User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions with User:EdJohnston. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Difficult editors, re Cladistics

Difficult questions help to clarify everyone's writing processes and thoughts on the topic, leading to things users understand and can utilize (what should be Wikipedia's goal). KP Botany 01:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

MDS antics

Hello Nadav. How would you feel about leaving the articles and talk pages unprotected until the AfD concludes? That would give time for people who are afraid of revealing themselves publically to put in their two cents. One of the recent posters may in fact be the son of the inventor, so he might have helpful information to add. EdJohnston 00:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I don't think this is the place to air grievances (which are bordering on libel! in particular this stuff about the Kuwaiti owner). We have sources for writing an article, and we should just ignore stuff we don't have sources for. We don't need to involve ourselves in arguments between the two parties. Keep in mind this is a multimillion dollar case, and Wikipedia is not a battleground. BTW, I am now writing up the history of the Northlight v. MDSI & MDSA case. I'm basing it mostly off the Federal circuit court opinion [1], with a smattering of the the other sources I found. I want to include more stuff about MDSI, but as you saw, it was mostly French. nadav 00:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear you are trying to write that up. But I do stick to my view that there should be a Talk page consensus for any protection (or an utter breakdown of consensus, which I don't think is the case). You are becoming aware now of the slightly irrational postings that have actually been going on since early March, and they didn't get drastically worse in the last couple of days. Actually this is milder than usual. And, I thought you're the one who wanted to take the high road and defend the article at all costs, in spite of the legal issues. If anonymous posters make libellous charges on the Talk pages, we can always remove them. The concern is that we might allow something false to go into an article, and with all the scrutiny, I don't think we will permit that.

After the AfD is over, I think I will vote for permanent semi-protection of both articles (if we keep both), but not of the Talk pages. And I think we may want to request some blocks at that time. EdJohnston 00:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ed. I left a message on Nadav's page if you want to read it. Thanks for you efforts in this. 65.2.150.213 01:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The talk page semiprotect request was declined anyway. Perhaps I was overly anxious about this stuff. Anyway, Ed, I agree with your proposal. nadav 01:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

French MDS translation

Hello. Thanks for the help offer on the afd. Were the French articles I linked to of any consequence? ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6]). If not, then I definitely will support making MDS International a redirect to an article on the Northpoint court case, since there seems to be nothing in English that mentions the firm outside the scope of that case. nadav 04:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC) And yes if we make it a redirect, then deleting first would be the best way to go about it to get rid of the nasty stuff in the history. nadav 04:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

<Dummy number to make references line up>.
clubic.com article from Sept 2002. A straight interview with Jean-Claude Ducasse. Clubic.com is an on-line technical news magazine, looks to be a reliable source. May be helpful in covering the period from 1986 to 2002 in terms of how the technology evolved. Helpful for the MVDDS article, not so much for MDSI. Not too much on the corporation, but I can study it further if you want.
ns2.01.net article from November 2001. 'Plugged-in Ardeche'. A news article by Alain Steinmann in which he talks to Michel Alonzo, chief of the 'Inforoute' project at MDSI, about an MDS installation in the Ardeche. Appears to be a reliable source.
01net.com article from December 2003. "Le câble « hertzien », une alternative à la TNT". 'Hertzian cable', an alternative to TNT (not sure what TNT is). Fairly informative (but short) article. Discusses MVDDS, USA, the Northpoint situation. This may actually be useful if you decide to go ahead with an article focussed on the Northpoint decision. Since this is a third-party article and not mere corporate press release it's very helpful in explaining the technology used.
clubic.com 27 Feb 2004. "MDS s'ouvre le marché américain pour son hypercâble hertzien" Short but very clear article about the American legal victory and what would happen as a result. They interviewed J-C Ducasse, who was still the CEO at the time. Says that Northpoint's patents were invalidated.
fing.org 20 Jan 2004. Fairly good article about how TV over WADSL actually works. They talk a little about MDS's Ardeche installation.

This information in these sources could actually be more helpful for the MVDDS article, because there's practically nothing there about MDSI as a corporation. EdJohnston 04:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

With the language barrier and all, I am unable to incorporate these texts in any significant way. Perhaps you can help? Also, you can see what I have so far of the MVDDS dispute at User:Nadav1/MVDDS dispute. I think I've covered the Northpoint FCC issue well enough and am now adding the MDS stuff, though it's still very rough and hasn't been wikified. I would love any input you have to offer. nadav 03:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

For general background, here are links to companies partnered with MDSI: [7], [8], [9]. Interestingly, Mr. Al Fawares's company admits the technology belongs to MDSI: [10]. If decision is made to delete, it looks like the fairest move is to delete both MDS America and MDS International and put the relevant content in MVDDS and MVDDS dispute (or whatever that new article will be called). nadav 05:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The number of years of experience that MDSI has seems to vary a lot: 16 operational, 5 design, or 7 operational, 7 design, or 17 operational, 7 design. It looks like most of those partnership pages are copy/pasted marketing blurbs from vendors; it's not clear what the current state of those partnerships is. The SCTV article was written in 2000; it indicates that SCTV Digital is going to begin operations in 2001 [11] whereas they actually began in 2006 [12]. SCTV's system was built using MDS America equipment. Regarding the Al-Fawares listing, I don't know who wrote that. However, the street address it lists is definitely incorrect - I suspect that the address goes back to the beginning of MDS America, when they were just reselling MDSI systems. Since then, MDS America has added more people, such as myself, to do actual R&D.

Regarding notability, MDS America owns 500MHz of spectrum in about 1/3 of the US - 80 or so DMAs. The total bandwidth owned by all the cellular companies in the US is about 150MHz. I think that significant spectrum ownership, in addition to the political side disputes - 3 congressional bills were proposed on this matter [13] , as well as 2 Statements of Administration Policy from the White House [14] - are sufficient for notability. The US market policy activities were exclusively managed by MDS America - Kirk, the CEO, was responsible for the idea.

Bhimaji 11:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Ed, Bhi, Shalom Nadav, I have left you messages before on your talk page Nadav, There is no Mr. al-fawares, AL-Fawares is the holding company of His Excellency. The old Alfawaresholding website is ancient and I have notified the owners to bring it down and change the information to something more accurate. In addition MDS America will be releasing a series of News Releases to clarify this. MDSA does not license anything from MDSI and owns all IP for all systems that it sells. At the time of the writing of the web page referenced above. Al-Fawares was a material owner of MDSI. It is not now. 65.2.150.213 5:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

WHY

some Wiki admin such as NADAV and another (faysaal ?) are removing my answers concerning the attack and Lies of Fabrice member of MDSamerica staff and not the personal attacks against myself

Line of Sight Formula

In my answer to MDSAMERICA Talk about the coverage at 200 km I miss to add the Formula from Wikipedia:

VHF transmission range is a function of transmitter power, receiver sensitivity, and distance to the horizon, since VHF signals propagate under normal conditions as a line-of-sight phenomenon.

