen short.
 * That said, I don't agree that highly critical content-focused summaries should be held against anyone. Saying that a work is careless, poorly-reasoned or poorly-written is legitimate scholarly discourse, and perfectly normal. While optimally we will all walk away feeling good about our contributions - and, all other things considered, this is a legitimate aim - I cannot agree that this trumps the value of frank discussion about content. If expert contributions were ever to become the norm, we would see a great deal more of this; its a bad idea to ban people for being rightly critical of content, even scathingly so, on the grounds that to do so is uncivil, or makes its creators feel bad.
 * By all means, work it out among yourselves, but I wonder if we could solve this by agreeing that the Kohser's edit summaries shall be earnest, serious and without humor, sarcasm, or irony, without further stipulating that they must be unduly respectful of low quality content and its creators. If articles look like they were written by someone less than fluent in the language, or who doesn't know what he/she is talking about, this is a much bigger problem than someone pointing that out.
 * We can also observe that summaries such as "I love Wikipedia with all my soul, and I pledge allegiance to the ArbCom" are very unlikely to have been made had not ArbCom been watching and warning him. In this light, the block is as much a violation of WP:POINT ("We are ArbCom, you cannot mock us without consequence!") as the summaries themselves, with the (not trivial) exception that you are not directly disrupting mainspace. However, it's worthwhile to ask if unwarranted scrutiny of Thekohser is creating a problem rather than solving one. Some people react negatively to perceived harassment from what they see as unearned authority; I've a feeling Thekohser is one of those. In such cases, diligent policing provokes the transgressions it means to confront.24.22.141.252 (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

My two cents: I think that the amount of time and energy being spent by members of the Arbitration Committee -- arguably one of the most precious resources of this project -- is tragic. On a personal level, I like Greg, I find his sense of humor rather endearing, and I believe he has a great deal to contribute to this project -- both in content, and in his perspective on the organizational structure of the project. However, after many months of following his relationship with the project, I believe the kind of disruption that continually surrounds his participation is too great a tax on the collaborative environment that is necessary for the project to function. I would not presume to state whether the fault lies more with Greg, with his obsessive detractors, or with any other party; it's simply a bad situation. I hope it can be resolved soon, decisively, and in a way that preserves everybody's dignity. In cases like this, it's unfortunate that decisive action is so uncomfortable in the Wikipedia ethos; however, we have ArbCom for a reason, and one of those reasons is to take decisive action when that's what the community needs. Though I value transparency in big decisions, I would not expect ArbCom to be entirely accountable to the community in a case like this. They have the power to make decisions, and they are not obligated to explain their reasoning in exhaustive detail; ArbCom members are there in large part out of recognition of their good judgment. I don't think the second-guessing of every ArbCom decision relating to this situation is helpful.

Decisive action on Greg's part could also lead to resolution, and I think this is what most everybody would prefer to see. I think at this point, Greg would need to exhibit a strong and sustained effort to demonstrate good faith, and make a personal commitment to avoid becoming the center of attention. -Pete (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you Pete. You make a good point about proper use of resources. It is indeed all too easy for ArbCom to get sucked into resolving petty disputes (I'm referring to other people and cases here), or long-term issues with one or two users, to the detriment of the normal day-to-day end stages of dispute resolution. We do try and stay aware of that and keep going with the other (more important) work, and not get too focused on things like this. It would actually be useful for people to look at the summary of what we did in the first six months and see if we are getting this balance right. The other point is that things like this can draw on the time of editors (an even more valuable resource). How many of the editors above could have better spent their time doing work elsewhere in the encyclopedia? Working out whether to resolve things decisively now, or manage things at a more low-key level, is one of the more difficult judgments to make. Carcharoth (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for detente with Fayssal
I wish to duly note in public that I recognize Fayssal's indefinite block of my account as a severe warning against future "WP:POINT" behavior, and if unblocked soon, I will abide by a self-imposed En-Wikipedia break of 14 days. -- Thekohser 15:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked
Thekohser is unblocked now that he recognizes the mistakes made and that violating wp:point is not something which helps creating a good and friendly atmosphere —something essential to creating good content. I should add that I'll leave it to ArbCom to see if there's a need to review the conditions with him. I'll leave it to their judgment since I am recused as the blocking admin.

