The Complete and Unabridged Edition of the Archives This is the complete talk page archives. Warning: This page is very large, and may take time to load. This is an archived talk page. Please go to User talk:Flcelloguy to leave Flcelloguy a message. Thanks!
ARCHIVE 01: From the Beginnings to Adminship Messages 1-76, dating from May 2005 to August 2005 This is an archived talk page. Please go to User talk:Flcelloguy to leave Flcelloguy a message. Thanks!
Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --JYolkowski // talk23:24, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
hallo Flcelloguy - my students exercised as oceanographers, taking code from my space preparing for a German demonstration project on virtual university, the idea of Erik Moeller (user:eloquence) of the Wikiversity for online e-teaching and e-research and I offered my cooperation as teacher and my interactive virtual microscope for a course in Meeresbiologie and Biologie der Antarktis - for that project it is important to have reproducible credentials for the teachers. We also plan to move educational content from expensive university servers to the free project (in Germany we don't even have tuition in the University) - I really don't care if I am sysop or not, I have that all behind me (it would have been nice if the yearslong punishment (without vote!) would have been over, for political reasons and fundraising for the cyber university) we try to help the NeXT generation - best greetings and keep up with the fine work UK Uwe Kils 21:59, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
thank you for your time and friendly words - we are used to work in groups (schooling) -
thank you very much, that is very nice of you Uwe Kils 20:59, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Flcelloguy! I don't quite understand what you mean by "other side". An RfA is not a question of sides. It's a question of making up your mind whether you want to vote yes or no. "Yes" means that you trust the user not to misuse his admin powers, and for many voters it also means that they think the person will indeed use its admin abilities, i.e. that the new admin will also be active and not screw up badly, i.e. that he knows the rules well enough. If you feel confident to vote "yes", then by all means do so: it's your vote. If you want to dig up the whole old story, just read the links given in the current RfA, including the old RfA; they sum it up pretty well. If you want to know why other people voted the way they did, you might get more answers if you asked them directly on their talk pages. If you want a slightly fuller explanation of my "no" vote, check my talk page, where I felt I should explain it to Kils himself. Lupo19:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you deleted that table on your userpage. You may be interested in Help:Tables which shows how to code tables using wikiformat instead of HTML. Also you could put it on a subpage like User:Flcelloguy/Team to save room on your main userpage. Happy editing! Mgm|(talk) 21:09, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
No problem about not beating me to it, although I am honoured that you considered it. Thanks also for your comments on my RfA! JYolkowski // talk02:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your understanding and Neutral vote. As for Dnm's comments, my reporting the vandalism had caught out another participant - his friend, David 5000 - and so he understandably acted against me. The extra two articles Dnm mentioned were also reported, by me, at the same time. Just to clear it up if it were to concern you. Hedley23:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, not a cellist, though I used to play viola at one point. It wasn't a strength of mine. And very happy that someone else is adding to and even more importantly bluelinking the list!...
By the way, note Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Pieces of music : this is meant, mostly to create a uniform naming convention (for instance for [[Cello Concerto No. 1 (composername)]]... of course, I would then go and write Violoncello concerto (article) and Violoncello concerti (category). Bother.) and also to reduce possible ambiguities, unlikely here of course. Possibly move the contents to Élégie (Fauré) or something similar and then have the original redirect there? Admittedly it's somewhat unlikely more than one Élégie is someone's opus 24, but maybe not that unlikely. (More convincing that it's unlikely that two pieces worth including in an encyclopedia both do, but that's something else.)
(One of Rodrigo's two cello concertos is on later this evening, will be good to hear webcast.) Thanks again for the note! Schissel : bowl listen 00:43, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for voting on my RFA. Have some pie! I was pleasantly surprised by the sheer number of supporters (including several people that usually disagree with my opinion). I shall do my best with the proverbial mop. Yours, Radiant_>|< 08:19, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
To answer the question about Cello sonata and etc. - following the lead of User:RobertG who did the same for Piano concerto and List of compositions for piano and orchestra, I split the list of cello sonatas from the page Cello sonata in hopes that the page Cello sonata can more easily become more than a list (there are historical questions, questions of instrumental balance, ... that aren't being covered; and I was adding more to the list than anyone else of course. I didn't strictly start Cello sonata but it's true there wasn't much there when I found it, not even counting the list.)
As to the RfA - I gratefully accept (not without trepidation :) )! Schissel : bowl listen 23:48, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
I changed the three points, I just do not know what more to write about the eye, nothing is known, I just thought it would be nice to share the beauty of the structure with others, just click on the eye three times Uwe Kils 15:39, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
I would like to express my thanks to everybody helping in the nomination of Antarctic krill. I think 3 1/2 supports and a long long discussion are an unexpected and great outcome for a critter so remote and unknown - you should see how little and poor Antarctic krill is represented in Encarta and Britannica - this is the best reviewed and resourced general article of krill we know of - it is impossible to fullfill all wishes at the same time - this is what we did with our all product peer review stamp to qualify this stage of the article for academic exercises, especially for our dreams of a Virtual university within Wikiversity - good luck to you all Uwe Kils 21:48, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Belatedly, thank you very much indeed for the nomination and statement! Schissel : bowl listen 23:39, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
And having just noticed the Barnstar *blink, blush and bow* I shall endeavor to be worthy of it. I appreciate it. Schissel : bowl listen 23:45, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Flcelloguy. Did you recently change your signature? It seems to be missing a closing </small> tag. Happy editing, --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Flcelloguy, I would like to collaborate with you on working with the JPII article. Please leave me a note on my page... Thanks! --SVera1NY 01:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for changing your comment to support at David Helvarg FAC. I had been quietly wracking my brain for possible extra material and came up blank every time.—Theo (Talk) 11:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hello! Thanks for the help with auto signing. I'm now using keys that I haven't touched since I've had my computer :-) Thanks again. Gillean666 15:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just wanted to make sure you know I wasn't picking on you at Ten's RFA.
When I posted my note, I wasn't thinking of you, I was thinking of users who hadn't voted yet; one might come along to vote, see what was said, then go to see what Boothy said. When they arrived at his talk page, of course, they wouldn't find anything, so they might ask again. By putting a note at the RFA, I wasn't commenting on your innocent actions, just trying to prevent anyone else from getting confused. (I didn't think your message to Boothy was harassing in the first place!)
My note about leaving him alone was intended to stop the discussion of his motives in the RFA; I felt it was becoming more about why those two had voted no and less about Ten's merits.
Hope this clears it all up, and that all the controversey will die down. -- Essjay · Talk 23:01, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Could you shorten your signature? Also, images in signatures are on unnccessary burden on the servers. See [[WP:~~~~]]. r3m0ttalk 08:15, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
well not sure if i know what im doing bere im new log on is moom53 i asked the question on ecco mono trying to fogure out how to use this site.. im not sure if antique place would give me the right info since its more historical and antique road show ive already tried and still no response but im sure im one of many who ask questions
Yeah, absolutely, I'll give you a holler then. Although I should say that it might take awhile just to finish this tournament, and I am not 100% sure that a new one will be played right after. As for the announcing, I put it up on the Village pump and advertised it HARD on IRC :P The thing was, i didn't help! Almost nobody signed up, and we had to cut down the number of participants from 32 to 16. This shouldn't be a problem next time as there are alot of people besides you who have showed interest. Meanwhile you can still play a friendly game at Wikipedia:Sandbox/Chess if you want (or in your user-space). gkhan 19:25, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Don't bother with steps 2 & 3 of the VfD on this one. I'll add it to an existing VfD for all of the other teacher articles this guy has created. --Xcali 21:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just would like to state that i have very much enjoyed being involved in a project of this nature. To see the speed of co-operation between various people was (Uwe, Lupo and Salleman and all others) fantastic. It was a complete buzz to go off researching about a scientific subject and coming to some understanding and appreciation of a creature that i would have no
knowledge or interest in otherwise. I would like to say that it takes a damn good teacher to get others interested in what they teach and i for one, if only in a rudimentary and general way have found the subject of Krill and sorrounding issues of ecology and environment fascinating. I think that says a lot about your willingness to let others participate in something which you obviously have great knowledge in and could easily have been a lot less humble with.
At some point i will put up some informtion on my home page so at least people know a little more about me.
Am going to try to extend the article on Ice-algae so any info you may have would be good.
I hope the article on Antartic Krill gets featured as i think it is now very good.
Wikiversity sounds like a good idea but will need more time to go through the proposal (not too sure what help i could be).
Once again thanks Uwe! Yakuzai 22:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi. I was wondering if you might have a look at the article again and see if I've improved it enough to warrant a change in your vote. I have not done the inline refs - I haven't yet had time to figure out how that template works, and I'm not quite sure where to put the refs, since most of the material comes from a single source. I did add a few refs, and they helped expand my understanding of the party and the situation. I would like to eventually reference it properly - I am trained to reference everything that isn't an original thought of mine - but time and access to sources is likely to make that a slow process. If you feel that the inline refs are necessary for it to pass muster, I consider that a reasonable position. Regardless, let me know what you think of the changes I made. Thanks very much for your input. Guettarda 13:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I really appreciate it. You're off to a great start in Wikipedia - keep up the good work. Guettarda 22:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what you want to do with the game, and I am not certain how it was organized in the first place... -- AllyUnion(talk) 22:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
One thing I think you need to do is clearly explain how the game works... That is one clarification I apparently need. -- AllyUnion(talk) 22:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Flcelloguy. Thanks for the message on Wikipedia:Mind Benders. I have a question though: Are we allowed to submit more than one entry for the Pre-Round artistic competition? Thanks, Sango123 22:37, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Who's judging the entry winner? Sango123 03:06, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
An open vote sounds good. And the date is fine... just as long as you post a reminder on everyone's talk pages. :) Sango123 22:34, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Flcelloguy, I have submitted my creation on the Mind Bender page. -- Riffsyphon1024 18:15, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you so very much for the adminship support and the interesting viola joke on my talk page. Per the usual "Bratsche Viola Joke Competition", you are hereby awarded a Wikicookie. Enjoy! Bratschetalk5 pillars 16:13, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, no. 'Cellists are usually the ones making fun of the violists! I'll look around, and ask some fellows in my orchestra, though. Cheers, Bratschetalk5 pillars 00:21, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
On my last RfA you said you'd support in one month. It has been roughly a month and Jtkiefer has nominated me. If you wish to vote, the RfA is at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hedley 2. Cheers! Hedley 11:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've transcluded the page so we can now add it to our watchlist. See: Wikipedia:Sandbox/Chess/SC7. BTW good guess and safe travel. =Nichalp«Talk»= 08:10, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
Hi! Thank you for the medal. I promise to write some more Featured Articles with the power of the medallion :). Regards, =Nichalp«Talk»= June 29, 2005 07:15 (UTC)
Just a reminder: The headers for VfD subpages should be level 2 (that is, three = signs on each side). Or you could use the templates, but I agree they're more work than they're worth. --W(t) 30 June 2005 23:25 (UTC)
Hi! No need to try and expand those idiotic articles like "Jimmy Spagnola" where the article isn't anything more than an echo of the title. Those are done by wiki vandal bots. They come on via anonymous proxies all day and all night. People, frankly, are idiots. :) Anyway, just tag them with {{del}} next time you find one. Best, Lucky 6.9 30 June 2005 23:28 (UTC)
Glad to be of service. Why people get off on these bots is beyond me. Just gotta keep tagging and bagging. See ya! - Lucky 6.9 1 July 2005 02:16 (UTC)
Saw your note about the Administrators list, went there. Just another bunch of redirects and definitions. No one to speak to. I see no way to discuss this except to engage in a flame war with them making charges and me disproving them as I have many times before and you lot deleting my replies to make me look bad. For twenty years they said my name was Chris Hunter. I kept telling them they were wrong. I am known by many names, Ashida Kim is the one I have chosen. Now they are saying my name is Radford Davis. They are wrong AGAIN! But, do they admit they were wrong for the first twenty years? Of course not. Just like you. You hide behind your silly policies and anonymity. Tell you what, give me Aesopian's address and I'll jump in his face personally and it won't be on your PUBLIC FORUM. Because no amount of proof is sufficient for a troll. It's just like being a Bush nominee. If I was Jesus Christ walking on the water they'd say, "Yeah! But, he can't swim." That is the mentality we are dealing with her Cesar. You gonna help? Or are you just part of the problem having a good time at my expense? Your HELP desk is the same, just a bunch of policies that are not being followed by your "contributors." ALL Of what Aesop says is based on gossip from Bullshido, who have made a career out of calling me a queer. No one interviewed ME for this "encyclopedia article." You just publish a bunch of lies and don't even tell me? Then call yourself fair? For every knock by Bullshido I can produce ten letters that say how much good I've done. One is attached here. I posted it before but one of your guys DELETED IT!
I remain,
Ashida Kim
Grand-Master Kim.
Thank you, Sir. I owe you my gratitude!
Please allow me to explain and I promise I will keep it short so as not to bore you.
When I was a child, I was raised in a very destructive home. My parents were abusive and negative. When I was eleven years old I came across your publications Secrets of the Ninja and Secrets of Invisibility. I studied them diligently and practiced daily without fail. Meditation, stealth, self control and focus. You taught me about the perceived image projected by "ego" and showed me how to find my True Self. You taught me to breathe properly so as to tap into my Chi energy. You taught me to control the mind and body like a machine. You gave me an identity; No name. You taught me everything; No art. From your teachings I grew strong and intelligent. When I had a question growing up I thought, "What would Master Kim expect of a student?" I realized that the Ninja is an intelligent dynamic person who can adapt to any situation and use it to their advantage. My life was difficult and sad, but you taught me to see the strength in this situation. I turned weakness into strength and adapted to suit my needs. Never once did I turn to any type of "vice" to control my "self" in my formative years. (no drugs, no alcohol, etc.) I turned to your teachings to guide me through these years of challenges. I grew up strong and intelligent and to this day I still practice what you have taught me. Without your teachings, your openness to share this secret knowledge, I would surely have suffered a far worse fate. My brother died by his own hand because he could not control his thoughts and they crushed him emotionally.
Today, your teachings still guide me. Still learning, still practicing, still mystified by these powerful yet simple teachings; I don't know just how to say Thank You.
No matter what I say or write, it cannot convey the depth of my Respect for you, my Gratitude to you, and the Honor of learning from your teachings. You have guided me where others abandoned me.
I remain humbly; your ghost student.
You will always be to me, my hidden Master. (Thank you.)
Gratefully,
Brian Majanovic
36 years old
So! 'Nuff said. I'd rather have one letter like this, and this one came in this week, than a thousand kudos from jerks like YOU!
I am not going to play any more silly run around the maze typing in my complaint that will never be viewed or acted on by your staff. This is just more feldercarb and stalling. "Cite my sources...?" I AM the source Jack!Besides for years the trolls at Bullshido said I couldnt fight, so Matt Breyer put up one of my fights on his site. What happened? They didn't beleive it was me. For years they said that I wasn't a member of the BDFS so I finally sent them a copy of my ID Card. What did they say? "Oh that one doesn't count because it is just one you can get through the mail." EVERYONE GOT THEM IN THE MAIL! So, you see, my friend, the game is rigged! All I'm asking for is a fair shake and all I get is more BS!
I ask again that we settle this by e-mail and stop making me come here to debate this publically BECAUSE THAT IS JUST A TROLL GAME!
Ashida Kim
FINE!!!! You say you know many administrators and will put one in touch with me? DO IT! 'Cause you are utterly useless.
I've looked over the material related to Ashida Kim and have come to the conclusion that there's not much we can do to help this guy. He's already had several administrators offer to converse with him. It's obvious that he wants to intimidate people into accepting his version of the article through blather and screed, which just isn't going to work on Wikipedia (it never does). I'm going to continue to watch this editor and this article, but I see no point in attempting to engage an editor who has already disregarded several attempts at engagement by other administrators. An unfortunate situation, in any case. Kelly Martin July 3, 2005 23:53 (UTC)
I left User:Ashida Kim a quick note mentioning some of our policies. Not sure whether this is going to help matters at all, but if not, it probably makes sense to start escalating matters by filing an RfC. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 4 July 2005 01:40 (UTC)
The best thing seems to be to ignore Ashida Kim or make light of his comical behavior rather than treat him as an equal. Until he acts like an actual Wikipedian, he deserves a little over patronizing. Karmafist02:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you'd marked What The Muffins for speedy delete. Thought you'd want to know that the tag was removed a minute later by the author. Since I didn't know your rationale for marking it for deletion I didn't add the tag back myself . Ironically, the author has been unable to get the redirect he's trying to put in place to work anyway. Tobycat 4 July 2005 23:48 (UTC)
Actually, you may want to hold off fixing that redirect. I ended up researching the target web page to find that it is a non-notable website. The article content is right off of the FAQ from their website and their fan forum has only 142 members. I'm in the process of VfDing them now.Tobycat 4 July 2005 23:54 (UTC)
Wow you're fast!. I guess I'll try tagging the redirect, too, but don't know how that will work. We'll find out though. :-) Tobycat 4 July 2005 23:57 (UTC)
Hi there Flcelloguy. To start let me say more of a well done to you for your RC patrolling - in fact, speak of the devil, whilst using the Vandal Fighter I was just thinking what great work you've been doing the past half hour I've been on RC. To be honest I've no idea why the original IP doesn't show when deleting pages and I think it would be a Q for the help desk. Not to worry too much though, it's not something that fellow admins would look upon in the deletion log as you being the originator of the deleted articles. Keep up the good work as ever. Craigy (talk) July 6, 2005 23:27 (UTC)
Since you were helping me with the Alva, Oklahoma vandal, I was hoping you could help me with a more subtle problem. User:216.112.42.61 has been adding abusive and hostile material to Talk:Pathological skepticism. His changes to the Northern Mockingbird and other pages usually don't strike me as trollish or vandalistic, even if they seem of poor quality. But his additions to Pathological skepticism are rambling nonsense that would take several studies to support, and he will not produce a cite; and his additions to the Talk page are just plain hostile to the point of insinuating physical threats.
If there's some place better to go, point me to it; there seems to be a lot going on in the underbelly of Wikipedia that I'm completely unfamilar with and can't find a good FAQ for.--Prosfilaes 8 July 2005 23:22 (UTC)
though more recent edits suggest the civility there was a thin veneer? Unfortunate! Hope this finds you well. Schissel : bowl listen July 9, 2005 04:02 (UTC)
The problem with tagging a page that an admin deletes is one that frustrated me before I was an admin. Although I have never seen any discussion of this problem, I think that most admins are aware of it and just take it in their stride. Personally I would rather you continue to tag pages: firstly, there may not be admins on RC patrol; secondly, the admins might miss a page that you see. Before I was an admin I developed a couple of approaches to try to minimise this problem: originally I would wait to tag a page, I use a tabbed browser and I would open pages that I thought were speedy candidates in a new tab and come back to them, say, ten minutes later to see it they had been deleted (and then add a tag if they hadn't). Then when I discovered CDVF I started to monitor that whilst adding the {{d}} tag—if an article gets deleted it disappears from the window, so I could see if it got deleted before I hit the Save page button.
Pages like Autocatalytic enzyme are speedy candidates, however, if the article is created by a new user I usually hang back before deleting. Sometimes new users don't understand the editing process and mess things up. If the article hasn't been expanded after what I consider a reasonable period of time (15 minutes to an hour depending on how tolerant I am feeling) I will delete it. JeremyA03:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that I could do RC patrol with only one window open--I have crashed my browser through trying to do too much at once on a number of occasions whilst RC patrolling! If you aren't using it already you might like CDVF. As I said above, so long as your screen is big enough to be able to see CDVF and your browser at the same time (I can overlap the two just enough to see), you can see if an article is deleted before you add the speedy tag. A five minute block from recreation is a pretty good idea, although I would suggest just one minute as one of the common admin tasks (fixing cut/paste moves) requires deleting/undeleting a page in a short spave of time. Speedy deletion has been very backlogged recently, when I looked on sunday there were about 150 articles waiting. I deleted a lot of them, but it actually takes a long time to clear out the speedy deletion page. BTW--I played the cello too when I was at school, I was never any good at it though. JeremyA(talk)02:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I award you this Random acts of kindness barnstar for doing so much to help out newbies and for welcoming new users. Keep up the good work! Y0u(Y0ur talk page)(Y0ur contributions) 22:54, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Hello, Flcelloguy. The Pre-Round at Wikipedia:Mind Benders ends tomorrow: Saturday, July 16, 2005. Just a heads-up. :) Regards, Sango123 17:11, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Hello, Flcelloguy. Unfortunately, voting between the gallery tags doesn't work. It just produces an empty square next to the image for which you cast your vote, so I've taken the liberty to implement the voting system from WP:BAP. Please expand on it as you see fit; it was created in a hurry. (And I have a suspicion that I killed Bonus Three by deleting some comments between the <!-- and --> tags. Please reinstate them if that is the case.) Thanks, Sango123 02:51, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the warm welcome! :D I really appreciated it. I'm slowly starting to get the hang of this place, particularly with working with my expertise/obsession, anime and manga (specifically Fullmetal Alchemist and Ghost in the Shell at the moment, though I'll branch out soon enough.) Kawa02:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Flcelloguy/Archive. I have just submitted a request for adminship, and I would be honored if you submitted a vote. :) Thanks, Sango123 19:10, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for voting in my RfA; I promise I'll wield my sacred mop with care. If you ever need me for anything, you know where to find me. Thanks again! -- Essjay · Talk 15:19, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying me of that. Kama probably just copied and pasted the content from my user page for testing, as she modified it but kept a thing or two (e.g. the {{Userpage}} template). Regards, Sango123 20:29, July 20, 2005 (UTC) (And I'm refraining from thanking you for voting until my RfA is over. :))
I notify the users who happen to play the last round. But under your situation, you might want to give a rough time when the questions are going up. But traditionally, it is first come, first serve on WikiFun. --AllyUnion(talk)05:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(note: I've found a few ESTs on wikipedia and the one which is most commonly used is GMT-5. If that's true, the competition will be very unfair to me, because I'm at GMT+8, that means the competition starts at 3am in the morning.) Deryck C.07:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that I'm most likely impossible to participate in the mind benders... (at the moment I woke up this morning, all except 1 question were already answered correctly)... Now I wanna apply to you for the maintainership of the Mind Benders... Deryck C.04:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my unexpected absence. I had no time to let you know abt my absence. I have played my move, thanks for being so patient. PS I cannot be certain if I'll be on wikipedia this week, but all the same, I'll do my best to make a move when time permits. Regards, =Nichalp«Talk»= 17:49, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
This claim is supported by no-one outside the article's creator, and is a thesis badly strung together from misuse of parts of the aforementioned articles. None of the article's references support it (they support the aforementioined articles). The claim that the Gospel of the Hebrews is the same as the Gospel of the Nazarenes, and Gospel of the Ebionites, is near universally regarded, by academics, and non-academics, as wrong, based on an error Jerome made because he didn't have enough access to these sources. This article is entirely the original research of the author of it, and although the title exists elsewhere, the content exists nowhere else whatsoever.
Hi, Flcelloguy. Thank you very much for supporting my RfA! I am honored by your praise and hope to wield the mop responsibly. Sango123 01:21, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
In fact we may write the questions together onto a secret page (that only we 2 knows) and later move the page onto the question page of round 3. Deryck C.03:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
At least the edits to the pics seems to have worked. And the TWO create user accounts. The second after finding, the replay that went to the anon IP page, even if I can't find it again.
Thank you for your vote of support on my recent RfA. I was quite surprised by the amount of support I received, and wish to extend my thanks to you for taking the time to support my nomination for adminship. -- Longhair | Talk12:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ARCHIVE 02: The Early Steps of Adminship Messages 77-151, dating from August 2005 to September 2005 This is an archived talk page. Please go to User talk:Flcelloguy to leave Flcelloguy a message. Thanks!
Hello, I've seen all the work you do with helping newbies, and I wanted to run this by you: would you accept if I nominated you for adminship? Y0u(Y0ur talk page)(Y0ur contributions) 19:29, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Firstly, congratulations on being nominated for Adminship. I've seen your "good work" and I strongly supported the motion. Second, how do I answer the mind benders questions, exactly? Rob Church17:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Aaargh! Me and my big edit-button. I tried to put a Barnstar on your user page, and I think I've broken the layout considerably. Sorry. Rob Church18:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answers, and yes, after I posted that I got a message by someone who pointed me towards some useful entries.
about the "eBay" thingie its not "_eBay" but " eBay", here try it eBay and see that it leads to a page (inexistent) called " eBay" (with the space). Apparently either someone already deleted it, or maybe empty pages delete "themselves" after a while?
well, thanks a lot, anyways
Lacrymology 02:50:30, 2005-08-04 (UTC)
there, I created the page just for you. I clicked in the link I had left up there to create it too. Go to it, and see that it actually lists " eBay" and not EBay, and that the latter still exists--Lacrymology 15:08:31, 2005-08-04 (UTC)
=) its very very hard to link to it, I don't think it is necessary. Just deleting it should be fine. Funny all the links you made in my talk page linked to the original EBay, that should prove how hard and worthless it is to make this eBay eBay
sorry, I think I didn't make it very clear how to edit it.. you would have needed to edit where my link was to see it =). I still think It should not be necessary to make the redirect, but it doesn't hurt, obviously. --Lacrymology 15:23:37, 2005-08-04 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. I was surprised and humbled by the number of positives votes. I'll be monitoring RfA regularly from now on and will look for a chance to "pay it forward". Cheers, --MarkSweep01:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's pretty much been all but decided that you will be an admin, a title that you rightly deserve, you deserve an award that fits the large responsibilites that will go with taking on this new job. So I, Karmafist, instead of awarding you a mere barnstar, offer you an entire barn! Make your fellow wikipedians proud, if not for you, then for all subtropical string instrument enthusiasts :-) Karmafist19:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I accidentally gave you sysop rights 11 minutes early. Please do not go crazy and start deleting pages or blocking other users quite yet because it's not official until 1941 hours. (Keep checking the bottom of your user page :-)
And if you need any help or advice related to admin chores, do please drop me a line. Uncle Ed 19:34, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations on your promotion to adminship, and good luck with that new mop! :) Cheers, Sango123 20:43, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Congrats on your Adminship. I voted neutral only because of your relatively short time as a registered user. But as I said, I have no doubts you'll make a fine Admin. Good luck with the mop! Regards, Redux03:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on your successful RfA. Sorry I didn't get around to voting for you (on a break for the past two weeks) but I think that you'll make a great administrator. Cheers, JYolkowski // talk21:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To make it clear, {{Delete}} would be left as a redirect. The only reason for the rename is so that ALL the speedy deletion templates can have names with the same prefix, so that they will group together in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. I am not trying to get rid of {{[[Template:delete} and it will still work exactly as before. it will just be a redirect to a name that matches all the other speedy deletion templates. Does that sound like the "same idea as before"? This was rquested by several admins working speedy patrol, so that all the deletion templates would group together, and my promise to do this was one factor in the recent decision to keep {{db-bio}}. That is the only reason for the proposed rename, it is not an attempt to do away with or deprecate {{delete}}. Does that clarify matters a bit? Please reconsider your comment on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Thank you. DES(talk)23:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote Hello, DES. After review of the relevant discussion (I admit, I only scanned through it last time), I feel that this should undergo community debate first. I would recommend posting it on the Village Pump, and wait for replies at Template talk:Delete. We'll see what happens after a week or so. How's that sound? BTW, what are you proposing it be moved to? Template:Db-db? Thanks. Flcelloguy |delete} and it will still work exactly as before. it will just be a redirect to a name that matches all the other speedy deletion templates. Does that sound like the "same idea as before"? This was rquested by several admins working speedy patrol, so that all the deletion templates would group together, and my promise to do this was one factor in the recent decision to keep {{db-bio}}. That is the only reason for the proposed rename, it is not an attempt to do away with or deprecate {{delete}}. Does that clarify matters a bit? Please reconsider your comment on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Thank you. DES(talk)23:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote Hello, DES. After review of the relevant discussion (I admit, I only scanned through it last time), I feel that this should undergo community debate first. I would recommend posting it on the Village Pump, and wait for replies at Template talk:Delete. We'll see what happens after a week or so. How's that sound? BTW, what are you proposing it be moved to? Template:Db-db? Thanks. Flcelloguy ]]}}, {{del}}, or {{delete}} whatever the new "real" name is.
Do you really think this needs the Village Pump treatment? A) no one who uses any of the redirects will be affected, or will even know it has happened unless they look closely. b) it can be undone at any time. I wiuld hav been bold and just done it yesterday if {{Delete}} hadn't been protected, or if I were an admin and could unprotect it. it was only protected due to vandalism, not becauae of an edit war or anything, and this can hardly be called vandalism. DES(talk)14:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are two places where you will find a rollback link:
The rollback link can be found on a user's contributions page, but only if that user was the last one to edit the page. For example, if you look at your own contributions there will be rollback link at the end of each line in which you were the last one to edit that page.
The rollback link also can be found on the Diff page when you are looking at the difference between the most recent version of a page and the last version. For example, if you look at the most recent diff on my user page, you will see the rollback link on the right side of the page under the "Current Version" link, and to the right of "Zzyzx11 (Talk | contribs)" .
Remember that you should only use the rollback tool to revert vandalism, because it automatically generates the "Reverted edits by X to last version by Y" comment in the edit summary. For any other edit, you should revert it normally so you can add a specific edit summary. Zzyzx11(Talk)00:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! And no problem with the support - you'll be a fine admin. If you've any queries, feel free to ask (though I can't guarantee I'll know the answers!) Grutness...wha?00:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No problem :) Actually, by the time I got there, I noticed one person had blocked him for 48 hours, and someone else had blocked him indefinitely... but I figured, eh, nothing wrong with piling on another one. ;) Giving a second chance was okay, and it proved that he's just a troll. Honestly, there's rarely any redemption for these folks. --Golbez 20:20, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Lots of vandalism at "Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ancient empires and their roles" the past couple hours. Can you keep an eye on it? Hamster Sandwich 21:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I forgot to congratulate you. So Congratulations! Hamster Sandwich21:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I need some help. I've been adding to an entry about Biff Rose. mostly I'm adding information that I've recieved about him, that is not positive. I think it is importnat to note this info, and not cover ovver it, as some of the sockpuppets for him have been doing.
I saw your listing and thought you might be able to look at the entry, review rose's websites, and lyrics, particularly Jimi Hendrix was a field hand, and some of his more anti semtic rants and help understand what I'm doing, and maybe explain it to the person called willmcw who attacks all new info added to the entry unless it comes from him, disavowing the # of revert rule.
[note: the comments that follow refer to the situation on this page: [[2]] I regret that I have taken the bait and addressed certain accusations and behaviors here. If it makes any sense to move this entire section to the Biff Rose discussion page, I will understand and help if possible.
Thanks very much. Hopefully this matter will be put to rest in the next few days. I found your name on Meelar's page. you seemed to be someoen in relative control who was rational minded and impartial. Thanks agian. Steve espinola23:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks from me too. FYI, I believe that Steve espinola is using a large number of sock puppets for this article. Once I have figured out the proper procedures for handling them I'll move forward on it. This editor has been selectively deleting comments from his user page so you might want to see a full version of the page - it's all recent. [3]. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:04, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
My name is actually Steve Espinola, and I am a friend of the real Biff Rose. The guy posing as Steve Espinola and Biff Rose is neither, and is vandalizing the Biff Rose page. I think you froze it in a vandalized state. If you write me from my website, www.SteveEspinola.com, and include a phrase of your choosing, I will echo it back and prove my identity.
My name is Esteban Espinola. I go by Steve. I wasn't aware of Biff Rose, or the mass amounts of trouble concerning hiim until I joined the site a few days ago. What I did notice is that willmcw seemed to revert any edit not done by him. I asked for your help, and you froze the connection. Which I think is fair. Now this other Steve Espinola, who doesn't go by that name, and accuses me of trying to pose as him, is contacting me and deleting info from my users page. I deleted otehr info, in response to that, as Meelar notified me that willmcw had blanked my user page, and then altered it in an unflattering manner. then the Sojambi Pinola also defaced my user page. I have an email address with earthlink- a pay site- that will prove I am who I say I am. But I think the real concern here is that these people are identifying themselves as friends of Biff Rose, and therefore are wittingly or unwittingly adding information that does not tel lthe whole tale of Rose's story.
I went ot Rose's website, and purchased some music, the price was right, and there had been such hubbub about him, that it seemed warranted. It turns out his history is an angry one, and that he has a penchant in his later works to write Anti semitic screeds as well as racist songs-check the Jimi Hendrix was a field hand on biffrose.biz.. some have countered that he is sending up racial stereotypes. I disagree, but have used the language to put it that his detractors disagree with such notions. I think that is a fair and honest way to put it. The lyrics themselves are quoted on the entry, though willmcw keeps removing them from the order they are in, in effect burying the later ones, in favor of the earlier ones he himself put up. I feel that this one sdied view is tremnedously self serving. Important note- Steveespinola.com mentions rose, and how close the two of them are, making Sojmabi Pinola a sock puppet of Rose. God, that's a lot to write. I'm not a sockpuppet, though I can see that there is some reason to suspect me. I've been a worthy addition to wikipedia, editing and copy editing articles in the clean up pile. It seems willmcw is pretty good as well, but has been unable to see that I'm merely presenting a dissenting view, which has as much basis in fact as his own view on Rose's past and present. Sojambi Pinola hasn't seemed to edit many other articles.
In summation, I think the cap on Rose makes sense until Willmcw can abide by the rules of the wiki- especially the revert rule, which he has seemed to flaunt with consistent disregard. I had thought originally that editors could do as they pleased with their own talk pages, and hence my own manipulations, trying to clean my slate, as it were. willmcw has continued to pursue me, on other articles and now I may have to request some sort of request for arbitration in regards to him, and the flagrant abuse of wikipedia quorums for his own amusement. I think he's been involved in a few RfC's one at least that I know of, after being contacted by one of the people willmcw has abused in the past. I've contacted other people, with the hopes that noting my own troubles with willmcw, and in fact the person claiming to be Steve Espinola, who goes by Sojambie Pinola, will go back to editing, and stop attempting to sabotage some real information that I very easily obtained from Biff Rose's own websites. Ok. Enough. I'm tired of the whole process, I simply don't like being falsely accused of being someone I'm not. I kn ow the circumstances are strange, but the strange thing for me, is not that my name is being doubted, but that someone didn't use the name they accuse me of imitating and yet still say that I am imitating them, while I simply joined under the americanized version of my name. Hopefully this will be the end of it. I've notified a few other adminiistrators to try and spread this entirely and am even now planning on running as an administrator myself because of this, I think there needs to be an advocate against the more mercurial of these type of online persecutions. The more adminstrators that are aware of the situation, the more that will have to attest to the wrongdoings that have come up, and I feel I will be exonerated as merely another newbie contributing good solid factual information to the website.Steve espinola05:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your first lesson as an admin: no good deed goes unpunished. ;) Cheers -Willmcw 09:24, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
[info] I believe the main issue at hand is that this user's first real post was claiming to be some one another person who is more heavily involved in the background of the Biff Rose article. This user proceeds to, apparently, vandalize the Biff Rose page (using *very* POV statements and deleting vast portions of it, repeatedly). That was when willmcw got involved. He noticed upon analyzing Espinola's contribution list that he had systemmically gone through the list of archived articles needing to be cleaned and just started adding a word here, removing paragraphs there and ceremoniously stripping the cleanup tags even when articles were a mess. He would then repeatedly strip them whenever some one would come back and change them, and thus he got into edit wars with on several more actively monitored articles. Pretty good for a 5 day old account :o — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 15:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between between a fan/friend/biographer of someone and being their "Sockpuppet". User:Willmcw's use of the word implies that it means someone is using several different identities to hide that the work is all theirs. That is what this fake "Steve Espinola" is doing, and accusing others of precisely the thing he is doing. I, on the other hand, actually use the name "Steve Espinola" in my day to day life, and have prepared a discography of Biff Rose's released and unreleased recordings. That's what makes this other user's choice of that name troubling and suspicious...there are NOT two "Steve Espinolas" associated with Biff. The name "Sojambi Pinola" is a pen name I picked when I created my one Wikipedia account. The real Biff Rose, by the way, has not contributed any revisions to Wikipedia at all, as far as I know. You froze the Biff Rose page in a vandalized state.