An approximation to calculate the line-of-sight horizon distance is:

distance in miles = ${\sqrt {1.5\times A_{f}}}$ where $A_{f}$ is the height of the antenna in feet
distance in kilometres = ${\sqrt {12.7\times A_{m}}}$ where $A_{m}$ is the height of the antenna in metres

89.224.154.130 21:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Re WP:CN

Yep, I'll close some of the discussions, though I would appreciate some help from someone who knows what they're doing, as my time to devote to Wikipedia is quite erratic at the moment. It's a great pity Navou's left, as he was doing a fine job. Moreschi ^Talk 21:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to close a discussion, if anyone gave me the secret method. (If there is a template, I don't know its name). I notice that the nifty discussion-closing box on WP:COI/N isn't all that useful, and archiving (when required) might actually be sufficient. Discussion-closing is obviously useful and necessary at AfD, since archiving never occurs. I don't know how things evolved at WP:CN, though. EdJohnston 22:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Occult excitement at Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn

This info may not come as news to you, since you just semi-protected the page. [15]. EdJohnston 22:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked the five users mentioned on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard indefinitely. -- tariqabjotu 23:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

MLM Watch Juice Plus Articles

Hi Ed. In reply to your coment on my talk page, I don’t see any legitimate reason why the MLMWatch articles[16][17] should not be included, and I think that it would be ill-advised to remove either of these references merely to appease one or two hostile and very vocal editors who have not yet presented any compelling reasons to support their position. The suitability of the MLMW references should instead be judged based on a reasonable and sober judgment of evidence and WP policy.

Regarding the content of the articles:

I could not find any factual inaccuracies in the MLMW Juice Plus article.
The articles were thoroughly referenced and after checking many of them, I found that they quoted/interpreted these references correctly.
It would be a disservice to MLMW to not cite their articles since they were the first to discuss many critical problems with Juice Plus research and promotion. Credit should begiven where credit is due.
In general, the sentiments and conclusions drawn in the MLMW articles were mirrored in comments from other unimpeachable sources which bolsters MLMWs credibility with respect to Juice Plus.

Regarding the source:

MLMW has received widespread praise from impressive sources:[18] Quackwatch has been mentioned in the media, reviews and various journals, as well as receiving several awards and honors.[13][14] In 1998, Quackwatch was recognized by the Journal of the American Medical Association as one of nine "select sites that provide reliable health information and resources."[15] It was also listed as one of three medical sites of U.S. News & World Report's "Best of the Web" in 1999:[16][19]
Citing MLMW as a source does not violate any WP policy.

Regarding criticism of the source:

Importantly, no sources have ever addressed let alone criticized any of the information in the MLMW Juice Plus articles.
Stephen Barrett/Quackwtach have drawn a small amount of general criticism (never in realtion to Juice Plus), but by far, the majority of criticism has originated from Carlos Negrete and Tim Bolen [20][21] who were on the opposing side of court cases against Barrett. Their campaign against Barrett is nothing short of character assassination. It is extremely biased and the websites on which these attacks are being made are amateurish, not NPOV, and would not meet criteria for inclusion on WP. It is ridiculous to suggest that MLMW is a substandard source when the criticism against them comes from sources that are of an obviously lower standard then the source that they are criticizing.
Many of the criticisms of Barrett have been shown to be untrue or grossly misrepresented, and several sources have criticized Bolen's criticism of Quackwatch. Bolen himself has many detractors and it would appear that he is a far more controversial figure than Barrett.[22][23][24][25].
Barrett has published commentary to defend himself against the criticism.[26][27] His defense seems totally reasonable.
At best, the criticism levied against MLMW/Barrett is an extreme minority position. WP policy does not advocate giving equal weight to extreme minority viewpoints.
Any notable criticism of Barrett/Quackwatch is included in the respective WP articles.[28][29] A link to the article on Barrett is included with the citations in the reference list of the WP Juice Plus article, so balanced information on the source is readily available to readers.
Much heated discussion has been devoted to these topics on the the WP article on Stephen Barrett, and the consensus was that Negrete and Bolen are not reliable sources of criticism against Barrett.

I can elaborate on this subject further if necessary, but I don’t think anyone can make a reasonable case as to why any of the MLMWatch references should be deleted. Best wishes. Rhode Island Red 05:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ed: Thanks for the most recent suggestions. I agree that it would be nice if there were more editors defending WP policy on the talk page. There really is no excuse for the policy-violating behavior that has become commonplace among the Juice Plus advocates. At some point, peer-review of the article would be helpful but for now my main concern is that people follow the rules of the talk page as outlined in WP:TPG. Let’s see whether the warnings have any effect. If they do not, I will seek intervention from other editors or admins as you suggested. Julia Havey has, for the second time, removed her posts from the talk page and is requesting from the admins that any mention of her name be removed from WP (her request for complete deletion was refused). She stated that she "hates" WP policy and is “quitting Wiki”. Hopefully, in light of her COI and past history of ignoring policy, she will stand by her comments and refrain from editing the Juice Plus page or contributing to the discussion. Her voluntary withdrawal should alleviate some of the conflicts that have arisen. The other disruptive editors, Citizen Don and TraceyR, who have also repeatedly ignored WP:TPG and several other WP policies, might still be a problem, but let’s wait and see what happens. I am grateful for your counterbalancing presence on the talk page and your repeated efforts to mediate disputes and uphold policy. Rhode Island Red 05:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ed, I believe you are a person of good judgement and I even suggested a peer-review on the Juice Plus talkpage based on your assessment. I know Red's "main concern is that people follow the rules of the talk page" but doesn't it make sense to focus on improving the article? I've only been an editor on Wikipedia for a couple of months and I don't dare to actually edit anything to do with Juice Plus because Red might give me another warning (I've already got two for God knows what) and she'll probably try to get me banned next time. I'm a polite guy too. Somethings up with this page and I'ld really like to hear more of your thoughts about a peer-review or other ways we can get some more opinions and new life into the Juice Plus Page. Thanks.Citizen Don 06:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Citizen Don. I took Juice Plus off my watch list, because I grew tired of the doings there. I'm glad that Elonka has come back to the Talk page. She was helpful in doing a rewrite some time back, and I think she has good judgment. If you think that a peer review would be useful, why not propose it to Elonka? I'm not inclined to rejoin the debate at this time. EdJohnston 13:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The MDS America merge