Talking about the detente, I've got two chairs for thekohser and anyone who would work with him in a friendly way. Let's insert all the typos into our dolphin's mouth, keep the place clean and relax in front of the river. Be careful with the river's flow though! All comments above are appreciated. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  15:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion
Greg develops a shorthand for edit summaries; (for example) a or + for additions to content, r or - for removal of content, rev for a revert, rw for a rewrite, remv for vandalism removal etc., etc,. (or a variation of same) and only resp in talk edit summaries and sticks to only those abbreviations. This stops the temptation of posting poorly perceived pithiness - it also means that anyone wishing to discuss the content changes can only refer to the article edits, and Greg can make considered replies in return. In turn, this also directs Greg's major contributions toward article editing (I still think that responses to others postings should not be counted for the purposes of the article/non article ratio). Just a suggestion, and I would not want Greg to break his self imposed break - any response can wait until he returns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The guide for using edit summaries is known (it's placed just 26px above the 'save page' button) and most users don't follow any strict guidance but of course he is free to develop any shorthands he might want. However, that is not the real issue. The real issue is being pointy and the BLP incident is an example of what I am talking about. There is also the issue of feuding. That should end.
 * As for the ratio, ArbCom was indeed discussing it while he was busy with the edit summaries. If you note my response to your comment at the warning section you'd see that I agreed with you. I believe ArbCom is discussing all these points and would probably update the restrictions soon or else they would reinstate the ban. As I said, I am recused from participating in taking those decisions. My role is limited to counseling. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  20:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A "shorthand" system on edit summaries might help reduce the temptation to amplify the noting of the actions - typing a quick "add" takes away the likelihood of commenting "add content with intelligible references"; which might be accurate but may lead some souls to wonder if their previous contributions were being ridiculed. I am just trying to provide methods by which Greg may continue to add content without getting diverted over the meanings of his commentary upon same. Since it has been concluded that Greg needs to change some of his methods of interaction, I thought I might try to facilitate some areas. Greg is, of course, very much his own person and will doubtless decide his own method of lessening the chances of being "misunderstood". LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * LHvU, I think you're generally right. Looking back over Greg's edit summ's, he could have used the simple "sp" notation for many of his spelling corrections. Fixing up "Febuary" seems to have finally cracked his noggin, and I can kinda understand that. :) Ending up sitting in a corner chanting the Arbcom mantra was not a good response though. We all know there's a lot of crap in this 'cyclo. Nevertheless, simple changes should have simple edit summaries, so your shorthand is a good idea. For more complex changes, I would prefer to see some explication in the edit summary, just oriented toward the specific change, not towards feelings about the encyclopedia and its writers in general, nor towards Kohs' specific role. I think Greg is pretty much aware of when he is making commentary as opposed to a description of his edit. What he may not be aware of is that repeatedly trawling through some of the sludge he has been trying to fix is bad for the brain, and each new edit should be treated on its own, to the extent that is humanly possible. And if you find youself inserting commentary into article or article-talk edit summaries, it's time to take a walk outside.
 * Side note on space-ratios: if Greg makes 100% of his edits to talk spaces and those edits result in improvements to the content (such as facilitating discussion, digging up sources, suggesting improvements, smoothing out disputes) - I'm just fine with that. Franamax (talk) 01:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Spelling Correction Bot
Hello, there is a spelling correction bot in existence. I don't know why it doesn't correct all the mistakes on the encyclopedia.  

99.150.255.75 (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not a bot; it's the Mac version of AWB, a search-and-replace tool. Anything it does still has to be checked manually - all it 'automates' is highlighting typos and suggesting replacements, same as a normal word-processor spellcheck. – iride  scent  17:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Your work on the 1930's Czech air force
Hi, I'd like to read your dissertation on this topic very much, because I'm Czech and I'm also very interested in our military history between the world wars. Couls you, please, send it to me? My email is at my userpage. Thank you very much --MCermak (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments
Please comment on my talk page, rather than via e-mail. This allows all to see the comments. Thanks, Irbisgreif (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this user is blocked. So they may not be able to comment apart from using e-mail. But I'm not certain. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thekohser is not blocked. He agreed to a self-imposed wikibreak for 14 days starting August 7th. He will not likely be editing Wikipedia until August 21st.  Until then, he'll likely be using e-mail.  I can't speak for him, but that is what I gathered from the threads above with his deal with FayssalF. Ripberger (talk) 07:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