Biff is certainly a button pusher and pot-stirrer, and he plays with difficult material. It is EASY to make him look bad by using his words, but it is not necessarily "accurate." Earlier versions of the user's revisions (under other screen names) made flat-out-libelous statements, claiming felonies. I reverted the Biff Rose page several times to remove this person's destructive edits, under his various names. "Willmcw", who was not even familiar with Biff but recognized the vandalism, did the same. He is obviously someone who has contributed intelligently to Wikipedia for quite a while, while the user calling himself "Steve Espinola" has not. We are not "sock puppets," and a simple checking of who-did-what-edit will make that clear. There is a clear and consistent pattern of writing and destructive intent to all this person's identities. thank you. Sojambi Pinola19:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Calling Biff Rose a button pusher is like referring to a lynch mob as a quiet protest. His words on hiw website equate Jimi Hendrix to a cotton picking' niggah'- Ros'es words not my own. I think that speaks volumes toward his sentiments in regards to African Americans. I don't htink a consensus has quite been reached and would be appreciative if you would keep the site forzen until Pinola and Willmcw agree about the angry volatile nature of Rose's early work
I think the real issue is whether Jonah Ayers will work in a respectful, consensus-oriented communicative manner with other writers. So far, not so bad today, ON the "temp" page. But statements like this concern me. The above should have been left on the Biff Rose discussion page where it can be debated; not here.Sojambi Pinola06:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it seems to me that the reason the page was frozen was not only were some people, though not me, writing intolerably untrue things about Rose, but also because his own friends were negating the fact that rose has an issue with calling african americans 'niggers' in his lyrics and Jewish people 'kikes'. This isn't about criticism, its right there in the lyrics, on the cd you have and I have and willmcw has never heard. So if our admin here who forze the list until there was some agreement can stand to keep it frozen while you try and explain for the umpteenth time why Rose is allowed to refer to Hendrix and other african americans as 'niggers' and to call jewish americans 'kikes' and that then will not be represented as a 'good thing' then we will have reached an agreement. I think Willmcw has been asked not to unfreeze the page himself as he is too close to the subject now. Thanks Flcelloguy for keeping an eye on this page. Jonah Ayers22:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I hung out with Biff for 2 years in '86-87, when he lived above Durty Nellies West Irish Pub in Palatine, Illinois. Last I heard, he was up on charges for manslaughter. Googie.
"Jonah," evidence suggests that _you_ were/are the one writing the "intolerably untrue things about Rose." The above unsigned manslaughter comment follows that pattern. Evidence also suggests that it was _you_ who created a username, "Steve espinola," that bears a strangely identical nature to my birthname. I can make a pretty good circumstantial-evidence case for this based on similarities in the behavior, comments, claims, language styles, and login times of the various user names, including your current one. But it is probably unnecessary: I'd be amazed if you are fooling anyone, even given comments you've left on this page under two usernames.
The issues you've brought up on Rose's work may deserve intelligent debate, but that is not what you are offering in your statements on the subject in the Biff Rose entry. They are POV thinly disguised as fact. From my understanding of Wikipedia, this is not really the correct forum to get into original critical discussion on what Biff "really means" in his lyrics. ("Is he ironic or does he mean it?" for example.) That is why your comments on the issue keep getting revised or deleted. Again, you should be bringing this whole topic up on the Biff discussion page, not on Flcelloguy's page. I'm even sorry to be debating you on this page.
You are simply finding more subtle ways of making trouble: For example, you just removed my accurate attribution of your unsigned comments left on this page when you were logged in as user "Jonah Ayers." I just put it back. Here's the proof that they were your comments: [[4]]
Here's where I moved them to the "Biff Rose Protection" section of this page and accurately attributed them to you:[[5]]
And here's proof that you removed that attribution: [[6]]
You are still making a lot of work for people who have better things to do. "Jonah Ayers," if it were up to me you would be blocked from Wikipedia. Sojambi Pinola03:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You will notice that the section which follows, "Cleanup protection etc.." (which I have moved up from further down Flcelloguy's page), addresses the same topic we are discussing here. The writing is suspiciously similar to that of several of the blocked sockpuppets involved in this case. it was left, unsigned, by 216.175.113.48 18:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)]
You wisely protected the Biff Rose entry. There still seems to be massive dissent. One of the people who asked you to have a look at it has been frozen by willmcw, though I'm not sure that was warranted, he is steve espinola. most importantly though, Biff Rose on his website is promoting his friends to hack into the computers of anyone who may have a different view of his past and present than him. Apparently he is close with two hackers, and has enlisted them to find the isp #'s of all who aren't his sock puppets. This works against the nature of wikipedia. It seems Rose has been posting about himself through the person identified as Sojambi Pinola. Steve espinola brought this up before he was frozen and not allowed to be a part of wikipedia by will mcw- this seems self serving because will works with Sojambi Pinola. I'm not pleading Steve's case. He's unpopular enough that doing so would bring me into the crossharis, so to speak. I use wikipedia as a reference, everday. It does seem terrible that people can write whatever they feel like on a talk page then go ahead and ban you for the sentmients they layered into the page afterwards. The Biff Rose issue seems to be a petri dish for the more mercurial aspects that can fester here. Keep an eye on Biff Rose postings. Keep it protected. Really. KEEP THAT PAGE PROTECTED. There has been no real work on the post, just a hodge podge of one sided issues. They let the last line stay in, after having refused other examples or Rose's lyrics- which explain a lot in whatever context they've been used in. if you would like to email me for further discussion, you can email me at scurvyhide@hotmail.com
[left, unsigned, by 216.175.113.48 18:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)]
the folllowing is a quote from Rose on his website messageboard the last line of the response is particularly of note.
"Hurricanes and Mother Russia
Name: b.
Date Posted: Aug 27, 05 - 10:38 PM
Message: The World Wide Get Even Theatre presents..."It's Mother Rusiia"
Jodry-Potthoff wrote: Yo Biff, are you back in NOLA? Are you safe? This ***** Katrina is lookin for you!!! Watch yer ass or yer feet. She carries a lot of water. It’s still dry here in Chi.
Later
K
response:
Dear King Karl...I'm in Kansas City eating a cow a day...switching to horses on Monday, pigs on Tuesday and ten golden chickens on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday...and I am terrified about what Mother Russia is doing to get even with me for what would appear a Pyrrhic victory last year...IVAN her consort heaeded for our coast....La Belle Louisiane....and now her daughter Katrina....ah..those Russkies...last year I was left as a million white people evacuated the city and only I with half a million negroes, five hundred thousand tons of fried chicken and half a million barrels of beer was left to weather the storm...I prayed a mighty wind and blew Mother Rusiia's consort, Ivan ( she was playing hard to get)...blew the ******* as in Biff Bam Thak ye ma'am gwine send you packin' back to aLLAH! bam...it worked...then i worked ssiduously to get rid of Molly and all my european sounds into the heartland as once before Napoleon and Hitler...only to prepare the way for rap and hip hop...but she battled back after devouring Molly...and now send Katrina and I have to come up with some song quick....and I'm not even home...and I may not even HAVE a home to go back to... has Susan got those hackers to do a job on the evil ones? ...check out wikipedia....the discussion group...."
[left, unsigned, by 216.175.113.48 18:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)]
I appreciate you looking into things, but I think you've missed a bit of the details.
This user (User: Canadia) has been *incessant*. There has only been a single instance of my apparent inadvertent deletion of anti-American content from the Offensive terms per nationality (posted by him when claiming I am the vandal).
His deletion of any anti-Canadian content spreads FAR beyond that single article.
I have attempted normal means of mediation (posted in Talk, tried to re-word any Canadian entries as low-key and minimized offensiveness as possible, posted template warnings about content deletion, etc.)
He proceeded to edit my posting on the Talk page to include "I gay" (sic)
The reason I haven't deleted it yet is precisely so that people can check the article creation and move time and see for themselves (if they wish) that it doesn't appear on newpages. I'll delete it in a few days.
Ahh, well, that's no problem, as long as the vandals are gone. =) By the way, if you get his name, I can start a mob to lynch him =) joking of course (or am I?). Regards and happy editing! Sasquatch讲看 20:44, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
I'm probably missing some subtlety here, but why reinstate this redirect? The Wikipedia system handles that kind of typographical mistake (e.g. if I type "Samuel johnson" in the search box, clicking Go takes me automatically to Samuel Johnson). So what's the need for an Eric mandat page? Tearlach02:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting assistance in handling disruptive behavior.
I would greatly appreciate if you look into the mess created in the article Rohingya. This is quite an interesting issue; a few months ago, I removed the copyvio and then organized the article into sections and cleaned up the links. For some reason, several anon editors in the block 212.138.47.* seem to take offence at my "touching" "their" article, and started vandalizing my user/talk pages. Some of these vandals were blocked by other admins.
Last week, these vandals created several sockpuppet accounts, including Antirajib (talk·contribs). You can see from the account name what its purpose was. The user vandalized my user/talk pages besides leaving abusive comments. The user was blocked immediately.
Yesterday and today, there has been a parade of sockpuppets all directed at either launching personal attacks, or avoiding 3RR. You can find several incoherent rants in Talk:Rohingya, my talk (User talk:Ragib and Mel's talk User talk:Mel Etitis. The language constructs and the irrational attitude ("how-dare-I-touch-their-article-being-a-Bengali" etc) points out a single user behind all these.
I find the following accounts as sockpuppets of the same vandal from the ip block 212.138.47.*
I urge everyone to take a look at the page history, http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Rohingya&curid=1918632&action=history . This is not even a dispute over content! I have not added or deleted any content other than the initial copyvio. I simply organized the article with sections, and cleaned up the external links. One of the links point to a blog, which the vandals ferociously object to as being termed a blog. I've gotten literally tired of the abuse these vandals launched on me. The level of racial and personal abuse is quite hard to take. Since it would be a conflict of interest in my part to take actions against these vandals, I would request you to look into this issue and decide.
Hi, when you update DYK please archive the last template and remove the suggestions that are on the current template. --nixie00:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I normally cut the old template out and stick it in the archive, then assemble the new one- killing two birds with one stone :) --nixie00:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I politely ask that you reconsider your position regarding the featured article candidacy of Sylvia (ballet). Your only objection to the article's promotion was the lack of information on the 2004 Morris production, a section that was significantly beefed up. If you have any other suggestions to make, please do so, otherwise, kindly remove your objection. Thank you. -- Rmrfstar22:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Flcelloguy,
thanks for the clear edit summary when you reverted my addition of the speedy delete tag on the Vesa Ahonen entry. I wasn't sure what the protocol was, and now I have learned. The type of edit summary you wrote is making it a lot easier for me to find my way around! Mamawrites17:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. A while back you "temporarily" protected Daniel Pipes to stop edit warring - this was back on the 8th. I came across it whilst fixing ISBN links (and cleaning out ASINs), but since it's locked I can't tidy up the page (I only need to make a couple of small changes to the refs section). Given it's been two weeks since you protected it, could you consider unprotecting it? Thanks. Shimgray18:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Flcelloguy. I don't know much about them either, but there are databases of these things on the web. I've been following the IP addresses of the Ted Kennedy vandal and of User:Cyrius's stalker. I pop the IPs into these database/black list things, they are either have them listed or they don't. Cheers, Func( t, c, @,) 20:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I'm hoping since I'm advertising in my Navbox that I'm open to accepting them that I'll get more. Maybe not. But thanks nonetheless. PS your sig's been fixed. -- Francs2000 | Talk21:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta say, I'm happy to find out that someone would consider nominating me for RfA. If you feel confident in this, go ahead, I'd be extremely appreciative of such a gesture. Like you said, that rollback button could come in handy in combating those pesky vandals, so it wouldn't be going to waste or anything :). Well, once again, you have my thanks. By the way, the counter is up to 66 now - my user page is somewhat of a vandal magnate :P. Happy editing! Nufy802:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Flcelloguy! Thanks for your support on my recent RFA! I'm now an administrator, and indeed, I'm a happy camper right now too! :D -- If you ever need an extra helping hand, let me know, and I'll do my best to help out. Thanks again for your support, and I'll see you around the Wiki! --HappyCamper02:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hiyas Flcelloguy. I've seen your comments regarding 3RR violations on the Winter Soldier Investigation article, located here. You have asked, "As I asked TDC, is there a way to find out if the two IPs are linked?" In a word, no. There are tools you can use to determine what Internet Service Providers host those particular proxy IPs, and you can "trace" the usage of those IPs back to a general geographic area (for example, Northern California) and major hub city. That would, in the case of major ISPs like Earthlink (aka Slipnet, aka Mindspring, ...) narrow the number down to a few million internet users. If you desire any more detailed information, you'd need to first obtain a subpoena from a court of law, and then work directly with the ISP to narrow it down further. There is a convenient set of free tools located here if you want to mess around with it.
In specific regard to TDCs complaint, I can tell you this: TDC is correct when he claims the IPs 165.274.xxx.xxx and 209.86.xxx.xxx (my current one) are hosted by Earthlink, and their usage originates through Dial-Up nodes routed through the "Bay Area" in California. He also knows there are several of us that edit on Wikipedia through the same networked computers, since we've been through this same song and dance at least a half-dozen times before. TDC is incorrect when he cites that as proof that all anon edits must be from the same user. TDC is incorrect when he claims it must also be the same user vandalizing his user page while logged into AOL IPs, or IPs originating from Brooklyn, NY and Virginia. Earlier today, the edits and reverts by 165 & 209 IPs were not by the same editor. I hope that clears things up. You could speak by phone with two or more editors here that have been in revert wars with TDC on various articles if that would be proof to you, but TDC could just wave it off as a bunch of my work mates backing me up.
I also have a question for you. It appears Admin Geni has reverted the above mentioned article prior to Page Protecting it. I was under the impression that Admins were not supposed to select preferred article versions before protecting them. As an Admin yourself, can you clarify that for me? Geni claims to have reverted to a revision by Ed Poor because it was the "last edit by someone not apprently involved in the current edit war." On the contrary, Ed Poor is quite involved, and even making his own reverts [7], since this "edit war" was started by TDC exactly 4 weeks ago. The article was basically dormant for months prior to that. After seeing Admin Geni's comments on the sister-article discussion page here, and after selecting preferred versions to protect, I have to suspect a less than neutral stance by Geni. Cheers, 209.86.3.21303:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just confirming that you want to do an article on Features and admins. Leave a note on my talk page to confirm. Deadline is Sunday, August 28, 8 p.m. EDT (Midnight UTC). ral315 23:06, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Nope, not a cellist, but a violinist. I've played a variety of pieces, I guess the most notable one is Mendelssohn's concerto in E minor for violin. Have you heard of it before? I really like Bach too. I assume you are a pretty accomplished musician if the next piece you might work on is the B minor one. Very beautiful piece I think. If you're ever interested in writing a music-related article, let me know! --HappyCamper23:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you block User:RightWingZionistNut? You claim that he impersonated User:Guy Montag but where is the evidence? That he refers people to Guy Montag's userpage as an example of what a right wing zionist nut looks like? That's not really impersonation, is it?
Also, why did you revert and then protect the page King David Hotel bombing? It is not vandalism to call the Irgun terrorists. Look at the categories for that article. Terrorist acts are carried out by terrorists. Engaging in revert wars and then protecting a page violates Wikipedia:Protection policy. If anyone is engaged in vandalism it looks like you and Guy Montag and not the guy who just uses the name "RightWingZionistNut".
You also left this contradictory semi-literate message on ZionistRightWingNut's Discussion page: "You have been blocked indefinitely for impersonating a user and for edit warring and vandalism. Thank you. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires."
Flcello, you do understand that this guy is a sockpuppet of RWZN (who is a sockpuppet himself) and he made this particular username to insult you, as he in the most retarded manner tried to insult me. Keep banning him.
To be perfectly honest, it's not done because I took a 6 1/2 hour nap by accident. If I don't it done in the next few hours, I'll get it done tomorrow afternoon. ral315 07:55, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
A lot has been keeping me from mediating lately as it is as you undoubtedly know a time-consuming process. I would like to add one question to your proposal. What if one or both of the parties don't feel comfortable with the mediator assigned to the case? - Mgm|(talk) 07:53, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Flcelloguy, it's been about a week since you locked Hypnotize. Given the consensus of opinion at Talk:Hypnotize and the fact that the album is being released soon, would it be possible to open it back up? User:Mike Garcia hasn't weighed in the discussion and he's blocked right now for vandalism. 66.36.130.21616:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No probs with the banner. This is wiki (copyrights not allowed! ;) ). I read your proposed format and I have some suggestions. 1) Have a subject line like we do for emails. 2) instead of separating the two parties disputes by headings (ie. rows), make it a table and have it placed side by side so that people can compare both parties' statements. PS thanks for the strong support for my RFB. =Nichalp«Talk»= 06:07, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Is it really a good idea to update DYK just an hour and 40 minutes before the change-over to Featured Picture? Shouldn't we wait?--Pharos22:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I suppose this set can just spend the weekend in wiki-hibernation and return on Monday; we'll just have to remember not to update it immediately after it comes back.--Pharos22:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't leave notes like this on my talk page in the future. If you have a comment, make sure it is informed and respectful. I am not in danger of violating WP:3RR, as a moments review of I am demonstrates. It would appear you have been a contributor since 14 May 2005. I feel a 3 month contributor making statements in such a manner on my page is either a) not a three month contributer, or b) arrogant to an extreme. Sam Spade15:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Spade, I am simply reminding you that edit warring is highly discouraged in Wikipedia. I'm sorry if I offended you; I understand that you have not violated WP:3RR yet, but I was simply reminding you of the policy designed to prevent edit warring. Also, let me remind you of the WP:NPA policy; I do not appreciate being called arrogant. My time here on Wikipedia is irrelevant to the discussion. Thank you. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 15:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note Flcelloguy, but unfortunately you're a bit off the mark. No one is edit warring except Sam Spade, who is flouting the consensus of the other participants in the discussion, two admins; Exploding Boy and myself, and being a bit testy as you can see above. Further discussion can be found here: User_talk:Sam_Spade#Redirect_of_I_am. Sam's "evidence" for his insistance on repeated reverting is uncompelling. The stats are that almost the only people landing on this redirect are EB, SS, and myself. This article redirect is little used, adds nothing to wikipedia, and become a constant source of contention for Sam, it should be deleted. The consensus is that I am should not redirect to God, so I'm undoing Sam's revert once again and I'm adding the vfd template. FeloniousMonk15:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to the note you left on my talk page, I agree that Sam's conduct is out of line and his comments to you were unjustified. The I am redirect could probably be nominated for deletion. -- Curps16:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
PS, just a suggestion: to document things, you should provide links to actual diffs, not just links to the page. That way, the relevant post can be found even weeks of months later. For instance, instead of a link to [[User talk:Flcelloguy]], provide links to [10][11] etc. -- Curps16:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to file an RfC, you could, but this one incident alone might not be sufficient. If there were other incidents, this one could be added to a global RfC. I'd suggest you provide the documentation links (diffs) as suggested above on the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee page and let folks see and judge for themselves. Some people might even consider Sam's opposition as a point in your favor. -- Curps16:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You pinged me? I'm on for a short while. Let me know what's the prob. =Nichalp«Talk»= 17:44, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
From the history of the article here, Sam Spade is not violating the 3RR. According to my timestamps (I'm at +5:30 UTC); Sam reverted at 14:38 on Sep 2; and 19:21 and 20:54 on Sep 3. The time difference between 19:21 and 20:54 is 1:33 mins. Since 3RR is for a 24 hr period, Sam can legally revert once more for the time period between 20:54 (sep 3) and 20:54 (sep 4). However I won't condone what Sam has done. Instead of politely telling Fcelloguy that he has erred, he has chosen to reply in a rather defensive and boorish tone. I also do believe that Flcelloguy told Sam about 3RR in good faith, so this is what I suggest:
Flcello: Please accept that Sam is right.
Sam please do not reply to any user so rudely in the future.
I know I mixed up the time stamps above, but basically SS has one legal revert left. =Nichalp«Talk»= 18:27, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
No probs, I don't mind helping. But you should warn the person before he's about to violate a 3RR, it may be irritating for some to be warned when it does not apply. IMO I don't think an RFC is needed. =Nichalp«Talk»= 18:30, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
I apologise for being angry. I take warnings from admins very seriously, and was shocked, embaressed, and dismayed to find one on my talk page. I have been wrongfully blocked for 3r violations twice now (from people confusing timestamps, I assume) and with the 2 others involved here being a admins w a LONG history (as in a year or more) of persecuting me, I was in a particularly ill humor for a policy reminder from a (assumably well meaning) new user. I again apologise for snapping at you. Sam Spade21:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...I'm wondering if it is necessary to reduce the block to only 15 minutes at the moment. It seems that the IP is in the range of 172.128.0.0 - 172.211.255.255 which is used by AOL. What do you think? --HappyCamper18:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--User Talk: Felix Frederick Bruyns Flcelloguy, did you get a message from me, and if so, did you delete it? If you did delete it, you were within your rights, but if you did not then I suspect a certain party of trying to prevent the truth from being told regarding a conflict I'm having. Thank you very much.
--User Talk: Felix Frederick Bruyns I could almost (though not quite) swear that I accurately sent a rather long message to you that should be just above my writing about message deletion. But rather than accuse a certain third party (you know the man I mean) of deleting it, I will restate it in abbreviated terms. I came to this site over a year ago, aged 19. I didn't know about the "POV" rule, but actually all I did was lessen a libertarian, pro-pornography POV in several articles. Several fervent anti-censorship users insulted me, and accused me of being a "vandal" and both Moriori and Raul654 called me a "troll" and Moriori and to a lesser extent Raul654 slandered me by accusing me of stealing articles or "copyvio", as Moriori called it, which couldn't be further from the truth. Moriori even said I stole my article on Turkey Stearnes from the African American Registry, which is an obvious lie since the two articles don't resemble each other and the AAR wasn't even one of my research sources on Stearnes. Angry words were exchanged between me and Moriori, and I left the site in disgust. Shortly after I suffered a series of illnesses and only returned to the Internet a couple of months ago and I want to clear up the matter and end the quarrels. If ever you can prove that you are worthy of being an arbitrator, make peace between Moriori and his allies and me and I will consider you the greatest diplomat that ever lived. Thank you very much.
This seems a little out of character, but who am I to deny what it says? At any rate, please do not vandalize pages, especially such highly visible ones, as it may jeapordize your position as admin and (potentially) mediator. I've left a comment on your nomination to this effect. Please leave any replies on my talk page, or let me know about them there, as I'm not likely to be reading the MC noms. -Matthew Cieplak(talk)(edits)21:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's an explanation. As a result of being tired (having done RC patrol all day), I saw an anon IP address and the vandalism, and immediately clicked revert. You'll see that I immediately saw my mistake, and reverted myself back [13] within 5 seconds. I then proceeded to block the offender for 24 hours [14]. Thanks for your diligence! If there are any questions, let me know. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to go strike my comment on your mediator nomination, but it seems to never have been there at all. Perhaps I just hit preview. At any rate, now I don't have to correct it (I may even offer support). Good luck. -Matthew Cieplak(talk)(edits)21:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--User Talk: Felix Frederick Bruyns Could you send me a message at my user talk so that I know that all of this confusion has been cleared up. Could you also do a bit of mediation? Thank you very much.
--User Talk: Felix Frederick Bruyns Whatever you do, don't believe ANYTHING that Moriori tells you. He is in a different time zone than I am and I would have to stay up all night to continue responding to his lies. I will warn you that he can be very persuasively dishonest, as I found out in 2004. What he wrote about me on the administration board is simply false and, of course, very insulting as well, though I can't claim that I have never insulted him. I have, however, always been honest, and he has been consistently dishonest. For that matter, if Raul654 or any others of the anti-censorship (and anti-Felix Frederick Bruyns) group tell you anything about me, don't believe them either. Whatever our mutual insults and disagreements, there is one basic difference between me and them. They lie. I don't. Above all, don't believe a word that Moriori has to say, because he would say anything that came into his mind to injure my reputation. Thank you very much.
Hi, Flcelloguy. Thank you so much for your support and kind words on my bureaucratship nomination. Unfortunately, it didn't pass, but I intend to run again soon. If you'd like to be informed next time around, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks again! Andre (talk) 05:24, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
--User Talk: Felix Frederick Bruyns I have decided that I must tell the entire story about what Moriori has done to me. It is rather long and I apologize for that, but it cannot be helped. The problems began in mid-2004, slightly over a year ago. I was 19 years old, very ignorant about the technical aspects of Internet use and I knew nothing about Wikipedia policy. I stumbled across your free encyclopedia, however, and I decided that, having done intensive research on Negro League baseball, I would write a few articles in Wikipedia. I saw that registration was optional, and so I did not see any reason to bother with it. I was, I believe, assigned a number with colons in it. I wrote several articles on Negro Leaguers (which, in essentials, remain on Wikipedia today) and I did not take credit for them even though I didn't know of the Wikipedia policy against taking such credit, since I thought that they should be fully public domain and that the work was its own reward. My mother, however, said that my articles were of high quality and that I should in some way take credit for them. Not knowing of the policy against this, I simply typed "Author: Felix F. Bruyns" at the bottom of each article. That was when some confusion began. Some people believed that I was not "Felix F. Bruyns" and that I might have stolen the articles from someone by that name. Then my father suggested that I register under my own name (which is Felix F. Bruyns) to clarify the matter. I did so, but it was at about this time that the situation became ugly. I looked up some entertainers, among them Kylie Minogue, Angelina Jolie, Jennifer Love Hewitt, Drew Barrymore and Cary Grant. I knew nothing about the "point of view" policy at the time, but in retrospect they contained a libertarian and pro-pornography point of view. I am more conservative now than I was then, but even then I was shocked by the disrespectful and unprofessional nature of some of the articles. So, having the understanding that anyone was allowed to edit anyone else's work, I removed a few sentences from these articles and changed a few others. That was when the wrath of every anti-censorship Wikipedian seemed to descend on me. I was accused of "vandalism", called a "troll", told by Raul654 that he "political correctness is something I despise" (obvious POV motivation) and it was also Raul654 who accused me of "PC (political correctness) pushing". But another of my attackers stood out even more. Both Moriori and Raul654 called me a "troll" and Raul654 claimed that my articles on the Negro Leaguers were "far from original", but as bad as all of this was Moriori went a step further. He accused me of "copyvio" and demanded that I remove all of my articles from the site. This could have been an honest mistake because of the "Author: Felix F. Bruyns" confusion, but I came across one item that proved that Moriori was premeditated in his falsehoods. He specifically claimed that I had copied my article on Turkey Stearnes from the African American Registry. This was so far from the truth that it had to be a deliberate lie. The African American Registry's "born on this day" article on Turkey Stearnes doesn't even closely resemble mine, and the site was not even one of my sources of research on Stearnes. The timing of these accusations definitely suggests that Moriori's motives were political, but, of course, I cannot prove his motives. I presume that Moriori was fully familiar with the "keep your cool" policy, since he seemed far more experienced in Wikipedia than I was, but I was not. He and I exchanged a series of angry user talks. To be honest, we BOTH lost our tempers. He called me a "troll", accused me of vandalism, "copyvio" and demanded that I remove all of my articles from Wikipedia. In turn, irate over the obvious slander, I called him "a plague spot on Wikipedia" and demanded that he remove all of his articles from the site. I also made justified legal threats against him, unaware of the "no legal threats" Wikipedia policy. Although two or three users showed some sympathy for me, many more accused me of vandalism or otherwise sided with Moriori. I was so upset that I visited the New Zealand police website, but unfortunately, unlike some national police sites, they had no non-emergency e-mail. The last straw was when someone hijacked both my "Felix F. Bruyns" user page and a message board, claiming to be me and typing things like "You may think of me as a vandal, but I like to think of myself more as a dictator" and other such arrogant nonsense that I had nothing to do with whatsoever. I had no idea of how to deal with this sort of treatment, so I finally decided to leave the site in utter humiliation. A few months later I suffered a series of moderate illnesses (tonsilitis, facial swelling of unknown cause, etc...) and I was not on the Internet again until a couple of months ago. One of the first things that I did was to check if the slanderous references to me were still on the web, which they were. I decided that I would resume some editing and I re-registered with Wikipedia. Of course, since over a year had passed, I had long forgotten my old password so I registered under my full name "Felix Frederick Bruyns" with a new password. I looked up the article on Kylie Minogue, but at some point I became emotionally repulsed by its content (which had actually gotten worse) and that, combined with my old anger over the slanderous references to me in the archives (which I didn't know how to edit at that time), led me to write two imprudently angry (but neither illegal nor profane) messages, both of which were mostly the result of my ignorance about the archives and so forth. In these messages I castigated Wikipedia as a whole, and for this I apologize. It was wrong of me to overgeneralize based on a few articles or the abuse of a few users. If I have offended any of the administrators or other senior users of Wikipedia I am sincerely sorry. At the same time I think that you can understand, given my ignorance of nearly all Wikipedia policy and the treatment that I had received, why I felt very angry. I moderated my tone as I learned more about Wikipedia, but in some of my general complaints and requests I mentioned Moriori and what he had done to me in 2004. Well, he responded by lying about me (he claimed that I had accused him of spreading a virus, which is not true). He has twice quoted me out of context in our renewed online struggle, and of course we have exchanged insults. Finally, a message that I left on this very noticeboard was deleted, and I have every reason to believe that Moriori deleted it. To be fair, when I wrote the message I had forgotten something that I said in 2004, and so I accused him of misquoting me rather than quoting me out of context. I will copy this message, however, so that I can replace it if he deletes it. I am now "keeping my cool". I am not demanding anything from administrators or more experienced Wikipedians. I am making a humble request-in fact-I am pleading that someone will understand my side of the story and the wrongs that Moriori has committed against me. No matter what Moriori tells you or anyone else, every word of this post is the truth, so help me God. Will someone please help me? Thank you very much.
I believe those images are copyrighted as per the disclaimer here; despite the LoC having info in PD.
The time period is too short for the copyrights to expire.
This google search turns up with some promising sites. Hopefully a disclaimer isn't present somewhere.
If his image is available on an album/book/magazine cover, you can scan it & u'load under "fair use". This image can only be used on the artist's name and the article on the album /magazine/book.
Jimbo has decreed that "used with permission" is no longer acceptable, so all such images will be deleted.
I hope I was of some use. I'll be logging off for now, will login 2 hrs l8r. =Nichalp«Talk»= 15:23, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
--User Talk: Felix Frederick Bruyns I copied that long complaint about Moriori from the administrative board (because it was so long and it was late at night where I lived, and also because I wanted to send it to as many concerned Wikipedia users as possible quickly before Moriori could delete it). Therefore one sentence may seem irrelevant to you, since it refers to the administrative board specifically. I apologize for the mix-up. Thank you very much. Also, mediation is very much needed. Thanks again.
You there? If not don't worry. =Nichalp«Talk»= 18:55, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Ok I got a job for you. Maybe you'd like to use your new powers. I've reverted thrice on the Mumbai page. The IP who has reverted is rolling back to a version which contain images that are unverified. (We can't have this for a FA). I've posted a couple of messages on his talk, but no response. Since I'm off to sleep, would you handle it from here on? Just warn him once before blocking him if he reverts again. =Nichalp«Talk»= 19:04, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
ARCHIVE 03: Adminship Expands to Mediatorship Messages 152-220, dating from early September 2005 to late September 2005 This is an archived talk page. Please go to User talk:Flcelloguy to leave Flcelloguy a message. Thanks!
Hi, but you didn't need to give me a welcome notice. I have been on the Wiki as WikiFan04, with about 800 edits to date and 19 months of experience under my belt. I'm not new! Sorry for the misunderstanding. --WikiFanaticTalk 17:13, 4 Sep 2005 (CDT)
I saw the message you left on Redwolf's page. Would you be willing to help me draft something up then? It seems as though lots of contributors are quite busy with other stuff at the moment. I agree, the recent surge of WikiVacations is somewhat a cause for concern. --HappyCamper23:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Now, for starters, we need two things: A framework, and plenty of ideas. I think what we need now is a good set of ideas of what we think should be part of Esperenza. We had that started but I don't think we have nearly sufficient material to put together something concrete. What do you think? --HappyCamper23:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the midnight vigil. I'd suggest you archive the page. Lost of unnecessary stuff is getting loaded each time. =Nichalp«Talk»= 06:38, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Any chance of putting the current round of Wikipedia Mind-Benders to bed? There is still one question unanswered but I don't think anyone's made any additions for a while now. The code was fun btw. --Spondoolicks15:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look and added my two cents. I don't think you were wrong to block btw, just there are probably better things we can do at this point on to reach a happy ending. Regards! Sasquatch讲看 23:37, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
==Be Forewarned== As a step in making peace with Moriori, I am deleting all of my references to him from both my user talk page and YOURS. You're not being vandalized, so don't be alarmed. Felix Frederick Bruyns01:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ofcourse all page-history is intact. That's what happens when you blank a page. And sure, you put one line on it, whetehr it was "hello world" or "#redirect ..." it certainly was not a page move and didnt' really redirect to anything except the page that got you there in the first place, which is of even less value than "hello world". Please note, "9/11 conspiracy theories" is the referring page. Blanking would have been less obstructive. Kevin Baastalk: new 02:47, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
you said: "provided that you do not edit any of the relevant pages"
would it therefore be a problem if i continued to try to get carbonite/jayjg/raul to discuss this at Talk:9/11_Bush_Administration_complicity_theory, as I have been trying to do for some time now? Kevin Baastalk: new 02:13, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Also 9/11 conspiracy theories, which I have not recently edited, but was indirectly involved via linkage, is that included? specifically, i would like to take part in a discussion there.
Also, regarding that comment, I'm assuming it only applies for 24 hours, as the ban did, and if not, i would prefer going with my original predisposition, and exercise my right to decline the leniancy. Kevin Baastalk: new 02:38, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Flcelloguy: Thanks for strong support and comments in my recent RFB nomination. I'm now WP's newest bureaucrat. :) =Nichalp«Talk»= 18:59, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to review my case, i had to spend 2 and a half hours finding out how i might be able to get back on wikipedia, i'm sorry for the harsh words in which i presented my case, but, i was very frustrated how sth. like that could happen.