Hello. I am somewhat unsure about how to hold discussion on the MDS America merge. I want there to be a clear consensus of non-MDSA affiliated editors before I go ahead with it, since I know the company guys will object vocally. I've set up a section for the debate at MVDDS dispute#Straw pole on merging MDS America. I'd appreciate any help you could give, since it seems you also have experience in dealing with COI issues. Thanks, nadav 22:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that MDSA-affiliated editors, who are aware of the legal troubles and the controversy here at Wikipedia, will be willing to give us some slack if we are willing to open up the discussion to their frank opinions, even if we wind up eliminating the article that is dedicated to their company. (We can still provide a redirect for MDS America to somewhere else). Also if we are attentive to getting the story straight as it is known to them. Obviously we can ask them for references for anything controversial. But remember that we shouldn't put anything into the encyclopedia if we are told it is false, even when we don't have a reliable source yet. (WP:BLP and all that). Anyway a merge is not a big deal, unless you are planning to delete the history under the redirect, the way it was done for MDS International. If not, then everything is reversible and no-one should worry much. EdJohnston 22:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt these companies are subject to WP:BLP, and dated sourced statement from reliable sources could hardly be considered libel. I hold by the key tenet of "verifiability, not truth" stated in WP:V. Also, keep in mind that we are not getting the opposing view since Du Casse is unable to express himself in a coherent way. But this is merely philosophical. No, I don't want MDS America deleted, I just want to make sure the merge won't be reverted the next day and that there is consensus. nadav 23:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent communications to us from User:Fabrice10 suggest that 'we have a channel to the top', though he is not the CEO. So we have been given the courtesy of a reply, and I think we should take advantage of it if we have any questions. Just leave a message for him at User_talk:Fabrice10. We are not dealing with a random gang of IPs, we have an actual person we can pose questions to. He has even enabled his email link. J-C Ducasse has been absent from the AfD, and I think he is out of our purview for the moment, since our attempt to engage him in a dialog failed disastrously. EdJohnston 23:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Especially in disputed topics such as this—but really in every Wikipedia article—only material from published, reliable secondary sources can be used (WP:RS). I have not addressed Mr. Fabrice DuCasse because I don't have anything to ask him really, though I am honored that he has offered his services. nadav 00:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You can probably tell I'm starting to get frustrated by this stuff. It will be a large expenditure of effort to open an RfC and/or a request for mediation. My vote at the afd was premised on getting a neutral solution to this whole affair, but now it looks like that's much farther off. nadav 23:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Break #1

Also responded at your Talk page. The question, to merge or not to merge, is not a very big issue so far as I can tell. If anyone can fill in the missing items in my query, Talk:MVDDS_dispute#Information_wanted_about_MDS_America, then I'm more inclined to favor a separate article on MDS America. My concern is only that, when we are done with our work, it will be a strong article that will not trivially succumb to AfD the next time it is looked into. Providing good references would make it a strong article. We can easily ask the supporters of the article to provide the good references. I doubt we will need any mediation; this is typical of the kinds of issues that arise on Talk pages all the time. EdJohnston 23:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any ideological reason against having an MDS America article. In fact, I'm usually a firm believer in wikipedia is not paper. But, as I said at the afd, it annoys me that MDS America article seems to falsely represent the technology as if it was developed by them, not MDSI. Every source I have found says it was developed by MDSI, and even marketed internationally by them (the specific example is SCTV in 2002, quotes from Mr Kirkorian indicate many more places). Thus I eventually supported the delete of MDSI so that instead of both those articles we could have one article which would give all the context and explain everything known about them. I hope we get answers to the questions you raised. As of now, it's hard for me to trust anything in MDS America that isn't in the article I wrote also. nadav 23:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I know that I am not an independent party in this, but I'm going to do my best to clarify at least a bit.

I joined MDS America last year, so I was not around at all when any of this was going on. From my discussions with the people involved, it sounds like the corporate side got as messy and convoluted as the WP editing got.

MDS International existed before MDS America. A Kuwaiti, Sheikh Ali, invested money in MDSi.

MDS America was founded in 2001, and was jointly owned by Sheikh Ali and Jean Claude Ducasse. The primary purpose of the company was to enhance and adapt the systems that Fabrice Ducasse, Jean Claude's son, had developed at MDS International, and sell them in the US MVDDS market.

The emphasis at this point in time was to minimize any distinctions between the two organizations. Both were owned by the same principals, so there was no point in trying to correct press articles that didn't get the distinction correct.

At some point, a dispute arose. Jean Claude posted on Wikipedia that it involved Sheikh Ali - who he said invested $3m in his small company - asking to look at audited accounts. I'm not really sure what the points of contention were. I've been told that Jean Claude started acting irrationally; having seen what his posts here have been like, I think that irrational is a mild way to put it.

The eventual result of the dispute was that Sheikh Ali gave up his stake in MDS International, Jean Claude gave up his stake in MDS International, and Fabrice Ducasse - the inventor of Hypercable - joined MDS America. I believe the court also awarded us a specific patent; I don't recall what it was. The agreement was sealed, and I haven't read it. I'm planning to keep it that way so that I can safely talk about the issues that are public.

I know that in the intervening 6 years, a lot more work has been put in to our systems. I honestly don't know how much, percentage-wise, can be considered to be inherited from MDS International, and how much is new stuff that's been added since.

It probably isn't entirely accurate to describe the system as entirely developed by MDS America, but it is accurate to describe it as developed by people who now work for MDS America.

In terms of confusion, until very recently MDS International had a picture of MDS America's chief engineer working on-site at a project which was claimed to be exclusively built by MDS International. At the time it was built, nobody cared about the distinction.

I hope that this at least clarifies some things. I can ask more senior people about this tomorrow. Bhimaji 01:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Bhimaji, thanks for your response. With regard to the FCC filings, they are extremely numerous, and WP would consider them to be primary sources. So if you are going to the trouble of converting things to PDF, perhaps you could pick one or two that are the most important. EdJohnston 02:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Bhimaji MDSAMERICA LIES

I do not need to answer and to tired you more but if you have an email adress I send you the PDF of My Hypercable patent in France in 1985 !!! Fabrice are 22 years Old and in The French Army please and leave the French army in 2.000 and are retired all said by Bhimaji are false and lies apologise the S. Ali Al Fawares never invest 3 M US$ in MDSi only 1.250 are received83.206.63.250 14:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't post my email address in the open, but you can click on Special:Emailuser/EdJohnston and you will be able to send a text email that way. From there, we will discuss how to exchange a PDF file. EdJohnston 14:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

OK I understand The PDF about MVDDS Hypercable invention and patent 20th anniversary yesterday are now available on the first page www.mds.fr You can see now that the Russian employee of Kirpatrick alias WizardOfwor Mr Bhimaji are also a liard in MDSA staff in various Talk Pages

Why Fayssalf said in French it is speaking with me about the fraud of XINGTECH software ? Fayssalf insert a false text in French 100% lies I nevers said this and never do this: Why the Admin Nadav and Fayssalf remove my answer to Fabrice attacks and lies against me and against the company and are sustainers of Fabrice MDSA staff ?89.224.154.130 18:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thales Bluwan emails on the false XINGTECH.info proxy site made by the MDSA staff are a forgery made by Fabrice and Kirpatrick. Thales BluWan know the full story of MDSA gang from long Time ago before to receive this false WEB Site and the next step and actions are runing on the side of this companies not against us of course !

I've never stated that anybody invested $3m in MDSi. I was not around at the time and haven't seen any documentation about it.

I do see that Jean Claude stated that Sh. Ali invested $3m:

Jean Claude's comments on the MDSA/MDSi dispute

Ed, can you upload the PDF if Jean Claude is willing to allow that? I'd like to take a look at it.

I'm going to avoid getting into a debate with Jean Claude here, I just wanted to point out that these "lies" I'm accused of are things I simply didn't say. Bhimaji 17:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

==I go to the French Court== Now today I just see on your Talk page the full text of what FAYSSALF again are Writing under the name of JeanClauduc ! I never write this and I do not use this name I use the IP adress of the company Why FAYSALLF Lie ?? and make false messages ? This are the copy of what Fayssalf do!!!!: Please Explain this looks dictate from Fabrice MDSA Staff Fayssalf receive money also to make false documents ?