User-conduct RfC
I have deleted the user-conduct RfC that you created regarding Logicist. As a formal matter, it did not satisfy the requirements for a user-conduct RfC, because there is no evidence of two or more users including yourself seeking to resolve a dispute with this editor. See WP:RFC. More broadly, given your own situation and history with the project, I don't believe that you are the best person to raise any issues surrounding this situation. Someone less prone to AGF'ing than I might even characterize it as unnecessary pot-stirring. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * unnecessary pot-stirring ??? !!! How dare you accuse him of behaving in a manner typical of him. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought I was doing something of a favor, to accelerate the process. It's a pretty clear decision that ought to be made, and not allowed to fester -- what is more important on Wikipedia:  the enforcement of community-generated rule systems, or the acceptance of worthwhile content for the encyclopedia?  Brad, I don't know how much more clear I could have made it that I knew I didn't formulate the process correctly, nor did I care enough to continue participation in it.  Your leaving a comment here to me is actually a bit of "pot stirring", if you ask me.  I still respect you, of course, and we'll have a beverage in Philly, I hope. -- Thekohser 02:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it turns out that I have conflicting plans on September 12, so will not be able to make the next Philadelphia meet-up. I am sure our paths will cross on another occasion. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Redirect
I redirected this because it's a personal essay, and not even a good one. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 19:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If I were one of the editors who worked on it, I'd find that comment insulting. Isn't there a  policy on Wikipedia? -- Thekohser 20:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It would need a rewrite from top to bottom, and academic or journalistic sources who actually discuss the issue, not sources picked from here and there to bolster the writer's personal opinion. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin, where there's a blanking of so much content, it seems to me the appropriate and accepted thing to do is to WP:PROD or WP:AFD. I'm not saying I disagree with your opinion, but I believe it's a matter of transparency, and as Greg says respect for the efforts of fellow volunteers, to do things like this according to process. -Pete (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And of course if it IS so obvious and uncontroversial, a WP:SPEEDY is always an option. -Pete (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A redirect is more respectful than a speedy. Look, if some of you want to fix it up, I obviously have no problem with that, but as it stands, it's just someone's personal opinion &mdash; poorly sourced, with material for which no reliable sources could be found i.e. classic OR. But if people are willing to do the work, that's great. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 21:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Pete here. It may not be a great article, but it's hardly Greg soapboxing (at least, I can't exactly see Greg as a disciple of Chomsky), and it's certainly a valid (and referenced) start of an article on a valid topic (and one that's survived for over four years). Anything that's had this much work put into it at least deserves an AFD. – iride  scent  21:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no indication Greg has ever worked on it. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 21:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies, thought your "soapbox" reference was to Greg supporting it because he agreed with it. A full list through the history shows that it's been worked on by literally dozens of people, which IMO makes it even less likely to just be someone's personal opinion. – iride  scent  22:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, then it's a lot of personal opinions joined together. The point is that it doesn't reflect the academic literature on the topic. Example of the problem: "This must be distinguished from objectivity in philosophy (see Objectivity (philosophy)), which describes a statement that is not dependent on one's approval." What does that mean? Source? And so on. Anyway, as I said, if someone's willing to do the work, I'm happy. :) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Although it's moribund (ironically, given that half the people here seem to see themselves as wannabe journalists) it might be worth posting at WP:JOURNALISM to see if anyone fancies cleaning it up. And, in a sentence I never thought I'd say, the people who regularly contribute to Wikinews might be useful. As with all "philosophical concept" articles this is a hard one, as it can't be photographed or measured but undoubtedly exists. You might want to consider asking some of the regulars at another website, particularly Peter Damian, to contribute to this one as well (I know he's banned, but if he wants to put something on an appropriately licensed MWB page I'll take the rap for accuracy-checking and transwikiing it.) – iride  scent  22:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My guess is that if it were up to Peter Damian, he'd redirect it too. Or worse. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin, I don't think anybody's saying that they disagree with your assessment that the article is not very good. (I haven't read it; I simply have no opinion one way or the other.) But the problem is a lack of transparency. It is not a huge transgression or anything like that, but it would be nice if you'd acknowledge the point: Wikipedia has pretty well-established procedures for dealing with articles like this, and you simply substituted your own personal judgment, without so much as a talk page notice, for any number of processes that exist, in part, to promote transparency.
 * Your point about a redirect is a tangent. Of course a redirect is better than outright deletion; and the closing admin for a speedy, a prod, or an AfD would presumably agree and leave a redirect. The end result would be the same, but the community would be respected in the process. -Pete (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