But i am glad that Wikipedia is indeed a place which i took it for, a place for the people who want to help and are in good faith.
Thanks! --Larzan13:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you don't have the facility set up for people to email you. It's generally good for an admin to be emailable...if you want a gmail account to use specifically for Wikipedia, email me and I will send you an invite. Guettarda22:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To tell you the truth, I'm not entirely sure of the advantage to an admin - I suspect that a blocked user could still email you to appeal a block, but I'm not certain if that's the case - I could block you and we could see if the facility works :) Mostly though, it allows access to the super-secret back-channels that the admin cabal use (or so I assume - I'm still waiting on my invited to the cabal...although, of course, I would have to say so ever if I had been). Basically I wanted to ask you a question "off screen" recently...public discourse is admirable, but not always wise. Guettarda22:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Email function is necessary if someone wants to clarify something and not use the normal wikipedia channels. The disadvantage of using the wikipedia channels is that nothing is really 'deleted', admins can always see the deleted history. Another point is the fact that if you block a user, the facility enables him to contact you and sort it out. I've had this experience once, and I explained the person my reasons for blocking him. He accepted the decision and hasn't caused trouble in WP ever since. =Nichalp«Talk»= 06:32, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
Seems like I somehow missed your reply to me. As for the name - you wouldn't be the first to have an address like that, but why not flcelloguy@ - keep it simple, so if you choose to use that address to subscribed to the mailing list, people would know who you are right away. Guettarda11:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Still having a good deal of trouble. Willmcw reverts any change I make. He asked me not to remove anything from the temp Biff Rose page. I agreed. I went to add some information, and saw that things that I had added, as well as those of another user, were removed. It is this double standard for which I think that willmcw should be removed form any editing in the least on the rose spot. I understand that everyone thinks he is a great editor, but when I've done what he asked, he continues to behave in any fashion he sees fit.
On to Sojmabi Pinola. This man is an admitted fan of Rose. No problem there, I think I even things out as an admitted critic of Rose. But... he also promotes Rose on his own website, and this is causing more problems at the temp Biff Rose page. He too reverts every addition I make, and erases quotes that Biff Rose himself puts up on his website, claiming I don't understand the intention of the quote. This could go on forever. I think there needs to be some kind of mediation, and agreement between willmcw and Sojambi Pinola to stop changing everything I post on the site about Rose. I have made an effort to stop changing everything they say, so that there can be a greater accumulation of all things rose. It seems he was pretty interesting early on, but clearly something changed, as his lyrcs become darker, angrier, and very anti semitic, he refers to any jewish person in his music biz as hook nosed, calls them kikes and jooz. I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP> he posts on his websites about them. PLease keep the page frozen until Willmcw and Sojambi Pinola stop reverting all edits not by them. Sojambi Pinola accuses every person that isn't him or willmcw to be a sock puppet of me. This is ridiculous. There has to be some kind of supervision. I need help in this. But in editing, there must be a cohesive read of the article. so there is that to keep in mind, with my most recent edits, as I realized I had to address the issues and the lack of clarity that Sojambi Pinola was afflicting the piece withJonah Ayers07:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, me again, still a relative newbie. I'm working on Girl along with many others as the current COTW, and I can't get the pictures and whitespace to display the way I'd like. The last edits I made put one picture up front right after the lead paragraph, and it's hanging out on the righthand side of the space with the Contents box (autogenerated) on the lefthand side, which I'm happy with... but I don't like the way the Etymology section title isn't starting all the way over on the lefthand side. I know that I can use
<br style="clear:both" />
to make the new section heading start on the lefthand side, but when I do that, the picture pops up above the Contents box. Can you suggest a solution? Do I need to make a template to display the picture, or something? Or should I just stop obsessing about the white space? :-) Mamawrites08:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your welcome message. I've just written my first article - an almost complete rewrite of Inheritance Tax (United Kingdom). I thought it might be useful if an experienced Wikipedian
had a look at it to see if my approach is more-or-less right. Obviously I vouch for the actual content. AndyJones20:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I must thank you profusely for your support on my RfA. I am honored to receive the adminship tools, and promise to use them wisely. I was surprised at the near-unanimous support for it; thank you for voting for me. Also, thank you for all you do on Signpost- I appreciate the help that you've given me in recent weeks.
By the way, regarding the article you were going to write, Love Virus = MARMOT, for what it's worth. This has been confirmed. And Signpost should be on time this week, my internet's back up. Turns out it was user-error :) Ral315 03:33, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
A person close to Willmcw unprotected the Biff Rose page before anyone got a good mix of the man down. Can you help so we can iron out our differences- by the talk page, and my posts to you, it should be clear that there has not been enough movement in the right direction. PLease protect before we get lost in the onslaught all over again.Jonah Ayers03:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think the editing Tony Sidaway did to the Biff Rose article was great. And I say that even though he took out most of what I wrote. Simple, educational, and very NPOV. Plus, we were really at a standstill, and he supplied fresh blood and fresh perspective. I ask only that if you do freeze the page again at some point, you revert to an administrator's last edit beforehand, rather than leaving the page in a potentially controversial, vandalized, POV or libelous state. Thank you. - Sojambi Pinola22:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your comments on my page; thank you.
I do believe I have made an effort to be civil, and I will continue to do so. I do not feel my efforts are reciprocated. Jonah Ayers has wiped your recent comments off of his talk page, along with evidence of his bullying. Thought you might want to know. [16]. He also consistently adds POV comments without discussing them, makes consistent efforts to put administrator WillMcW in a poor light, may be sockpuppetting as user:216.175.119.92 and generally acts in a bullying manner. It is surprising to me that you continue to see these as "disagreements," or "edit wars" rather than a guy who is abusing Wikipedia. Please take another look at the tenor of his contributions before freezing any pages in a form that he has written. [17] Thank you. - Sojambi Pinola07:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote an article on the portal namespace in the August 29 issue. Ral315 14:19, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
That sounds like a GREAT idea. But that's an idea we should develop, not rush into this week's issue. And it perhaps should be closer to the elections, so that the last part is within a week or two of the start of voting. I'll write more later, but, seriously, that's a great idea. Ral315 15:02, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you very kindly for your support for my nomination. I promise your trust will not be misplaced; I may occasionally be slightly buzzed with power, but never drunk. ;) · Katefan0(scribble) 22:34, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
FYI, Ral315 reverted my edit here and gave this commentary: "revert; Signpost is not a soapbox to gauge public opinion." *I replied to him along these lines:
I saw your revert on the paper:
(diff) (hist) . . Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-09-12/Features and admins; 01:28 . . Ral315 (Talk) (revert; Signpost is not a soapbox to gauge public opinion.)
I did not post to estimate or measure or gauge public opinion:
Conversely, an editor myself, I posted to update the news. (Further, I could care less to estimate the public opinion; rather, it is important to educate readers so they can be an educated voting public.)
I respect your opinion, but you're only a 15-year old high-school sophomore, and I'm a 39-year old veteran, even to the point of being an old geezer. Why don't you run it by the editors before you revert -unless you can justify keeping the public in the dark; besides, I did not advocate or promote anything: I just reported on the news, about which I am expert.
--GordonWattsDotCom 01:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
In all fairness, I want to let you know I'm going to notify the editors about you, so you won't feel I'm talking behind your back. It's their paper, after all, and they can determine these matters.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeeeah... I hope it doesn't make me seem like I'm not the evil person I am. :) I just thought I'd try something new. Now your name on the other hand... I've been meaning to ask you, does it refer to the state of Florida and a big string instrument, or to a sexual practice that kind of sounds like your name? Or both? Cheers. --Lord Voldemort(Dark Mark)21:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you just read your name kind of drunk, you can easily get fellatio. Well, you might not get fellatio, but you may read it as fellatio. Or is my mind just too deep in that proverbial gutter? --Lord Voldemort(Dark Mark)21:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Are you sure that all candidates will have submitted their name by the November 14 article? Even if we have two articles on candidates, we shouldn't write either until all of the candidates have submitted their filings- I think we should do candidates alphabetically, with no exceptions.
I'd be happy to let you write as many as you want- all of them if you prefer- I'm very impressed by the first article. I disagree with all the bolding, because the titles will be links anyway (and since the page would link to itself, it would turn bold anyway. Also, I think we should remove the "next week" thing, and put a larger, more visible notice at the bottom of each article. These changes allow us to use a single, transcluded template, rather than having to copy text into the article or create more than one template.
Regarding the link to the 2004 ArbCom elections, do you think, rather than linking to the December ones, we should also note the July 2004 elections? (A few users on ArbCom were elected in July and have not ran since...)
I really look forward to this series, and thanks for all the work you've done (and, truly, for the thought of doing such a comprehensive series. I shall nominate you for a Pulitzer Prize upon the completion of the series. Ral31504:43, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The bot is in operation, but is still in testing phases. Your one time message did not get sent, as the bot was not in operation at the time you wanted to send out that message. --AllyUnion(talk)11:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Thank you for participating in Round Two of the Wikipedia:Mind Benders! The round will officially close on Friday, September 16, and round three (which is complete) will be open in the immediate days after that. A notice will be sent to you at least 48 hours before round three is set to open, to insure fairness. Round three offers 11 new exciting questions, this time written by Deryck C.. Please be sure to join in the fun! Also, congratulations to Riffsyphon1024 for winning our logo competition! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This message has been sent by Flcelloguy using the NotificationBot (thanks to AllyUnion for designing such a great bot!). If you do not wish to receive further messages regarding WP:MIND, please contact Flcelloguy. If there are any problems with the bot, please alert AllyUnion. Thanks!
Thanks for reverting user:60.224.179.68's vandalism to my userpage. That IP was adding hoax allegations of child porn etc. to various pages, and seems to have resented that I has reverted him. He is now blocked. Thue | talk20:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Again today he also was mingling in a discussion with his two personalities at talk:Victoria, Princess Royal and Empress Frederick, taking seemingly different stances with each of the splits of his personality...
I haven't posted the RfC preparation now at User talk:Francis Schonken/Arrigo disruption on RfC yet, well, one needs two "certifying" users, doesn't one. So here's a choice for you (if you haven't blocked 217.140.193.123 yet, which would also block Arrigo): could you please either:
Negotiate with Arrigo, that he stops using his 217.140.193.123 "alias" so disruptingly
For your information: User Francis Schonken created today a new disambig page at Victoria of the United Kingdom (disambiguation) and only a bit later he realized that there already exists another, essentially similar old disambig page Princess Victoria of the United Kingdom. When realizing that, Schonken started to fight against our GDFL terms, Schonken obviously wants to save his own creation and instead tries to have the old page merged into his creature (which will equal cut-and-paste move and will destroy the old page's edit history). I find his such conduct highly disruptive. As he is fighting against GDFL instructions, he probably should be blocked. Arrigo23:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Flcelloguy, thanks for your offer to mediate. I accept it with pleasure. Note, however, I'm currently re-filing a 3RR, while reverts by Arrigo continue on both pages mentioned above. I hope I get it right this time. --Francis Schonken00:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note on my page. However, Arrigo appears to have been blocked now by another sysop, as a result of my second 3RR request. So maybe it's wiser not to reply to your question for the time being, applying discretion as long as Arrigo is not in the position to take part in the talks. --Francis Schonken08:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The current cron job you have scheduled is for the bot to run every 13th of the month at 22:06 (UTC). Should you want the message to be sent another time, please make certain you reschedule the job accordingly. --AllyUnion(talk)03:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you thank you! I didn't make a disambig page: there were only two topics so I did a hybrid: moved Proximity Effect to Proximity Effect (comic), made Proximity Effect the physics stub and added a note at the top with a link to the comic page. Hopefully that is acceptable? I fixed all the links to Proximity Effect (excluding my stuffs and a user page) and wrote a pathetic little stub. Now I am Desperate for a physicist. I know almost as little about physics as I do about comics. You suggested Peer Review, but that seems a little premature since I'm such a clueless idjit and the article is still stubby, so I'm thinking begging on Pages needing attention might be the next step? Please take a look at the current Proximity Effect and advise. And thank you again!!!
bah had to add disambig anyway: the bands are nn, but there is an album by a noteable band. Ignore the "is this acceptable" above - thnx!
I quoted Sojambi Pinola aka Steve Espinola- a name he claims on wikipedia .. in a talk page, from another website, which is the property of the subject of the article we are discussing. But Sojambi. Steve has posted parts of another email address trying to link that person to me.. I think this is uncalled for an abherrent behavior. Could you look into it? Thanks.Jonah Ayers23:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Moving a redirect page unneccesarily obfuscates its history. So Arrigo still today occupied in moving Victoria of Saxe-Coburg (a redirect page!) to Victoria von Saxe-Coburg (still a redirect page!) to Victoria von Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld (still a redirect page!), somewhere along the line in an edit history noting "undoing a cut-and-paste move" (yeah, sure), littering the place with double redirects (as of writing this still not cleaned up, notwithstanding an invitation to do that [18]) is nowhere a "positive asset" to wikipedia's GFDL policy: it makes unclear whether the page he moved it to was just created today, or was a redirect page existing on wikipedia for ages, without anyone having changed it. It also obfuscates the true history of the "Victoria of Saxe-Coburg" page (now seemingly created "today"). You need to be really hard core to trace its history back over two page moves to "von" "Saalfeld". This anti-GFDL triple page move in itself is IMHO enough to get Arrigo banned again. --Francis Schonken23:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not between "me" and "Arrigo". Its between "Arrigo" and the "wikipedia community".
That being said, I'm prepared to put some effort in getting this problem between Arrigo and the wikipedia community solved. Under whatever conditions. That is, as long as I believe in the method being offered leading to a solution.
So, if it leads to a solution, no problem, everything said during mediation will be kept there, unless mediation was only a delay mechanism for not getting the problem solved. If the problem does not get solved in this way, everything said is under GFDL, and can be used in whatever way most fit to get to a solution of the issue.
Hi Flcelloguy, just writing to signal that Mike Garcia has been making death threats to me at Hypnotize, as well as violating the 3RR rule a startling 7 times (versus 4 different users) in 1.5 hours and vandalizing User:Pasboudin. He hasn't been blocked yet as of this moment, could you please check my 3RR complaint to see if it's valid? Pasboudin02:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't block me. He has been vandalizing the Hypnotize page again. I've been asking me to leave since his attitude on the System of a Down-related articles has grown. And for you, Pasboudin: I am not trying to say I'm better than you, I am not trying to say you suck and I am not trying to say you're stupid. -- Mike Garcia | talk02:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Flcelloguy/Archive! This message is to inform you that round three of Wikipedia Mind Benders will open on Wednesday, September 21, at approximately 22:00 UTC. While the opening time may vary by two or three hours, the round will open no earlier than 22:00 UTC. In addition, there are several rule changes, which will be detailed when the round opens. Everyone who answers a question correctly will receive points, but speed does give some extra points! Round three offers 11 new exciting and mind-bogglind questions, written by Deryck C.. These promise to be lots of fun! We sincerely hope you join us.
Note: This message has been sent by Flcelloguy using the NotificationBot (thanks to AllyUnion for designing such a great bot!). If you do not wish to receive further messages regarding WP:MIND, please contact Flcelloguy. If there are any problems with the bot, please alert AllyUnion. Thanks!
I just recieved 3 copies of the announcement for mind benders - you may want to have a look at the bot :). Also, could you please place your "spam"/"ads" on my page designated for such announcements (i.e. here)? – ABCD✉06:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That happened on my page too, as it has done on yours. I was meant to get on to you the last time, but could you just remove me from this bot, ie not send me more messages? It's good work but it is a bit spam-like. Thanks. Cormaggio@08:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the barnstar! And you know, that screencap is the first time I've seen the orange bar of death in a long, long time! (I have mine reset to be blue.) -- Essjay · Talk20:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The last time I'm spamming you all with Esperanza stuff
Hello Flcelloguy. As you may or may not know, there have been some troubles with Esperanza. So now, as a last ditch to save the community, please vote at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Reform on all neccisary polls. P.S. I'm very sorry for spamming you all with these messages, and this will be the last time. I recommend putting ESP on your watchlist. Cheers and please look at that, let's stop the civil war then. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So, I'm starting to feel like I might be being had...
... is there any possibility that the original leader of Esp and the newly self-appointed pro tempore are sockpuppets, and the whole thing is just a diversion? See the edit summary of this entry. Mamawrites10:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, even if I take your word for it, I'm starting to wonder if JCarriker is intentionally engaging in farcical diversions from real editing. I hope not; I want to believe his intentions are good. Perhaps I don't know enough about his history which led him to create Esperanza in the first place. Mamawrites16:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is a revert war going on. Anytime someone writes about Rose's anti smeticism, it is immediately reverted. Rose posts racist and anti semitic rants on his website, and the lyrics of his later records are rife with them. Willmcw and Sojmabi Pinola seem ot be working in tandem with Rose4- Pinoila is actually directly linked, and mentioned by name on many of Rose's websites, in posts, and in songs. I think the article should be frozen for the time being until a true consensus can be arrived at.Jonah Ayers01:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All well and good, except that a detailed study of Mr. Ayer's contributions [[19]] will show that it is he and a user called 216.175.112.9[20] who are being confrontational and making trouble. Jonah deletes others' talk page comments[[21]], and erases the history from his own talk page [[22]]. He titles his changes "Not an ally anymore," etc. I think you will find that everyone else contributing to the article is doing their best to be civil in the face of extreme goading and hostility from these users. I don't know how to explain this without pointing a finger, but I wish I could. I am content to continue trying to work with Mr. Ayers, but it is difficult when he keeps running around to other administrators' talk pages acting like he is being victimized, when that is certainly not the case.
If administrators try to help him and he doesn't like their attempts, he then turns on them. Here is the most recent example of this: part one: [[23]] and, after the guy initially tried to side with Jonah, part two: [[24]].
I think user:Marcuse nailed what's going on that that page pretty well:
"I[t] seems like specific editors are deleting sentences pretty much at random in order to get other editors to break the 3 revert rule and get blocked. I don't think the content of the article has anything to do with it. Is there an official way to deal with this? Marcuse 11:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC) "
I'd like to chime in with one more thing here. The edits Jonah Ayers keeps reverting are not regarding anti-semitism or racism of Biff Rose, in fact those edits have remained stable for the most part. What he keep deleting is basically factual info from the article that has noting to do with the issues Ayers raises. See, for example Tony's comment on the talk page. I really think that this editor is simply out to cause trouble and portray himself as some kind of victim, wasting everyone's time, including yours. Marcuse18:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. I noticed at approx 11:00 hrs my time (+5:30), the max no of wikipedians are on IRC. Perhaps that can be the base time? I notice Zscout (California, USA) and Evil Monkey (New Zealand) both present. =Nichalp«Talk»=13:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the compliment! As for a chart for you; Ok, but it might be a few days. Currently trying to wrap something up here at my desk and head home for the day. Then, I'm gone for the weekend and may not edit again until Monday. So, if you don't see it for a few days please do not be surprised. If you don't get it to you by Tuesday give me a nudge. You're actually the first person to ask me for a chart who was not an admin nominee, so I don't mind. I just hope I don't get requests from dozens of people :-) --Durin21:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the chart for you. You can view it at Image:Flcelloguy-edits.gif. I won't be placing it on my contributions subpage so please feel free to delete it whenever you're done with it or keep it if you want.
Some comments:
Ok, you need therapy. 9 days since 5/14/2005 (your first edit) when you haven't edited on Wikipedia? You're a serious wikiholic. You need help, and FAST! :-)
Average of ~32 edits per day is the highest average I've seen in the prior 12 charts that I've done, by far. Wow!
I wish my chart looked as consistent as yours :-) Mine's pretty good, but the total edits line wavers more than yours, and my average is lower than yours. In fact, the only way in which I exceed you is that your highest edit count on a single day is 135. I've got 4 days over that (highest at 159). Still, I'm envious and not worth of your wikiness ;-)
You use edit summaries 97% of the time, and 97.6% of the time in the last 500 edits. Bravo!
Could you remove me from the bot that automatically sends news updates to users. I don't really need a false positive created on my user talk page by the bot notifying me about every new contest. All I did was make the logo (which I hope you like), however I won't be contributing to the questions. Thank you. -- Riffsyphon102423:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to get him to discuss his objections to my rewrite of Jack Sarfatti (you might already know that I rewrote this article during a VfD and the result was to keep the modified version), but he's apparently too upset to listen to reason, and I might need some help until he calms down. He keeps reverting the 'Vfd approved version' (as it were) to his own highly biased version, and now he has placed this threat on my user talk page. What do you think? ---CH (talk)00:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On Sep 23, 2005, at 5:39 PM, Jack Sarfatti (sarfatti@pacbell.net) wrote to Tony Smith physicist/attorney:
OK Tony they locked me out. I will inquire with the Attorney General of Florida on Monday and if Wiki is incorporated there I fill file a formal complaint that, if successful, can result in the loss of their tax exemption with the IRS.
Thanks for uploading Image:WSHS.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag, so its copyright status is therefore unclear. Please add a tag to let us know its copyright status. (If you created/took the picture then you can use {{gfdl}} to release it under
the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{fairuse}}.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know on the image description page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Otherwise, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have tagged them, too. Note that any unsourced and untagged imaged will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. --Secretlondon13:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of things that you have improved, not sure about the green though... Excellent job, there. Now I wish I'd had the inpsiration to be as daring with yours. Alfmelmac14:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done version two. Split up sections as you did mine, 'advertiboxed' the links. Couldn't force myself to use any of the web colours as a backgound against the changes though ; ) Alfmelmac23:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your ArbCom piece is a bit long, so what do you think about adding sub-headings in a few places, to split it up a bit? Let me know what you think (it was a great piece overall, though)
Also, just wanted to thank you for the Wikipedia Signpost reference in my sig that I so crudely stole from you :) I wish I had thought about it earlier! Ral315WS17:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, a few days ago you locked this article because of a content dispute between myself (and some other users) and User:JackSarfatti, User:Jackhorner and some others (possibly socks for Jack Sarfatti, the person, not that I much care about that).
I've tried and tried and TRIED to get first JackSarfatti (now an indefinitely blocked user) and then Jackhorner to discuss Sarfatti's objections on the talk page of the article. After much effort I managed to get JS(?) to confine his comments to that page, but I am finding it impossible to engage him in anything approaching rational discussion. I must have tried four times simply to teach him to properly sign, date and indent his comments on the talk page, but he can't even seem to learn to do that. In addition to refusing to distinguish his own comments from those of other users, he is pasting in emails in a manner which completely obscures who said what. This formatting issue is one reason why I find it essentially impossible to try to continue talking to him. I really can't discuss anything with anyone who seems to go out of his way to utterly confuse who said what when, especially when one of his major complaints is that I allegedly misrepresented who said or did what, or whatever. If you look at the Talk:Jack_Sarfatti talk page, I think it will be obvious what I mean. I would have been willing to ask for mediation or whatever (in fact I tried to suggest that to Sarfatti earlier in this dispute), but at this point I have to doubt that Jackhorner is capable of holding even a mediated discussion.
Anyway, the reason I am writing to you is that one of Jackhorner's principle complaints since the article was locked seems to be that I have not corrected one or two factual errors (noted in the talk page, if you can figure out what Jackhorner is trying to say). Of course, since the article has been locked, I cannot do that, and I tried several times to explain this to him on the talk page, but he just can't seem to take in anything I say. I'm ready to give up. It seems unfortunate to me that my attempt to get JS to discuss his objections to my edits, rather than simply reverting the article to his own version (which I thought was highly non-NPOV), has led to such a mess, but unless you can suggest a better alternative, I can only ask you to unlock the article so he can change the article to whatever he likes. For all I care, you can lock the page to his version.
Yes, please unlock the page and do everything you can to tell User:Jackhorner that he can make whatever changes he wants to that article. He's too obnoxious for me to deal with and I don't care anymore. I want nothing more to do with this, but he keeps harrassing me because he can't revert the article to his 'approved version' while it is locked. TIA---CH (talk)21:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ARCHIVE 04: From Mediatorship to Guiding Esperanza Messages 221-290, dating from late September 2005 to October 2005 This is an archived talk page. Please go to User talk:Flcelloguy to leave Flcelloguy a message. Thanks!
Hello, you are one of the 7 remaining active medcom members. I have immensely decluttered the WP:RFM page. Now I would like to start assigning people to cases. If you do not have the time for this, please remove yourself from the active listings. I hope that we can become active again, and we won't need WP:TINMC to cover for us as they have. Please check RfM frequently as I may be assigning you. And of course you can always turn down cases and choose your own, its not some kind of the-leaders-make-you-do-what-they-say deal... anywho, just saying I'm trying to revive the medcom. Thanks, Redwolf24 (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy that you like the changes, likewise with my pages. I checked yours viewed in IE6 yesterday and the layout is slightly different. I think it looks best in Firefox, but just goes to show we don't have only our personal reality tunnel to deal with! I found the short break from my usual practises good fun and a good stress relief. There are a number of things about your changes to my pages I like, and I'm in no rush to make changes. Alfmelmac05:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JEFTA - "At the core of this WikiProject is the guideline to Be Bold! Just edit the f-ing article. Any article will do. If you come across an article that needs wikifying, rather than tagging it with {{wikify}}, instead just do it yourself! If there is an article with a {{cleanup}} or {{merge}} tag, clean it up or merge it! Try to encourage others to do the same. At this point (14:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)) there are thousands of articles tagged with various templates, that could easily be removed with very minor work." FYI. Hipocrite - «Talk»21:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is broader than simply the "extreme" voting. I don't see the point in voting neutral. It accomplishes nothing. If a user has not answered the questions, he can be notified on his talk page. Voting neutral in general seems like a fruitless effort resulting only in contribution inflation. freestylefrappe03:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the prompt response. Unfortunetly, it may take me sometime to educate myself on the various proceedures & precedents associated with Wikipedia Mediation. If you can advise on the timeframes involved, or anyother source I can draw upon I'd much appreciate it. For now, I'm fine within Wikipedia at least until I'm brought up to speed on the various processes. Thank you. nobs19:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Score counting has not been finished yet. I wanna add a few more last-minute points althought that doesn't change much about the final results. Congrats about the mediator stuff anyway. BTW are you a sysop? Deryck C.06:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:MIND page says you want feedback on the rules. I'm coming around to thinking that the multipliers aren't necessarily a good thing. Even with the notification bot, they tend to make it a case of whoever gets to the quiz first will almost certainly win it.
My suggestion would be that the first right answer to each question gets just one bonus point. It would be enough to be decisive if the results were close, but it still leaves it possible for someone getting ten right answers to beat someone who only got, say, eight (depending on how much each question happened to be worth). Or maybe even drop the bonus points for being first entirely - would it be so bad if two, three, five, people happened to tie by getting all the answers right? If good faith is assumed, then although any answer other than the first could have been cheating, there's no real way to counter it, without also making the whole quiz unfair for those who happened to miss out on catching the quiz when it first went up.
What could be included instead would be that any question that goes unanswered for 24 hours gets (5?) extra points when it is answered correctly, 48 hours and it gets more, 72 hours and it gets more still.
I think there are still problems with the above scoring method, but I imagine there are going to be problems with any scoring method. As it is at the moment, the multipliers seem to be too much of a factor in the overall result though. (Although, obviously, I'm not grumbling about past results or anything like that, I'm just giving input for future WP:MINDs).
I noticed that you left a message on the talk page of 135.214.154.104 about a block. I just corrected vandalism to Owens Community College and Duct tape by this IP. There are a couple of warnings already on the user's talk page. Is there a history I should know about? Please advise. Thanks, Chick Bowen23:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much :) I'm finding that this is one of the the great things about Wikipedia; when I don't have the drive or energy to do major work on articles, there's still plenty of fun little jobs to do.
P.S. If those AOL IPs get annoying, just let me know and I'll block 'em for a couple minutes. :-)
Nah, no need. Most of them aren't really persistent, and I think just reverting their pranks and leaving them messages does more to illustrate the Wiki Way than banning them would.
I wonder if I can use the notification bot to advertize my nom? I think the WP:MIND and WP:HKCOTW people are quite willing to help. Deryck C.16:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for jumping in on the conversation. I'd advise against it. It could be construed as touting for votes. Whilst I'd be happy to support you as an admin - and I'll head off and do so right now - using the notification bot for "personal gain" would put me off. KeithD(talk)16:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
==Who's RfA== Thank you for supporting my masters RfA. He appreciates your support and comments and looks forward to better serving Wikipedia the best he can. Of course I will be doing all of the real work. He would have responded to you directly, but he is currently out of town, and wanted to thank you asap. Thanks again. --Who's mop?¿? 20:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I see that you protected the Criticism of Islam page. Please note that the content dispute is over some additions that I made to the "History" section of the article. A certain group of users then started a revert war, trying to delete the content that I added, as I descrided in the talk page. Other users tried to prevent them from deleting my additions, until the revert war was halted by your page protection. HOWEVER, I would like to point out to you that neither the person who initiated the revert war by deleting my additions, nor any of his supporters, have written ANYTHING about their reverts in the talk page - neither before nor after your page protection. Yet you have protected the page in the REVERTED state (i.e. the state with my additions removed). I have explained this in the talk page and have been trying to get these people to explain their reverts, but they have refused to use the talk page. I feel that it is inappropriate that the page has been protected in the reverted state when the people who started the revert war refuse to use the talk page, even after the page has been protected. I think that you should protect the page in the alternate state, not because I believe that my edits deserve special treatment, but because I think that only when you do so will the revert warriors start using the talk page. Right now you have locked the article in the state that they prefer so they are refraining from using the talk page. I think it is only fair that the article either be unprotected or it be protected in the alternate state. -- Zeno of Elea23:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my first ever spam mass produced and mailed to the spamlist. Well first of all let me re-state that we have an irc channel, #wp-esperanza, and its been rather empty, so I'd appreciate it if you come, even if you just idle about. Now, the evil polls have closed, and I left a justification note for running the evil polls. Nothing has really changed, but at least I have somewhat of a consensus. I hope to figure out a way to overturn my power to JCarriker somehow, I'll figure out a way :-) Meanwhile, I've been busy reforming the mediation system where I am the chairman now, er, acting chairman. Enjoy your spam, with extra vikings. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You can unprotect this page now. I talked to one of my school's technicians, and they are going to block the edit page for Wikipedia on the school computers. The person who was vandalising Maine East's IP adress talk page was using a school computer... Cosmos04:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
69.210.246.16 is the IP of the vandal from his house. It is the same person who has gotten blocked from his school IP address (66.99.49.226). My school will soon be blocking the ability to edit Wikipedia pages, so banning this person's home IP address will make it nearly impossible for them to cause more damage. Here[26] is where I copied his IP address from, after he told me he had "played" with my talk page, earlier today at school. Cosmos18:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That recent vandalism you reverted on User:Gene Poole occured more than a week after I protected that page...Do you think I should protect it again? Also, I'm tempted to delete the entire page, and recover only the non-vandalism edits. The vandalism has cluttered that page history so much, it warrants some fixing I think to improve clarity. --HappyCamper21:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! I had quite a bit of experience with this after deleting Splash's entire talk page with 500+ edits in it! :-) As far as I can tell, you actually have to delete the entire page first, then restore all the ones that you want. You can do this selectively, so if you wanted to get rid of one particular edit, you'd have to delete the entire page first, then restore everything you want except for that particular edit. Very messy to do if the page history is long. Alternatively, you can ask Tim to do this, but should be reserved for very serious cases I think. The one time I remember him using it, he deleted an edit which involved an entire text dump of some Harry Potter text.
Ah, and by the way, a very belated congrats on being a Mediator! :-) I had no idea you were involved with mediation until very recently. --HappyCamper
Hello, Cool Cat. I was just wondering what the Counter-Vandalism Unit does (besides fighting vandalism, I mean... :-)) What does the bot do, and what does the "rollback" thingie mean? Thanks. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS20:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Counter Vandalism Unit is designed to combat vandalism on wikipedia in general. It at the moment operates on 8 more popular languages and meta wiki. The bot serves on IRC and flags potentialy "bad" edits. Users must check the output and determine an action. The bot itself does not take any direct action. Generaly 10-20 users are active on #en.wikipedia.vandalism.
Aside from vandalims the bot detects copy vios as well. This was an unintentional result though.
"rollback" is a function designed for admin only usage. It does not work for non admins. This is because of mediawiki's design.
The rollback thing generates an eyes only url that when clicked on reverts the page without any more hassle. I am not actualy sure if it works as so far no one has used it. :) --Cool CatTalk22:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since I've been swishing around with this newfangled mop of mine, I've seen you all over the place. I just wanted to say that I admire your work here. Best · Katefan0(scribble)15:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Copyrighted images uploaded without permission of the copyright holder, or under a license which does not permit commercial use, which are not currently used in any article, if more than seven days old (so-called "orphaned fair use images"). Reasonable exceptions may be made for images uploaded for an upcoming article.
This isn't the one added by Jimbo two weeks ago... it was added by User:Kelly Martin with the edit summary "added jimbo-approved orphan fair use images" (see diff). It was added with very little fanfare and presumably nobody noticed. Some admins like Zscout370 have actually been deleting orphan fair use images for weeks, but it was only added to WP:CSD last week. Coffee16:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My dear Flcelloguy, I simply wanted to drop by now that my RfA is closed to give you a big THANK YOU! for your kind support. It came at a very important time to me, when I felt I was being somewhat distrusted, and your confidence gave me strength. I'm glad that you considered the answers I gave as noteworthy, and I hope that we continue to be in contact in the future, as you have in me a new friend. Hugs! ShauriYes babe?20:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello spam list, look at this. Essjay is the new leader of Esperanza, and I'm interested in seeing how he runs it. I'm busy doing other work... Please comment at that talk page there. I will still probably run the spamlist though. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The thing on mediation will be combined into this week's User:Ral315/News and notes, because I really don't have enough information to make it a stand-alone article. I would appreciate you looking at it and telling me if there were any mistakes or misinterpreted parts within the blurb itself.