 +  
 + == MDS international == 
 + Bonjour, un investisseur arabe (Sh Ali khalifah al Sabah) a investit 3 millions de $ dans MDSi
il y a quelques années. Un jour il a demandé à voir les comptes de la société.
Comme nous avons refusé que cet arabe prétentieux se mêle de nos affaires, celui-ci a décidé
de nous faire un procès aux USA. Maintenant, ils veulent mettre la décision de justice
à notre encontre sur le site MDS international de Wikipedia
et nous ne sommes pas d'accord. 
+ L'investisseur est également propriétaire de la société MDS america.Toutes ces
personnes sont recherché par la CIA et la DST pour meurtres et détournement de fons. 
+ Concernant le logiciel Xingtech que le site xingtech.info nous accuse
d'avoir piraté, nous n'avons fait que changer le nom pour le commercialiser
sous notre nom. Comme nous sommes une société française,
les américains ne viendrons pas nous chercher et nous poursuivre.
--Jeanclauduc 19:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

89.224.154.130 18:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Missuse of my user name

I have send some informations to Faysallf this back are the last one: I cannot from weeks ago use and sign with jeanClauduc from the IP adress 83.206.63.250 use when I create the account because another IP adress than 83.206.63.250 use jeanClauduc 89.224.134.181 07:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

neo-lachrymose

Re your AfD comment, i just came across: The wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and with the wrong enemy and You forgot Poland. Johnbod 01:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool, but one was uttered by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the other by a President, so that tends to increase their notability. EdJohnston 02:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Admin

Hey Ed, just curious if you would be interested in adminship? I would like to nominate you, I am sure there would be more then a couple happy to conominate as well. You have an extreamly level head and do a lot of work in spots where admin tools might be useful to you, I cant imagine any opposition to your nomination. What do you think? Russeasby 23:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I've wondered about applying, but am waiting till I have a lot more edits before going any further. EdJohnston 02:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been following RFAs for the past month, and from what I have seen I dont think your edit count would be an issue, especially considering the areas you focus in. Editors with less then 2000 edits do tend to get scutinized about such (though I beleive quality vs quantity is what matters) but your beyond that and I doubt your edit count would be an issue. If your unsure, perhaps go through an editor review process. I think you would make a strong candidate personally. Russeasby 03:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed this discussion, and also want to encourage you to apply. You seem very experienced, and I will gladly conominate. nadav 21:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I would support as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I, too, would be very eager to support you, Ed. You're one of the most reasonable editors I've met -- and absolutely diligent about delving into a situation before making a judgment. I don't follow the RfA process, so I hope someone will let me know when it comes up. TimidGuy 19:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Award

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Awarded for your tireless work at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Whitby Public Library

Hi. I'll see what I can do next week regarding a photo of the building & Carnegie library, weather permitting. The main one on the library website is also posted on the article for the architect at Shore Tilbe Irwin + Partners - however, I was once told that because it was taken by a professional photographer, his name had to be displayed prominently. I've been at this for awhile, but I've never done anything photo-related and didn't want to mess with copyrights and such. For what it's worth - I didn't mention this because I wasn't sure it was notable, but one of the partners in the law firm that now occupies the old Carnegie building is Jim Flaherty, the Minister of Finance in the Canadian federal government. Not really related to the subject of the article, just a bit of trivia. As for the awards - to me, the Ontario Library Assoc. award is more prominent, if it's a question of choosing one or the other. It's awarded every three years and there were quite a few submissions. I'm not as familiar with the other award. Finally, I took a few cues from this article when writing the thing, so that's partly why it was the way it was. Thanks. Blotto adrift 01:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate your help in resolving this - great to see the COI tags gone. A few people have pitched in, and the article is definitely better for that. Thanks. Blotto adrift 18:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Evolution

Hi there, EdJohnston. I was wondering if this article might be within your area of expertise? Any comments or suggestions at Wikipedia:Peer review/Evolution/archive1 would be very welcome. Thank you. TimVickers 03:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbuthnot COI

No, KB never responded to the point directly. However I expect that he will mostly follow the requests. Even so I am worried that either he will forget about that concern, especially in regard to adding his websites, or that other editors will push the point to the extent that he feels a need to defend his previous work. Unfortunately that's a possible outcome as KB is engaged in a semi-unrelated Wikipedia dispute. I've also asked one of the other participants in that dispute to avoid editing KB's bio in order to avoid unnecessary conflict. If further problems arise I suppose repeating those requests, or even extending them, would be a convenient remedy and might even work. I'm hoping this won't be a train wreck. -Will Beback ·:· 07:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hamlet's Mill

If you're still interested, I've done some more work (and punted on another two reviews), and moved it into mainspace at Hamlet's Mill. --Gwern (contribs) 20:09 13 May 2007 (GMT)

This is a nice article, and it's very balanced. It's already good enough you might ask for peer review. My only comments from a quick look:

Some of the verbatim quotes could perhaps be summarized
Don't we sometimes actually try to weigh up the opinions? (I forget the exact policy wording)
Is there any more recent commentary? I notice the 2005 republication, so there must still be interest. Perhaps there were also some new reviews. I guess your comment about 'punting' means that you haven't had time to work in that material anyway. What's there is clearly an excellent start. EdJohnston 03:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Mathematics CotW

Hey Ed, I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks--Cronholm144 21:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Photo for WPL

Saw your message to Blotto adrift. I could get the photo of WPL in two weeks because my friends are planning a 'field trip' to Pickering Public Library ( We heard the library is pretty and is worth a trip). I can stop by WPL as it is at the east side of the town P.S. Never realize you are the mediator for conflict of interest. Good work. You deserve your Barnstar of Diligence Gerogia 23:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'd be grateful for anything you could come up with. EdJohnston 23:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Verio

EdJohnston, thanks for your support. Your the only one who offered constructive comments. My sense is because I openly claimed expert knowledge early on in the discussion I became a second class citizen - most Wikipedians are very sensitive about their status, everyone on Wikipedia must be "equal", egalitarian, everyone must have a say ("consensus"). So, when someone like myself has the balls to say I know what I am talking about, I am quickly ostracized. This isn't about me providing sources, I actually removed un-sourced material! Think about that. Russeasby and others are ignoring WP:V for no other reason than to ensure Wikipedia's egalitarian principals are not violated, no one actually commented on the content itself (except yourself) -- it is a fundamental weakness of Wikipedia, egalitarianism trumps all, it ends up creating Frankenstein articles - I could point to other articles where this is manifest. Well, enough manifesto, I'll check back on the article in the future and expect the source tag will still be there, for now it's wasted too much of my time, but I have learned something about the downsides of egalitarianism and Wikipedia, which other people are talking about, so that made it worthwhile. It's also encouraged me to look beyond Wikipedia for new forums where expert knowledge is valued and egalitarianism is not the tyrannical rule. -- Stbalbach 14:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