&larr;If it's going to be redirected, it should probably go to Journalism ethics and standards. As previously said, I think it should go through AFD first, though; it's such a significant topic (unscientific test) that it will almost certainly be recreated otherwise. – iride  scent  22:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To add a little more not-science into the mix, it looks like Objectivity (journalism) gets about 5,000 hits/month, while Journalism gets 35,000. I'm surprised they're so close, actually -- I'd think the sub-topic would get far fewer. But regardless, that's a lot of people interested in the topic, and it would certainly be a good collaboration project to create a decent article about it. I'd pitch in where I could. -Pete (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Pete, I think you've misunderstood what a redirect is. It's an edit like any other. It's there in the history for anyone to see, anyone can undo it, the material has not been deleted, and so on.
 * Uh no, I actually have a fairly good idea what a redirect is :) -Pete (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And apart from my credentials, which I don't think should be the point -- if you were to have used one of those processes, it's generally recommended that you do stuff like notify original/recent/major contributors of the nomination, etc. Page blanking without discussion or notification of any kind is something that's generally considered vandalism, and while I understand your intent -- and will likely agree with your assessment once I read through the article -- I simply don't see why anyone, no matter how much excellent work they've done for the project (and I acknowledge and admire all you have done), should ignore perfectly good practices that are well-established. -Pete (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Iridescent, I agree that it's an important topic, which is why I redirected it (not deleted it), until such time as it can be written up properly. It'll take a lot of work to write this well, and access to the scholarly sources. It's not something that can be written on the hoof. People who would never dream of dashing off something about special relativity without being qualified in the area, think it's okay to write articles like this, because they see it as some kind of common knowledge, but it really isn't. That's my only point here. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

An interesting tidbit: at the very bottom of the article, there's a note that its "parent article" (whatever that is) is Journalism ethics and standards. I suspect that "parent article" is something somebody invented, and not an actual part of the Wikipedia taxonomy…at least I've never heard of anything like that (outside of the concept of sub-pages more commonly used in user space, etc.) But it is interesting to note, and if we're going to make a redirect, by whatever process, that may be a better article to point to. (I haven't read that one yet either -- just throwing the idea into the mix.) -Pete (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The objectivity article could be condensed to the size of a short section, using whichever parts are properly sourced, and added to the parent article; then the title could be redirected to that section. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I like that idea. -Pete (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that, if the article on Journalistic objectivity is to be worked on, then someone should add how it can be historically derived from Hazlitt's emphasis on critics and reviewers approaching a work in an objective manner and should analyze a work as a work and not to push a political agenda. His argument was one of the earliest and most famous in the modern period. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done a quick cleanup of the article. A ton more work is needed before it's featured, obviously, but in my view it is at this point a worthwhile article that offers some value to the reader. I'm happy to discuss that in the context of AfD if anyone wants to nominate it; also happy to proceed toward the idea of merging the content into sections of other articles, etc. Hope this work is helpful. -Pete (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good start, Pete. Thanks for doing it. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, and regardless of my comments earlier, thank you for catching it. It really was a mess! -Pete (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

And, if I hadn't reverted Slim, it may never have been noticed. That, despite the fact that Anthony posted a link to the redirect on Foundation-l mailing list, which is what alerted me to it. I guess it all depends on whether you have a skeptical attitude toward Wikipedia or not. -- Thekohser 15:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right Greg, nobody would have ever found that, and some poor kid someplace would have flunked J-school because he missed an important point he might have otherwise found on Wikipedia, if not for your heroic action :) Kudos, and much appreciated. -Pete (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Or might have graduated from J-school because not exposed to that article. :) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Would it be better to redirect the article, then? If so, by all means, be my guest. That would give me unique content for Google juice on the website that I own. -- Thekohser 19:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC) - Hi Greg. The article needs sources that truly reflect the subject-matter. You may find David Brooks. “Objectivity in Journalism.” Imprimis 35, no. 1 (January 2006): 6-7 useful, of which a summary is here.

Brooks claims that there are five principles required for objectivity in journalism:

The Land Surveyor (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Suspension of judgment (or rather, given he says later that judgment is essential, suspend prejudice or pre-judgment.
 * 2) Modesty and control of one's emotions.
 * 3) Generalisation or 'judgment' - take all the facts and form a general conclusion
 * 4) Preparedness to betray friends "for journalists and for most citizens, loyalty to the truth should supplant loyalty to the team."
 * 5) Ignore stereotypes


 * Hello there, Mister Mystery Editor with past interest in logic! Thing is, I don't have a threshold of interest in working on that article.  I'm more inclined to work on other areas, since I suffer from Asparaguser's Syndrome.  Also, I'm not prepared to betray friends in my pursuit of a better free encyclopedia. -- Thekohser 20:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV
Objectivity is under attack on Wikipedia! :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hypnotized
Hello,