I just applied to join the mediation committee- being a mediator yourself, and whom I consider a good friend, I would appreciate your input either way. Ral315WS07:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I saw in the history you removed the reference to WP:TINMC. I added it back. If you were in IRC you'd probably see just how much they've covered for us. We've referred at least 2 cases to them, and during the medcom's hiatus, TINMC was the only placec to get a decent mediation. I'm not trying to sound as rude as this may look by the way, I'm just saying that we really owe them one. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the policy is a mistake, was proposed yesterday, and thus shouldn't be implemented yet. 8-10 people have commented on the project page out of probably 50 RFA regulars; policy changes need more consideration. Christopher Parham(talk)00:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care about this, so I don't plan to argue it any further, but if I did care I'd be tempted to just revert your changes to the front matter. The change you made was proposed by BD2412 less than 12 hours before you made it. I don't really see how consensus could be built in so little time. The discussion, also, was never advertised to the community that I can tell. So while everyone on the talk page agreed, there's certainly no "consensus" established for those changes. Christopher Parham(talk)14:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip about Quale. Im still a bit disappointed (and offended) that even after I had contacted him three times, he ignored me, and made no attempt whatsoever to even tell me that he was thinking about it, and instead contacted someone else. →Journalist>>talk<<22:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sojambi Pinola is posting things on my page that aren't true and impossible to prove as wel las being completely unsubstantiated, and when I archive them, he removes them from the archive and reposts them on the talk page. PLEASE HELP!!!Jonah Ayers00:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Right. wish I could tease you with another puzzle. Hang on... simple one... yeah, Other than the king, which is the only piece which you can't obtain once you reach the final rank? =Nichalp«Talk»=18:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, its the bishop which runs on the colour opposite to the colour of the square of the 8th rank. I hope it wasn't silly because I thought of this up a long time ago. =Nichalp«Talk»=19:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for listing me on the alert page, but my stress is waning, and I am feeling much better. It has been a little rough going at times, but am doing alright. Plus, listing it there may seem like I'm trying to garner support, which I have no intention of doing. I am going to remove it, but just be aware of my gratitude for all you do around here. Thanks my friend. --Lord Voldemort(Dark Mark)|My RfA14:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Flcelloguy: I am going to formally request that you admonish Cberlet to cease running ahead of the process, which he has done twice now. It only confuses things. Please ask of him to cease editing on other pages until I respond to his Summary of Dispute. Thank you. nobs16:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Our new admin general, Essjay, has set the date for the advisory committee elections, that date being October 7th. By UTC it is October 5th right now. So see WP:ESP/E for voting in two days, and add yourself to the list if you're interested in running. On a personal note, I'm considering running, as I only resigned as admin general because of time. I'm sure I could help out on the advisory committee... Anywho, watchlist that page, and be sure to read the voting method too. Regards, Redwolf24 (talk) 01:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Given your general fairness and evenhandedness regarding user:Jonah Ayers, I think you might be dismayed to learn that your most recent comment to him was moved immediately to his archive as follows: [29]. Note that it is titled "Florida Cello weighs in, maybe needs to grow a pair." I interpret that as an insult. The change was made under user:216.175.112.9. But Jonah signed in literally 2 minutes later [30], obviously saw these changes, and left them as they were, which is strong evidence that it was he who made the change. There is a comment left by user:216.175.112.9 which seems designed to created the illusion that they are different people [31]; but plenty of evidence exists to the contrary. (The prior link, for example.) In fact, given the other evidence, this comment suggests that Jonah knows that removing messages in this way will rile people, and that this has been his agenda.
The man is harassing people right and left, then accusing them of the precise behaviors he is doing. I am not asking you to do anything at this point, but I want you to understand the situation. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to settle disputes with someone when they consistently act in this manner. I am open to suggestions, but understand that I and several other people have been quite patient and conciliatory given the aggression of this user.
Thanks for the compliment. I've been asked about this before, but I would prefer not to take up this post. For one, I am uncertain if I can continue as an arbitrator for a year, and secondly and more importantly, proceedings are complicated and litigation is long and tortuous. I'm more comfortable producing featured articles; much less stress and more fulfilling. PS abt the chess: I'd asked you to think laterally. ;) =Nichalp«Talk»=19:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd actually prefer it if you did not write the Esperanza story, since you're a candidate there, and writing this story might appear improper to readers. You're welcome to write a different story, and if I end up writing the Esperanza piece (which it appears might happen), I would make sure to go to you for some information, and probably have you comment on the article before it publishes. Ral315WS21:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On the Signpost...no worries...it's just the appearance of neutrality that I worry about. I'm sure you'd write an unbiased article no matter what, it's just much easier to avoid conflict.
I do agree that running for both at the same time does put me in an awkward position...however, I had decided to run for ArbCom based on Redwolf24's belief that being on both wouldn't conflict that greatly, other than the massive caseload. I do promise that if I'm elected to both MedCom and ArbCom that I will continue to handle any open mediations that I had been handling until I'm no longer needed; also, I will stay on MedCom for at least a month, or until a few other users join MedCom and I feel that my departure from MedCom would not significantly affect the caseload. Is this okay with you, or do you still have concerns? I do understand your worries about me joining MedCom and departing so quickly, but I promise that I won't leave MedCom until you and the Mediation Committee Chair both agree that me leaving won't disrupt the proceedings of the Mediation Committee. Tell me if you have any other concerns. Ral315WS00:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1. Are up for re-election this year?/2. If so, do you plan to run for re-election?
No, my term is up in December 2007, more than two years from know; I'll decide whether to run for reelection at that time.
3. How do you feel about serving on the ArbCom?
It is a honor that I am very grateful for. The committee is a vital part of our project and hopefully helps protects the community from those that disrupt it, either through malice, ignorance, or ideological blindness. We are a changing organization, especially of late, and for the most part I feel we are getting more effective at our job. We have a very long way to go, and there are several major problems. I have confidence that these will be rectified soon enough. Generally, after an election there is a burst of productivity, so hopefully by mid-January we can close all currently active cases. I'd like to have this as an official goal.
4. What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom?
We are elected by the community and therefor have legitimacy–authority to act on behalf of all editors. In addition, our group is very diverse. We have members from Australia, Britain, the U.S., and Canada, of both genders. We also have a good basic framework that allows for much due process–many would argue that it offers too much due process that needlessly clogs the system.
5. Weaknesses?
The committee takes a very long time to decide cases. Justice delayed is justice denied, and many of our more troublesome respondents taken advantage of the long decision time by wreaking havoc. Our rate of closing cases needs to be sped up to be consummate. Part of the problem is excessive legalism. I think we should limit the number of principles and findings of fact and possibly even create a single general principle. Another problem is the number of Arbitrators that must vote on each case. If we could create panels of three Arbitrators to work on each case and make a decision–possibly subject to ratification by the full panel or another check–this would drastically speed up our progress.
6. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
The speed, see above.
7. Do you regret accepting your position? Why or why not?
No. Despite the system's flaws, it is an important process that I am glad to take part in.
8. If you could say one thing to the current ArbCom candidates, what would you say, and why?
Why are you running? If you're running purely for status, or power, or for a particular agenda, you might want to reconsider your candidacy. Arbitration is hard work. Are you dedicated? Can you afford the time needed to arbitrate? Look at your real life. Do you have some major school- or work-related issues, or vacation, that could interfere with your access to the Internet or available free time? All of these should be considerations.
If you're running to reform the committee and improve Wikipedia: I wish you the best of luck. Surely there are dozens of qualified candidates–I could probably name 30 that would be suitable.
If you are unsuccessful in your candidacy: please don't get discouraged. Your comments are always welcome and valued. This especially applied to those who will be very close to winning a seat. Remember, if a member steps down mid-term, Jimbo and the committee will search for an interim appointment, and those people are prime candidates.
9. Do you think your job is easy? Hard? Explain./12. What is the most frustrating thing about being on the ArbCom? Enjoyable?
Sometimes it is easy, sometimes it is hard. There are several complex cases that involve charts and long lists of edits and transgressions. Arbitrating between two well-known members of the community are the hardest, especially when both are respected. It is often frustrating to deal with obstinate or malicious users; it is most enjoyable when these users are banished from our community.
I'm tired and I'm going to bed. I omitted questions 10 and 11; maybe if I have time I'll answer them later. If you have any comments or follow-ups feel free to contact me on my talk page. Warmest regards --Neutralitytalk03:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So, now that I've posted answers to the Three Questions on my RfA, would you maybe be interested in voting on it? Thanks either way. DS11:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am All of the temporary appointees' terms end in December.
2. If so, do you plan to run for re-election?
I plan to run for election for a second time, yes. Hopefully this time I will be successful. :-)
3. How do you feel about serving on the ArbCom?
I consider it very interesting work, and certainly useful to the community. However, it occupies quite a lot of my time related to Wikipedia (and Wikimedia generally), which I could otherwise spend doing other things, though quite probably less useful ones. :-)
4. What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom?
When cases come all the way to us, the disputes are often difficult and highly acrimonious, and also seemingly never-ending. The Committee's ruling generally causes the problem to end, or at the very least abate significantly. But then, that is the entire point of the Committee, so I would say that.
5. Weaknesses?
The Arbitration Committee is, by design, much slower than any other process on Wikipedia, because we want to consider the cases carefully and try our hardest to come up with workable and successful solutions and remedies to the problems that are brought to us which are in the best interests of the project and the community at large. This slowness has been criticised, and understandably so, but I think it preferable to the Committee rushing through things and being a destructive force.
6. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
It is disappointing that participants in cases do not try to structure nor marshall their arguments in a way that is clear both what they consider wrong in general, the the parts that they are most concerned about. If we were merely concerned in which side presented the better argument, we could just discard them, but we're actually here for the good of the project overall, so we just have to deal with it as best we can. Sometimes it is rather frustrating that we don't force people to actually work at what they want, but I'm not sure that there's much that we can do about it, sadly.
7. Do you regret accepting your position? Why or why not?
No, I do not. It's a necessary duty for Wikipedia, and it doesn't tire me the way that it seems to tire others, so I suppose it's my duty to carry it out.
8. If you could say one thing to the current ArbCom candidates, what would you say, and why?
Be aware that the worst possible thing that the Committee could do, worse even than effectively stalling for months at a time and not dealing with cases, is to carry out cases in such a way that the community's trust in the Committee is reduced. The Committee only works because we keep that, and it's absolutely vital. We inherited a great deal of responsibility from Jimbo when he delegated his powers to us, and abusing or jeopardising the faith placed in us, even accidentally, would be disastrous.
9. Do you think your job is easy? Hard? Explain.
Elements of being an Arbitrator are quite hard - analysing the evidence is often difficult, and made more so by counter-productive ways in which complaints and items of evidence are displayed. Then there's taking the flak - whatever decision you come to, at least one party will likely feel slighted at least partially. Sometimes this goes quite a bit further (death threats and to a lesser extent other threats of violence are not unknown, though they have become significantly less common of late, and then there are the obvious elements of vague legal threats, and rude emails generally). The main difficult is probably the workload - reading through reams of posts is tiring work, and not everyone (or anyone, really) would find it fun.
10. Looking in retrospective, is there anything you would have done differently?
Not really. I could be rather asinine and say that I wish I'd devoted more time overall, but I could always say that. There isn't really a limit to how much time you can end up spending.
11. Do you feel that the ArbCom is appreciated by the community? If not, how do you think that could be changed?
Sometimes, certainly, it feels like the Committee not being appreciated that much by the community gets some of us down, but again this problem seems unsurmountable, really. When we do well, people don't really notice that much - there's merely one iota less friction in the system. When we do less well, however, people complain readily. :-) This is even more significantly a problem in mediation, both formal and informal, and as these underpin the dispute resolution process and are vital to making the Arbitration process work at all, really.
12. What is the most frustrating thing about being on the ArbCom? Enjoyable?
The most enjoyable part of being an Arbitrator is the sense that you are doing something significant for the community. The most frustrating part, really, is the lack of recognition. But such is life.
I hope that this helps you.
BTW, it's "Arbitrator" with a capital 'A' (and with the other terms, too), always. :-)
By all means, feel free to use whatever you like; it thrills me when people like what I've done enough to want to take it! :-) -- Essjay · Talk18:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't say how long it would be, but I saw him doing a few things last night, so I'm guessing he may be keeping a low profile at the moment. If I see him, I'll ask. -- Essjay · Talk20:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Flcello, I responded to Kelly Martin's question on my Mediatorship Nomination page, hopefully that clears things up. Maoririder shouldn't be able to hide behind his disability, if he can't act within the standards of the Wikipedia community, he should be treated like any other Wikipedian. Karmafist01:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks For The Support! And btw, thanks for your support on my Rfa! Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help you out, regardless of the MedCom decision. Karmafist14:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Flcelloguy: Even though you voted Neutral on my candidacy, I would like to thank you for taking the time to vote on my RfA, since you clearly expended a great deal of thought and effort in making your vote. Oppose and Neutral votes are as useful to me as Support votes, since they serve to highlight areas in which I can improve myself and become a better administrator; after all, Support votes of the character of "EXTREME XYZ SUPPORT" don't really give one many pointers on what needs to change. :-) As I am now an administrator, I would be most grateful if you would please tell me how you would like to see me improve, and what areas you think I should work on, as I am always looking for feedback. I am most grateful for your assistance, and I look forward to working with you in the future. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk)(e-mail)(cabal)05:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The images Image:Cello small.jpg and Image:OrlandoMagic 100.png are not suitable for use on user pages. The first may be a copyvio, as it has no source information. The second is fair use only, which would not apply to user pages. Please remove these images so as not to pose a copyright violation to Wikimedia. Thanks! Ral315WS06:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you've been working on the Signpost series on the upcoming elections, and that the next edition deals with criticism of the Arbcom. Since I have been one of the more mentioned critics for over a year, if you are interested I can respond to any questions you have before the next issue comes out on Monday. 172 | Talk09:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Flcelloguy. I hope you can somehow forgive me for voting for you twice. Ii is my sincerest wish that we can put this ugly incident behind us:-) Kidding, thanks for picking it up. Making the mistake I am supposed to be looking out for is so embarassing! Anyway, good luck with the advisory commitee elections. Cheers Banes10:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please comment on this proposal at the Village Pump:
Well, yup, it's started again. User:J.Sarfatti and User:GyroGearLoose, who may be a sock puppet, have engaged in some recent edits which violate consensus, NPOV, etc. Given Sarfatti's usage of sock puppets, I suggest page protection as the best choice, rather than banning him. The page hasn't changed significantly since I instituted the changes from the talk page anyway. I recommend reverting back to the edit by User:Calton and then protecting.
Well, I was never elected, I was appointed, but my term does expire in December
2. If so, do you plan to run for re-election?
Yes, I do.
3. How do you feel about serving on the ArbCom?
It's an important job, but it takes a lot of time.
4. What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom?
It's a mechanism for dealing with editors who are damaging Wikipedia, but not so blatantly that they can be summarily banned.
5. Weaknesses?
It's overloaded, and there's a lot of burnout - sometimes before people even start work. Paradoxically, the Committee sometimes also takes on work in areas in which I think it has no mandate; specifically, it seems to want to gather evidence and prosecute cases, not just adjudicate them.
6. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
On the committee side, I'd like it to stick more closely to its mandate, as in the previous question. On the complainants side, I wish they would present evidence in a way that doesn't take hours and hours to slog through, and which deals with all sorts of things unrelated to policy.
7. Do you regret accepting your position? Why or why not?
No, no regrets. It's an unrewarding job, but I see it as a way of giving back to Wikipedia.
8. If you could say one thing to the current ArbCom candidates, what would you say, and why?
Make sure you're really, really committed to sticking it out, and putting in a lot of time.
9. Do you think your job is easy? Hard? Explain.
It's difficult, for the reasons listed above, and because you have to try to get to the bottom of sometimes very messy and confusing cases.
10. Looking in retrospective, is there anything you would have done differently?
I haven't been at it long enough yet to have much of a retrospective.
11. Do you feel that the ArbCom is appreciated by the community? If not, how do you think that could be changed?
I think it is appreciated to an extent, but would be much more appreciated if it worked more quickly. Ideally no case should take more than a month from first submission to final remedies.
12. What is the most frustrating thing about being on the ArbCom? Enjoyable?
I find the lack activity on the part of many members to be frustrating; it really slows things down. The most enjoyable part is (hopefully) making Wikipedia a better place.
Hello, I'm sending this to the five of you with cases listed as active in the active tasks template. Just wondering which of you still have it active and how you're doing with it... Please message me on my talk, or email me if you see fit. Thanks :) Redwolf24 (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom?
Community participation, experience and common sense.
5. Weaknesses?
The work is hard and time consuming for a volunteer job.
6. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
I encourage acceptance of cases involving content disputes. There needs to be some resolution of questions which involve sustained edit warring about fixed positions.
7. Do you regret accepting your position? Why or why not?
No, this is chance to significantly contribute to a worthwhile project. Other work has suffered, but I think I have filled a need.
8. If you could say one thing to the current ArbCom candidates, what would you say, and why?
Be prepared for hard work and occasional second guessing.
9. Do you think your job is easy? Hard? Explain.
Done well, the work is quite hard, due to the complexity of the evidence considered and the time burden in viewing it, When a matter is hotly disputed either among us or within the community it can be emotionally upsetting.
10. Looking in retrospective, is there anything you would have done differently?
I have sometimes slacked off for a period.
11. Do you feel that the ArbCom is appreciated by the community? If not, how do you think that could be changed?
Yes, although the community sometimes ascribes more ability, time and wisdom to us than we actually enjoy.
12 What is the most frustrating thing about being on the ArbCom? Enjoyable?
Failure of other arbitrators to have the time and energy to provide enough input is frustrating as is reluctance to propose alternatives when they oppose something. The most enjoyable is sometimes figuring out what is causing a difficulty.
... in participating in the wikipediology project since you contribute to Signpost. There are several projects within it you may be interested in and there is also the potential for independent studies. -JCarriker22:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Flcello, sorry it took me so long to get back to you, but I figured I should.
I apologize if I shattered your confidence in me, which I value, but I don't apologize for the use of the word mental retardation instead of say, the word Down Syndrome, which would be more specific, but still probably appropriate regarding Maoririder. I have a past of a bad temper, something that Wikipedia has diminished greatly, and something I actively try to continue diminishing independently (see the WP:MC talk page) by helping others where I can, but Tony Sidaway's words have sparked something in me that still make me livid.
I consider his comments basically saying that disabled Wikipedians, such as myself, are more or less inferior, and if they can't live up to community standards, it's "not their fault", and they deserve a pat on the head and a lollypop. This is equally infuriating considering he made no attempt to council Maoririder on how to become a better user, where I and several other users who endorsed my comment on how his actions were immature and may be indicative of mental retardation, did.
The final straw is how he doesn't have the courage to respond on my talk page with to my responses to his insulting statements. I can only assume that is because of Luigi's Law on the Raul's Law page, his ego must be so huge that he considers talking to me beneath him, although I assume that he considers talking to anyone with a handicap beneath him from what i've seen so far. I was willing to let this go if he apologized to me for his statements, but that's unlikely to happen, so i'll probably open an RfC on him by this weekend.
In the end, perhaps Andre was right. I haven't erased all those demons of the past yet, or I would have been able to convince Tony Sidaway why his comments are demeaning and patronizing and resolve this potential conflict between the two of us, which would be preferrable to me. Karmafist16:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1. Do you plan to run for re-election this year? Why or why not?
I haven't made a final decision on whether or not to stand in this year's elections. That decision will not be made until I've had a chance to actually serve on the committee for a while. My bias is to stand for election, though; I've had too many people encourage me to run that I can't not seriously consider it.
2. How do you feel about being appointed to serve on the ArbCom?
A bit overwhelmed, and very humbled. I spent an hour and a half today reviewing evidence and arguments in order to make the decision whether or not to accept a pair of clearly related cases. The amount of material to be reviewed in some cases is outrageous, and we are obliged to review all of it before making any lasting decisions.
3. Right now, what do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom? 4. Weaknesses? 5. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
I can't fairly comment on these. I know I've made several public comments about ArbCom and many suggestions on reform, but even in the short time I've been a member I've realized that some of my prior perceptions were underinformed. Reform discussions continue, both in public and in private, but I haven't come to any conclusion what the best thing to do at the moment is.
6. If you could say one thing to the current ArbCom candidates, what would you say, and why?
"ARE YOU INSANE?" Seriously, ArbCom is a three year commitment to a terribly nasty, difficult, and timeconsuming job. Please please please consider if you're willing to commit to spend 10 hours a week for the next three years on this. That goes especially for those of you whose lives are not yet settled (i.e. in school): three years is a LONG time. Don't just run for the prestige of it; being on ArbCom totally changes the way you relate to the rest of the community.
7. Do you think your job will be easy? Hard? Explain.
Definitely it will be a hard job. One of the biggest problems it that it's a lot harder to tell if someone is lying to you in text; you can't see body language, hesitation, facial expression, etc. We have to decide cases based on examining reams of text dumped on us (usually with no organization and little rational explanation), and that's really not easy at all.
8. Do you feel that the ArbCom is appreciated by the community? If not, how do you think that could be changed?
I think too many people treat the ArbCom as an annoyance, to be used only when another annoyance is causing trouble. ArbCom is not your mother.
9. What do you think will be the most frustrating thing about being on the ArbCom? Enjoyable?
The most frustrating thing is not commenting on, or being involved in, cases or issues that are before us or likely to soon be before us. I used to be an informal mediator, something which I really can't do anymore since any case I mediate has a good chance to appear before the ArbCom later. And I have, for some time now, been active in policy discussions and community management activities. I've had to curtail much of that as a result of my appointment. A lot of my friends are mediators, and my appointment puts an unavoidable distance between them and me. I'm not sure what I enjoy about this, except the opportunity to help make Wikipedia better. Gee, you're starting to convince me not to run now....
10. Any other thoughts regarding your appoinment?
I would like to ask people who bring requests before the Committee to please respect our 500 word pleading limit, and when submitting their evidence to please explain what the evidence link they're presenting is supposed to prove. Lay the case out for us; don't make us find it buried in a haystack of uncaptioned diffs.
Why did you remove Garzo's subpage from RFA? I've seen the new instruction creep at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate, but it's surely not a official policy. I even bothered to check, whether some of the most rectent candidate sub pages where added by the nominator or the candidate and found ample support for the non-bureacratic solution. --Pjacobi
ARCHIVE 05: Half a year and counting Messages 291-371, dating from October 2005 to December 2005 This is an archived talk page. Please go to User talk:Flcelloguy to leave Flcelloguy a message. Thanks!
Congrats :-)...... I am sure you'll do a great job!!! And, by the looks of things on many User pages, we need all the good spirit and comradery we can get! Best of luck!! >:Roby WayneTalk • Hist • E@22:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there Flcelloguy, I congratulate you on winning the vote in the Esperanza election. I'm sure you will do a fantastic job and looking forward to further good work. I wish you all the best... Gryffindor22:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations Flcelloguy, I have no doubt you will be an admirable member of the advisory committee (forgive poor spelling). All the best! Banes03:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have a request. For a while now, I've been trying to get a copy of the prelude to Bach's cell suite I. Public domain sheet music can be found here. Can you provide such a recording? →Raul65422:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1. Do you plan to run for re-election this year? Why or why not?
I'm not sure yet; I'm going to see how the next few weeks go. I wasn't previously planning to run but the experience may change my mind.
2. How do you feel about being appointed to serve on the ArbCom?
It's an honor, of course, but one I tried at first to run screaming away from! :-) Nervous, largely; there are a lot of things to get used to and it's a somewhat high-profile position to make newbie mistakes in. And honored that several people have made known they trust me to do it well.
3. Right now, what do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom?
Its main strength is that for the most part the arbcom is made up of users who are trusted by the community and who have a thorough knowledge of community policies and practices. The several differing points of view represented on the current committee I think helps to find a more fair solution.
4. Weaknesses?
The obvious weakness is that it is a slow process, hindered by the fact that several members have been inactive: though even at its best it will never be fast. It's also a dirty enough and time-consuming enough job than many qualified people burn out or avoid running at all.
5. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
It's really too soon for me to say. Actually, I think members' advocates doing more constructive work and being more fully integrated with the arbitration process would be helpful; sifting through evidence pages is in some cases pretty torturous and would be improved by having a competent person on each side presenting a case.
6. If you could say one thing to the current ArbCom candidates, what would you say, and why?
Please consider whether or not you have the time and the temperament for this, and whether you'll still be up for it after the first few months have passed. ("Are you nuts?" is probably also good but not so helpful. :-))
7. Do you think your job will be easy? Hard? Explain.
Hard, mostly. Not only sorting through the evidence presented, by no means easy, but also the knowledge that a bad call has a strong effect on the community, and the knowledge that my decisions here are going to affect my relationships with other users. I've also never been a party to an arbitration case (tried to stay far away from it), so learning the process is the first hurdle.
8. Do you feel that the ArbCom is appreciated by the community? If not, how do you think that could be changed?
For the most part, yes, as much as it is complained about; it's a dirty job. The AC exists because the community cannot always come to a consensus itself, and must refer the problem somewhere else.
9. What do you think will be the most frustrating thing about being on the ArbCom? Enjoyable?
Also too soon to say. Most frustrating I think will be having to restrict what I say about ongoing cases, having to deal with users who think I've treated them unfairly, and spending time reading evidence instead of writing. Most enjoyable I expect to be having some influence in the way the decisions are made, and helping to see that something I think is an acceptable solution is done.
10. Any other thoughts regarding your appointment?
I have not broken the 3RR rule as my 1st edit was not a revert notr my last. I have been very careful. Whatever you think of my behaviour 3 reverts does not give you grounds to block me, and especially given your uncalled for attack on me yesterday, SqueakBox23:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have never been blocked from editing wikipedia and I want to keep it that way. I tend to agree with you about the rollback and have issues about the whole Rfadmin process being a popularity contest in which some users get mauled so badly they leave the project, SqueakBox23:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My other annoouncement is that our founder, JCarriker, has founded Esperanza's sister project, Wikipediology. I have written two essays here (my name is Matt Binder). My essays are under Teenage Wikipedians and Anon Editors.
On behalf of myself and Jay Carriker and the other wikipediologists, I would appreciate it if you were to join.
Thank you very much for your support - my bid (as you probably know) went swimmingly. I couldn't have asked for a better one. Thank you very much and I just hope I don't mess up! Do you talk on IRC? It'd be nice to see you there! --Celestianpowerhablamé12:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I will no longer be participating in Cberlet's sentence by sentence attempt to subvert the nature of the Significance of Venona article. I believe there is ample evidence of him abusing the process, demanding from me citations for every sentence (which, in fact, I never even authored), and his totally unsourced sentence by sentence original research. It has been grossly unfair, and fruitless. He has consistently not presented any sourcing for any proposed changes.
I will be glad to continue the mediation process beginning with this text --> Belmont to Boardman. It is drawn entirely from primary source material, so it should not be difficult or controversial to edit. Cberlet's inclusion of secondary material is most welcome there. When it is done, we can rewrite the Introduction. Thank you. nobs04:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support on my RfA. I'd love to come back to the Signpost, but the problem is I can't set aside a block of time to write a piece anymore because of real life pressures. It's really just a case of me editing Wikipedia whenever I can find the time, which seems to be quite often but pretty irregular. I may write a couple of one-off pieces in the near future (in fact I have a couple of ideas lined up), but probably won't be able to take on a regular slot. the wub "?!"14:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I said "possible" trolling. In addittion, my edits have increased shortly after I arrived at college. While I was first getting set up there, freshman year,(sept 18), I did not have much edit time. So that explains the temporary edit decrease. They are on the rise again, just get a new chart with Kate's tool or something. Also, I would not accuse him possible trolling if I was confronting him, I was merely discussing that possibility with other people. You should not the distinction. Also, thank you for your respect though, as the other two oppose votes are either unexplained or harsh and exaggerated.
You are the only person who posted a factual or reasonable oppose vote. I do see what you mean about words that one could easily see as a personal attack. In the future I will avoid such words, even if I am just discussing a possiblity. Thank you for your reasonable criticism, no hard feelings over the vote :).Voice of All@|Esperanza|E M23:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! On the Q&D Checkuser proposal you refer to a fiasco on the mailing list. Could you please enlighten me what that's about, and/or give me a link? Thanks. Radiant_>|<11:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for your message and for appreciating the photo of my harpsichord. I built it in 2002-2003 from a kit and it was much work and a great pleasure, as it is to play it. Best regards Gérard13:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC) (the same person as fr:Ratigan)[reply]
Wonderful idea. I think we should have e-mail suggestions, and you're right, letters to the editor would be a good idea only if we control what gets published, solely so that it doesn't turn into the village pump.
As far as the ArbCom elections, I say we leave it as is until we get official word that the elections are a moot point, then change as necessary while still keeping the series going. Ral315(talk)22:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the revert there. [dishonest personal atatck removed], and I don't know how to get him to become a more courteous editor. I mean, he got in a fight with the probable guitarist of British Sea Power of whether the members of the band of British Sea Power were bird watchers. And the sad thing is, they are to an extent, but he totally blew the entire thing out of proportion, he seems to do that everywhere. Karmafist02:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have been on a slight programming hiatus. Although I love programming, and I love to help the Wikipedia, the unfortunate fact is that I don't live in a Star Trek world meaning that I don't get paid to do the work I do for the Wikipedia. So, please excuse me if I'm not, at the moment, writing code for the Wikipedia when I'm out trying to make a living for myself. As much I like to be locked in a closet and finish my Wikipedia work, I have some real life priorities that need attention at the moment, so please excuse me if my attention and activity level is not at par. And thank you for your award, it's greatly appreciated. --AllyUnion(talk)10:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The text produced by the translator can be understood. I will not assert that it is fully correct french language ... and my english is probably not perfect, too ... Best regards Gérard14:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA. I never thought I would get so much support! Thanks to your help, my nomination was the 10th most supported RfA in Wikipedia history. Now, please keep an eye out on me while I learn the new tools, ok? Thanks again! Titoxd(?!?)17:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Flcelloguy. I just put this comment on AfD. Maybe I'm misreading the situation, but I thought User:Destinyg was someone who could use a welcome and being shown some ropes. I didn't want to step in (besides, not very experienced myself), but do you think you or someone else on the welcome committee might step in? (Incidentally, I assume Sandy Berger Biography is actually autobiography, although I could be wrong.) AndyJones23:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll vote delete if not userfied, which I think would be better. Can I suggest someone with more wiki-experience than me approaches the author to explain the process? Incidentally, if doing so, note that the author is User:Destinyg not User: Destiny/Destiny as appears above. AndyJones23:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me Flcello, but what are you talking about? I've never censored POTW, and I deleted a comment at Scott Fisher's request which I agreed with since it was about personal info on his kids. Granted, that doesn't make it as confidential as i'd like, but it's something.
Also, are you ok? I've heard Wilma is doing a number on things down there, although I haven't been paying close attention and wondered if Central Florida was being hit at all. Karmafist23:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's cool. Has it been reverted back? I tried to help Pigs out, but that whole situation has spiraled out of control. He's been in a few revert wars this week articles other than the one I protected. An Rfar is likely in the next few days, I can't seem to help him and I don't trust uncivil users like him intimidating others. Eh, suppose it's better that I didn't get on the MC,eh?. Getting into the thick of things is more my style. Karmafist23:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did get the e-mail, yes. For now, we might consider substituting the ArbCom duties article this week, waiting on an announcement from Jimbo. Certainly, voting will be different, even just a bit. So it really might be best to switch to the duties and requirements article. Ral315(talk)03:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No. Some images are sourced from copyrighted sites. If the .gov domains lists out the photographer and agency, then it definately is not a free image. You can also check if the full sized image is hosted on a non .gov site. =Nichalp«Talk»=05:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind message; but I don't think anything will stop the utter distress and depression I feel as a result of this badly flawed RfA. In my memory, you might consider pushing for the process to be depersonalised: at the moment, it's way open to abuse by anyone with a grudge; regrettably, on this occasion it has coincided with a stouch between me and the egos behind a substandard FAC that I dared to critique. I've made things worse by defending myself against attacks during the RfA process; I do normally enjoy very cordial and productive relationships with other WPs, and shun conflict, but I will always defend myself when under sustained attack and when I can't readily escape.
While the process is transparent - which is clearly an advantage and makes it low-maintenance for the bureaucrat who signs off at the end - this very attribute is a serious problem where there's potential for personal abuse and group attack. So, it's fine for the FAC process, but IMV a mistake to replicate in the RfA process, when a person rather than text is under scrutiny.
The first thing that needs reform is the culture of changing one's vote during the process: this encourages posturing by individual reviewers and a 'herd mentality', both very much in evidence during my RfA. These are likely to skew the results and reduce the tone of the process. Therefore, I suggest that each vote should be locked in when made, based on each reviewer's research and prior knowledge of the nominee, and not on subsequent hearsay and tittle-tattle, whether put on the table by trouble makers or more innocently in the course of the current all-too-open commentaries.
The second aspect that desperately needs attention is the lack of respect for the privacy of both nominee and reviewers. I find it inexcusable that the process is unmoderated and that there are no guidelines for the participants with respect to tone, content, and evidentiary support. Commentaries and votes should be registered privately and viewed only by the moderator/bureacrat and, at the end of the process, by the nominee; the nominee should not have access to the identity of the reviewers.
These two changes, which imply a slightly larger role for the bureacrat than at present, would go a long way towards making the process:
more balanced;
less invasive of privacy; and
less traumatic for the nominee where things do go wrong (I hear other stories, too).
In my memory, you might consider lobbying for a change to the process. Email me if something happens, and I'll stop bagging Wikipedia on the net (I'm angry ...). You're right, WP can't afford to lose hard-working, devoted contibutors like me (he boasts, but it's true). In under a week, I've turned from this into a bitter enemy of the project.
Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Bernhard Cossmann, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.
Fvw, you wrote above that your POPBlocker needs another admin to run/block. I might be interested in doing that, but my level of technical competence is very low. Could you possible give me more details about what the "job" entails — i.e. is it just mass-blocking a list of IPs, or editting through open proxies? Thanks. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS15:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can help too in some way, doing non-technical grunt work, if this helps in cutting down excessive vandalism. Would I just be running a script, or actually writing one? Cheers, Bratschetalk | Esperanza18:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
[from email --fvw] I'm interested in taking it over, if you need someone. How can I help? --Linuxbeak
Thanks for your offers, what I can give you is
A list of IPs that were open proxies during the last scan
Shell scripts that block a list of IPs
Shell one-liners to extract a plain list of IP:port's from some of the more popular open proxy lists
Scripts to check whether an open proxy can edit wikipedia
A script to extract a list of tor proxies that can edit wikipedia from the node directory (this one isn't my work, it's a slight edit of someone else's script)
glue scripts
What you'd need is
An admin account on wikipedia
An account on a unix machine with perl, zsh, lynx and all the usual niceties
A reasonable familiarity with shell scripting and how open proxies work (perl might be useful too)
The ability to write shell oneliners to scrape the list of to-be-tested addresses from online proxy lists (the current ones won't stay active or current forever)
The willingness to dig through it all; it works well, but it's just a bunch of clumped together shellscripts. You need to work out what you want to do in what order
I see no problem with Duties and Requirements for next week. You could mention that there really isn't a single requirement, possibly touching on how some people wanted it to be admins-only. As far as introducing e-mail and such, I think that can be done in a "From the editor" piece. But I plan to reorganize things (the Newsroom, for one- I want to break things up a bit more) I'd like to do it all together, so I'll make sure it gets done by next issue. Ral315(talk)22:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely, but let me split up the newsroom first...it's on my list of things to do. Because as it stands, outside of you, me, Michael and Catherine, not many people know how the Signpost Newsroom is set up. Ral315(talk)23:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mindspillage claims on Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive13 [34] that the "Canada Free Press and Judi McLeod have been the target of a smear campaign by an anonymous user who has made other attacks on them in the past (off Wikipedia)."
You said you would keep the articles watchlisted.
I'm concerned that this is a pretext to stop factual information from appearing. I appreciate the situation Wiki is in, but much of what Judi McLeod says needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Judi McLeod has a history of making wild accusations. For that reason I seriously doubt that there has been a "smear campaign" on the internet ... especially since I can't find any trace of it!