RSS Specification Link

Why did you revert the RSS spec link? It was changed on May 10 by Acaziz without discussion. Prior to that, it linked to http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification. Jamesdennis 23:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone should edit RSS to make clear that there are two competing versions of the spec. At present, I see that the difference is just glossed over. If you are aware of the history, perhaps you could take care of updating the article to explain this. I actually don't know what the practical difference is between the two competing versions. EdJohnston 00:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The RSS Advisory Board publishes the official spec. The one you linked to is out of date. Jamesdennis 16:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The only source for the RSS Advisory Board being in charge of the spec is the Board itself. Dave Winer claims to have copyrighted the spec, and then he gave the copyright to Harvard University. The Board thinks the spec ought to evolve, and Dave believes it should stay frozen or it will mess up the market. So, it would perhaps be good to write up the two contrasting views and get them in the article. EdJohnston 16:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Winer created the board and recruited John Udell, Brent Simmons, Adam Curry and Rogers Cadenhead to serve on it. He left later on, but the board continued on Harvard and later on its own server. Jamesdennis 18:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you know something about this stuff, are you aware of what changes the Board actually made, that Winer does not yet accept? I know that he wanted all future tweaking to be done using namespaces, but our article says nothing about any of that. Also, we have no info on which vendors accept Winer's theory and which ones are trying to follow the Cadenhead spec. EdJohnston 18:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

MDS case

The case was brought to AN/I. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see on FayssalF Talk page

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:FayssalF#Special_pour_Fayssalf

Messages from JeanClauduc are not from JeanClauduc but from WiZarOfwor alias Kirkpatrick MDSAmerica piracy of Jean-Clauduc user name and the MDSi IP Server Adress.89.224.167.122 21:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC) Copy for you of some more talks in Fayssalf page:

Bhimaji itself said "I am only a new MDSA employee" the case for stole and Breach of Trust are not against MDSA but against fabrice Ducasse MDSA Product manager; if the French court need to expand the case also to Peter Blond of MDSA the sponsor of Fabrice Ducasse or to another guy after running investigations this are court decision but today MDSA business are MDSI Breach of Trust based.This are only for information of right facts not to launch anymore, if admin need to know the right this are easy to send an email to the Gov accountant of MDSi SwordScales 05:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

One thing more user Jeanclauduc are not Jean Claude Ducasse from MDSi same MichAlonz are not Michel Alonzo from France Telecom same Xingtech.info are not Xingtech Real now you have in hands the evidences about that all of this are false and made by MDSamerica staffSwordScales 06:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

EVIDENCE ABOUT MDSA LIES LETTER FROM REAL ( XINGTECH) Litigator You remember some lies an false WeB Real web site and Real Litigator name and adress made by MDSamerica Harold Kirpatrick and the staff Fabrice Ducasse. I send you an abstract copy send to me by REAL Litigator:

De : Lindsey Godfrey [4] Envoyé : mardi 29 mai 2007 19:28 À : Jean-Claude Ducasse Cc : lgodfrey@real.com Objet : FW: Again http://xingtech.info/ and legal@xingtech.info Importance : Haute

M. Ducasse,

RealNetworks, Inc. has no connection whatsoever with the http://xingtech.info/ site. After your previous email was forwarded to me, I emailed xingtech@xingtech.info to ask ............................................

Best regards,

Lindsey Godfrey

Litigation Attorney

RealNetworks, Inc.

Copy from Fayssalf talk page send you by SwordScales 06:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk Harriet Arbuthnot

Hi, I answered your questions here [30] personally I'm not bothered if you add to the notes, but as it is currently a FAC candidate, (not attracting much attention) I would rather any changes still met FA criteria - the Bamford note was a case of new editor (me) reworking an older page - the previous editor (Kittybrewster) liked to refer to Arbuthnot's book by its editors name, I refer to it by her name - I'm not sure who was correct there - but to me it seems logical to attribute a verbatim quote to whoever said it. Regards Giano 18:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image added

I thought you'd like to see this 14:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC) upload. — Athaenara ✉ 18:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This is what persuades me that full protection of Anchor may still be necessary. Do you think we can persuade User:Russeasby to fill out his criterion for which anchors ought to be covered? Perhaps you should be bold and make such a proposal, knowing your fondness for anchor discussions (just kidding). EdJohnston 21:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I can persuade anyone to do anything. Thanks for making me laugh! — Athaenara ✉ 21:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Anna Schmidt BLPN

Thanks for your note on my talk page - entirely appropriate IMO. AvB ÷ talk 09:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Trimmer ISBN

Thanks for looking into that. I expect you saw my request on Keesie's page. Much appreciated. qp10qp 22:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Evolution and complexity

Hi there, you commented on this earlier, so I thought I'd get back to you. Could you have a look at the new section and comment on the talk page as to if this belongs in the article in it's present form? Thanks. TimVickers 22:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

User:cinik's edit warring

Anna Halman AfD and merge proposal

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You wrote on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive245#User:cinik's edit warring that "The proposal to merge this article to Suicide makes no sense." I fully respect your view, but IMHO the community should decide whether you are right or not. You may notice that the discussion has already started, that's why I ask you to restore the templates and to ban User:cinik to edit both the articles in order to prevent him edit warring about the templates.

You wrote: "You complained about User:Cinik removing a message you left on his User Talk". This is another misunderstanding. I complained that he removed it without an edit summary. —Zacheus ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 07:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the Anna Halman article has gradually been getting better, but the edit history shows a lot of disagreement. Since I'm not an administrator, I can't ban anyone from editing the article. The question of whether the article should be merged is one for the editors working on that page to decide. You could propose an article WP:RFC if you wish, but the idea of merging to Suicide seems silly to me personally. It sounds like you are suggesting this idea because you don't approve of the article existing at all. The mention of the Halman case on the BBC web site, and the actions by the Polish Minister of Education, seem to establish notability. Since the article survived an AfD fair and square, it might be better for you to drop the idea for now and go work on something else. Another approach would be to help make the article better, by improving the references. If you actually want to keep the article, but don't like the way he has approached it, you could consider Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston 13:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have strong opinion that Anna Halman have to be merged. It depends on the result of the discussion. I found interesting Eve's opinion to merge it with the List of suicides, but it need not be the final word.

I restore the templates by myself and I ask you to take care if they are removed before the discussion had ended.

I don't see any reason for RfC. I just wish to discuss whether the article should be merged or not. It could not be dicussed when the templates are removed, since no one in that case knows about my proposal.

It sounds like you are suggesting this idea because you don't approve of the article existing at all. I don't think so. There two important facts, which the Wikepedia should provide: She was harrased and she committed a suicide. Other facts about her life are not notable. That's why I search for a proper place where to write about these two important facts. And, I admit, I don't share you idea it should be her own bio.

—Zacheus ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 14:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't yet see any discussion of your proposed merge on Talk:Anna Halman. Also there are a number of contributions to Anna Halman from single-purpose IP accounts beginning with 71.99 that appear to vandalize other articles, for example here. (My guess is that these 71.99.* accounts, because they have no history but are very experienced, are sockpuppets of another editor). If you really want to make a contribution to Wikipedia, it's not clear why you would be continuing to work on this very contentious article, where you don't seem to have any realistic ideas for improvement. Most of the entries in List of suicides are for people who continue to have their own Wikipedia articles, so your 'merge' would not cause the Anna Halman article to disappear anyway. The continuing activities of the 71.99.* editors might be a reason for semi-protection of Anna Halman. EdJohnston 15:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There here is: Talk:Suicide#Anna_Halman_merge. I see 71.99.* proposals for speedy deletion problematic as well and you may semi-protect the article, but this does not constitue a reason for removing of my templates by Cynik and his cronies (-jkb- & Aktron). Maybe there is already time for RfC: do I have a right to discuss merging of a problematic article which survived AfD very close or don't I? In my view I have a right to discuss anything. The templates I included were intended to improve the Wikipedia and this cannot be done without discussion about controversial stuff.