In today's Salon, Camille Paglia invokes Bob Welch's song "Hypnotized" when comparing fantasy and reality in planning for the future.  But dreaming in the 1960s and '70s had a spiritual dimension that is long gone in our crassly materialistic and status-driven time. Here's a gorgeous example: Bob Welch's song | "Hypnotized" which appears on Fleetwood Mac's 1973 album "Mystery to Me." (The contemplative young man in this recent video is not Welch.) It's a peyote dream inspired by Carlos Castaneda's fictionalized books: "They say there's a place down in Mexico/ Where a man can fly over mountains and hills/ And he don't need an airplane or some kind of engine/ And he never will." This exhilarating shamanistic vision (wonderfully enhanced by Christine McVie's hymnlike backing vocal) captures the truth-seeking pilgrimages of my generation but also demonstrates the dangerous veering away from mundane social responsibilities. If the left is an incoherent shambles in the U.S., it's partly because the visionaries lost their bearings on drugs, and only the myopic apparatchiks and feather-preening bourgeois liberals are left.

I imagine that she included that section in her column in response to your request on the reward board. Although it did not meet the terms of an "Informative and engaging article" on Wikipedia which would have been worth $15.00 to her, maybe it could qualify for a some of the reward as the column was informative and engaging, it was written within the time limit (prior to September 14th), and it is now present on Wikipedia (above). Perhaps you could sent her $2.00 as her portion of the reward and an explanation why. Uncle uncle uncle 13:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I like your thinking, Uncle Cubed. Maybe I could send Paglia $2.00; or, I could review her Wikipedia article for any libel or defamation -- certainly a $2.00 value! -- Thekohser 13:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sentimental Lady
Hi! Check out this. I've begun working on it maybe I can expand it further into a DYK. I'll try to expand it further it is a start though... Himalayan   18:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK that the song Sentimental Lady, written by Bob Welch which appeared on Fleetwood Mac's 1972 album, Bare Trees, was re-recorded to feature on his 1977 debut album, French Kiss? It is a start class now. How do you want to pay? Himalayan   19:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Aw, is this still viable? You said September 14, but I didn't see your request before!! Himalayan   20:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, it's still viable. The September 14th deadline was only for the small, extra $5 bonus.  I'm afraid that has expired, though. -- Thekohser 20:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Yes I am a huge music fan and musician myself check out Image:Blofeldsguitars.jpg!, well acquainted with Fleetwood Mac's material. I don't writ much though about music articles on wiki, I spend that time listening to the music itself on YouTube! Funnily enough I share the same wide tastes in music as my baby boomer father! Must admit I preferred bands like Allman Brothers around the 1973 period but love Fleetwood Mac. The Hypnotized article is tough to write because it was a B side. Check out Hypnotized (Fleetwood Mac song). Its a start. if you could point me to some good sources I will try to add even more to them. Himalayan   20:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

There is also a live recording of Hypnotized on youtube here. Love the drum rhythm on it. Not as good as the original recording though. Have I met your wishes by starting and writing articles on these that you required? If I could find more solid sources about the songs I'd expand them as much as I could, I'll see if I can find something else about Hypnotized in google books.... Himalayan   21:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I found another source which at least describes the song musically and the jazz influence. They are both now start class articles... Himalayan   21:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Shall I email you my address? I hope you will keep your promise.... Anyway I've finished for the day. I'm sure you'll find the Belfold mansion influence on Hypnotized as interesting anyway, like a haunted mansion eh? Himalayan   21:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I privately e-mailed you, using the E-mail this user function, asking how specifically you would like to receive payment. -- Thekohser 02:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Be sure of what you edit and revert
Dear User,

The last revert you made on Market Research page seems a POV action. How was a link to external site with a model being used by many global firms a "Spam Linking"? What's the definition of Spam per you?? As Wikipedia doesn't work on POV.

I am not reverting your revert but beware of Vandalising pages and edits in future. Your talk page in fact talks volumes about such acts. Don't force editors to report such acts.

Regards, Indian (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear User,


 * I hope the IP user who added comment on my talk page is you. Anyways, the clarification is that Global Solution Delivery System is a model used by almost all outsourcing firms and not a service of a firm in special. So I was in no way "spamming" or advertising any "product or service".


 * Thanks,


 * Indian (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The IP address editor is not me. What you added to the article on Market research was just barely marginally informative to the reader, and the link did not illuminate the point you were trying to add.  Sometimes I think there should just be an "Indian Wikipedia", where the praise and promotion of all things outsourced could be published with reckless abandon.  Mainmahan, I think you might like my website, where I welcome a bit of link spam, and a not insubstantial amount of it from the Indian subcontinent. -- Thekohser 00:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear User,


 * A few things to keep in mind before commenting on and "advertising" useless pages/sites like mywikibiz which are shameful to the tradition & ethics of wikipedia:


 * Your comment on "Indian Wikipedia" is highly objectionable and Racial in nature.