You'll note I responded to your questions on my RFA, yet I still haven't seen you vote one way or the other. Is there something else holding you back from voting? ALKIVAR™23:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going there anymore, but I'm still living near there (until I move at the end of the year). Are you going for a college visit? (The cello studio has been quite good in recent years, though I don't know about this year, and I suspect you'd like both the cello prof and the orchestra director.) A pity you don't have time for a meet, but I might stop by and say hello briefly anyhow... Mindspillage(spill yours?)22:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From what I know, to the extent that she "announced" it she did so on IRC (or maybe the committee's mailing list, too). I didn't see any of it myself, but it's definitely confirmed, by Mindspillage as well in addition to the edits on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. --Michael Snow23:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are no archives, and since I wasn't actually in the channel at the time, there's no way I could have a log either. Since it's a chat forum, I doubt it would have much additional information, other than whatever sannse may have said. For a story, the most straightforward thing might be to simply ask her directly if there's any statement she would like to make about it. --Michael Snow01:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi celloguy, since when is the RC header not a place for announcements? It has been a while since the last one, but I see no discussion of this change, nor do I understand the reason for it... +sj +04:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I told the other arbitrators via the arbitration mailing list. On the reason for the contradictory messages: I came back from an extended wikibreak last week, and hoped to get back to arbitration work as soon possible. Unfortunately, it became clear as I tried to catch up that I am just not well enough at the moment to put in the time and commitment that the job needs. I didn't feel it fair to my colleagues on the committee to continue with that being the case. I still fully support the arbitration committee and believe strongly in the job the committee does. In fact, I would very much like to rejoin the committee one day - if the opportunity arises and if my health improves. Sorry for the slow reply, I hope it's in time to be of use to you. sannse(talk)19:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you found reason to object to my adminship, but now that I've been promoted, I'd like to clear the slate. If you have any specific issues/problems with me, please feel free to state them on my talk page so that I can work to prevent them in the future. ALKIVAR™07:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weekend? I'm sorry, not quite likely. I have HKOI, the computer programming olympiad of Hong Kong this saturday. Maybe just wait for the NotBot. Deryck C.04:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Very good question...I'm going to try and come up with an easier way to do it, in wake of a couple stories I've accidentally missed in the past few weeks. What I'm assuming is that they'll be posted, in sub-headings, on the pages in question. Your articles would be on the "Special Series" page, under special sub-headings each week. I'll put it into action in a day or two. Ral315(talk)01:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Flcelloguy, Here is my follow-up to you comment on my RfA. If you have anymore concerns, questions, or comments, please let me know. Thanks for taking and interest. -- Psy guy(talk)03:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate it that you bothered to look so closely at my contributions. It is truly noble. I do tend to use the 5-tildes to create a heading when I warn users. If have found that most do as a way of categorizing warnings for IPs. In the future I will try to use "Edit the page" rather than the "+" tab. That is why the heading reads as the edit summary. I don't use the talk pages a lot since I discovered IRC. I am frequently in #wikipedia-en-vandalism where I am a Channel Op. I have found it to be much more efficient to jump into a channel and ask a question rather than through a talk page. I decided to use godmode because it was much more efficient. Angela let me in on the secret! Lastly, it never really occurred to me to leave a message on a keep article from AfD. I will do that from now on. I was more concerned about making sure that what I closed was an "unambigious" keep. If you have anymore questions or concerns, do not hesitate to ask. However you decide to vote, I fully respect your decision. Thanks.
Sorry, no can do, I am cheating at the moment and using a pywikibot and as I don't know python so I am a bit limited to what I can do. I am planning to make a bot in my native tongue of c# at some point in the future, so maybe then I'll be able to help. thanks Martin11:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my delay in adding more information about myself and my reasons for wishing to become a Mediator. This has now been sorted out. Thanks for helping me out. Wikiwoohoo20:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is obvious that Nobs is incapable or unwilling to actually edit text. We have been at this for weeks, and Nobs has buried this mediation in mountains of material, and yet refuses to edit text. He has announced that he is unwilling to continue this mediation, then returns and inserts more mountains of text that has nothing to do with editing text. At some point this is no longer a mediation, but merely a farce. I really think that the mediator needs to be active in this mediation, or pass it off to someone willing to play a more active role. I really resent the current circumstance, in which I edit text and write compromise text, and Nobs plays us all for suckers.--Cberlet02:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any lists of articles that need mediation, can you give them to me if I should ask. I think I can mediate 2 at a time, so I can work with one more article.
Thanks for supporting my RfA. It recently closed with final tally of 51/1/2. I sincerely appreciate it and I hope I can live up to your expectations. I will try my best to be a good administrator. If you ever need anything, just let me know. Thanks! -- Psy guy(talk)05:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, it seems you don't quite have the programming experience, but that shouldn't be difficult to catch up. The first important thing to understand is the concept of a function. Somewhat like a function in maths, it takes a number of arguments (which could be numbers, strings, other sorts of objects; a string being a sequence of characters that may form text) and does something with them, possibly returning a calculated result. In this case, a function addlilink is defined which takes a number of arguments and uses them to construct a link in the right place on the page. addToolboxLink then uses this function in turn to create a more specific type of link, one in the toolbox. So with the code (as at WP:US):
function addToolboxLink(url, name, id){
var tb = document.getElementById('p-tb').getElementsByTagName('ul')[0];
addlilink(tb, url, name, id);
}
url, name and id are all argument names to the function addToolboxLink, just as when I define a function in maths the string or number or object referred to by their name.
Basically, then, what you are wanting to do is execute the function, but instead you have changed the argument name in the function definition. What we need to do is leave the definition of the function alone, and use it from outside. What you mean to do is add the following line somewhere:
What this does is calls the function above, assigning to the argument url the string "http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation", to name "Mediation", etc., which the function then uses to create the link. [Note the id argument is something that is used in HTML and Javascript to uniquely identify some element on a page, such as a link. It is optional, but also useful when it is there.]
The question, then, is where to place this line? The problem is that the script is loaded early in the page, and we can't have the script creating the link before the box exists to put it in! So what we need to do is tell the web browser to run that line after the page is loaded. There are lots of ways to do this, but the way I'll give you now will hopefully be flexible enough for your needs:
function Main() {
addToolboxLink("http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation", "Mediation", "medlink");
}
window.onLoad = Main;
What this section of code should do is declare yet another function, called Main. What Main does is exactly what we described above. But we ensure that Main is executed after the page with the window.onLoad line.
So the next question is how to make the same function for the navigation box? Here it is:
function addNavigationLink(url, name, id){
var tb = document.getElementById('p-navigation').getElementsByTagName('ul')[0];
addlilink(tb, url, name, id);
}
You'll notice here that only one word is changed, and that word is actually just the id of the respective box in the Monobook Wikipedia style.
Finally you wanted to know how to remove a link. It is much easier to remove an element than add one, because the browser running the script can find it by name, so here is the function:
function removeEl(id) {
if (el = document.getElementById(id))
el.parentNode.removeChild(el);
}
But what you need is the id of the element- what I would do is view the HTML source of a Wikipedia page, and find the link I want to remove. In particular, note its id. It probably starts with t- or n- by convention in the template. For instance, I find out that the "Current events" link id is n-currentevents. Then the appropriate code to remove that link is:
removeEl('n-currentevents');
Again I want this to run after the link exists, so all I need to do is stick this line in the Main function I created before and I'm done.
Yes, Monobook.js is in Javascript. Most dynamic things online are. What do you mean by it's a pity it's not done in Java? Have you used Java? Java is a different flavour of programming language, and isn't suitable to the sort of things you want to do here, so Javascript here is a good thing. Besides, more people know how to work with Javascript than Java (and more resources are available). jnothmantalk14:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you hadn't put the data in as argument/parameter names I wouldn't have given you such a detailed explanation, so see it positively! Main in Javascipt: Main is something we just invented above. In Javascript, the browser executes every line as it comes across it, but executing a function definition just means storing it in memory. The important part is that one line we execute is window.onLoad = Main; which sets the function we created Main (but it could have been floggeldywoop if we wanted) to handle the event "onLoad", which occurs when the document has finished loading. Therefore, although code could have been executed earlier in the page, we have defined a function to be what runs when the page finishes loading, and so to act a little like Java's public static void Main. jnothmantalk15:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Java has been used for applets on web pages. These were used to create any complex interactive tools, but often also just fancy looks for web pages. These roles have been taken over by Javascript (or DHTML) and Macromedia Flash. Java carries with it some big baggage: powerful libraries for technical and full-featured applications. For this reason, Java programs are relatively slow both to build and to load. They also require external Java plugins to be available to the web browser; this also meant that they could not neatly interact with the rest of the page. Hence they have generally been replaced by much lighter and simple but less-full-featured languages/tools (this was also due to IE-other browser compatibility issues). Java applets are still commonly used to build web-based programs that, for instance, illustrate scientific or technical phenomena, though, because (a) code and objects can just be taken from related Java projects (b) the libraries available in Java make it simple to use complex data structures, etc, useful in representing technical concepts.
Your Monobook is working fine for me. What you might be forgetting to do is refreshing your browser's cache. The surest way to do this is go to [36] and hit refresh on your browser. jnothmantalk15:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
PS: since you are using it elsewhere in your script, it may be safer, rather than using the outdated window.onLoad = Main;, to use:
if ( window.addEventListener ) window.addEventListener( 'load', Main, false );
else if ( window.attachEvent ) window.attachEvent( 'onload', Main );
Thanks for moving the page, it was my intent to have it under my user page, but I must have messed it up putting it under article space. Thanks for moving it and clarifying the situation. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 16:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help regarding the old account. Durin tried to help with that a lot but we could not find out what it was. My name is Grant and I was convinced the user name began with that but when Durin trawled through the list of users and picked out all those beginning with Grant, none rang a bell. It was at that point I gave up, but decided I preferred this account name much more than whatever the old one used to be. As I said in my previous RfA, this name seems a little mysterious but has an over-riding sense of fun, or so I think anyway!;) Wikiwoohoo22:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One small point. Your article seems to imply that all checkusers must be arbiters. That is not what the policy states; it states that checkusers are appointed by arbiters, but do not necessarily need to be arbiters themselves. Radiant_>|<13:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Might it not be a good idea to place the 'Ground Rules' as the first section on the mentoring page? It'd make it easier for new users to gain a flavour of the page - Just a suggestion but i don't want to mess things up Pydos09:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You've been assigned a case which I wasn't sure if I was gonna accept. Although strangely worded, and a rather trivial dispute, I figure if there's an edit war we should at least try and stop it. The case shouldn't take too long, and I had this in mind because of your Nobs/Cberlet case. Of course you also have the option to reject it or refer it somewhere else in Dispute Resolution. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to ask those fellows who have not indicated whether or not they grant permission for a wikibio on them to please do so soon. I'd also appreciate it everyone could expand or create the wikibios for which permission has been granted. The wikibio project simply won't be useful unless fellows actively participate; so I'd like to issue a challenge that each fellow contribute at least one sentence to two wikibios. I'll be on wikibreak for the next week and when I get back there will be prizes in store for the fellows who have the three highest edit counts on wikibios. Thanks. -JCarriker22:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm. I would write all the candidates and ask for comments; also use their candidate statements. Unless you can think of a better idea, I'd plan on doing candidates this week for now. Of course, anything from Jimbo derails that plan, but let's hope he doesn't ruin us :) Ral315(talk)23:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to alert you, and that I posted this request:
Nobs, please respect the fact that this mediation is suspended due to the arbitration. Please stop editing this or any of the other pages in this mediation. Please act in accordance with Wikipedia policies and practices.
I'm there all the time: my lab is in the HSC, and I occasionally have lunch in the Wang Center. I think that the construction may be overwith. If so, I'll try to get a pic fairly soon. – ClockworkSoul00:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind if you take a hiatus...with no new news, it's probably not a bad idea. Depending on what happens, we hopefully will have some more news next week. If there's anything else for the update, feel free to write that up, but no worries on that as well. Also, sorry for not responding on IRC; I was at dinner at the time. Ral315(talk)01:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a while... The NotificationBot doesn't seem to not be working, but anyways, how much time do you think it would take to copy/paste the message on all the list's users? Maybe I could do it, if it means we'll finally run round 4. Fetofs21:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Notifications up to User:MyNameIsClare completed. Wikipedia is not incredibly fast, especially at night with firefox! :)
Hello Cryptic, thanks for getting your bot to archive! Two quick questions/comments: first, when it updates the navbox, is it supposed to move the blue links to the left and add red links to uncreated archives, as was done previously before the 'bot started archiving? I really don't mind either way (having all blue links to archives or having both blue and red links to archives), but I thought I'd point this out. Second, just a friendly reminder to update the bot's page to describe the archiving activities. Thanks a lot for your help! Flcelloguy (A note?) 18:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the navbox links are intentional; I'd assumed having the redlinks present was an aid to human archivers. (I'd be happy to go to 3 blue and 1 red, or back to 2 and 2, if there are other reasons I'm not aware of.) I was going to update the user page tonight, when I have enough uninterrupted time in a row to add pseudocode like I have for its afd duties, but I've added a note to it for now. —Cryptic(talk)18:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! You don't know me. :) The image you uploaded of Gmail's link to the Horn of Plenty article incorrectly used the {{Wikipedia-screenshot}} template. That template states that the associated image is a screenshot of Wikipedia. Since the screenshot is of Gmail, that's clearly wrong. I changed it to use the {{Software-screenshot}} template. I believe that's much more correct. (Gmail is basically just another software program, after all.) I wanted to let you know in case my take on this is wrong. --DragonHawk05:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Gmail Thanksgiving.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Coffin Handbills, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.
When does mindbenders actually start. So far I've seen three different dates, and if the wrong one is on mindbenders would you please change it. Oh and since I leaving you a message I have to plug my classic rock survey, so would you like to participate, and there is more info on my user page. RENTASTRAWBERRYFOR LET?röck01:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ARCHIVE 06: Editing into 2006 Messages 372-501, dating from December 2005 to January 2006 This is an archived talk page. Please go to User talk:Flcelloguy to leave Flcelloguy a message. Thanks!
Wow! That is different. Well done for coming up with something so new.
I just have a quick question about what we're to do with creating these fictional articles. It would be a strange featured-quality article which didn't contain any wikilinks so should we be creating a whole set of articles around the central theme (e.g. Ooberlang could be an East-european dukedom ruled by the D'Rongan family who would then normally get an article of their own with a link from the Ooberlang article) or is it just one stand-alone article with no links except perhaps to existing articles? --Spondoolicks10:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not very good at making user interfaces, I think I can figure out how to produce the main engine to process the diffs. Is there somewhere where we should put the code (whenever you have time, I don't have much time these days either) so we can access it and process it? (Preferably on-Wiki) Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?)22:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe. Ideally, we should do a SQL query, and our work would be cut out for us, but those are disabled. So, right now, the only way to do it is through Special:Contributions, going to the "earliest" link for the user, and then finding a way to go to the next 5000 edits... quite difficult, but doable. I'll also ask a bunch of people on IRC (particularily White Wolf) to help. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?)23:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, even if we wanted to do that, we couldn't... the Contributions method only allows up to 5000 edits per page (it's hard-coded in MediaWiki). Another thing we could do is ask AllyUnion or other user with direct access to the database to host it for us when it's done, but that would require JavaBeans, which makes it even more complicated... Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?)23:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I downloaded a copy of your code and run it for myself (you don't need the Java SDK, you can have the Java JRE and it works too). Not a bad start! :) I've identified how to split the edits per namespace, and I will do so as soon as I can (I'm in the middle of finals right now), and I'll then post the code to that page. If you don't mind, though, could you tell me if you update the code for some reason? So I'm not working on an old version of code... well, thanks! By the way, I found out I broke the 6,000-edit mark... :) Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?)06:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I fixed a syntax error in your counter (it was missing a semi-colon), and ran it. However, your program threw an exception when it tried to process this edit:
18:14, 14 November 2005 (hist) (diff) User:Titoxd/Sandbox
Here's the stack dump:
Exception in thread "main" java.util.NoSuchElementException
at java.util.StringTokenizer.nextToken(Unknown Source)
at Stats.editcount(Stats.java:76)
at Stats.main(Stats.java:53)
It has something to do with the way you're using StringTokenizer. I suggest that instead of reading the first 8 words, you read the first 7, then process character-by-character to process "m" minor edits and namespaces. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?)01:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, it didn't have the asterisk, so it was processing the first word... sigh. I'm working on an extension to transfer the raw HTML into a usable text file (actually, working on translating my Visual Basic code into Java). I'm in the middle of finals, though, so I probably won't be able to upload it until the 15th. But yeah.. it's working better now! Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?)02:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I played around with it some more. I released the 2.00 extension (same page), it now parses the name of the pages directly from the HTML, as well as the time and date of the edit. You're free to work on it to get the minor edits, edit summaries, and most-recent edits. By the way, I created a Contrib class that you might find handy... Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?)07:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I now played around with your tool and merged my code with yours. There's no more need for cut-and-pasting, all you have to do is go to Contributions, and save the source code for your contributions file. Right now, I haven't worked on the code for spanning several contrib files (it is a very different algorithm), so the absolute limit for the program is 5,000 edits. All three files are on my Tool page, so you can check them out before the code on your code page is replaced. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?)04:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe... thanks! Actually, BufferedReader should be able to read any text file, regardless of extension, so saving it as .html or .txt should not a problem. As for merging several contribution files, perhaps the PurgeContribs.Purge() function in my 2.15 revision might be helpful: it parsed the contributions in the source code file to an external file at the same time it constructed the Contrib class for the particular contribution. I got rid of that code when I merged your files with mine, but it is still available thanks to Wiki's history, and it could be tweaked to parse the contributions in one file and then append the contributions in another one. That said, I can't work on it since I have another final tomorrow. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?)01:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there...thanks for doing the work. :-) I just figured since Kate's tool hasn't been up very consistently lately, that I'd drop a note in there saying approx how things looked last time I checked myself out. It seems to me like your tool takes a lot of work to get any results from, but now that you've done it, thanks for spitting out the results. I don't suppose it came with a breakdown over namespaces? Tomertalk23:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have been primarily watching his edits and correcting as needed, leaving him notes about relevant policies. In light of his mediation, is there anything I should be doing to cooperate with (or stay out of the way of) your efforts? ESkog | Talk04:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Although my RfA is not over yet, I figured that since so many people voted before it had been posted, I may as well start thanking people before it wraps up. Thank you for your support (and sorry about the edit conflict) - I'll do my best as an admin to make the reality rise to the level of the dream. BD2412T04:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoramus that I am, I am unable to comprehend your new tool. I am severly infected with editcountitis, and havnt had my fix for over a week. This is compounded by the fact that I am approaching the 2000 mark. So, I would sincerely appreciate it if you would help out a junkie like me and tell me my edit count. Cheers Banes13:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get how to work your new tool so I'm getting a request for my edit count right now. I know I have passed my 4000th edit not long ago but I want to find out which page was it. Please let me find out my edit count. Thanks! --Aranda5621:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Could I also jump on the band wagon and ask for an edit count? I know I'm above 13000 now, but I'm amazed by the variety of stats your tool comes up with. -- user:zanimum
Although I haven't figured out how to use it, I feel that we must start showing more appreciation for things like this. Otherwise, the contributors might become so unappreciated that they consider leaving Wikipedia. --TantalumTelluride18:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Protection has voided the inherent racism of Rose's work and therefore is going to be akin to the recent news of late. I'm alerting media about this new instance and will be able to provide the proof from Rose's websites, which are alarmingly heavy with both Anti semitic remarks and radcist ideology.216.175.120.24
Hey, hope everything's going ok. I've got a few questions for you:
Have you had a chance to check my code? I think I've figured out a way to parse all the contribs together into a single file, which then can be processed into the tool. I've just haven't coded it yet, it requires a significant GUI change and I have to study for my last final tomorrow.
Could you have a look at Semi-protection policy? Several users (me included) have tried to answer your question.
Ok, Beethoven :P, I'm almost done with a much more complex GUI for the tool. I'll be posting it sometime today. Also, could you check the Esperanza election page? It seems we had a self-nom late entry, and I don't want to discount votes... Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?)00:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think this template is useful. It informs people that a user is already "spoken for" and that people shouldn't post test templates as they might normally do for such edits. Gazpacho05:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Flcelloguy! I notified just the spamlist, minus those who had already signed up to be candidates and the couple of people who have left the 'pedia. Hope this helped. I'm happy to re-spam the same people when voting begins, or spam the remaining people on the membership list if you think it's okay to do that. Thanks! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞09:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem with either of us writing it. The only conflict of interest, I would think, would occur if either of us were running. As long as it's just a simple "the elections are happening now, go vote" message, I don't see a problem. Ral315(talk)23:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
File:Voting box clipart.gifHi Flcelloguy/Archive: This is a quick note just to let you know that there's an election under way at Esperanza. If you'd like to become a candidate for Administrator General or the Advisory Council, just add your name hereby 15 December 2005.
Voting begins at 12:00UTC on 16 December and all Esperanza members are encouraged to join in.
This message was delivered to all Esperanza members. If you do not wish to receive further messages, please contact Flcelloguy. Thank you.
Hi Flcelloguy! I've spammed the rest of the membership list as requested (see above). I've taken care not to spam anyone I have already spammed, and avoided spamming people already declared as candidates. I've not spammed anyone on the Inactive Members list - would you like this done? Additionally, I posted a different version of the spam on ClockworkSoul's page as s/he doesn't like spam; and I didn't spam Nicholas Turnbull as we appear to have lost him :(
I noticed on the Dec 2005 election page your name on the list of people to ask if you are interested in helping. I am doing so in this message with abit fo luck - so should you require any assistance (probably as a NPOV) then let me know :) Ian13ID:54005318:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note about checking, will do what I can. If we should find any people who have voted who should not, do we remove the vote, strike it through and add a comment why, or what? Thanks! Ian13ID:54005318:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Flcelloguy! Judging from the feedback to my talk page and on spammed talk pages, many Esperanza members saw the advert to register as a candidate but not the request to vote that followed it in the same message. Would you like me to spam everyone on the membership list on Friday afternoon specifically about voting or are you happy that people will work it out over the voting period? Wikipedia editors are all above average intelligence so I'd hate to dumb down, but also I'd hate people to get the wrong idea about a democratic election. Let me know what you think/if this matters. Or say nothing if it doesn't and I'll happily go about my usual Wikibusiness once more! :) ➨ ❝REDVERS❞22:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done. They're not two tables so much as one table, separated to make it look like two. I adjusted the colors a bit...that dark green (00aa00) was painful to read with black text. Feel free to adjust everything as necessary. Ral315(talk)17:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All candidates are members of Esperanza, except as shown below:
There's an issue of determination here. User:Brian New Zealand joined on 12 December. Does "joined by" mean "joined on" or "joined before"?
Moe Epsilon has been moved to "former members" by Lbmixpro, so I'd assume that unfortunately we must remove him from the election. I will be putting a plea to stay on his user page later, though.
Linkofazeroth is listed under "inactive members", but I can see nothing in the rules that would suggest that is a bar to candidacy. Note that the candidate added their name as an anon and has made no logged-in edits to the 'pedia since 7 November 2005.
These are just what I've found out, by the way: none of the above qualifies as a judgement or opinion on any candidate in any way! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞17:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would allow Link, as well as Moe Epsilon (for now...if Moe Epsilon doesn't come back, he/she can always be removed). Brian New Zealand did join on December 12, but he did so before Flcelloguy locked the page, so I'd assume that he's eligible (might be wrong, though). Ral315(talk)17:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Adding copyvios is vandalism if users know they shouldnt be doing it. If this in regard to the dispute that led to my current RFC, please see the evidence I have provided, or, more specifically, User talk:Bitola, which shows he was well aware that what he was doing was wrong. freestylefrappe22:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I got mine fixed and noticed that SeanBlack,s was around the same time as my original so I left him a note on his talk page. Thanks.--Dakotate20:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Flcelloguy. Thank you for commenting on this picture. Please, understand that this sort of glimpse into the geisha's private world as she entertains a client is rarely captured on film. It is disheartening to see this rare visual contribution, which is of relatively high quality, brushed off for minor aesthetic considerations such as a shadow on the wall. This image represents a more accurate and authentic portrayal, better than anything we currently have at Wikipedia, of what a geisha actually does behind closed doors with the men she entertains. You are unlikely to find a better picture of a geisha with a client anywhere because most clients don't take many pictures in the tea room, and when they do they don't go public with them. After reading the Geisha article, I hope you will come to appreciate the rare nature of this exclusive photograph of a real-life geisha with a real-life client in Gion. I hope you will come to realize that, in light of its contribution, the image is of sufficiently high quality to support featured picture status. Please, thoughtfully reconsider. Thank you. ToddLara23:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(Being bold and removing {{Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit/Watched}}; considerable objections at the talk page. Thanks!)
What the heck? There wasnt a single mention of the template on the talk page? There needs to be an overwhelming oposition for such a drastic action. You cannot test something without testing it. I am restoring the "watched" template. Please do not consider this as a revert, I just want to test the idea ok? :) --Cool CatTalk|@23:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have made myself clearer: there is considerable objections to the use of the template at Wikipedia talk:Counter Vandalism Unit. I, too, have concerns about the use of such a template. Would you mind testing the template somewhere else, perhaps on a subpage of the CVU modeled after a real article? Thanks a lot. Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see. The problem with that is I know no one will vandalise the discrete page no one knows about with that template. I placed that temlate on two articles that are already vandal magnets (its not like we are risking vandalism). If we observe a decreace in vandalism thats a good sign, if not it is inconclusive. So it is a long process. In light of that what do you think? --Cool CatTalk|@01:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see. I don't mind having a "test" of the template, as long as it is kept short (a week or so) and is limited to one page. I still don't think it should be used, but I don't think having a test will hurt either, as long as other people don't object. Perhaps you should remove the template for now and ask other editors if they mind having the template up for a week? Also, if you're going to do a test, I wouldn't recommend doing it on George W. Bush or John Seigenthaler Sr.. The former's article is currently part of an ongoing debate about whether to include section editing, and the vandalism will fluctuate with that. The latter will receive less attention throughout the week, so vandalism will bound to drop there. How about at Wikipedia? I still suggest asking at the talk page and see if anyone minds the test for a weel. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All you have to do is to ask at the talk page and see if anyone minds; if no-one objects, then you can add the template for a test. Keep in mind that this should be a "test"; I still oppose the use of the template. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 18:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, that's fine, I understand. Thank you for letting me know, and (if it was you) for taking my name out from where I voted. I'll be sure to vote in February. And yes, I love classical music. I'm studying Mozart Violin Concerto No. 4 currently, along with Bach, of course...do you currently study, or play only for fun? (Thanks again...I'll be seeing you around. If I come across vandals while I'm welcoming, can I send some of them to you?)--ViolinGirl♪01:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this nasty little policy...the required changes to the software may not be implemented all too quickly, depending largely upon how the team feels about making a couple other changes we've been discussing. I'm with you on this one, however; and have been, if you check #675 on BugZilla, where I've been a little ruthless in keeping the priorities right. ;-) 86.133.53.11117:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your careful attention to this matter is much appreciated, and your reservations are noted. Thank you for shifting to a neutral stance in recognition of the importance of the photo. Previous unsigned comment by ToddLara (talk·contribs), 05:37, 18 December, 2005 (UTC)
Well, version 3.2 of your tool is now available for beta-testing. I took out output to the console (kind of, it is still there for debugging purposes) and replaced it with a "Results" window and a much-improved GUI. The next thing to do for the tool is to process edit summaries in PurgeContribs.java (perhaps it should be renamed to Parser.java, since that's what it really is doing now, but that's another thing). I've started working on some code for that, and you can see it, it is just commented out.
The program is now becoming quite complex... I would recommend to make it a JAR file and then upload it somewhere for easy use... but then, that requires actually handling exceptions, not just creating empty try{} catch{} blocks like I've been doing now... :(
But anyways, the tool is comming well. How, I've done it, I don't know, because I don't really know Java... :O. But I shall be working on it some more too, but I need you to review it and to make some changes before you deploy it... Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?)08:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, go ahead and move it wherever you desire. :). If you want a "neutral" name, I had begun work on this tool as WikiEditAnalyzer in Visual Basic, so you might want to think about that one. Just tell me whenever you do it (and tell Interiot too, we had talked about setting a WikiProject to collaborate on this stuff), and tell me when you update the code, because I have a few ideas to solve some of the issues you've listed on your project page. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?)19:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So, how's the tool coming? (I'm spinning my wheels here! :P) Are you still having trouble with the Unicode parser? We're going to get a lot of incoming requests, since Interiot's Tool got firewalled :(... Titoxd(?!? - help us)05:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I love the new format. Good idea! Really gets my creative juices flowing. You can find mine here. BTW, I found a clever way to do interlanguage links on the faux articles. I put in [[de:en:Wikipedia:Mind Benders/5/Redirect]] and when you click to see it in german, the article redirects to english and then redirects to the article. — Ilγαηερ(Tαlκ)15:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Crossposted re: your message: I have been following it, and tried not to get involved while the mentorship was active, but since it seemed to have stalled out and Maoririder had continued his behavior, I felt it ws OK to do a bit of cleanup and later some warning. It would help if others would clean up after him (i.e., deleting sub-stubs and talk pages that consist of things like "{{reqimage}}{{Cleanup-date|{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}}{{uc}}pleeeeese add picture here. this needs it bad. pleese mentor meeee! Lucky you said to mentor me but i got to get help. my bad." But I understand that that wouldn't be you since you've been trying to mentor him, Flcelloguy. So I'm open to your approach.
And BTW, he's following this whole exchange closely, watching the watchers I suppose: see [this diff].
As you were a facilitator in the mediation case involving Poetlister and User:RachelBrown, I thought it pertinent to advise you that Poetlister has been blocked indefinitely under suspicion of being a sock puppet of User:RachelBrown. My involvement was that Poetlister sent me an e-mail asking for my own neutral advice as to whether the situation warranted an escalation to RfC given that Lulu of the Lotus Eaters had refused to participate in the mediation. I suggested yes, suggesting that SlimVirgin be removed from the complaint. Zordrac(talk)Wishy WashyDarwikinianEventualist13:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure who Zordrac is, but I'm almost certain that s/he has a closer connection to RachelBrown/Poetlister than s/he is stating. Zordrac has taken in the last day to writing all over user talk pages scurrilous things about me, even though I've never interacted with this user (under this name) before. Just for the record:
I am not an admin, so it's really hard to imagine how I might have "abused my admin powers".
I had never heard of User:Mindspillage before yesterday, let alone emailed her with any request.
I have no knowledge about how CheckUser works, or what the ArbCom procedure around banning sockpuppets is, and hence no involvement in any of this whatsoever.
Hrm. Don't we usually have some evidence that this has been requested etc? I mean users who are indefinitely banned have to go through ArbCom first, right? Yet this one just happened. Okay so she's on ArbCom but that doesn't mean that she can ignore process, does it? There was no request for Arbitration against the users in question - there were RfArs that they were involved in, but none which were against them. Can ArbCom members just decide on the spur of the moment to ban someone permanently with no evidence? List of blocked users says otherwise. Note that the ban effectively destroys all complaints made against the admins in question, and has been coupled with accusations made against all of the other persons who had supported the view that the admins had acted inappropriately. I don't see how this can be seen as reasonable by anyone. Zordrac(talk)Wishy WashyDarwikinianEventualist17:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
could oyu help me? I'm having difficulty with the above mentioned user. Thank youMary Hope
"She" misspelled my username, which could lead to some confusion. (The fourth letter, a vowel, is different.) Please feel free to follow the discussion on our talk pages. I think it's a waste of time, and apologize, codependently. As to "knowing who" she is, I would happily explain my comment offline. "Her" claims to the contrary, I do not believe anyone is victimizing "her," least of all me nor willmcw.
On the [Chad-Sudan conflict] page I have asked to move it to [Chad-Sudan War]. There is a lot of controversy on this. Please come and help. Thank You Wikizach03:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He is now at User:Jingofetts. See evidence for sure per a conversation on his talk page (labeled "Hello") and mine (labeled "Hello again"). Not against policy, I don't think, but thought you should know where he is. Same edit patterns as before; his stubs seem to be improving a bit but he still uses tags very incorrectly. (ESkog)(Talk)19:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I believe when you reduced his indefinite block, you specified he read Your first article before coming back. Personally, I think that is a resonable condition put on this user. If he becomes disruptive again, I think we should insist on this. ike989819:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Cello. I went around and checked the final tallies, and they match the votes on the voting page. However, they don't take into account any discrepancies you might have found. Cheers. Titoxd(?!? - help us)01:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. By the way, since I had updated the numbers, but they got lost in the commotion, would it be ok if I updated the table (I'm not election staff after all)... Titoxd(?!? - help us)02:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, from what I've seen. If Merovingian and karmafist end up tied, do we have a run-off election? And if so, is it one week or two? Ral315(talk)03:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Flcelloguy! Late to chime in, but I can confirm that I can see no discrepancies in the votes cast and finally recorded. The votes discounted, if counted, would not change the results of the election. Therefore I would happily <carter type="jimmy"> declare that the voting in the Esperanza General Election of 2005 was free, fair, open and transparent. </carter> My only caveat would be that the election was temporariliy closed early and in that period, some votes may have been lost; however, judging by the editing pattern and the times between votes, it seems unlikely. The time the poll was closed was far enough out of "peak Wikitime" to have had a negligible effect; also the poll was reopened and remained so in peak Wikitime for enough time for that mistake to be rendered null. Finally, the margin of victory of the 4 winning candidates is such that, barring a fluke surge in voting during that time that was radically different to the previous pattern, no ultimate effect on the result was likely.
I have roughly tabulated this in a OO Calc spreadsheet (I know that's sad, but this is an encyclopedia, after all!) and I can tart the spreadsheet up and make it available should anyone have a just complaint. (I really hope they don't, I'd have to spend so much time on it, it'd be killing, honestly!)
Otherwise, in my humble opinion, the result may now be officially announced (I looked on the page but haven't check my email; if they have been announced, I will look like an idiot. But the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree on that score, so I'm not worried ;) ➨ ❝REDVERS❞19:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Go.com, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.
Hey, cool. I was thinking that someone should create the Go.com article when it came up as a red link in the Signpost last week. Nice work on it :) Ral315(talk)20:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably run them all at once, if you have time to do so. The elections start hours before we go to press, and I feel we should have all candidates profiled by the time they start. On another note, what were you planning on doing for candidate profiles? I mean, I think we should give the candidate's name, date of first edit, sysop or bureaucrat level, any other meaningful titles (ArbCom member previously, MedCom, etc.), and possibly a statement from the candidate. But is there anything else we should have?
Another note for the January 9th issue: Since we go to press so soon after the opening of the elections, we might talk about how the elections are doing, who's in the lead, etc. If you can start a skeleton of a vote tally, I'll update it at press time.