Maybe I am too tough, but I won't accept any controversial changes without discussion. If my idea of merging won't receive any substantial support, I'm going to drop it. But you, as a candidate for a sysop, are obliged to support discussion and not to supress it.

—Zacheus ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 06:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

see Talk:Anna Halman#Discusssion elsewhere, -jkb- 14:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Juice Plus

Ed, as an exemplary NPOV editor who has contributed to the Juice Plus article and discussion, your input on an extremely frustrating issue would be most welcome. Please see the discussion on Adverse Effects [31] at the JP talk page and comment as you see fit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhode Island Red (talk • contribs) 23 May, 2007

I figured that you and Elonka were the leading contributors who were capable of writing a real, balanced article. Now I am sorry to see the two of you butting heads and coming close to 3RR, and I notice you deleting reasonable and not particularly hostile suggestions from your Talk page. I think that, in a situation like this, mediation is not a bad idea. EdJohnston 02:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ed, I hope you had a chance to read my last post on the subject.[32] It summarizes the history clearly. I agree that mediation might be necessary, but as someone who is reasonably close to the content and history, I thought you could weight in on the policy issues at stake. The point of contention is that the section in question was in place prior to the major rewrite and it was agreed, explcityly and tacitly, to reinclude it long ago. It has stood in place for months and now it is being deleted on the basis of one editor's claim that a consensus exists to delete it, which is untrue. I have no objection to discussing the content itself, but I strongly object to one editor deleting content and claiming a consensus which doesn't exist. As to deleting the posts on my talk page, I wasn't aware that it was improper to do so. I read the comments and chose to address the issue on the article talk page rather than engaging in sideline discussions on user pages. I also did not think it worthwhile to respond to one of the users who asked me, while we were in the midst of a content dispute, to stop editing the article (no matter how it was candy-coated). Should I restore them? What is the policy on that? Rhode Island Red 02:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You are the master of your own Talk page. At present, there does not seem to be a cooperative spirit at Talk:Juice Plus, even among the group of editors whose thinking is most similar to yours. If you only work on one article, you may not be aware that a willingness to wheel and deal is found in many areas of the encyclopedia. One does not sense any flexibility at all in your position, and the two items you are most attached to are (in my opinion) not a very big deal in the overall evaluation of Juice Plus. Elonka is, I think, sensing that the article is starting to resemble a legal brief rather than a normal encyclopedia article, and I see her attempting to smooth it out and make it read better. The changes she has in mind are unlikely to send people out to buy Juice Plus by the case, so I think you ought to consider them. EdJohnston 02:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ed, thanks for taking the time to respond. Not to belabor the point, but I simply think that the longstanding AE information that was deleted from the article is noteworthy and relevant and deserves its place in the Research section; you had said as much previously on the discussion page.[ http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Juice_Plus/Archive_3#Adverse_effects] If an editor has issues with specific references, then we should discuss them, and if the verbiage can be improved, we should do so. But unilaterally omitting the whole section seems to cross the line, particularly when an editor claims that a consensus has been reached, when in fact the decision to delete was apparently based on their opinion alone. I am just asking for procedure and policy to be respected. We are working in a virtual vacuum over there at JP. It is basically me and Elonka (who are currently in a dispute) and TraceyR (who wants the entire article deleted). There aren’t many experienced our non-polarized editors contributing at present. Thanks again. Rhode Island Red 03:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you can't get along with the other editors who are there currently. (They compare favorably with people you would run into on other contested pages). You needn't start to insert Juice Plus marketing, but well-intentioned people should be able to negotiate on the presentation of the scientific findings. There are things like article WP:RFCs that you could do, but that gets very legalistic, and at some point you should be looking for allies. Consensus works better when there is a common feeling than when you have to vote on everything. (You need not attempt to have a common feeling with the JP promoters, but having a roaring dispute with Elonka, who should be your ally, seems silly). I noticed that some people were starting to make fun of the Adverse Effects section, and their comments were not totally unfounded. EdJohnston 04:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the edit wars are unfortunate. I'd really rather avoid escalating the situation, as I don't want to have to spend my summer dealing with an RfC or mediation (or even worse, a topic ban at ArbCom). But I feel we're running out of options, unless Red is willing to either back down or agree to mediation. :/ --El on ka 22:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

ISBN-Check

Hi,

I saw that you participated in the discussion of banning ISBN-check. I'd like to to make you attentive on a new tool: on the wikimedia-toolserver there is now IsbnCheckAndFormat. This tool checks ISBNs for correctness, formats ISBNs with dashes in the right positions and converts ISBNs from ISBN-10 to ISBN-13 and vice versa. The tool doesn't use partner-links, but can be configured to use any OPAC you like. Here are examples of usage:

I think it would be a good idea to add this tool to the Booksources page. If you have any questions, contact me at de:Benutzer_Diskussion:°/IsbnCheckAndFormat.

see also: User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough#ISBN-Check —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ISBNpromotion (talk • contribs). 24 May, 2007.

Wittysearch

Hello, regarding your comments - please check the discussion section of Wittysearch, thanks!

Foresight

Replied on my talk p. DGG 19:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

XML syntax highlighting on RSS

Hello Ramir. You recently changed the examples of RSS 1.0 and 2.0 on our RSS page. Could you explain what you did, and how this works? Is this a kind of official highlighting system? Thanks, EdJohnston 22:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they installed a MediaWiki extension for highlighting of computer programming code: see bugzilla:7163. It is as official as wiki syntax is. And if you ask me how this works... well, it works very poorly (hideous colours, no inline option, ignorance of the standard wiki syntax et c.) To use it, just tag the code with <source lang="xml">...</source>, where "xml" could be some other programming/markup language of the many supported by the GeSHi extension. Ramir 09:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Link to my user page

Hi Ed. In this comment you put a link in to my user page. Except it isn't! I'm actually User:SiobhanHansa the user you linked to, User:Siobhan Hansa, is an impostor who got blocked for incivility. I would rather as few people as possible associated me with that user! Would you mind changing the link (or granting me permission to edit your comment)? Thanks -- Siobhan Hansa 20:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed my comment at WT:EL. Curiously, I do agree with you that links to the web site of the company being discussed are reasonable to include AFTER the notability of the company has been established in other ways. Maybe that is too subtle a point to be understood in the current discussion. For Requestion to remove the link, while keeping the company, seems like backwards thinking. If the company is notable enough, then IMHO their link is notable enough as well. But the link alone contributes nothing to their notability. EdJohnston 20:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

citation templates for Georg Cantor

...Hi... I have been plugging away at citations on a userspace workpage link removed OK if we use that instead? Thanks! Ling.Nut 16:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. If I look up any ISBNs should I add them to the page you are drafting? EdJohnston 16:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes please do!! In fact, I'm studying for my PhD prelims and don't have time to devote to that... thanks!! Ling.Nut 16:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 05:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

COI Templates.