 * Your talk page is full with history of bloackages on different accounts from sockpuppetry to vandalism which talks volumes about the way you work. So I would not even care for threats like this: "Your editing on Marketing research was almost block-worthy". Though I would say: "Try it".


 * Regarding the source page being not in shape. If you run a site (that;s what you call it) you may be knowing that the pages are not static and with CMS like Joomla or others between the time when I read the stuff now it may have changed and its not responsibility of an editor to check on a source every 5 mins.
 * I don't want to wage useless Edit-Wars though I have sources more credible. I guess you would like to run a home-production show on the page and you are welcome to do so.


 * Happy editing. Indian (talk) 09:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Point proven.  -- Thekohser 11:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes your racial outlook is proven beyond doubt. Cheers! Indian (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a racial thing. It's a cultural attitude thing.  There was very little credible from an encyclopedic standpoint about your adding that content and link to InsightsEdge.com that was promotional of the external website in particular and of the industry vertical of outsourcing in general.  Then, as you continue to defend the action by pointing to my past blocks (which I'm confident you barely understand the politics behind) and by claiming that the linked-to website just happened to become "unstatic" overnight, you are further positioning yourself within that cultural attitude I speak of.  If you wish to call me a racist or whatever, that's your prerogative.  It is an uninformed and juvenile opinion, which is reflected in everything you've done here over the past two days. -- Thekohser 14:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Indian/Mainmahan, I am not Thekohser. If I've caused any confusion, I apologize.  I've posted a reply on your talk page. 207.34.229.126 (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Osmund Lewry
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Osmund Lewry, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Logic_Museum/Osmund_Lewry. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * How nifty! An auto-magical copy text analyzer.  I seem to remember some guy named Daniel Brandt who chided Wikipedia a couple of years ago for having so much copyright-violating material in its pages.  I guess that's another net positive outcome thanks to Daniel Brandt.  Anyway, MyWikiBiz.com is my website, so no worries that something has been copied verbatim from there, to here, by me, the owner of the content.  The content has NOTHING to do with an esteemed sockpuppeting scholar of medieval philosophy with the initials "P.D.".  Nothing. -- Thekohser 01:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, careful, Greg, you may find yourself threatening to sue yourself under copyright violation for using material maintained by yourself that is available under a similar copyleft license to that which Wikipedia uses. Mind you, if you need to be blocked for making apparent legal threats to yourself then there may well be a queue of admins available (and don't mention about being cool regarding the possibility - 'cos someone may think that the chilling effect has occurred...) LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the warning, but I'm confident that my attorney, Edward Buckner, Esq., is fully capable of defending my legal position as regards this particular content licensing dispute. I think there's something about "moral duty" over on my website. -- Thekohser 20:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I saw a GFDL license on that page. Is it there incorrectly? Who wrote the article?   Will Beback    talk    21:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You may be referring to this note on the footer of the page: "Some text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)"
 * Note that the word "some" provides a clue that this page may not be readily available under the terms of the GFDL, and then an enterprising person might click the "Copyrights" link and see that it is perfectly clear that Directory space content is not issued under the GFDL. I hope that this has cleared up the confusion for you. When in doubt, don't assume the GFDL applies to all content in wiki format on the Internet! -- Thekohser 21:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that murky clarification. Who actually wrote the article?   Will Beback    talk    22:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The author, of course! -- Thekohser 00:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Omidyar
I hope the foundation is going to use the money in a more meaningful manner than the junk I deleted! SFC9394 (talk) 12:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You
You are the most exciting thing about Wikipedia.Pickle23 (talk) 08:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Pickle23. I have long suspected this about myself, but your outside and unsolicited opinion confirms my hunch. -- Thekohser 15:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Pickle23! You are the most exciting thing about Wikipedia Sir Floyd (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, another adoring fan! Thank you, Floyd.  Who's next now? -- Thekohser 04:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPA
Thekohser, your recent edits have shown a disturbing predilection to settling old scores and embarassing othercontributors. I refer specifically to this edit, in which you go after an old adversary in the edit summary, this throw-away comment, in which you go after a random editor on a totally unrelated talk page, and this thread, which you have been informed multiple times is not en.wiki buisness and which is, in the opinion of two disparate editors, borderline harassment. A condition of your unban was that "You may not engage – in either an initiatory or retaliatory capacity – in any form of feuding, quarreling or personal attack." I believe you are in violation, or near violation of that condition. You were welcomed back to the encyclopedia not to engage in backbiting, but rather to contribute content. Please adhere to the terms of your unban. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for the note!  I disagree with the direction of your assessment, but each to his own.  I'm trying to build a better encyclopedia, and I even wished Angela well in a message to her (which she removed unceremoniously).  Go figure! You'll note that I can counterbalance these complaints that I'm borderline harassing with an English Wikipedia project request on the English Wikipedia, with the fact that MULTIPLE EDITORS have praised me (immediately above). Sorry to have fixed a six-year-old error about a Fortune 100 company's name. I won't do THAT again! -- Thekohser 16:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree fixing errors is a good thing, but why did you feel the need to point out who introduced the error? Nil Einne (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought it was highly fascinating and most coincidental that the article about the company I work for was created by a former Board member of the Wikimedia Foundation, co-founder of Wikia, Inc., and chair of the Wikimedia Advisory Board, with whom I've had informational interactions in the past. I couldn't contain myself.  Sorry if it offended some.  I thought I was highly polite in my note to Angela. -- Thekohser 18:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Userfy Openserving content, please?