First, let me congratulate you on becaoming a member of the new Advisory Council. I would like to arrange a meeting with the Advisory Council in IRC either on Saturday or Sunday and wondered when it would be possible (taking time zones into account). Please could you respond on my talk page as soon as possible. Thank you. --Celestianpowerháblame21:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Gooey melted chocolate to use as you wish, delivered as a thank you for your hard work, fairness and encouragement during the Esperanza elections! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞
I want to personally thank you for filling in for the Admin General. I feel like I abandoned you and the rest of the Advisors. I'm really sorry about this. Esperanza entered its darkest age after Essjay left. All hope seemed last, but you kept the project alive. Thanks again. Have a Happy New Year. Acetic Acid03:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on being elected on esperanza advisory committee! Since I am now a member I thought I should congratulate our small government too for being elected. :) --a.n.o.n.y.mt18:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I finally figured out how to parse the HTML from Special:Contributions directly... if we process the code as UTF-8, there shouldn't be any problem with parsing section autocomment summaries. So, how's the Tool coming? Titoxd(?!? - help us)06:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok... well, I can process the HTML page as unicode directly, so maybe I can have a hack at it, now that I have some time. Can you put the updated source code on the project subpage? Thanks! Titoxd(?!? - help us)21:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... by the .txt files, do you mean input files, or the source code files under a different extension? (Because if the source code is fine, but just under a different extension, there shouldn't be any problems by just renaming them...) But don't worry about it, keep working on it. Titoxd(?!? - help us)23:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But yeah, answering your questions, you should see the source code as .java files, although some weird renaming could have happened during the moving process. Titoxd(?!? - help us)23:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Argh... .class files don't contain the code, unfortunately. Do you still have access to the old computer? Because if you do, you could try generating a JAR file that includes the source code, then retry the copy. The program will run, but the code is inaccessible. Titoxd(?!? - help us)23:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, .class files won't give you the source code information as they are encoded in bytecode, not text... :( The Java compiler will let you run them, but not see them (I learned it the hard way...). So, i think it would be quicker to just retransfer them, if possible. (Sorry to hear about the computer, though). Titoxd(?!? - help us)23:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, how's the code again? It seems that we might be able to get webhosting for a JAR file from Lar, but it would be nice to debug your code and release that version. I'm also trying to get more programmers involved in the project too. Titoxd(?!? - help us)22:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Flcello, we had a good meeting on IRC the other day, one of the things we talked about was trying to make a reformed version of NPA through the ideas of Esperanza as a whole, I was wondering what you thought about my process for it, as well as the idea overall. karmafist08:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When are you going to start making requests for things to be added into the mind benders pages? Time is about to run out...
P.S: Mind Benders seems to be nice up to here! I'm starting to think being a manual NotificationBot was worth it, after all. Fetofs18:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - I was thinking that. It's a week past its finishing date. I mean, I'm in no rush but perhaps a note on the announcements section, just to keep us in the loop ;)? --Celestianpowerháblame23:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I've determined, User:Sojambi Pinola and User:Jonah Ayers have a history that pre-dates the founding of Wikipedia. Pinola is apparently a friend of Rose's, while Ayers seems to have a negative obsession with Rose. Pinola has essentially followed the rules and spirit of Wikipedia, while Ayers has been breaking every policy we have starting with the first edits of his that I noticed, which added fraudulent and libellous material.[39][40] He's engaged in so many seriously abusive activities, including repeatedly posting personal information, that I'm preparing to ask the ArbCom to ban the user. Though I have not been involve as a mediator, I've tried to be a neutral editor and to work towards consensus. I think a lesson for me here is that when editors come to the project with bad faith it is difficult to turn them around. Of course we need to assume good faith, but that does not mean it is always there. -Will Beback23:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i don't believe will beback has ever done anyhting to help the article, he has chosen sides ,and never truly tried to deduce the accusatiosn that have been cited and sourced about the entry's subject, biff rose. his neutrality has been a joke, if you can call it that, and his catty remarks have been injurious, at one point he tried to imply that a neditor was akin to david duke, a tactic he has apparently used more than one time, on more than one article when others disagree with him216.175.114.62
I was just over at biff rose, and what a mess. Best I can say, having seen Will Beback and his work, he at times is a great editor. he gets to the quick like nobodies business. But, and this is a big but, he does not seem to accurately address some very important issues, and seems to side very much with one editor at Biff rose, as well as entering into some rather rude arguements. I think that should be looked into, because that sort of thing should not be fostered by a wiki administrator.Kevin hopetter20:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both your and Dschwen's oppose votes were on the basis that the only article the photo was in was Remembrance, which you said was a deletable article and so the photo could not be considered to illustrate an article. You were probably right too, as the article is now a redirect. The photo has however been moved to Remembrance Day, where it is well illustrative of the subject. As neither of you had any problems with the photo itself, I considered your objection fulfilled and promoted the image. Apologies if this assumption was incorrect, but that was my reasoning at the time. Raven4x4x00:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply; I really should have contacted you and Dschwen to ask your feeling about it being in the new article. I will be sure to do that in future. Raven4x4x23:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
hello flcelloguy - This is Debivort, the FPC contributor who made the annotated San Juan Panorama, about which I am thankful for your support. I was wondering if you had time to comment on another potential FPC that I am making. You can find it here. Thanks if you have time! - Debivort09:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment at any time. Is the font that you don't like the label font, category font or title font? They are Verdana, Copperplate and Lucida caligraphic. Let me know which you would like revising, and I'll upload a new variant, but, if it is the label font, then I would suggest a sans serif font, rather than times. Ciao, Debivort23:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Our "friend" Voice of All has unilaterally put a redirect on List of sexual slurs to make it redirect to Sexual slang. This was done without any discussion or consensus. He then removed the edit option from the page to undo his vandalism. Can you do anything about this admin/vandal? 155.84.57.25314:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it back since moving it broke every single subpage and even though a subpage would have been a better choice to begin with we don't have the time and I doubt anyone has the energy to fix all those broken links, I also changed the main elections page to point to the voting page for the votings. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, when your done undo my move then, also please make sure the main 2006 page points to the right page with no redirects and if there's any erroneous redirects please fix them... Thanks. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have less than 1 hour to get everything working as it's supposed to, no pressure though :) If this works properly remind me to give you a barnstar. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking that when the elections start the notice for the top of the watchlists should also be changed to have a link to the /vote page in addition to the link to the candidate statemetns that's already there. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You reliese that in order to fix the mess you have just made Jtkiefer is going to have to fix about 3 links a minute?Geni23:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've got it, I'll get both, I can do it with a simple find and replace but I have to do it carefully to avoid screwing up people's candidacy statements. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you do me a favor and check those links, I think I got all of them but the table is still screwed up, I have to try to find a way to fix that. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll copy out the table and fix the table, you and Geni can take care of the rest, I'd suggest changing them all to [[/USERNAME]] JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In theory it should be working now, though hell if I know if all the section editing stuff got through unscathed and I don't especially want to go through each line of the table code to proofcheck it... I guess we can fix any errors as we find them. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for informing me. That's perfectly fine if you'd like to take over one of my beats at some point, though I'd like to keep the Arbitration Report. Any of the others are open. Thanks for your great work on the ArbCom series this year, as well as the Steward elections. Ral315(talk)00:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm just checking to make sure you're active. I'm checking with all the mediators listed as active to make sure they are truly active and ready to take a case. Reply at my talk page ASAP :) Redwolf24 (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just curious if you'd written some suffrage-scanning code as well, since you did a string of suffrage edits just now... --Interiot02:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there! I picked you kinda at random since we've had almost no interactions, and you're doing some gruntwork on the arbcom elections. Could you take a look at my vote page and do some long comment filtering? It's getting a tad chatty there. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆02:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Replied here, where it's nice and low :) :P) Don't worry about that, I know that the ArbCom election is much more important than the tool, so all's ok there. Well, there's still a purpose and need for this tool - we want to have a backup for Kate's (and now Interiot's) tool in case the Toolserver is unavailable. As a result, we need something that can run independently of other servers (except Wikipedia, or course) running. As for cooperating with Interiot and Oleg (who I didn't know was working on something similar) - sure. I've been advocating that since the beginning. We're not in a rush here, but I'd like to work on it before I have to return to school, hence the code requests. Titoxd(?!? - help us)23:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shh, I didn't see this. :) Sorry, I just had Flcelloguy's talk on my watchlist still.
For what it's worth, I'm up for both more cooperation, and for duplication. In terms of bot code, I wonder how many separate copies of code there are to update some wikitext on wikipedia. And things go down. And the toolserver doesn't replicate databases from some asian servers, so Kate's and mine don't work for them, so they definitely need a separate tool (but a tool that won't grossly violate policy and get blocked).
In terms of cooperation, I'm realizing more and more that Wikipedia attracts a lot of smart geeks, and people on wikitech-l and #wikimedia-toolserver are coming up with new toys all the time. Whenever I write a new tool, I'm afraid someone else has already put the time in to write a better one. And there are a lot of ideas out there, and a lot of need for different kinds of bots, and SQL queries and stuff (eg. this one is pretty silly, but shows the range of stuff that people could create). So I think more communication between coders about proposed tools, suggested features, etc. would be good. Also, I encourage you guys to get an account on the toolserver, because it's so nice to be able to run 5-minute-long SQL queries against the database (as well as being able to write shorter CGI-based ones). Kate has JSP running on the server too [41], for what it's worth. --Interiot23:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you know SQL, even if you're not a prolific coder, it can still be a lot of fun to play around with queries on your own, and there are a lot of useful queries that one can run (another one I don't see advertised much: [42]... overlapping with Wikipedia:List of administrators by edit count, but updated more often and is much more efficient). And Kate really is being nice about letting people have an account. I sent you an email, check your inbox. And yes, I'm very interested in becoming an admin. --Interiot00:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I was poking around at the Department of WikiFun and saw Mind Benders. I think this looks like a lot of fun and I would like to participate in the future. Please add me to the list for the notification bot. Thanks! --Think Fast01:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response. I put the page you suggested on my watchlist. January/February is the busiest time of the year for me, so I don't think I can join in this round, but I look forward to participating in the future! --Think Fast02:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I have answered your question. I am terribly sorry for the delay in answering it. Naturally, I have the page on my Watchlist, but it appears that soon after you posted there, severeal other posts took place, and because you placed your question at the very bottom of the page (perhaps we might consider moving it up to the "Comments" section, since it is not one of the standard questions?), it somehow slipped passed me for a little while. Sorry again, and thanks for participating in my RfB. Regards, Redux00:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the nomination. I'm going to be away from the computer for the rest of the evening, but I'll accept it first thing tommorow morning. --Interiot23:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that MaoJin has been caught by the followign block: 13:22, 12 January 2006, Hall Monitor blocked 169.244.143.115 (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (severely high ratio of vandalism from this IP; please contact an administrator to have this block removed) according to User talk:MaoJinDES(talk)23:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt know that. I guess I should have just gone through the whole list one time, rather then split it up as I did over two sittings. Thanks for pointing it out though. It was just a mistake on my part. I'll fix the one where I voted both ways. Davidpdx23:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the reason I have been editing is to remove some unfair and unjustifiable references to Gibraltarian, who Woohookitty keeps mentioning and accusing of vandalism, unjustly. I did post replies to his rants, but he removed them, therefore the only fair way is to remove the comments. Either I am allowed to reply, or the comments must be removed. Anything else would simply not be fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.120.225.219 (talk • contribs)
Hey! I've worked on the tool a little bit, and I implemented edit summaries for the most part (I'm having a bit of trouble with malformed automatic section-edit summaries). Right now, AySz88 is working on automating the tool for processing directly from Special:Contributions. Do you still have new GUI code available? Titoxd(?!? - help us)19:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Argh, I hate when that happens. Don't worry. I'm trying to debug it now (and I'll merge in AySz's contributions) and then I'll send the JAR file to you so everyone's on the same page. Titoxd(?!? - help us)19:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I see you struck out my votes in the arbitration election. The rules say voters should have 150 votes by January 9th, and I did. I also registered before September 30th. You said you were going to put a note on the talk page but you didn't see which one, and I can't find anything. Could you direct me to it, please, because I would like to join in the discussion. Thank you. Pintele Yid08:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia my first post was 23:13, 31 July 2004 (hist) (diff) m Welsh Assembly Election 2007 and I have made over 500 posts (which I assumed allowed me to vote). Can I ask what the legal definition of suffagre is and how close I am to obtaining it? Harry Hayfield09:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be something up with my oppose votes which is confusing the Mathbot counter into increasing the total by one - don't know if you can do anything about it. Would not want to do it myself in case it looks like an attempt to interfere in the proper processes. David | Talk22:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to post the details on that same page. Very short post. No URLs in it. When I go to save page it says that the page is protected by a spam filter. I know it cannot be anything in my short post. Is this a general page problem? If so do i just wait for it to resolve - shall I give you the info on this page - or shall I use the WP page you mentioned. Thanks. Davidpatrick01:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. First of all - just want you to know that my note on your talk page was not referring to the actual issue. It was to let you know that I had just encountered a separate problem on the Wikipedia:Help desk page when I was trying to give you the details of the grammatical problem. And I didn't want you to think I was inexplicably switching from the Help desk page to your personal talk page without a reason!
Anyway - now to the actual original problem.
Thanks for the rapid response. It's a fairly minor error - but I suffered through grammar lessons at school so I feel I ought to share the little I learned!
It's a line on the standard discussion page given to anon. users (ie those who are only identified by an IP address)
it reads:
This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by their numerical IP address.
I believe that the use of the plural is incorrect. I think it should read:
This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by his/her numerical IP address
or
This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address.
Pathoschild dropped me the same note. I thought you might enjoy reading my friendly response.
Thanks for your note. Glad that you're not unduly worried by the change. The topic of singular/plural is one of those where there is certainly a common colloquial tradition of usage that is nonetheless gramatically erroneous.
eg if someone said this:
If the person has a problem tell them to see me
It's just one person - so it is not correct to say THEM"
It has to be:
If the person has a problem tell him or her to see me or
If the person has a problem tell the person to see me
Of course the erroneous usage has become commonplace - even cropping up in popular songs. The New York Times actually took Sting to task once on this particular point - describing "If You Love Somebody Set THEM Free" as "post-grammatical"!
Of course the lyric wouldn't scan so well if it was "If you love somebody - set him or her free"!
You was originally a plural form, the singular being thou. You gradually came to be used as the polite singular and was eventually generalized to the singular in all circumstances.
I think usage being "eventually generalized.... in all circumstances" is different to colloquial usage that hasn't been "generalized" and accepted by grammarians. The fact that "thou" (the original singular of "you") became abandoned in common parlance meant that there was no alternative. Whereas a person can still use his or her knowledge of grammar to be correct!
Thanks Flcelloguy... You nominated me for RFA, then mentioned three of my tools in the Signpost, and have been keeping a close watch on my RFA's tally. I'm honored, and am thankful for all of it. Regarding the tallying... is that something I can help out with? I've kept away because I don't know if it's a conflict of interest, but you seem to be spending some amount of time on it. --Interiot02:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a page we can use to collect evidence of Maoririder's recent actions, just in case the issue of discipline comes up again? BTW, I thought the following edit summary from a recent User:FragileFrigateBird contribution was illuminating:
"start! stubs right now feeling my way again changed medications..."
I did appreciate your assistance on the singular/plural grammatical issue. And enjoyed the historical mini-debate it provoked!
General question. I'm fascinated to know the Wikipedia attitude to the issue identified in my headline. Especially as it relates to the naming of articles where there is a need for a qualifying descriptive (arising from a need for disambiguation.)
Obviously we want to be as user-friendly as possible. So we designate terminology and article page titles that will help people locate the page as swiftly as possible.
But what happens when there is a minor conflict between a popular misconception (that may make it marginally easier to locate a page) versus the historical accuracy of something? Or between popular (but erroneous) descriptives used elsewhere (outside Wikipedia) versus the historical accuracy of something?
Does Wikipedai prefer to err on the side of user ease - even if it codifies existing misperceptions. Or does historical accuracy play a part? Do we have a mission to gently err on the side of factual accuracy even if the outside world has made minor mistakes?
Given that disambiguation pages customarily have a few words of descriptive text that help delineate the various meanings of the same word (ie the visitor is not dependent solely on the descriptive word(s) in parentheses that help disambiguate an article title - does that not mean that there is a preference that the descriptive in parentheses should err on the side of historical accuracy rather than popular perception (or misperception)?
Thanks for your note about the single/plural issue. As you say - it seems to be agreeably settled now. I greatly look forward to your response to the above note about "Popular misconceptions versus historical accuracy" Davidpatrick02:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an example. A rock band picks a name for itself. Band becomes successful worldwide. Has wikipedia article written about it. Band name has other meanings. Already are articles about that word. So article is named with descriptive about it in parentheses "(band)" as a suffix. That article name becomes accepted. Then an article gets written about another band that used the identical band name - but over 20 years earlier. It was the first band to go by that name. (That fact not in contention.) The earlier band was well established and had worldwide releases but never achieved mass success. A cult band rather than mass appeal band. And still sporadically active. When article about this first band to have the name was written it could not have the suffix "(band)" after its name as that had already been applied to the article on the more recent band. So the article was named with a suffix that referred to the decade it had been formed.
Another wikipedian notices it and notes that since the band that originally had the name was active in subsequent decades - and is still sporadically active - that it was unduly limiting and inaccurate to use the decade of its formation as the differentiating descriptive. So - since the fact that the band had the name 20 years before the successful band is not in contention - nor that it was the first such band to have that name - the suggestion is made that the descriptive suffix should be "(original band)". It's factual. It's documented. A fan of the latterday (and far better-known) band of that name - objects. Yes it might be factually accurate that the first band was the original band to have that name - but the term "(original band)" would be confusing to people seeking an article about the much more successful recent band of that name. They might see "(original band)" and think that it was an article about the very first lineup of the recent band. So - though by any standards of historical accuracy the first band WAS the "original band" by that name - it is claimed that use of that descriptive might confuse fans of the later, more famous band - and therefore should not be used. That is an example of where a historically accurate title might be rejected because of a notion that it might be confusing.
A corollary of that is the suggestion to use an alternative descriptive to distinguish the original band from the second band that IS in popular usage - but happens to be factually inaccurate. There are online record retailers that have tried to confront the problem of there being two identically named bands with product on sale by identifying the original band by a definition of nationality. Using a suffix that includes a country name and the word "band". To differentiate it from the other band. But the country always ascribed for the band's nationality is NOT the band's nationality. In fact none of the members have that nationality! (They are multiple nationalities and thus they cannot easily be labelled by nationality.) They happen to have at one time lived and recorded in that country - but have no affiliation to that country beyond that.
The distinction made by online retailers is an informal one - and is not reflected on the actual packaging which just has the official name of the band. It is only in the descriptive text on the webpages of online retailers. One party says - "well it may be technically inaccurate - but since it is in popular usage by online retailers - it is the preferred way to describe them on wikipedia which must be accomodating to users." The other party says - "a factual error by other non-official parties - no matter how widespread - is not the sanction for wikipedia to compound the error on its own pages in the erroneous naming of an article. The disambiguation page can alert visitors that the band is sometime erroneously described that way - but the article name in an encyclopedia should adhere to the truth rather than to popular misconception."
So that's the Gordian Knot! I find it fascinating. I wonder if these issues have been addressed somewhere in the wikipedia guidelines? Davidpatrick03:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to warn you, my computer is not on a working mood and I only have six questions ready, so I won't be able to post them right now. I'm going to try to post them by the 23rd, but that is likely not going to happen. Can you wait a little for my pc to get fixed if that happens? Fetofs18:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you need to start without me, the questions are here.
Thanks for waiting. I guess I wasn't the only one with problems ;)My questions are ready.
User:Wikizach has written a brief text on it, but I'm afraid that doesn't nearly live up to our standards of journalistic quality. As such, I'd appreciate it if you were to write about it; nobody else in the newsroom has expressed that intent. Radiant_>|<13:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And note that there are two proposals now based on the opinions expressed in WP:AAP, as noted on its talk page. Thanks for your time. Radiant_>|<13:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've made some small corrections to the article (hope you don't mind), please take a look at it. In particular, some of the new questions were missing from the statistics, one %number was incorrect, I've clarified the bit about the RFC proposal to more accurately match the actual proposal, and I've reworded the initial reaction to the WP:COC, since to my best knowledge there have not (yet) been any comments that it may be undesirable (if there are, please let me know, I'd be happy to discuss it with them). Oh yes and I've added a short warning that the statistics don't fully represent the opinions. Yours, Radiant_>|<00:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your arbitration committee vote motivation said I could ask if I had any questions. Well, I've really enjoyed the feedback I'm getting in the arbcom election, and it looks like I'll be on the reserve bench for this year. I still want to do the best I can though, and see how far I get. :-)
Could you tell me a bit more about the reasons for your oppose vote in this case?
If you are going to weaken this tool by putting a proposed tag on it, you will have to do the same for the dozens of other tools that have no official status in Wikipedia either. --Cunning Linguist22:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, SimonP. I hope you don't mind taking a few minutes out of your busy Arbitration schedule to answer a few questions for the Wikipedia Signpost.
How do you feel about getting the opportunity to serve on the ArbCom?
A mix of delighted and daunted.
What do you think of the election? Do you think they were conducted properly? What could have been improved, in your opinion?
I had great concerns about the election, as I don't think RFA works all that well. For the most part, however, it worked quite well and kudos are due its organizers.
What would you say to those who supported you? Opposed you?
I obviously owe a great deal of thanks to the large number of Wikipedians who supported me. For those who opposed me, my goal is to prove them wrong by being an excellent arbitrator.
What do you think of the other Wikipedians who were appointed along with you?
They are without exception an excellent group of people.
What do you think of Jimbo's decision to re-appoint three Arbitrators (JamesF., Jayjg, Fred Bauder)? Do you support this?
I do think this is a good idea. Incumbent arbitrators have an inherent disadvantage when facing reelection as their job ensures that they regularly penalize other users, and these same users then come back and vote against them. Some avenue has to be created to overcome this handicap, and while direct appointment may not be the best solution it is an adequate one for the present.
After a week on the job, what are your initial thoughts?
I still don't really know what I'm doing. I've been WP:BOLD and jumped into a few cases already, but I think it will take some time before I am fully grounded in the procedures and conventions of the ArbCom.
What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom? Weaknesses?
For the most part I feel the ArbCom has worked fairly well, especially considering the difficult task it is tasked to perform. Speed has always been a weakness, as is the mess that evidence pages usually become.
If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
Human nature, so we could dispense with the ArbCom and all write an encyclopedia in harmony.
What are your thoughts on the clerk's office? Do you support it? Why or why not?
It seems like a useful idea, and anything to speed up the process is important. However, a great deal of power could be accrued by these clerks. I think having multiple clerks with multiple viewpoints, who can collaboratively process cases, would be a good idea. Similar to how we have multiple users work on each article to ensure its neutrality.
Do you plan on finishing your term? If you had to make a choice right now, when your term expires, would you run for re-election? Why or why not?
I very much plan on finishing my term. I've been with Wikipedia for four years and expect to be fully involved for many more. Then again, I'm sure that the last group of arbitrators all expected to finish their terms and a surprising number did not.
How do you feel about getting the opportunity to serve on the ArbCom?
I am delighted that the community felt sufficient trust in me. It is very gratifying and confirms my belief that I have done good things while I have been here. This is especially so since I believe I am the youngest Arbitrator (past and present). On the other hand, I am a little alarmed at the workload!
What do you think of the election? Do you think they were conducted properly? What could have been improved, in your opinion?
To my surprise (and gratification) they were conducted for the most part very well. I had my concerns about the procedure before it started, but the only significant problems came with trolling on the questions pages. I am grateful to the elections organisers for their effort. As to a possible improvement, it was annoying and disruptive to have over sixty candidates, the vast majority of whom had no chance of election. I hope a future election will exclude these somehow.
What would you say to those who supported you? Opposed you?
To those who supported me, thank you, I'll do my best not to disappoint. To those who opposed, thank you as well. Your opinions were useful, and I also got some good laughs from the rationales (the one saying transparency was more important than justice was priceless).
What do you think of the other Wikipedians who were appointed along with you?
The ones that I know are all exemplary Wikipedians and wonderful people. I hope to get to know those whom I haven't previously known very well.
What do you think of Jimbo's decision to re-appoint three Arbitrators (JamesF., Jayjg, Fred Bauder)? Do you support this?
I think it is very important to have a good number of experience Arbitrators on the Committee. The selection procedure is to be commended for allowing this to happen.
After a week on the job, what are your initial thoughts?
Bloody hell, there's a lot of work!
What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom? Weaknesses?
The main strength is that it normally gives the right decision. The main weakness is its tendency to be drawn out with open-and-shut cases taking far longer than necessary.
If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
I would prefer to have more time to understand the process before I make any such judgments.
What are your thoughts on the clerk's office? Do you support it? Why or why not?
I think this is an excellent idea. Evidence pages have a habit of becoming a horrid mess, which makes our job that much harder. For to allay the fears of any who have concerns about those without community approval shaping Committee decisions, I shall never base my opinions solely upon that of a clerk, but shall use such an opinion as a good place to start reading a case.
Do you plan on finishing your term? If you had to make a choice right now, when your term expires, would you run for re-election? Why or why not?
Yes, I do intend to finish my term. I don't know exactly what my plans are for 2007 yet (I may be extensively unable to contribute to WP), so I have no idea whether or not I'd stand again.
If there's one thing you could say to the Wikipedia community, what would you say, and why?
Unprotected. I don't proactively protect. Next time, just overrule me. I'm more offended by people criticizing me without knowing my record on this stuff than people overruling me. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)02:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I apologize. Didn't mean to snap at ya. We've had one hell of a bad week on RfPP. Not sure if you've taken a look, but we had one case where a guy threatened a *vote*. I usually don't power trip, but admins run the page. Period. End of story. So a vote is sort of pointless. Anyway, that and lots of other stuff. I probably need to take a night or two off from it. Thanks for the kind words and for not getting mad. :) Just a stressful week. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)02:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I've finally got rid of that darned bug that prevented correct processing of edit summaries, and the Tool has been released to version 3.4, so you can update your copy. AySz88 has been working on a ton of nice code that will allow us to parse directly from Special:Contributions, we just need to merge the codes together. However, while the tool can process the edit summaries, it doesn't do anything with them (there's nothing in Stats.java that calls on those fields). So, would you mind having a look at the code and telling us what you think we should add? Titoxd(?!? - help us)01:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I remember, the last spam that was handed out was on the 20th of December last year, so I think it's time for another update. First and foremost, the new Advisory Council and Administrator General have been elected. They consist of myself as Admin General and FireFox, Titoxd, Flcelloguy and Karmafist as the Advisory Council. We as a group met formally for the first time on the 31st of Decembe. The minutes of this meeting can be found at WP:ESP/ACM. The next one is planned for tonight (Sunday 29 January) at 20:30 UTC and the agenda can be found at WP:ESP/ACM2.
In other news, Karmafist has set up a discussion about a new personal attack policy, which it can be found here. Other new pages include an introductory page on what to do when you sign up, So you've joined Esperanza... and a welcome template: {{EA-welcome}} (courtesy of Bratsche). Some of our old hands may like to make sure they do everything on the list as well ;) Additionally, the userpage award program proposal has become official is operational: see Wikipedia:Esperanza/User Page Award to nominate a userpage or volunteer as a judge. Also see the proposed programs page for many new proposals and old ones that need more discussion ;)
Other than that, I hope you all had a lovely Christmas and wish you an Esperanzially good new WikiYear :D Thank you! --Celestianpowerháblame16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply] Message delivered by Rune.welsh using AWB. If you wish to recieve no further messages of this ilk, please sign your name here.
Voting for the positon of Regent Ñ will begin on February 5th at the voting page. All candidates should list themselves there before then. Please take the time to vote, and become more active in the Wikipediology Institute. Thanks - Pureblade | Θ04:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Sun Yat-sen article, that I've been busily working on previously, is under frequent vandalism attack by anonymous users recently. Since most contributors to the article are logged-in users, I hope you can protect this article from being edited by anonymous users. This has been discussed in Talk: Sun Yat-sen and so far received no objection. Hope you'll do me this little favour. Deryck C.05:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a new user who has used his email address as a username. He's User:Nihitmehta08@yahoo.com. I'd like to intervene and advise him to get that identity deleted so as to avoid SPAM, while he still has only the one edit to his name. However I'm afraid I've no idea where to start. I'm not an admin so even if he agreed I couldn't do anything to help him myself. My guess, from his anon contributions here is that he is a very young newbie. Do you think I'm right to be a bit concerned on his behalf? If yes are you able to help him out? Cheers AndyJones09:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay; I was out of town over the weekend and had limited Internet access.
How do you feel about getting the opportunity to serve on the ArbCom?
I'm honored that the community granted me that opportunity and I hope that I won't let them down. I said right after the election that I was in a state of shock and it still seems a little unreal.
What do you think of the election? Do you think they were conducted properly? What could have been improved, in your opinion?
I expected the worst and was pleasantly surprised. I think enforcing the rule against diatribes on the voting pages helped matters. In the future, the suffrage rules ought to be decided further in advance.
What would you say to those who supported you? Opposed you?
In both cases, that I'm not taking it personally.
What do you think of the other Wikipedians who were appointed along with you?
They're good folks with the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart.
What do you think of Jimbo's decision to re-appoint three Arbitrators (JamesF., Jayjg, Fred Bauder)? Do you support this?
Their experience thus far has been invaluable. In that regard, I support Jimbo's decision whole-heartedly. Too much turnover on the committee would create chaos.
What are your thoughts on the clerk's office? Do you support it? Why or why not?
It's a good idea given the amount of paperwork we handle. Any deliberating body has a support staff; it makes sense that we have one.
Do you plan on finishing your term? If you had to make a choice right now, when your term expires, would you run for re-election? Why or why not?
Barring unforseen developments, yes. I'll run for re-election if I think I still have something to offer.
If there's one thing you could say to the Wikipedia community, what would you say, and why?
Please take care in writing your requests for arbitration. Explain yourself concisely and provide relevant diffs. The easier it is for us to determine what's going on and why the faster we can arbitrate your case.
Heya! I noticed your edit hereto; I intentionally put this at the top because this information is regularly changed incorrectly. Was I incorrect to believe it important enough to top the page? RadioKirktalk to me22:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that people often change that information to an incorrect version?
> 1. How do you feel about getting the opportunity to serve on the ArbCom?
It would be fair to say I was thoroughly shocked that I got so much support. I never expected that; hoped for it, of course. I'm still feels a little unreal.
Arbcom is hard work, and right now it seems a touch daunting, but to what sane person wouldn't it? All I can say is that I welcome the chance to work hard for Wikipedia and its community of editors.
>2. What do you think of the election? Do you think they were conducted properly? What could have been improved, in your opinion?
The elections went better than I feared. While it would have been nice if we'd all known how they were going to work a bit more ahead of time, there was surprisingly little chaos. While I had my worries about open, RFA-style voting, the advantage of it is that the results are clear for all to see - verifiable.
A fair few users were surprised to find they didn't have suffrage. Perhaps next time it should be clearer more in advance.
>3. What would you say to those who supported you? Opposed you?
That in both cases I hope I exceed expectations.
>4. What do you think of the other Wikipedians who were appointed along with you?
They are a great bunch of hard-working, committed Wikipedians that I respect very strongly. I doubt we'll all agree all the time, but that's not the point - we all have Wikipedia's best interests at heart and will try and do the best for the project.
I am worried about nobody having heard from Filiocht since before the election concluded, and I hope he's OK.
>5. What do you think of Jimbo's decision to re-appoint three Arbitrators (JamesF., Jayjg, Fred Bauder)? Do you support this?
Arbcom needed more bodies, given the dropout rate in the past and the fact that some peoples' lives inevitably get busy. All three have proven themselves good Arbitrators, willing to work hard at the task, and they all got good approval ratings from the community. Speaking selfishly, I'm glad that it means we have eight experienced Arbitrators on the committee so us newbies don't have to come up to speed on ALL the old cases all at once. It also helps keep continuity, which is a good thing in my opinion.
>6. After a week on the job, what are your initial thoughts?
That there's a lot of procedure to get used to. I'm handling it by mostly jumping in and seeing what works.
>7. What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom? Weaknesses?
The biggest historical weakness has been speed of decision-making, especially on cases of serious disruption.
>8. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
We need to explore better dispute resolution at the pre-arbcom stages. When things get so bad the arbcom get involved, peoples' positions are entrenched and bridges have been burned.
>9. What are your thoughts on the clerk's office? Do you support it? Why or why not?
I support it. Wikipedia is getting bigger, and the number of arbcom cases will inevitably increase. Help with the mechanical mechanisms of the Arbcom and in helping present evidence will improve the arbcom's efficiency, which I think we all agree needs to be better.
>10. Do you plan on finishing your term? If you had to make a choice right now, when your term expires, would you run for re-election? Why or why not?
Right now, I plan to finish my term. RIGHT NOW I would say I would run for re-election, but that's a long, long way off.
>11. If there's one thing you could say to the Wikipedia community, what would you say, and why?
Remember the goals of the project, and remember that most people are trying to do the right thing in good faith.
Sorry 'bout that, I logged off before your message. Jim16 has no contributions since your warning, so I'm not going to do anything at this point, but if he persists, feel free to ask me if I'm around, or you can try WP:AIV. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
ARCHIVE 07: The 100 Message Archive Messages 502-601, dating from January 2006 to April 2006 This is an archived talk page. Please go to User talk:Flcelloguy to leave Flcelloguy a message. Thanks!
Version 3.40 of Flcelloguy's Tool has been released: all edit summary bugs are quashed. Also, Version 4.00 is under development, and this version will allow for direct downloading of a user's contributions - copy the source code at the Java Sandbox and at bottom of the Tool's page to test out the new version. I've marked a few things that need to be done - if you're interested in doing any of them, please feel free to contact me. Titoxd(?!? - help us)05:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Here's what's going on, roughly: There is one instance of the Namespace() class per namespace in Wikipedia (they are retrieved using Interiot's Special:Export method), and each instance is able to store the extended Contrib() objects inside of it. As for the Help page, yes. It would be a good idea to make the page at Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters/Flcelloguy's Tool/Help with more detailed explanations on how to use the tool and snapshots of the UI (I've uploaded a few). As for the scan - yes, it could be done easily, since you could always retrieve the Contrib.editSummary field (which is public), you would just need to browse through the contribs somehow (AySz88 can help you with maps much more than I can). The actual code should go in Stats.java, as that's where all the analysis functions are located. Thanks! Titoxd(?!? - help us)22:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Showing the figures of Mohammed is disturbing muslims. And it is a insult to Islam. In Islam making and also looking the figures of Mohammed is forbidden.That is raping the holy things of Islam.And it is not about "freedom".PLEASE get back your sıgnature.Thanks.--Erdemsenol01:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I just saw you blocked some guy for posting a "virus link". Well, I just entered there, do you mean a virus link (I didn't think these things were posible) or a page designed to be anoying? algumacoisaqq02:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article L'Arlésienne Suites, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.
When you give multiple suggestions from the same article, please indent them after the first suggestion so that the updating admins are clear that they are all from the same article. --Gurubrahma06:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. How do you feel about getting the opportunity to serve on the ArbCom?
A bit overwhelmed; it's a lot of work, and getting even busier. But honoured as well.
2. What do you think of the election? Do you think they were conducted properly? What could have been improved, in your opinion?
It seemed conducted reasonably well. I think the purpose of the question page could have been better clarified; too many of the questions were simply thinly disguised attacks (or, in some cases, completely undisguised attacks). As well, the "winning" criteria might have been more explicit; was it simply percentage, or was it total Support votes, or Support-Oppose votes? Different measures gave radically different rankings.