Hi, I'm sending you a message because of your involvement with the Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_18#Template:COI_and_Template:COI2 discussion. The result of the TfD was no-consensus, but there was a significant expressed consensus for editing the templates to bring them into line with good practice. Unfortunately this has not happened, and the templates have been left pretty much in the state they were before the TfD. Would you like to assist in bringing these templates in line with good practice? --Barberio 16:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Craig mello.jpg

You stated that this image is distributed under GFDL, where do you get the permission? If it is by email, I think you should transfer the mail to OTRS, otherwise, this image would be deleted. Ask me if you have any questions. Chanueting 15:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This photo was originally posted on Flickr by the photographer, Joerg Muetze. He released the copyright under GFDL in an email to me, which I forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. See [33] for details. I believe that everything was done correctly in February, 2007, though I did not receive any reply from permissions-en. There is not a separate Office for Commons, is there? I still have the mail that I sent to permissions-en. Obviously I could forward a copy of Muetze's original email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Is that step appropriate? EdJohnston 16:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what had happened, but I think you should send the message again (to both two mail address), as it is much better, other wiki need to use it. Chanueting 13:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Juice Plus User Conduct RfC

As a long time participant on the Juice Plus page, your input on the current Juice Plus user conduct RfC[34] would be valuable. Rhode Island Red 21:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Though I am reluctant to do anything that might be described as canvassing, since RIR commented, I'll agree with him (her? Rhode, I really wish you'd clarify gender so I knew which pronoun to use!). Anyway, yes, Ed, I'd very much like to see you participate in the RfC as well. --El on ka 21:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No complaint about canvassing from me; I think both of you are 100% in order. My concern is that I see no evolution of the dialog. The RFC has already become so large and opaque that I think some participants are misjudging what others have said. It's nowhere near as good a dialog as a typical AfD debate. It makes me wonder if an article RFC might have had better results. The underlying issue is not whether Red is a bad person, but that the article is making no progress due to the edit war. I previously had some luck with the William G. Tifft article, where I was one of a committee of three that was appointed by the other editors to produce a new draft. Last time something like that happened with JP was that Elonka was the one charged with making a new draft, and I think that turned out well. If someone, or some committee, could be charge with that role at Juice Plus that first thing they'd have to do is take some straw polls on certain issues. Also they might want to find out what's really bugging the JP proponents, to see if there could be a kernel of truth in their claim that the article is unnecessarily negative. EdJohnston 22:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please comment on proposed article:link list for V&A Museum

Hello ... With my assistance, VAwebteam (talk · contribs) has completed their first assignment on User:VAwebteam/To do list for the 50+ proposed article:link pairs following the reverts and the discussion at WP:COI/N#Victoria and Albert Museum (2) ... I have been in contact with VAwebteam by email, and this turns out to be rather low on their list of priorities, so they'll only be working on it once or twice a week.

The first assignment was to recover the links and create a subsection for each proposed article:link pair, to make it easier to evaluate and comment on each one ... I have archived the version of the project page as of yesterday on the talk page for the project, so that the second assignment has a clean slate without the clutter of previous comments.

The second assignment is to examine both the article and the V&A page to make a decision, as described in the introduction to the list ... with the help of other experienced editors, 14 of them have already been dealt with, either as rejected, or as acceptable and integrated into the article, either as a citation or in the External link(s) section of the article.

While VAwebteam works from the top down, I have been working from the bottom up, and suggest that you do the same ... the project page User:VAwebteam/To do list now has two sections:

Second assignment for VAwebteam - these 45 are the the ones that need to be evaluated ... the ones that have the article linked in the section header still contain the "raw" link, i.e, the {{cite web}} boilerplate has not been applied yet, and that is part of VAwebteam's second assignment ... when you have time, please work from the bottom up in this section and add your comments.

Reviewed article:link proposals - these 14 have been dealt with already, with a "†" to indicate "integrated", and "‡" to indicate rejected ... you may review them, but I don't think that you'll need to make any comments ... when consensus is reached on an article:link proposal from the previous section, I will move it to this section with the appropriate dagger to flag it.

Thanks in advance for your help ... Happy Editing! —72.75.70.147 (talk · contribs) 09:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Dekker Dreyer

Thanks Ed. I was trying to not touch this article as being controversial, but since nobody stepped up to the task... if links or better print sources (page numbers, etc) do not show up, I will delete them from the article. Do you mind posting your comment to the article's talk page? Looks like the article creator has a strong sense of ownership and this way I can track the changes better. Stellatomailing 19:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Admin

I should nominate you to be an admin. You know about as much about the arcane workings of Wiki than anyone I know. Besides, you are pretty civil (although I don't think civility should be a fundamental requirement to be an admin). Just a thought for you. Orangemarlin 21:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the good words! Adminship looks to me like a mixed blessing, at the moment. EdJohnston 22:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Get abused regularly. No one gives you a hug. Trolls complain. POV warriors will ANI and RfA you to death. And not get paid! But then again, the project lives and dies with these guys. And I'd think you'd make a good one. Just tell me when you do, and I'll be there to vote early and vote often. Orangemarlin 22:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Karmichael Hunt

Could you copyedit Karmichael Hunt

It would be much appreciated.

^Special_Windler 04:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks

Hi, thanks for that AfD link fix at Talk:Peter L. Hurd, much appreciated. Pete.Hurd 03:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment on McCarthy Discussion page

Ed, would you please comment on the cause of death discussion at [35]? I would appreciate your input. Thank you. Jtpaladin 17:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Lately the issues on the Joseph McCarthy page seem to be coming down to fine points and judgment calls. I'm not prepared to become a regular contributor there, and it looks like some reading would be needed. It might be good if you summarized on the Talk page a bunch of areas where you think the article is out of balance, so people could see if they agree with your general direction. Also you could put these changes in order of importance. EdJohnston 18:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Tokenizer - Speedy Deletion - Blatant Advertising.

The "Tokenizer" page was deleted due to Blatant advertising (CSD G11), thanks. I'd like to restore it partially, it is linked from some categories such as list of search engines (which should not be deleted from Wikipedia). Any external links such as press release articles from untrusted sources should not be restored. Thanks Funtick 17:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem was that the article had no reliable sources at all. Are you aware of any press coverage that Tokenizer has received? Unless you can make a case based on published third-party sources that Tokenizer is notable, I don't see how it deserves to have an article under our policies. The rule over at List of search engines is that to be included in that list, each entry must have its own Wikipedia article. EdJohnston 18:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That is not true. The page was removed right after I added a link to an article published by PRWeb, currently roving around the web including Yahoo news and etc. This article has blatant title "New Robot Grabs ..." [article at PRWeb]. I wrote this article, and PRWeb published it after strict editorial review.