Could you please userfy the content and history of this article as it stood prior to the first deletion, December 13, 2006? I would have contacted the original admin, but he has abandoned Wikipedia, disgusted with it. Thanks in advance. -- Thekohser 20:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you nominate me for adminship, I will fail, but I'd accept your nomination for the laughs. Sorry. You might want to try WP:REFUND. Hipocrite (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See also . Hipocrite (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sel also . Hipocrite (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Doh! You just seemed so adminny! Looks like I didn't write that one, though maybe I had posted it on the Reward Board.  I dunno.  No biggie. -- Thekohser 01:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No more mywikibiz transfers?
So, it seems like you are going to have to dual license or take back all of those statements in which you state that Wiki should copy over items from mywikibiz because your articles are superior. I'm sure you could still do that for the bitter irony. ;/ Ottava Rima (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you provide just one "statement" where I implored "Wiki" (do you mean "Wikipedia"?) to copy from MyWikiBiz because of the superiority of the MyWikiBiz articles? -- Thekohser 13:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Here. ;/ But seriously, Did you forget? Ottava Rima (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither of those links support your premise. -- Thekohser 14:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Which premise was that? That you brag about the superiority of mywikibiz? Or that there is a sudden license change enforcement that is rather ridiculous? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Premise: that Gregory Kohs has made "statements in which [he] state[s] that Wiki should copy over items from mywikibiz because [his] articles are superior ."
 * I have bragged about the (at least occasional) superiority of MyWikiBiz in terms of content, policy, culture, and search engine optimization. However, I don't ever once recall advocating that Wikipedia "should" copy over items from MyWikiBiz (other than National Fuel Gas, which was rather an exercise in proving a point that I am capable of writing high-quality encyclopedic content about companies in a NPOV manner (not an exercise in proving that MyWikiBiz articles are superior)) because they are superior articles.  Indeed, I would rather that Wikipedia NOT copy content from MyWikiBiz, as that would lead to Google punishing my site, most likely, for hosting "duplicate content".
 * Ottava, I think you are trying to make a joke, but your premise that I'm going to "have" to dual-license MyWikiBiz, or that I'm going to have to "take back" statements I've never made, is not altogether funny. What I do think is comical is how the Wikimedia Foundation switched licenses on tens of thousands of people who never consented to having their content's license switched, and that's simply something I would never do on MyWikiBiz because I adhere to a higher ethical standard. -- Thekohser 15:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My dear Kohs, your final statement was -my- premise. I was mostly poking fun at all of the hoops people went through to rationalize allowing Peter's stuff to come over just to find out that dual licensing nonsense prohibits it. So really, Peter failed because his content was... too free? not free enough? I can't even tell what the difference is between 3.0 and GFDL to be honest. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Kisses, then. -- Thekohser 19:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI thread
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Den dodge T\C 22:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked
Thekohser, I have indefinitely blocked you for your demonstrated inability to edit and participate within the scope of your unblock restrictions. Following your block in August, your restrictions were reiterated, and you agreed to abide by them, and took two-week wikibreak, presumably to help you refocus on the purpose of your editing. Five weeks later, we again see the same type of behaviours that led to your being blocked in August. Your proposal of a month-long wikibreak is not particularly helpful, given your recent history of falling back into the battlefield mentality so soon after your last wikibreak., Your provisional unblock was made in good faith. I am now revoking that unblock at this time. Risker (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * For clarification, do you refer only to TheKosher's recent accusations against Shoemaker's Holiday about off Wiki (Wikivoices) matters? Or do you refer to something else in addition? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Risker gave a fairly succinct, diff-filled history, so perhaps you can clarify what you are looking for that you're not seeing? -- >David  Shankbone  18:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * David, before responding in such a curt manner, please actually read the diffs above that you refer to. As I asked, was there anything -else- besides the audio discussion. The diffs are clear that they are only to the audio. Furthermore, you are not Risker so please don't pretend to be Risker. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Enough here. If Thekohser requests further information, I will discuss further with him. The rest of you should clear off; if you need to discuss this block, please do so in the WP:ANI thread. Risker (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I need no further information, thank you. Risker's block is predictable, genuine from her perspective, and adds to the overall drama venue that Wikipedia has become.  A block actually liberates me, gives me more options.  Good luck to everyone who still thinks this project is worth their time, effort, and intellect. -- Thekohser 01:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go Thekohser Sir Floyd (talk) 07:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Floyd... but really, you should be happy for me. Out here in the real world there are still people who hold ethical accountability near and dear, and I'll be enjoying that change of standards. -- Thekohser 13:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia
 You're invited to the