3. What would you say to those who supported you? Opposed you?
I would simply thank those who supported me, and let both supporters and opposers know that I will faithfully carry out my mandate.
4. What do you think of the other Wikipedians who were appointed along with you?
They all look like good candidates for the Committee.
5. What do you think of Jimbo's decision to re-appoint yourself, Fred Bauder, and Jayjg? What would you say to those who opposed this decision?
I'm Jayjg, I assume you mean James F. :-) Well, naturally I'm biased, but it seemed reasonable to me. The Arbitration Committee has, as far as I know, always had appointed members on it, and Jimbo stated that the conditions for eligibility this time were simply getting over 50% of the vote. All 3 of us are experienced Arbitrators who have proven ourselves, and we all had significant support no matter how you measure it: for example, if you measure by "Support-Oppose", then Fred came in 4th, I came in 7th, and James came in 9th:[43] If you measure by Support votes alone, then Fred came in 3rd, and I came in 4th.
6. After a week on the job, what are your initial thoughts?
Most of the new members seem to be enthusiatic and are contributing well; in particular, they have provided new thinking on a number of cases, which is welcome. The backlog seems to be slowly clearing.
7. What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom? Weaknesses?
I think I answered that when I ran for the office. :-)
8. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
I would have a process that automatically put arbitrators on the inactive list if they hadn't contributed in a reasonable period of time (say, a month), and would automatically remove them from the Committee if they were inactive for a similar period of time. This would help ensure that all members are active and contributing, and help keep cases moving through the pipeline.
9. What are your thoughts on the clerk's office? Do you support it? Why or why not?
I'm quite concerned about it. If it were simply an administrative role, which opened and closed cases, tidied up various pages, nagged the Arbitrators, etc., then I'd be all for it. However, I am not keen on the "summarize the case" aspect of the role which it seems to have taken on (indeed, almost to the exclusion of all other aspects); it seems very much like an arbitrator role at that point.
10. Do you plan on finishing your term? If you had to make a choice right now, when your term expires, would you run for re-election? Why or why not?
Yes I plan to finish my term, and I have no idea if I'd run again. It's a lot of work, and it makes you the target of a fair amount of abuse.
11. If there's one thing you could say to the Wikipedia community, what would you say, and why?
Let's work together to build a great encyclopedia! Why? Because that is our ultimate purpose here.
12. Is there anything else you would like to mention?
1. How do you feel about getting the opportunity to serve on the ArbCom?
Well, partly "oh, no, not again"... ;-) Hm. Both honored and overwhelmed that so many people expressed their support and worried about doing it, as it's a bit of a nerve-wracking job.
2. What do you think of the election? Do you think they were conducted properly? What could have been improved, in your opinion?
I was initially quite skeptical of the idea of open elections, and I'm still not thrilled with it (I refrained from voting, as a candidate), but it did turn out better than I thought it would, despite a few unfortunate incidents. Difficult to propose an alternate system; all have their tradeoffs.
3. What would you say to those who supported you? Opposed you?
To those who supported, thank you for your confidence in me; to all, I'll try not to let you down; please let me know if I screw up.
4. What do you think of the other Wikipedians who were appointed along with you?
All of them are people I have a good deal of respect for (and I'm not just saying that because you're going to print it publicly, either)!
5. What do you think of Jimbo's decision to re-appoint three Arbitrators (JamesF., Jayjg, Fred Bauder)? Do you support this?
Yes, I do; all of them have done good work in the past and I'm glad to see them continue. (Also, having more "old hands" around is really helpful when so much of the committee is new.)
6. After a week on the job, what are your initial thoughts?
Hm. This directed more to the new class than to me, I guess; my own thoughts now are mostly the same except for "we have how many cases open?"
7. What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom? Weaknesses?
I think I've answered this before; my opinion is mostly the same. :-)
8. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
Hm. I'm happy to see the committee expanded a bit; there were plenty of qualified people running and I'm glad to see we'll get a wider range of opinions.
I'd like to see the earlier stages of dispute resolution (particularly RfC) worked on some so we don't see as many cases; it's hard to give proper attention to over 20 at once.
9. What are your thoughts on the clerk's office? Do you support it? Why or why not?
I think the idea is worth a shot -- the mechanical work of opening and closing cases, and of doing notifications, is tedious stuff. As for the rest, it may be helpful, it may not; it's worth a try to see what the benefits and drawbacks are. The case summaries I'm not sure of; some of the evidence is all but unreadable, but necessary to slog through anyhow; however, I've seen people working independently do things on Workshop pages that made my job in that much easier and if this happens, then great. I'd rather wait until it's actually been working for a while before offering much of an opinion.
10. Do you plan on finishing your term? If you had to make a choice right now, when your term expires, would you run for re-election? Why or why not?
I do plan on finishing. But three years is an eternity in Wikipedia time (I haven't even been editing that long), and I've seen plenty of others burn out from this. I have no intentions of running for re-election; one term will be more than enough! (Oh, great, of course, now that I've said this, watch me pull a Marty Meehan. I swear I won't have anyone go back and edit this for me.)
11. If there's one thing you could say to the Wikipedia community, what would you say, and why?
Other than "please don't do anything that makes me have to read a case against you"?
No, really. Do the right thing, and use your best judgment. Policies exist to help us do that, not to use as a bludgeon, a straitjacket, or a game. Be nice to people (nicer than you may want to be, even). Assume good faith (which doesn't mean letting bad behavior go unchecked). Use the talk pages. Don't be a dick. Remember that it's possible you're wrong, especially if lots of reasonable people are telling you to consider your actions. If you start feeling like editing is a battle, go do something else; the wiki really won't fall apart.
In other words, please don't do anything that makes me have to read a case against you. (Why? Purely selfish, of course: so I can get back to writing articles and quit reading cases. I suppose there's that whole community project bit too. ;-))
12. Is there anything else you would like to mention?
I ask you a question. I am currently working on a very massive change to how the dispute resoution is done as well as how Wikipedia functions. I want to make an Appeals board (for use of a better name), that would resolve issues before they go to the Arbitration Committee as well as help enforce there (arbcom's) rulings. Earlier, when I sought to make a higher group it didn't work, but my goal would be reached with either proposal. Now back to the idea: The board would have nine members, three selected by the Arbcom, five selected by the public (users) and one selected by Jimbo. They would each serve six-month terms (I can always change this) and would require a simple majority to make a descision. I feel that I must recieve your advise, because you deal with disputes all the time. So I ask for your comments, good or bad. Thank you for your time.!~
I saw this one come through after three or four Saudi edits on the page, which were reverted. An identical edit came through from Vietnam, which raised my suspicions, especially as it came from an IP that had been repeatedly warned for vandalism. I then asked on IRC if anyone could access through that IP address, and the answer came through as yes. In other words, a person (in this case from France) could edit Wikipedia whilst appearing to be in Vietnam, which is against Wikipedia:No open proxies. Hence the indefinite block. Physchim62(talk)01:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Flcelloguy. Despite of the numerous people who object to the link to the bootcamp in the welcome template, and the fact that it is not in fact necessary, with the {{helpme}} template being enough for their project, the people from the bootcamp project keep on using their administrative privileges to put the bootcamp link back in. I don't plan to get involved in such a game, as I find it silly to push one's point with edit wars using admin privileges rather than talk, but something should be done about it. Wonder what you think. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per Jimbo's desysop of four other administrators, your article needs updating. If you don't get to it, I will, but I figured I'd give you first crack at it if you wanted it. Ral315(talk)14:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually quite funny, because I had just started the first sentence of it when I saw that I had new messages :) I would suggest that if you have the time, that you break them apart into the userbox-related article, and a more general cartoon-related article, that doesn't deal with Jimbo so much as the controversy itself, and the battle over whether it's censorship, etc. (keep the last paragraph pretty much as-is, but make sure the article focuses on the issue as a whole.) If you don't have time to do both, I'll write the latter when I get home. Ral315(talk)23:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Flcelloguy. Thanks a lot for your excellent handling of the bootcamp issue at template talk:welcome. I must say that I have been very impressed with your diplomacy and insight in a number of places on Wikipedia. I believe you would be a valuable addition to the arbitration committee, should you decide to run for the job. Keep on doing the good work! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again Cello... check out my posted ones on wikipedia and my test page so to speak let me know cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaoJin (talk • contribs)
Hello, GregAsche! Could I ask you to be a bit more careful when unprotecting images tagged with {{mprotected}}? You unprotected two images which I had already protected and tagged earlier today (at approximately 00:30 UTC), both of which will appear on the main page tomorrow (in less than an hour now.) I find that looking at the "what links here" is useful; it tells you which template/pages link to there, and the pages for the FA and selected anniversaries have the date in the page name. Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I didn't realize images were protected so far in advance, and I assumed they were images that had already appeared on the main page. Sorry about that. -Greg Asche(talk)23:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, after fixing and watching other editors diligently fix several acts of vandalism on Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy I was wondering if there was any chance to have that topic re-locked?
Just a note: it says in a couple of spots that this isn't a real attempt at promotion, just an attempt at seeing what a "pseudo-article" may look like. - brenneman(t)(c)00:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also seem to have seen this fundementally differently than at least some of the folks have. It's not live, so I thought we were still "sandboxing" stuff. Sorry. - brenneman(t)(c)01:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I wasn't thinking particularly straight. I received an email from this person who's information had been revealed, and I was urgent to get rid of it...so I sort of jumped into it without thinking :). Anyways, I'm sorry for the hassle I caused.--Sean Black(talk)01:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for working hard to put together the arbitration election series, it was good to see your work grow and develop. I look forward to seeing more stories from you again soon. --Michael Snow22:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That interview of the arbitrators was great. It must have been a lot of work to organize. I really enjoyed reading it. Thank you very much. --James S.19:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you specify what the alleged "questionable phrases" are, or why you think the lead is "poorly written," I will not be able to do anything to change it to your satisfaction. I feel the quote I used is pertinent and useful in that is distills the issue in such a short and clear way. Mr. Lund may not have been directly involved in laudering funds from the Chinese government, but he was a China analyst for the Canadian government. I personally feels this give him weight on the subject. I guess this issue is just a matter of opinion. Lastly, your comment that "the rest article also needs significant improvements" leaves me helpless without any specific criticism ("formatting" is too vague). Thanks.
P.S. I have no idea what you mean about citing improperly. I used the format suggested by Wikipedia itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayzel68 (talk • contribs)
Hey there, thanks for your comment on the FAC page for Phil Collins. I don't know how often you review the page, so I wanted to let you know that I responded on the page, and copied-and-pasted below. Thanks for taking the time to review my article! --Ataricodfish06:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Flcelloguy, thanks for the comment, and I appreciate that you reviewed the article. I personally like where further reading is because it's immediately after the article text itself. My logic; if you've read this and would like to read more, here you go. As for the audio samples, it was the same logic; you've just read about the guy, now here's a list of samples in historical order for the article just read. I modeled this after the Marilyn Manson featured article, as I liked how the audio section was featured and ordered. I placed the discography and band afterward because they are lists and, I feel, would be distracting placed earlier in the article. I don't know if there's a general accepted format on Wikipedia for this, but I personally like how it is set up.
As for the band list, originally the article had a LONG band list of every member in the band ever, including studio musicians. I liked the information but felt an entire list was inappropriate for this article and that a summary of the current band would suffice. I created a separate article, Touring and studio musicians of Phil Collins, and cut-and-paste that information over. I had briefly considering deleting the band section and putting it in a "See Also" section at the bottom, but I thought it looked unprofessional with only one link, (That touring link), and nothing else, and I also thought the information was informative in its current format, so I kept the article as is.--Ataricodfish20:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've made some changes (well, some other user did actually) regarding the placement of images. Can you please check to see if it is satisfactory, and if so, how about a support. :) Well, thanks for your feedback. GfloresTalk07:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Esperanzians! Well, since our last frolic in the realms of news, the Advisory Council has met twice more (see WP:ESP/ACM2 and WP:ESP/ACM3). As a result, the charter has been ammended twice (see here for details) and all of the shortcuts have been standardised (see the summary for more details). Also of note is the Valentines ball that will take place in the Esperanza IRC channel on the 14th of February (tomorrow). It will start at 6pm UTC and go on until everyone's had enough! I hope to see you all there! Also, the spamlist has been dissolved - all Esperanzians will now recieve this update "newsletter".
The other major notice I need to tell you about is the upcoming Esperanza Advisory Council Elections. These will take place from 12:00 UTC on February 20th to 11:59 UTC on February 27th. The official handing-over will take place the following day. Candidates are able to volunteer any time before the 20th, so long as they are already listed on the members list. Anyone currently listed on the memberlist can vote. In a change since last time, if you have already been a member of the leadership, you may run again. Due to the neutrality precident, I will not vote for anyone.
At Cite.php, the one example they provide has the period in front of the ref. I don't mind going through and changing them all if you concur it's the right way to do it. - dharmabum00:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to throw a thanks your way for making me really look at the length of the Floyd article and how sections could be spun off. Years of trying to meet word counts for English essays tend to make a person loath to remove material, but after a good hard look I've removed nearly 30% of the article to the Pink Floyd discography and the newly created Pink Floyd live performances, which really tightens up the main article. Most of the critiques you seem to get during a FA review often relate to formatting, grammar and citation issues, but yours really improved the article tremendously (which, FA or not, is all I really care about as a Floyd addict since the mid-80's). Thanks. - dharmabum08:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bug you once again, but is there any chance I could get you to re-evaluate the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pink Floyd article? It's been removed from the FA candidates page but not yet archived, and I want to be sure that the people who opposed know how much it's changed and have a chance to re-evaluate before the bureaucrat removes it. - dharmabum00:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I posted to Raul's talk page again, and I got all panicky for nothing - the article was promoted to FA and had indeed just slipped through the cracks. It was my first FAC, and I didn't realize what I was getting into, hence the panic when I thought it was all going to hell in a handbasket. Thanks for all your help and suggestions. - dharmabum22:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Flcelloguy: I just wanted to drop a note (no pun intended) about your Esperanza statement, which I think is excellent. If many editors were as considerate and encouraging of the project as you are, I think that Wikipedia would be a lot easier to work on. Good job. Regards, Bratschetalk05:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to reconsider your vote after seeing the new version of this animation. Feel free to remove this note once you've seen it. --Gmaxwell23:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Hello Flcelloguy/Archive, and thank you for your support in my request for adminship! It passed with a final count of 98/2/0. If there is anything I can do to help you, please leave me a message on my talk page! -- xaosfluxTalk
I have a request of my fellow candidates, and of the voters -- that all candidates give a vote to every other candidate.
It may seem that this request goes against the idea that leadership and potential leadership of our group should be neutral, a precedent that has been followed since the beginning of Esperanza by JCarriker, but I beg to disagree.
For one, mathematically all votes would be cancelled out, but unlike if we stayed silent, we are showing an affirmation of our support for each other.
To me, that's what Esperanza's about. I've had disagreements with many people in Esperanza, but i'll always support them in some form or another as long as I believe as they'll do the same for me -- as long as we're unified in a belief that kindness can cure the ills of Wikipedia as a whole.
By the way, now that you have given me the reigns of power, would it be harmful to me (as I'm competing) to know the details for part 3? FetofsHello!23:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about the polls on the quality of the article? How will that be added up (the overall, the mean, etc). I hope that is my last doubt... FetofsHello!11:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to say here, because you may not read the FA nomination anymore, that you misinterpreted my sentenced, really. I thought that no foreigner would ever take the job of reading that kind of stuff, really. Its very frustrating finding that Portuguese related articles are of little importance in en.wikipedia and I think no one really reads articles like that one. That's why I never found a person interested in doing a copyedit to my non native english writing. No one participated in the peer review of the article, the few objections were based in the size and minor issues, that's why I think no one reads that stuff. But I understand.
You may ask, so why don't you contribute to the pt.wikipedia? And I answer: that's full of brazilians writing in brazilian portuguese, which I find horrible. Along with that, this wikipedia is much more complete and I develop my english very much each time I come here.
About the article itself, I think the part you criticized is a bit like verbatim, but that's why it says: "the party defines itself as:" I could not say a totally different thing, could I? That's it. Sorry if I made you upset or something. If you answer, could you make it in my page please? Regards. Afonso Silva00:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since your vote I have greatly expanded the history section, changed over to the new cite format, added many cites, and created a table which replaces the bulleted list you disliked. I'd appreciate it if you reconsider your objection, and possibly even change it to a support--naryathegreat | (talk)00:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. SteinbDJ14:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I need some 3rd party intervention in an unusual copyright situation. A user has repeatedly submitted copyrighted material, BUT he is the copyright holder. The material is otherwise OK, except for being a little POV. He seems uninterested in the rules against submission of copyrighted material. Anyway, I'm limited by the 3RR, and anyway this user is annoyed with me and not likely to be swayed by any arguments I make. Could you please have a look? Our correspondence can be found at the bottom of User talk:Dannyhellman and the article in question is Legal Action Comics. ike989819:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I need your help. I don't know what to make of this. It is either vandalism or someone hacked the page. Click 1996 U.S. campaign finance scandal to see what I mean. If you click the old page name Chinagate which is now a redirect you can still see the correct version without the vandalism. --Jayzel18:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was very bizarre. Now the page is back to normal. I swear I am not nuts. At first when I clicked on the 1996... link I was getting a page with nothing but nonsense words and then after a short while any time I clicked on the link a pop-up box would open asking me to download and save a file. Weird. Thanks anyhow... --Jayzel18:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, there has been significant progress on the Tool since you last saw it. We implemented full and correct processing of edit summaries, automatic downloading of edits, fixed the one-off bug with Special:Contributions, and designed the tool to be able to read an unlimited number of edits, either from a remote connection (which has several features to prevent usage of the tool as a DoS vector). So, the only thing we really need to do is now check it for a while and then release version 4.00. A user has already contacted me about hosting, so as soon as we get that done, as well as other things, we should be ok. Most of the updated code is at the Java Sandbox, so you can update your copy of the tool to the most recent version. We also have to write the help page soon... could you help us doing that? Titoxd(?!? - help us)07:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With apologies for the impersonal AWB-ness of the message...
Thanks for your support on my recent request for adminship. It passed at 91/1/0, and I hope I can continue to deserve the community's trust. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help you, and if I make a mistake be sure to tell me. My talk page is always open. (ESkog)(Talk)02:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I've resubmitted Chew Valley Lake as a featured article candidate, because it didn't receive enough support last time.
As you have edited this page in the past I wondered if you would be willing to visit and comment/support on the nomination? Rod20:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see you took another look at the material you just restored to the Talk:Disco page and quickly reverted! This "Drphilharmonic" showed up sounding like an academic authority on music, contributing some useful information on the orchestras behind disco (but perhaps wnet a bit overboard with it), and criticizing some of the material in the article as "impertinent". When I ask him to discuss, he then began pitching some longwinded far-out view on the history of disco; but it became clear that he was advocating a particular website. When I and another person responded, these other writers all followed with similar longwinded rambling praising Drphilharmonic and each other, as well as flaming us. I kind of suspect they are all the same person, and the owner of the site discomagic.50megs.com! ("Dr. Rob") Please watch the talk page. I would think everything on the talk page as well as the article should be reverted back to the last version before Drphilharmonic showed up, but some of his info on disco composers was useful.Eric B04:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK; I just created a new page Disco Orchestration with Drphilharmonic's orchestra info (which is a whole page in itself, thus too much for the Disco article), and greatly reduced the info in the "disco" article. He or his "friends" may come back fighting, so I thought I should make you aware of that. Eric B15:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for your instructive and constructive comment on my recent FAC submission on the Virgin Atlantic GlobalFlyer. The objections were around a lack of references and citations, to which I responded that this article was the authorative source on the topic, as the information was obtained by me from source. You went on to explain that it should also be verifiable.
I'd like to continue the discussion really, not in terms of whether or not my featured article application should or should not have succeeded (I accept that it failed) - but more about how to encourge people with first-hand experience - because, at the moment, I don't feel particularly special! :)
Facts are verified at source, by me. I'm not the authority myself, but I did verify them from sources that are not pubicly accessible (one to one face to face, phone or email conversations) and therefore can't be referenced.
In a nutshell, the problem for me is that if I chose to write a book with content in it derived first-hand from the inividuals who are the source of the information, then I could write a Wikipedia article citing the book as an authority. However, seeing as I chose not to do that, but instead to cut out the (old hat) printed page, and to make Wikipedia the authority, the current rules and support framework, doesn't really allow for that.
Dear Flcelloguy,
As a social scientist, I am interested in the civil reconciliation concerning all that has occurred in [[44]]. First, it was uncalled-for and unprofessional for an administrator of Wikipedia to state "off topic flame war and personal advocation deleted." Married, with 2 children in college now, I am a professional educator in the university system. I do not know any of the other contributors to the page, and, as I read the comments from the other educators, I interpret supportive elements from entirely different and varied perspectives, which is what an encyclopedia should strive for. Should we dismiss the contributions from a longtime orchestra conductor who shared a wealth of information from which we all, including you, a cello-player, can learn? Should we dismiss the contributions from a longtime recording engineer who also shared a wealth of information on the multiple aspects of putting together a music recording during the time? It is a terrible thing that their contributions were deleted from the talk page; how much just I learned, how much more I would love to know, and how much their presence might elicit from others in the business who could be invaluable resources. Wikipedia should love to have them as contributors. From my observation, there is not a reference to non-Wikipedia pages in the text of the "Disco" page; non-Wikipedia pages are suggested only as a resource in the talk page. I had not known of the pages until their mention, and, if one visits, one will realize that the pages are inactive, archival pages, without even an active e-mail address. It is highy improper to make the preposterous accusation that just because many individuals have a similar point-of-view and can present them in an eloquent manner, yet substantiate their assertions from entirely different perspectives, no less, they must be the same person. The one obvious element in the whole discussion is that there are just two individuals - Eric B and KAB - that have chosen to devote great amounts of energy in making mendacious accusations than in becoming more learned; "every person that is against us even if from different backgrounds and different professions and different places in the world is the same person" bespeaks a troubled personality. A professional organization must neither abide nor entertain this character-type. Thank you for your time. Pol-Sci-Prof19:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Our dear friend Rob Mercadante of Massachusetts wrote me a kind reconciliatory email on 6 March 2006. He sent the email under the subject "to Kevin: apologies from "Drphilharmonic" on Wikipedia" and signed himself as being someone from "W. Hartford, Connecticut" who also travels to New Haven and Boston frequently. The interesting thing is that the email "Drphilharmonic" sent me from Hotmail has an X-Originating-IP that resolves to the library of Amherst College, in central Massachusetts, the same region as his former ISP in Longmeadow, Mass. and his radio show at WTCC-FM in Springfield, Mass. Therefore he accidentally proved himself once again to be the very same person as Dr. Rob, the host of DISCOmagic.org. And the first and last name he signed himself as, in his email to me, don't match any professor, encyclopedia writer, symphony conductor, or disco expert that I'm aware of, nor does it match any person in the Faculty Directory at directory.amherst.edu; it's a fictional creation to promote his POV. I, in turn, wrote him a reply in which I wrote such statements as "And you know that I share your interest in symphony-backed disco music." and "Your important contributions to the study of disco merit further discussion and evaluation." I welcome further discussions with him on the condition that he stop pretending to be six people at once, that he stop pretending to have been merely a listener to Dr. Rob's radio show when in fact he was the show's host, and that he stop removing valid song listings and valid comments concerning post-1979 disco, including post-1979 symphonic disco. An important test will be whether he leaves the material I wrote about VERIFIABLE symphonic disco from the 1990s and 2000s at his brilliant essay on Disco orchestration. It is my hope that he will not engage in further 1970s-centric POV vandalism, so that no arbitration will be necessary. If arbitration becomes necessary, I can supply the IP address Rob emailed me from so that administrators can trace the IPs used to post comments by "Pol-Sci-Prof" and his other aliases to see if they match or at least all come from central Massachusetts. - KAB, 6 March 2006
Hello Flcelloguy: Sorry this is a bit late, but thank you very much for your support in the Wikipedia elections. It looks like neither of us were (re-?)elected, but nevertheless, your Wikipedia duties, Esperanza work, and supportive vote is very much appreciated. Cheers, Bratschetalk04:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Flcelloguy! A note from me too, thanks for your vote! Please let me or any of the other board members know if there's anything we can do for you - we have some great examples to follow ;-) Kind regards, --JoanneB21:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article In re Debs, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.
Mind having a look at the last thread in the page? Your name has been brought up, and I am not sure if what's being stated as your opinion is accurate. Titoxd(?!? - help us)21:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He has a RfC for his actions, which his admin coconspiritor removed, so now they are both the subject of an RfC, which is not well known at moment (I just learned about it, and I am interested party). In my admin alert, I only ask that the destructive edits be reverted. StrangerInParadise01:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No; I will not take action when I have not spent time carefully reviewing the entire situation. In addition, because you've already posted the matter at WP:AN/I, if immediate action is really needed, I'm sure one of the many administrators will act after discussion. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is to review? MarkSweep hacked categories from 53 templates, resulting in the delisting of hundreds of userpages from categories, without the knowledge or consent of the owners. You are an administrator. I am asking that they be put back. It will take a few minutes. Would this even be a question if an anon had done so three months ago?
By not acting, you (and others) lend to the impression that the userbox matter has already been decided, and inhibit those who would rightly seek similar relief.
Hi, I retagged Image:Ray_Nagin_portrait.jpg as "fair use", as it was inaccurately tagged-- it is not public domain, the source site is not US Federal Government site, and is clearly labeled as copyrighted on the page. Hope this helps, -- Infrogmation02:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was in the process of changing Millipore (company) to Millipore Corporation. Was trying to remember how to do a redirect and was looking up one I did a few weeks ago. When I got back I found that you had already done it for me, but not only that, you had moved the entire article history along with it, along with adding Corporation to the article just as I had, but with no indication that I had ever been there! How the heck did you do that? H2O04:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, duh, I guess I should have noticed that move button after two years! Seems like that is the only button I haven't used. Thanks for teaching this old dog a new trick. H2O02:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Flcelloguy, I regularly update the DYK but cannot do it for 00:00 UTC on monday as it is sleeping time in India. Thanks for updating the DYK. A couple of heads-ups though: We typically follow FIFO, i.e., First in first out so that the suggestions from older articles make it first, before they become too old for DYK. Hence, articles created on March 9th need to be updated first as they would become too old for tomorrow. Anyways, I would update DYK at least two times today, so it may not be an issue - but you may want to keep this in mind when you update next. You had not archived one of the DYK entries from the template, I have done so. btw, DYK would become a daily feature rather than a weekday feature, once the new main page design becomes effective. Keep up the good work!! --Gurubrahma03:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I second Gurubrahma here. Please take a note that only the links to new articles are bolded in the template. So, the bolding of First Lady of Jazz seems to be redundant. Keep it up, Ghirla-трёп-08:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ilse Huizinga is my sister in law. Although it's very flattering to see her on DYK as The First Lady of Jazz, she is NOT known as Holland's First Lady of Jazz. That is another singer, called Rita Reys. Since it is not mentioned in her article, I wonder who came up with this.
Unlike previously, the updation would also involve adding attribution. {{C-uploaded}} itself has the instructions, interestingly, but I myself did not notice it till some 3 days back (it was updated 4 days after these changes were made, I believe). btw, during your last message on my talkpage, another message got accidentally deleted - it was probably due to a bug that afflicted WP in my part of the world. Ironically, the message that got deleted was a SOS about the bug ;). --Gurubrahma18:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I monitor the Epic dab page for links to it. The latest Signpost in your work space goes there. There really isn't an appropriate "epic prose" page. Not sure what you want to do with it. . . No answer necessary, but I'll be watching here if you do. John (Jwy)19:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did he give you a reason why he would create an account, and then not use it for many weeks? Usually these kinds of accounts are created to get around sprotection or for page move vandalism. Jayjg (talk)19:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was created at the same time as a bunch of other accounts, all from the same AOL IP, and had never been used to edit. At the time it looked like someone was preparing for some Willy on Wheels page move vandalism; that's how they age their accounts. I consulted with other admins on this, and AGF only goes so far when dealing with this kind of evidence. Jayjg (talk)22:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in this case I'd agree. You should know that at the time I blocked that account, I also blocked at least 2 dozen other suspicious accounts; as far as I know this is the only one that complained, which is a reasonable indicator that this may be the only one that is legitimate. Jayjg (talk)16:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious, but why was this deleted? I mean, unless it was vandalized after I put the lawyer userbox there, then I understand, but certainly classifying him as a lawyer isn't disrespectful.. —Locke Cole • t • c03:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In case you're not aware, while you and Syrthiss were fixing the page-move vandalism, Crusade and Talk:Crusade had their entire histories deleted. I managed to rescue the talk page, but the article history is too big and I keep getting an error. —Xezbeth15:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. John F. Kennedy was "sprotected", but you lifted it less that 24 hours later, saying "It's been protected for a while now; let's see how it goes". Now, I'm new, but does 20 hours count as "for a while now" for something that is continually vandalized? (See history). Sure enough, it's been vandalized and reverted again. Can we leave the protection on for a few days possibly? -- Sholom21:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to bring this to your attention, and I am saddened to do so . . . but as of this writing, of the last 50 edits to John F. Kennedy, 14 were reverts and/or to fix vandalism. Again. :(
Thanks much for inserting the notes. I feel like the shoemaker who woke up after the elves had done their work. Thanks again. Jtmichcock00:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. SteinbDJ20:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Flcelloguy! Thanks for supporting my RfA, mate. It passed at 105/1/0, putting me in WP:100 - I'm delighted and surprised! I'm always happy to help out, so if you need anything, please drop me a line. Cheers! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞19:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to be the author of the webpage to which you refer. I believed my Harvard Indian College insertion to be a humble albeit necessary contribution to a better understanding of Harvard's history-- important enough at any rate to have organized two conferences around the topic, offer two lectures in a course "Inventing New England" offered at Harvard, and of course, create and author the website. If your difficulty with the material is one of copyright, thank you so much for your kind consideration, but please do permit me the use of my own material.
Hi. I noticed you've protected the Main Page picture of the day (POTD row) up through April 19th. Perhaps you weren't aware that the pic of the day is only protected a day or two before it is scheduled to appear on the Main Page. No harm done, but I need the April pics unprotected so I can finish working on them. Some of the pages you protected are blank!!!. Those pages had merely been prepped with a line of code, which out of the four versions of the pic of the day, only POTD row uses. Also, one of the pic slots has the wrong picture in it (someone posted a picture without realizing that the pics are posted on a specific schedule based on the order in which they were promoted to featured picture status). And finally, none of the April pictures' captions have been proofread yet (the same goes for March 26th thru March 31st). Please unprotect these pics please, so that I can finish them up. Thank you. --Go for it!00:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
hi, i wonder if you could comment on the debate at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 25 about a new template to be slapped on the *main article page* when an article is deemed "good". it would be directly equivalent to the featured article star on an article mainpage, and suddenly appeared, without prior discussion, on hundreds of articles marked as "good articles".
note the GA process is not currently policy, and was formerly restricted to talk pages only, putting an icon on the main article page itself is the new development). would you consider "good article" differently from "featured article" in this case, and allow the narcisisstic meta-data on the main ARTICLE page? Zzzzz10:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "star" for the good article icon and it is not directly equivalent to the featured article icon! The {{good article}} template places a small Good Article symbol () in the top right corner of an article to indicate that it is a good article on Wikipedia. —RJN11:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(This was copied to Meta before I saw your note) To let you know, I have tagged various images for deletion, so that is why I have a low edit count. I have placed a link to Interoit's editcount tool so that my total edit count can be shown. I hope this helps. Thanks again for the comments. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)04:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reach out is a program aimed at allowing users to bring issues that they have had in Wikipedia to a listening, sympathetic and caring audience:
"No one can know how we feel if we do not say. We cannot expect to get understanding if we do not ask for it. No one will dispute that sometimes life's issues are too much for one person. It is fair to say that sometimes Wikipedia's problems fall under the same heading. This is a place where you can bring the bruises that can sometimes be got on this project for attention."
The Stress alertsprogram aims at identifying users who are stressed, alerting the community of thier stress and works in tandem with the Stressbusters at trying to identify causes of stress and eliminating them.
Note from the editor
Welcome to this new format of the Esperanza Newsletter, which came about during the last Advisory Council meeting - we hope you like it! The major changes are that each month, right after the Council meeting, this will be sent out and will include two featured programs and a sum up of the meeting. Also, it will be signed by all of the Advisory Council members, not just Celestianpower. Have an Esperanzial end of March, everyone!
Hi mate, I have withdrawn my opposition in your RfB nomination because my judgement on Wikipedia has been heavily criticised and is no longer trusted. I am also no longer a bureaucrat on the English Wikipedia. I wish you the best of luck in achieving bureaucratship on this nomination or in the future. -- Francs200013:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question regarding edit wars over use of "foreign" word vs more standardized word??
I am new to Wikipedia and find it to be a truley amazing space. I stumbled onto the Glasgow page and trying to be helpful, or so I though, edited the word "outwith" to "outside of" thinking it a typo. Low and behold I learned that outwith is a Scottish word of the same meaning. Long story short, if you could check out the current edit war and provide some neutral(unless you are Scottish of course, j/k)input I would aprreciate it. It seems that articles should use words with the greatest usage to the community at large or something to that effect. I am more interested in rules/procedures rather than banned some guy from using the word outwith if you get my drift. I thought I was being nice by putting "outside of" in () as a compromise by that didn't go over well either. I linked a page into the discussion section about the usage of the word outwith that helps. Anyways no biggie..Thanks!Tom21:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to drop by and tell you how proud I am that you're keeping wikipedia a great place (and keeping a certain history classes vocab up to date).
Thanks for your support in my RFA. The final vote count was (88/3/1), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you require assistance, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an administrator. Once again thank you and with kind regards Gryffindor18:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I always believe in consensus, but in this case the consensus was... well, just plain wrong. I hope you run again and I will be very happy to support again - I meant what I said in your RfB, and you will be an asset to the 'pedia in the role when you get it next time. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞11:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have established that the level of corruption was extraordinary and want to make sure I am free to insert the following paragraph in the opening bio. Now, for comparison, Nixon's opening bio addresses that he was forced to step down, and clinton's addresses his impeachment. Warren Harding's bio addresses the scandals in his administration as does Ulysses S. Grant's opening bio.
Ronald Reagan presided over an administration that saw over twenty of his appointed staffers convicted on various corruption charges ranging from bribery to lying to Congress. The scandals included the Iran/Contra scandal, the HUD scandal, the EPA scandal and the military procurement scandal among many others. Overall, Reagan saw more than twice as many of his staffers convicted on corruption charges as Richard Nixon who lost only eight.
As far as I can tell, Bush Sr, has the best contemporary biography. I haven't looked at our current president's and probably won't. But I'd like to see the Reagan page and the Clinton page brought up to the standards of the GHWB page.