Funtick 22:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If the article on PRWeb was written by you, that would hardly count as an independent evaluation of your technology. See Wikipedia:Independent_sources. EdJohnston 22:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I partially agree: the article is mine, but not the technology. This is another article: [independent evaluation].Funtick 22:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately it looks like blog. Anyway there is a page [Tokenizer], it is a term from programming world.Funtick 22:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

DRV things

Hi,

I have restored the redirect and the talk page. I don't see much need to annotate the RfD; redirects change all the time, and anyone who examines "The 27 Club" will now easily see that its target exists. As for talk pages, I don't routine restore them after DRVs, because -- more often than not -- they are filled with irrelevancies. I'm happy to restore upon request, though. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 14:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree that updating the RfD seems unnecessary. EdJohnston 14:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

VB

Thanks for your e-mail. I've restored 1 revision, attributed to Dandelion1, and placed it at User:EdJohnston/VB. Particularly if you rewrite it fairly thoroughly, I think I'm OK with this from a GFDL standpoint, since it looks like Dandelion1 wrote the content anyway (obviously the edit summary there is nonsense but there's nothing to be done about that). My advice would be to move it back to article space when it's ready, and let the ordinary processes--WP:RFPP if it needs protection and of course WP:COIN as before--do their work. At the moment, it would seem that Vincent is not community-banned, but if things continue as they were before that seems inevitable. The ball's in your court now--best of luck. Chick Bowen 22:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If you think GFDL could be a problem, would you consider listing the full edit history of the deleted revisions, in whatever form is convenient, and either send it as an email or add it in text form to User_talk:EdJohnston/VB? (Mostly need the contributor names). I know that the French Wikipedia has a tool that makes a listing of the top five contributors to an article, and takes that as protection against any GFDL challenges. EdJohnston 23:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Done, minus a couple edit summaries. Chick Bowen 23:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's perfect! EdJohnston 23:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Now I've moved it to User talk:EdJohnston/VB. :) Chick Bowen 23:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I left a message for User:Kernel Saunters, the one who suggested at WP:AN#Vincent_Bethell that the article should be reinstated, asking for his input. EdJohnston 02:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Adriano da Gama Kury

Hi. Thanks for the info on the deleted article. I'll try to see if I can reshape it citing adequate sources. Cheers. Vae victis 09:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

John Duran

You're right. As the author didn't seem to be improving the article, I've moved it into his userspace at User:Bruce12/John Duran. Hopefully he'll work on it there. Walton^talk 14:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comment would be appreciated

At the stub Genealogia deorum gentilium I just made an article from. Please edit to make any improvements you can see or give me some suggestions on the article Talk Page. Thanks.--Doug ^talk 22:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Search Engine Talk Page

Hi there, I noticed that you added my signature to an unsigned comment I left on the Search Engine talk page regarding wether or not we should add Powerset to the list of search engines. I'm curious why... is leaving unsigned comments considered frowned upon? --Searchmaven 16:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

When there is no signature at the end of a comment, it makes it hard to see where one comment ends and another begins, so the conversation cannot be followed. It is accepted that other editors can use the {{unsigned}} template to fix up others' comments. If you accidentally leave a comment unsigned, it is fine to go back later, remove all traces of the 'unsigned' template and replace it with your normal signature. EdJohnston

Cut and Paste move

Hi, Could I ask your advice on how a cut and paste page move can be rectified? Alan West has been renamed using this method only the page history is now lost? Kernel Saunters 17:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kernel Saunters. The page history is still there under the redirect. I'm not an administrator, but I think I did what is necessary, since I placed {{db-histmerge}} on the new article. This puts it the cut-and-paste page in the speedy deletion queue, so an admin will fix it and sort out the history. EdJohnston 18:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with this one ! Kernel Saunters 10:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfB

Thank you, EdJohnston, for participating in my RfB, which ended unsuccessfully with a final tally of (80/22/3).
I shall continue to work on behalf of the community's interests and improve according to your suggestions.
Most sincere regards, Hús ö nd 23:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Obrigado, EdJohnston, por participares no meu RfB, que terminou sem sucesso com um resultado final de (80/22/3).
Continuarei a trabalhar em prol dos interesses da comunidade e a melhorar segundo vossas sugestões. Calorosos cumprimentos, Hús ö nd 23:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks • Obrigado • Gracias • Merci • Danke • Спасибо • Tack • Kiitos
Esker • Köszönöm • Takk • Grazie • Hvala • ありがとう • 謝謝 • 谢谢

Thank you!

Thanks in part to your support, I am Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to live up to your confidence and kind words. Andre (talk) 09:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Frank Moore

I made a comment on the discussion, I'm confused. Corvus cornix 03:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Kirk Kirkpatrick

Isn't there a Wikipedia policy against a self-written biography? User:Macrhino is clearly Kirk Kirkpatrick based on a review of his userboxes compared with the information in the bio. Might want to suggest that he beef up his user pages and delete the vanity page. Andy 07:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's true you shouldn't write your own. If you go ahead and do it anyway, it is not obviously deletable, though people have the right to complain. The present article is not that bad, though a bit self-promotional. Do you want to try your hand at rewriting it? EdJohnston 19:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Unruh's Interferometer

What would it take for me to initiate the AfD route? Thanks PhysPhD 19:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Not needed. Danko Georgiev responded to the original WP:COIN posting, and implied that he would not object if we want to delete it. I added the prod banner to Unruh's interferometer yesterday and it's still up there. EdJohnston 19:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Twentysomething (disambig)

Thanks for your support of this deletion. I tried for a speedy delete back in April (see history) but was told to use RFD. Seems it's regarded as a "REDIRECT" even though it has the word (disambig) in the title. Regards, JohnI 18:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I read somewhere that using the explicit speedy templates (the ones listed at the bottom of WP:CSD) is a better idea. Your original reason was also a G6 but it didn't include the special wording that {{db-move}} generates: removing a disambig page that only points at a single article. You used {{deletebecause}} originally. In any case I doubt that there will be much opposition to your current nomination. EdJohnston 18:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try db-move in future. JohnI 18:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Airvana

will you please tell me if Airvana can now be deleted. If not what more is needed for that. Why cann't it be speedy deleted. gapal... 18:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand that the company exceeded $100 million in revenue in 2005, and it gets 171,000 Google hits. I am confident it will satisfy WP:CORP, the criterion for sufficient notability for us to have an article on it. So I changed my vote to 'Keep' in the AfD debate. Please let me know if you see any inaccuracies in the present article. EdJohnston 19:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Initially when i wrote the article Airvana on wiki. I get an advise from the company not to write anything about the company on the internet as it is against the company's copyright. gapal... 12:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Not clear what you mean. Others can write about the company and they have no say in the matter. As their employee, I guess you need to follow their wishes. However, if the material itself does not violate copyright, Wikipedia has the right to maintain an article on them. Naturally we want it to be correct and balanced, so if you see any actual wrong statements, please point to them. EdJohnston 14:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Zona Norte

I apologise, I was staffing at a Boy Scout Camp at the Time you left me the message. I have seen the rewrite, and If I was here I would've removed the AfD tag. Before it just looked like trash, but he did a nice cleanup.

Stealthrabbit ^{Say it, baby, say it!} 19:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Swami Shankarananda Saraswati

Hello EdJohnston, you have commented on an article I created and suggested it is a candidate for deletion. I have followed up on your comments regarding press coverage and included references to a number of externally verifiable articles featuring the subject that have appeared in mainstream newspaper and radio. I invite you to reconsider your position on the article, based on these new references. Yogidude 01:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to reconsider and update your position on this. If you are interested I could email you the articles that are referenced in The Age. Because as you correctly point out, they are not available for free, and making the full text available on Wikipedia would constitute a copyright breach. Yogidude 12:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)