Wiki Takes Philadelphia

October 4, 2009

Time: 12 pm

Location: Drexel Quad (33rd and Market) University City, Philadelphia 'RSVP (view/edit this template'')

Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia is a photo scavenger hunt and free content photography contest to be held all around Philadelphia aimed at illustrating Wikipedia articles.

Scheduled for Sunday, October 4, 2009, the check-in location will be at the Drexel University quad (between Chestnut and Market, 33rd and 32nd) at noon, and the ending party and photo uploading (location to be announced) will be at 6 PM. To reach the Drexel quad, walk south from Market Street at 32nd Street into the campus.

'''[http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?hl=en&formkey=dC1OUlVTRUJwempjREg3VkRHUEF1Z3c6MA.. Register your team here]'''

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

My user page
Someone just defaced my User page. Isn't there some civilized way to respect other's hard work, and perhaps cite that the user is blocked, without the utter destruction of the User page? Or, is that part of the "shaming" process and function? -- Thekohser 16:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the shaming process would be a Crat renaming you "Thekohser sucks". You should count your blessings. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, this past weekend, I was the recipient of about 7 or 8 auto-formatted e-mails from various Internet "Web 2.0" sites asking me to confirm my recent request to list  http://FUKMYWIKISHITBIZ.FU  on their sites. It seems that some IP address at 208.96.34.201 was responsible for making these multiple, fraudulent, harassing attempts to unnerve me.  That IP is notorious and geographically resolves to the ServePath LLC host in San Francisco, California (where the Wikimedia Foundation is headquartered).  You do the math. -- Thekohser 18:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have seen other banned users' user pages have the Scarlet Letter at the top of their page while preserving the text below, provided that there's nothing on the user page that is against any of Wikipedia's mercurial policies. I see nothing wrong with restoring your user page to its former glory, but you'll have to keep the Scarlet Letter on the top, unfortunately.  I could do this for you, if you wish.  I haven't been following the details of what happened, however, I see nothing wrong with your user page request. Sad to see this happen to you again. Take care. Ripberger (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'd accept the octagonal Scarlet Letter of shame, if it were followed by my "old" User page content. That way, visitors can scratch their heads and ask, why the heck did such a productive and seemingly professional contributor get blocked from editing? They can then try to figure it out, and (depending on their disposition toward Wikipedia) decide if the block was warranted or bogus. -- Thekohser
 * Done! Ripberger (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * To the contrary, Guy. I always welcome notification of instances of your bumbling about Wikipedia, unable to give up past personal grudges, even taking time away from your multi-million dollar tech projects to scratch through and try to sabotage old articles that serve the needs of at least 300 readers per month.  I'll have no need to sockpuppet a !vote on that AfD, since it's already going 5-1-1 against you.  You've once again proven to me that Wikipedia is primarily a revenge platform, not an encyclopedia of freely licensed knowledge.  Oh, and this will really get your knickers in a twist -- my ancestors were adopted into the Koos family, which then changed the spelling to Kohs, which was already an existing family surname held by Samuel C. Kohs and his relatives.  I'm no more related to Samuel Kohs than I am to Dwight D. Eisenhower.  Now, where did I leave my Troll-B-Gon 2000 device? -- Thekohser 14:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)