I think we'd all like to see that page be the best that it can be. However, this is Wikipedia, so it has to also be acceptable to everybody who cares enough to edit it. I think we're approaching that now, but substantive edits should be discussed and consensus reached BEFORE the edit is made, not after. I think you see why now; the other way just leads to edit wars and bad feelings. You obviously care about this issue; combine that with following the prolicies and guidelines, and you'll make a great Wikipedia editor. I haven't been doing it very long either; I had to learn these lessons too, and am still learning most of them. -Syberghost20:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Reagan page is still listed as unmediated in the cabal. I've decided to take up the case. If it is indeed closed, then it should be removed from the case list. If not, I'd like to take a crack at mediating this. Please post comments at that page.Danny Pi23:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Barnstar Brigade is a new program aimed at giving more very deserving yet unappreciated users barnstars. It will officially start on 2006-04-09, but signing up is encouraged before this date:
"Here in Wikipedia, there are hundreds of wikipedians whose work and efforts go un-appreciated. One occasionally comes across editors who have thousands of good edits, but because they may not get around as much as others, their contributions and hard work often go un-noticed. Sadly, these editors often leave the project. As Esperanzians, we can help to make people feel appreciated, be it by some kind words or the awarding of a Barnstar. A project the size of Wikipedia has thousands of editors, so there are plenty of people out there who deserve recognition, one just has to find them. The object of this program is not to flood editors with Barnstars, but to seek out people who deserve them, and make them feel appreciated."
The Stress alertsprogram aims at identifying users who are stressed, alerting the community of thier stress and works in tandem with the Stressbusters at trying to identify causes of stress and eliminating them.
Information
Welcome to the second issue of the new format Esperanza Newsletter - we hope you still like it! This week, it was delivered diligently by our new dogsbody. MiszaBot (run by Misza13): any execution complaints should go to him. Content comments should be directed at the Esperanza talkpage. Thanks!
The current process for accepting proposals for new programs has been deemed fine. All Advisory Council members and the Admin Gen are to endevour to be bold when viewing discussion. If they feel that consensus has been reached, they will act accordingly.
A plea from the editor...
The propsed programs page is terribly underused! Please leave any comments, good or bad, on the page, to help us determine the membership's thoughts on the ideas there.
I have not yet tried it, I will now... if I get blocked, will you look at my user page in about 15 min... to see if I put the {{unblock}} message up. I really don't want to wait 6 hours agian...Eagle (talk) (desk) 00:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now only the bot is blocked.... At least my IP address did not get blocked this time... Look at my user talk page for more description.Eagle (talk) (desk) 00:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... and only the bots account... I am able to edit... Before the autblocker blocked me and the bot... at least now I can communicate... a little less irratating.Eagle (talk) (desk) 00:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you got it!!!, just a quetion, what is wrong with blocking a bot for 24 hours... if it is not a vandal bot. Why did I have to deal with 2 indefinate blocks.??? After all the bot operator should not, (in my case, Would not) operate if someone found something wrong...?Eagle (talk) (desk) 00:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, apparently the two blockers did not look hard enough... At the time the bot was run it had approval to run on a trial run... In addition all you have to do is put a message on the talk page of the bot to stop it. (part of the Good Form) guidelines. I'm ok with it... this was just a lot of hassleEagle (talk) (desk) 00:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Islam is not a religion. It's a terrorist group. And thanks to democracy I can have my say, unlike muslims in the middle east.
Anders —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.106.247 (talk • contribs)
At User talk: Eagle 101, you mentioned "Note that infinitely does not mean forever; all it means is that the account is blocked until the issues are sorted out and the account is unblocked." If I may be a bit pedantic, "infinite" does mean forever; that's why you'll often see people referring to such blocks as indefinite blocks, especially if later unblocking is anticipated. Just my opinion! — Knowledge Seekerদ02:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't sprotect... I'd like to draw out all of this idiots proxies and shut them all down... I've got a bit of time here. Netscott22:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
allrighty I may just pop into IRC and try to muster up a Freakofnurture, I know how much he loves to block proxies... hehe. Thanks again! ;-) Netscott22:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ARCHIVE 08: Double A, the April to August 2006 archive Messages 600-702, dating from April 2006 to August 2006 This is an archived talk page. Please go to User talk:Flcelloguy to leave Flcelloguy a message. Thanks!
Hey, I'm glad to hear that you've been enjoying the ref converter. I just rolled out version 2 which is significantly better; you don't have to download separate text files and you definitely don't need to need to worry about characters from foreign character sets getting mangled. --Cyde Weys07:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's hoping that if the bunny leaves you any beans they're this kind! ++Lar: t/c15:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]It's bunny time - Happy Easter Flcelloguy! (I recommend a tall glass of cold beer to help the chocolate go down). --Alfmelmac 16 April 2006
I know all about Wikipedia. I've been on Wikipedia since December, 2003. You please don't take me off that list until the 20th. I just want to try to run. You know if your anxious to become an adminship. General Eisenhower17:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, Bush gets a free pass because of Wikipedia policy
You and I both know Bush is a War Criminal, but one cannot espouse the opinion on Wikipedia discussion pages (not the actual entries) because no other agency has the guts to do it first...:) Oh well, feel free to delete my post from the Bush pages. I won't take it to heart.
Hiya, I was reviewing the Wikipedia article, and saw that there's an item there that's listed as a reference, which in actuality is just a blog post. Normally I'd just edit the page myself and move the item down from "References" to "External links", but upon reviewing the history and discussion page, it looks like it's pretty busy over there. ;) So, I didn't want to make a change without talking it over first with someone who's more familiar with the political culture there. What do you recommend? Should I make the change directly, or bring it up first on the talk page, or is it considered "okay" on that particular page to cite blogs as references? Or would you like me to run it past you first to get your opinion?[45] Thanks, --Elonka23:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good point. Should perhaps the original quote be edited though, to indicate that it's from a blog site, and not from an article or peer-reviewed paper? --Elonka00:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My post wasn't original research. The US Constitution and the Hague Convention of 1907 clearly prove Bush is a War Criminal. Just because no one else has had the guts to say/publish it doesn't make it any less true. But, I understand your policies. Don't want to get sued for telling the truth and all that...it makes business sense. But this American Hitler is getting away with murder and unless the public stands up against him, the US is going to go down the toilet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKurgan (talk • contribs) 01:10, April 17, 2006
Hello, Flcelloguy. I've started the SourceForge registration process, as AWB did and some have suggested, so we can have CVS and hosting access for the tool, but I'm at a slight hang due for the most improbable of reasons: Licensing issues. The code has been stored on Wikipedia, which places it under the GFDL - however, the GFDL is not one of the approved licenses for SourceForge. The only way I can put it there is if I put it under the GPL, which our article on the GFDL license says it is incompatible with. So, as AySz88 (I've talked to him on IRC) and myself don't mind about dual-licensing those contributions, what do you think about this? Titoxd(?!? - help us)04:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the JAR download should be working again (with a port change), but we need a permanent place to host it still. --AySz88^-^18:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Robert, you *are* a sockpuppet. There is no 'censorship' going on here. You refuse to collaborate with other editors, instead using different accounts and IP addresses to enforce your POV edits over everyone else's. When that fails, you cry about censorship and vandalise editors' user pages. Hence the recent RFC and RfAr with your name on it - Ali-oops✍12:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You recently moved the policy Wikipedia:Restrictions on Anonymous Editing from Shared IPs to a subpage, which now leads others to believe the archived discussion about a former rendition of this policy applies to the current policy. This is grossly inaccurate, and I request that you immediately return the policy to its original loaction. Please discuss these changes on the talk page before implementing. Thanks. AmiDaniel (Talk) 03:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sorry about being so short with you ... I'm a little on the edge right now. Time to put on the slippers and have a nice glass of wine! lol. AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the Teflon business... I apologize for the reversions... I thought I was reverting improper grammer - after the end of the day it wasnt making sense to me.
After re-reading it now I see I was changing the context of the Teflon statement... it just wasnt reading right to me after a day of studying and work.
Id also like to get some peer review and additional opinions into the article.
Both editors are Republican and seem to have an interest in portraying the president favourably no matter what.
Im just trying to get a halfway balanced introduction into the article.
My search into mediation options has led me back to you - I did not see the mediator tag directly infront of my face.
But I did see it on the Wikipedia Mediation page and recognized it.
Specifically, there are two issues I'd like you to address in the Reagan article if you have the time.
First, the inclusion of a paragraph containing references to Reagan's documented "wishful thinking".
The reason I'd like to see it included is because it injects some balance into the opening paragraph.
The current edition being reverted to touts Reagan under his "Great Communicator" name and also has the recent addition of "At his death he was hailed as one of the most important leaders of the 20th century".
I have changed the sentence to "At his death he was hailed by American media as one of the most important leaders of the 20th century".... which I think adequately describes the position of the coverage of the major news networks.
It is my position that if information that is slight POV positive is allowed in an opening summary, then surely there is a place for some criticism as well - rather than it being regulated to the depths of this exceedingly large article.
Secondly, regarding his role in the demise of the Soviet Union. While the best solution is probably for the creation of a separate article focusing on the role of Reagan and the differing view points... I think the description I have added of his impact being debated by historians is most accurate - as previous definitions indicated that "most historians" credit Reagan as being responsible for the collapse, and "a distinct minority" seeing the economic factors as important.
I'm coming to you because you appear to be pretty fair-minded. Would you mind looking over this user's edits from the last few hours? I do believe that he's preparing to use Wikipedia to aid in his upcoming U.S. Congressional campaign. I first noticed that he was adding articles for dictionary-type definitions, such as "Swim Coach" and "youth leader." When I visited his userpage, I realized that he added the articles because they were linked in his userpage bio, which is also duplicated at the mainspace article Simon Ribeiro. I don't really see anything there that would lead me to believe that he is currently notable enough for his own article, but I wanted to get another opinion on this. Joyous | Talk23:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Everything I tried to say on his talk page kept coming out rather harsh, so I didn't feel good about hitting "save." Joyous | Talk00:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The information you have on headlight restoring and such iss completely incorrect. I was under the impression that since I am patented I can uinclude my name, product name, website address, and content about this. Obviously I am wrong. What can I include here to correct this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dmaillie (talk • contribs).
Okay, I apologize as I was misinformed. I read an article on ezinearticles which said I could do that. I didn't know. Being that there are headlight cleaners that are effective at fixing and restoring worn and cloudy headlights and the fact that I and my company own the sole patent (#6984612)for this headlight cleaning and similar, what can we say to correct these discrepencies under headlight care? I don't want to tread on Wikipedia's purpose, but It should be corrected on these items. The information you have on headlight care for restoring or cleaning headlights is vague, wrong and is basically incorrect as it states that it basically can't be done. Lets get this corrected so it is acceptable to you folks and correct for your readers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dmaillie (talk • contribs).
Hi Flcelloguy, I am back. I hope this finds you well. You were nice enough to help out with a word usage question, "outwith" that turned out nicely. I wish this was as non-contriversail but I have moved onto bigger and better things:) Over on the Turkey article, I saw that a user had added an internal link to the Armenian Genocide. It has now become an edit war since this topic is VERY senistive to BOTH sides. I really hate to go to RFA, is that the right term, or spend energy on this battle since its really not mine to fight but I sort of take it personally now which I know I shouldn't. It just seems like there should be at least SOME mention SOMEWHERE in the article about the ONGOING contraversy over whether Turkey/the World community recognizes WHATEVER took place to the Armenian people back in 1914 or thereabouts. Just because it happened BEFORE the Turkish republic was formed doesn't mean there can be NO mention of subject it seeems. Anyways, I am sure your VERY happy to get sucked into this mess by me :) Thanks! ps maybe I should just stick to topics like computer chips and tooth paste :) Tom13:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Flcelloguy, DISREGARD EVERYTHING ABOVE! I have decided to move on and NOT edit the above mentioned article anymore. I will try to edit where I can improve and make a difference and leave the contraversial battles to the fanatics:) Thanks anyways! Tom16:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)p.s. Do you preffer gel or paste for your tooth paste??[reply]
I figured as much; they're already done. Don't worry about it; it happens to the best of us (myself most often, it seems.) Ral315 (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
D'you truly know about hyper-encryption? Because I am quite interested in it, and I dunno if you know something that could help me understand it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bassistphysicist (talk • contribs).
Hi! Just wanted to touch base. You 'first' greeted me a year back with a welcome message, et. al. Congradulations on the various elections! I was snooping your user page for the wikipedian category coresponding to the 'welcoming committee'. I seem to do a lot of that these days, and thought I'd join the patrols. I thought I'd steal the CAT from you. ;( Now I have to find it the hard way! <G>
Best regards, FrankB17:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I never came to thank you for the message you left for me a month ago when I stepped down from being a bureaucrat. Thank you for the things you said, it's good to know there are still plenty of good people about in this project. I do not see myself standing for bureaucrat again anytime soon though who knows what the future may bring! Thank you once again. -- Francs200009:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Esperanza elections
Thanks for supporting me in the Esperanza Advisory Council Elections. Although I wasn't elected to the Advisory Council, I am very happy with the response I received from my fellow Wikipedians. I was shocked at the support, and was touched by it. Hopefully I will re-apply in June and try again for the job. Thanks again, HighwayRainbow Sneakers
Can you add me (or not, if I am not eligible) to the list of users allowed to use WP:AutoWikiBrowser? I'm asking you because you know how to use your own edit counter, which is the only one that displays me as having 500 main namespace edits.
Thanks for uploading Image:TDWaterhouseCentre.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ccwaters23:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its been a year...WP:FUC...if the subject of the photograph still exists, a free photograph could be taken.. Its an existing structure that can easily be photographed with a free license. If I was in Florida, I'd do it myself. I'll trade you.. Supply a free pic and get off my a$$ and snap a Wachovia Center image :) ... ccwaters01:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for voting on my RFA! I appreciate your comments and constructive criticism, for every bit helps me become a better Wikipedian. I've started working on the things you brought up, and I hope that next time, things run better; who knows, maybe one day we'll be basking on the shore of Admintopia together. Thanks and cheers, _-MoP-_22:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry to bug you, and feel free to ignore if you're not interested, but I found your comments on the recent Cape Horn FAC so helpful that I wondered if you would be interested in looking over the Sunday Times Golden Globe Race FAC. I feel that this is an interesting article; it currently has a couple of "support" votes, but seems to be suffering from a lack of interest. I'd much rather have it fail because of 100 specific objections than for simple lack of readers; so, if you have too much time on your hands ;-), I'd welcome any comments you might have, positive or negative. Cheers, — Johan the Ghostseance14:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Flcelloguy/Archive, and thank you for vote on my recent RfA! With a final vote of 62/2/4, I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. As I acclimate myself to my new tools, feel free to let me know how you believe I might be able to use them to help the project. Thanks again! RadioKirktalk to me05:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Noticed you'd just been on ITN, could you possibly do this? The whole tense problem looks worse every time I see it. Many thanks. Ian305514:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Administrator Coaching program is a program aimed at preparing Wikipedians for Adminship or helping them understand the intricacies of Wikipedia better. Recently, changes have been made to the requirements of coachees. Please review them before requesting this service.
This would be something like the Welcoming Committee, but for people who have figured out the basics of editing articles; they're not newcomers any more, but they might want some help in learning new roles. Some might like suggestions about how to learn vandal patrol, or mentoring on taking an article to featured status, or guidance with a proposal they plan to make at the Village Pump, for example. In this way, Esperanza would help keep hope alive for Wikipedia because we would always be grooming the next generation of admins.
The Stressbusters are a subset of Esperanza aiming to investigate the causes of stress. New eyes on the situation are always welcome!
Note from the editor
As always, MiszaBot handled this delivery. Thank you! Also, congratulations go to Pschemp, Titoxd and Freakofnurture for being elected in the last elections! An Esperanzial May to all of the readership!
Posting logs of the Esperanza IRC channel are explicitly banned anywhere. Violation of this rule results in deletion and a ban from the channel.
A disclaimer is going to be added to the Esperanza main page. We are humans and, as such, are imperfect.
Various revisions have been made to the Code of Conduct. Please see them, as the proposal is ready to be ratified by the community and enacted. All members will members to have to re-confirm their membership after accepting the Code of Conduct.
Referendums are to be held on whether terms of AC members should be lengthened and whether we should abolish votes full stop.
I was the original creator of this article, under the title Canadair CL215. It was redesignated by User:Rlandmann as a redirect to the existing title, but he used a cut-and-paste instead of a move to recreate the article at its current title. Therefore, my creation and subsequent edit were lost. I note that they still do not appear with the article - it looks like User:Simetrical was attempting to restore them but either gave up or did not do so correctly. Can you fix this? Thanks! Denni☯00:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for completing the history merge. My creation edit is not at the beginning as it should be, but I guess this far after the fact, I can't hope for better. Denni☯19:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the speedy revert of the recent vandalism of my user page. It was greatly appreciated. All the best, Gwernol01:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you pop into the above discussion and give more detail on the div you removed? I just want to know what it was doing or why it is no longer needed... Thanks. ++Lar: t/c15:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(I prefer to keep things threaded where they are started... ++Lar)
You reverted my edit on Lebron James having vertigo. On the vertigo page it says he has the disease as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by W123 (talk • contribs)
hi, i see that the "good article" spam has been put back in Template:featured despite objections from several users. this seems to be the way the GA project works: boldly putting something into a page that doesnt want it, then claiming consensus is required to *remove* it again (consensus is never required to put it there in the first place).
this is exactly the same behaviour as witnessed on the attempt to create an article space "good article" star, which i & raul654 finally managed to have deleted (a huge effort since they had already spammed a 1000 articles with it), and on the Community Portal where this non-policy wikiproject has pride of place - its apparently far more important than any of the other dozens of collaborations!
they even had the cheek to remove the "non-policy process" template from the top of their project pages claiming they now had "enough support to be policy" - this is despite clear consensus on the talk page that its NOT policy. an attempt to put it back was quickly removed.
as an admin, would you be so kind as to unlock the featured template and remove the GA spam? i'm really fed up with fighting these GA spam battles everywhere, its quite tiring. why do they have to constantly spread their GA spam everywhere? hope you can help! Zzzzz09:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was just wandering by your user page and I noticed that you're pretty stressed. I was wondering, if you wanted to tell me, whats the cause of said stress? MopperSpeak!02:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have unprotected this early, not sure. I just moved it off the main and went to unprotect it and saw that you had unprotected 10 min after I put it on in the last update. Or maybe I was looking at things wrong... PS you can answer here, I watch... ++Lar: t/c12:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conversation refactored to MY talk page, where I have replied. (I am stubborn too. :-) ... now you will have to watch there for replies instead of me having to watch here! ) 20:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lar (talk • contribs)
Hi Flcelloguy. I notice you haven't edited on SEWikt in quite a while. I guess it has to do with your extremely busy state. Don't forget to take that warning off here when it no longer applies. :) Hope things are going well for you.
You'll be glad to know that community consensus is getting most of the necessary changes made on SEWikipedia. There are even links to all the SE projects on the new Main Page there.
Back in February you mentioned getting Patrolled Edits turned on for SEWikt. I read up on it a little bit, and found that it is standard with MediaWiki 1.4, but it doesn't seem to be working yet on SEWikt. Could you check on that for me? Thanks.
It is kind of lonely being the only editor that is really active on a project, as I am currently on SEWikt, SEB, and SEQ. Oh well. I shouldn't complain, since I was kind of asking it working on these tiny projects. I'll just have to try some recruiting on the English projects.
When it downloads the data during an edit summary check, is it downloaded temporarily or is it stored somewhere on the the hard drive?—G.He02:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Flcelloguy, you have been protecting and unprotecting various MainPage items every day like clockwork, not giving vandals any chance to ruin the Wikipedia MainPage. Your diligence is much appreciated. You are hereby awarded this WikiMedal for Janitorial Services for your outstanding work towards keeping MainPage neat and tidy and free from vandals, day in, day out.
I'm writing to all mediators listed as active to point out several emergent issues that require the immediate attention of all active mediators. The Committee has come to a place where we can neither provide the function we were created to provide (timely formal mediaton for the English Wikipedia community) nor correct matters to be able to provide that function. In specific, we cannot perform any mediations, because most mediators are no longer taking cases, and we cannot add new mediators, because mediators are no longer responding to requests to join the Committee. I am in a place where I continually accept new cases for the committee, only to see them go stale after several months because there is no mediator willing to take it, and where I deny candidates a place on the committee because no mediator will speak up in support of them. I ask that all mediators take ten minutes to look over the following matters:
There are five requests to join the Mediation Committee, three with no comments whatsoever, and two that have been up for more than a month without sufficient commentary to determine a consensus on promotion.
I beg, beseech, and pray each Mediator to please take a few moments to at the very least comment on the five candidates, and to consider taking one of the open cases. We are at a place where we are literally relying on the kindness of strangers: Almost all cases are being taken by non-Commitee volunteers at this point. Putting the open tasks page (which only changes when we add a new case), and the main committee page on your watchlist so you will know when new nominations and cases are added, would go a long way to helping the Committee succeed. (If having the main page pop up on your watchlist every time someone else comments in a nomination is too annoying, I can move them to subpages like RFA, so that the page will only change when a new nomination is added.)
Additionally, I ask that all mediators check that they have a current email address subscribed to the Mediation Committee mailing list, mediation-l, to avoid the need for future talk page messages of this sort.
My apologies for having to air the committee's dirty laundry in this manner, but I fear it is the only way to get everyone together to bring the Committee back to life. For the convenience of those who simply cannot be involved due to time constraints, I will be listing those that do not participate in any Committee activities as mediators emeriti, so that we have a clearer picture of who exactly we have available to take cases. I am, by separate posting, asking all mediators emeriti to return to actively participating in the requests to join the commmittee.
Hi Flcelloguy, I really welcome your questions and the fact that you have clearly reviewed my Wikipedia contributions. Let me take your question in turn, if I may. Firstly, the issues to do with Jimbo. As you quite rightly point out he had never used his power to ulitmately control the encyolpedia, and I can certainly understand the situations where he needs to via say User:Danny (although of course, that is not the WP:OFFICE account, which I can't remember off-hand). I was merely pointing out that on an ideological basis I feel that the final control of Wikipedia should rest with Wikipedians and not lie with some 'leader'. It is more an unachivebale goal than a realistic overnight dream. I would suggest that you look at my contribution to the debate on the Lolicon image deletion which can be seenhere. Secondly, you ask about my views on Arbitration and Mediation and the relation between the two. Obviously the two are separate and distinct but there are some similar themes in both: namely that you are dealing with conflicts and edit wars etc.. The differences lie in how to deal with them; MedCom using mediation and more 'peaceful' methods; ArbCom looking at more persitent or serious problems usually have to resort ot more drastic measures. I would suggest that the MedCom serves as a very good grounding for ArbCom as it enables Arbitrators to understand a lot of the common edit-war problems and causes, but also allows them to see how a wide-range of solutions can work to a problem. I think that it also increases an editors experience of the Wikipedia Community, and of the huge range of opinions and views of Wikipedians.
Looking now at the issue of lack of edits/experience on Wikipedia. This was in relation as well to my Admin Coaching, and the fact that if I stood, at that time, for RfA I think that would have been one of the first comments to arise. I feel that since making that statement I have increased my range of use on Wikipedia, I am now a mediator on VandalProof, I stood for election to both CJ and Esperenza. I am trying as much as possible to get more invovled in the community. I would like to say that I think that my mediations should speak for themselves with relation to the MedCom. I don't see how edit counts etc. have too great bearing. I'm sure there are many editors out there with many times the number of edits I have, but who equally would not amke as good a mediator. I'm currently starting what looks to be a fairly complex mediation, the Medical Analysis of Circumcision one, so feel free to vote after looking at how I handle that one. There is also the Russian Language one which I successfully mediated last month. The real-life mediation experience I mention is quite broad and wide-raning. I have basic mediator training and have done some work-expereience with realtion to ADR. I have also been invovled with the Centre for Non-Violent Communication.
Now I hope that goes someway to answering your questions. Now I'm happy to discuss things further with you, be it via Wikipedia or on MSN, Skype, GoogeTalk, AIM, IRC whatever. If you do have any further comments or questions do please get in contact. --Wisden1722:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'd just be interested what reasons you had for having a neutral as opposed to a support opinion on the MedCom page. What areas do you feel that I need to improve in, as I'd be very happy to take on board any comments you have. --Wisden1717:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your quick reply. Just to say something regarding my views on Jimbo. I completely understand that we need people such as him, BradPatrcik and Dannyisme, however, in an ideal world I would like to think that the open nature of Wikipedia was such that we did not. I also completely understand and respect the WP:OFFICE policy. My point is more of a utopian ideal, than a practical thing. It is also worth noting that I put that thought not in a prominent place, as such on Wikipedia, but on a page designed for some admin coaching by Drini.
I completely understand your point regarding experience on Wikipedia, although I mean I should point out that whilst I may not have the highest number of edits etc. I do have a rather thorough knowledge of Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines. I've read through all the Administrators Reading List and quite a bit more (especially unofiicial and suggested policies). This is one of the key things I feel a mediator should have, as it can often be vital to point a user in a mediation towards a certain policy, or towards a current policy debate. This is, partially, the case with the mediation I did regarding hte Romanization of the Russian Language.
I'm very thankful for your comments and questions, and I would most happily asnwer any more questions you have, and would welcome any more comments you have. --Wisden1722:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
—G.He has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!
I hope I didn't step on your toes in trying to explain why this didn't get speedied on sight yesterday; I keep trying to avoid the Userbox Wars, but ignorance of circumstances/malformed opinions get me even more riled up.... just not sure if your "Thanks!" was sarcasm or not. Cheers. -- nae'blis(talk)14:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you added your vote in the support section w/o leaving a reason, just your sig. You may want to fix this. ~Chris {t|c|e|@} 00:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, Flcelloguy. Could you do do me a favour? I notice that you have been doing some good work on FAC, and I was wondering if you would take a quick look at "We Belong Together". It has failed a couple of FACs, and I think that it may be ready soon. However, I want to make sure that it will succeed this time, and currently, Peer Review isn't that much help. It would be appreciated. Thanx. Orane(t)(c)(e)03:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My user name is Michael D. Wolok. I need a mediator for the Wikipedia entry
"Many World's Interpretation." I am sending this e-mail to every
mediator in the hope that one will agree to help.
I saw your work on commons with this image and apologize that there was a mess there to clean up. Trancluding the category was an earlier experiment that I thought I had reverted. I corrected the version on commons so that it uses a somewhat more modern approach to transcluding background text, interwiki links, and see also information onto image pages.
If the information in the new form is unsatisfactory in some way, please drop me a message on Commons and I will try and fix it. -Mak Thorpe03:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks muchly for catching that - I was rushing. Sorry I couldn't help out with your request; this is the first time of been back on Wikipedia for a day and a bit. Happy editing, --cj | talk06:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Flcelloguy. I see that you've recently warned a vandal with a direct test4. However, I think it would be more useful to use the {{test4im}} warning since there weren't any predecessors. What do you think? Anyway, keep up the good work! :)G.He00:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed none of the users who used the edit summary 'ON JUNE 6 2006 WIKIPEDIA WILL MEET ITS MAKER' have been banned. Given the threat of future vandalism and the obvious fact that these editors are:
Vandles
Sockpuppets or impersonators of each other
would it not be wise to have them all banned indefinately? Or is there something happening about this alreadY? --Robdurbar11:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, forgot about the image protection bit. yes, long time no see. I'm still hanging around; nice to get a post from you. Regards, =Nichalp«Talk»=06:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I'd come to your En Wikipedia talk page, hoping that you'll see it sooner, but I'll put this on your SEWiktionary talk page, too, just in case. Remember Netoholic and his hypocritical campaign against all simple English projects except SEWikipedia? Well, because of some developments in the situation at SEWikipedia, he's taken it to the next level. He has proposed that those projects be closed. I know you don't want that to happen, so please vote oppose. I made a sort of advisory banner for the Main Page of all those projects, which makes it convenient for you to vote:
Advisory: Some users from other projects are trying to close Simple English Wiktionary, SEWikibooks, and SEWikiquote, even though we've barely begun! If you think these projects should not be closed, vote oppose here and here.
Hello, Dbenbenn! I noticed that you switched the image on Template:In the news from the .png version to the .svg version. I had switched the preferred .svg file to a .png file because I couldn't upload and protect the .svg version; thus, I switched it to a .png version, which I was able to upload and protect, and then left a request on WP:AN, which seems to have gone unanswered. Because the .svg image is still unprotected (the image has to be uploaded and then protected; protecting only the image page leaves the image vulnerable to vandalism on Commons, where all changes are reflected here) I've gone ahead and switched the flag back to the protected .png version until the .svg version can be uploaded and protected (feel free to do this if your computer has the technical capabilities to do so). Again, see WP:AN#Image protection for more information. Many thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken. When I changed Template:In the news, I also protectedCommons:Image:Flag of Indonesia.svg. It is not necessary to upload a local copy of an image that is protected on the Commons, since normal users here are not able to overwrite Commons images. So if an image on the Commons is protected there, it can be changed on the Commons only by Commons admins, and it can be changed here only by local admins. Cheers, User:dbenbenn21:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Maybe the fact that I can save the .svg file is down to me having one of the new Intel Macs--they haven't written an svg plugin that works on the Intel Macs yet, so all I can do with svgs is download them. Ordinarily I would have thought that you could do a right click and select to download the file, but it's not something that I have tried. As an aside, according to the message that User:dbenbenn left on my talk page, what I did was unnecessary as the image was protected at the commons, which apparently block the upload of a different local file to wikipedia also. --JeremyA02:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for copying down and protecting Image:Flag of Indonesia.svg after I put it on the In the news template. I changed the picture then realised I should protect the image, but couldn't work out how to copy it down from commons. Is there an instruction for how to do that somewhere? Thanks again. --Scott DavisTalk00:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you had edited and "stubified" this Wikipedia entry. I am a bit confused by this edit. The information included in the Holme Roberts & Owen entry tracks that in other law firm entries. For example:
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP
Morrison & Foerster LLP
and others
I am curious as to why Holme Roberts & Owen is being trested differently than these other entires.
Thank you for your response and pointers as to protocol -- the later of which I definitely need. I understand the "neutrality" concept and appreciate that your work is work in progress. It is just a bit disconcerting to have the Holme Roberts & Owen entry slimmed down while so many longer standing) entries for other law firms remain seemingly just as non-neutral.
On another note, I found it curious that you noted in your response as to the Harvard-Radcliff Orchestra that "because the predominant use of the abbreviation is for the orchestra, the nation's oldest, the page HRO should redirect there, per our manual of style." While I agree that the term is in use by the Orchestra, I do not agree that it is at this point in time the "predominate" use of the term "HRO" in general. In particular, I wanted to make sure that you understand that Holme Roberts & Owen has itself been in existence for over 100 years and has been using the "HRO" abbreviation during much of that time period. In addition, HRO holds two US trademark registrations for the term "HRO" (reg. nos. 75/140480 and 75/140667), both of which have achieved "uncontestable" status. By way of background, I do not see that the Orchestra has filed any applications or holds any registrations on the "HRO" mark. Likewise, in addition to the Orchestra and to Holme Roberts & Owen, the term "HRO" has over the past 10 years become synonymous with the concept of "Human Resources Outsourcing" and is in widespread use on a global basis in this context as well. Based on this, while I agree that the Orchestra has a claim to the term "HRO", I cannot understand how you can call it the "predominant" use of the term.
Hi, the Bengali wikipedia reached 2000 edits on June 11. I've left a note at the tip line. Please add it to the milestones section. Thanks. --Ragib17:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply and the tip about adding it to the Wikimedia news page. Yes, I actually meant 2,000 articles. Thanks. --Ragib21:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I protected because today's entry was on the main page for 4.5 hours unprotected, and I didn't want that to happen again. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-14 17:26
If you let Raul654 know ahead of time, he'd probably take care of it. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-14 17:32
As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.
As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.
I see the selected anniversary page is locked. The page says:
A series of four bomb explosions struck London's public transport system, killing 56.
It should really say:
A series of four terrorist explosions occur on London's transport system killing 52 people, plus four suicide bombers.
Because
1. Terrorist emphasises the gravity and organised nature of the attacks.
2. The four bombers are never counted amongst the casualties in other media articles. To put it bluntly they don't deserve to be counted as part of "56", there were 52 victims and four suicide bombers - seperate entities. For example BBC News state "In total, seven people died in the Aldgate bombing a year ago" meaning seven victims and one terrorist. Link
hi, i hope you can take part in the deletion review debate for the above metadata template that puts a star on the article's mainpage (you voted in the original deletion debate). the vote is here Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 8 (scroll down for Template:Good Article section). thanks. Zzzzz00:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you finished, the News and Notes for the Signpost additon this week? You've been absent. Singpost will be published by 0:3:00 tonight at the latest. I'd just thought I'd tell you that the Signpost will be late tonight, as Ral just got called back into work. 72.134.40.17322:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
article: Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses.
the topic is DECLARATION OF FACTS.
this is the document written by jw to hitler trying to say they were pro-regime.
please read the document if you can.
I have repeatedly written in the discussion page, but there are JW that always delete this original document from the article most of the times without giving any explanation in the discussion page.
I also tryed to change the form of the frase that explain the document before the citations, but nothing. I also preseted the evidence this is not "personal research", reporting the explanation of the researcher Doctor M. James Penton.
this is part of history and the document is very clear. please check the discussion.
Can you help to resolve this so that the original document and arelevant explanation will appear in the article?
Hello. This user has an agenda with his edit to Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses, and seems to reject any and all discussion points without a sastisfactory response; he only seems to accuse perceivably biased editors of bias and bad faith editing (ad hom). You can read his commentaries on the article talk page, and the responses of various editors, including myself. - CobaltBlueTony18:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Truthwanted is the one making the request. Frankly, it would be a waste of time, as he cannot find a single editor to support him. He is simply a lone editor with an apparent agenda and does not want to cooperate or be reasoned with, even given an acceptable method of presenting his information. - CobaltBlueTony13:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea you write the article. A look at the Wikipedia Signpost/Beats tells me Ral's wrote it for a while so I don't see why you write it and I can't. Treebark(talk)23:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I left this on the Metawiki: Recent Changes talk page as well. I have been a Wikipedia user for a year now. Sometimes there are things that are boarderline in terms of what I think might be POV and maybe aren't. Can someone tell me if this is POV in their opinion? Here is the dif [46]. Thanks for your help! Davidpdx02:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once a suggestion has passed Wikipedia suggestions does it just publish without the knowing of Michael or Ral? Or do we have to ask them? At the suggestions page a regular feature was approved. (without knowing of Ral and Michael, I think) Do you we still have to tell them if the regular feature was published? I've already asked Michael, and Ral. You see the problem is they never reply about anything expect when I ask them to reply one million times, so hopefully they will reply to this. Treebark(talk)15:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I wrote a short summary about the currently known facts about aLEXander at netzpolitik.org. Since last Friday, the IICM has altered the description about the project (see google cache):
Before:
Alexander ist ein Projekt, aus dem ein System hervorgehen soll, das verschiedene Datenquellen wie den Brockhaus Multimedial (Enzyklopädie) und Die Presse (Tageszeitung) zusammenführt und eine Community um die kombinierten Ressourcen aufbaut.
After:
Alexander ist ein Projekt, aus dem ein System hervorgehen soll, das verschiedene Datenquellen wie Enzyklopädien und Tageszeitungen zusammenführt und eine Community um die kombinierten Ressourcen aufbaut.
Ah, one more thing. In December 2005, I blogged down 10 predictions about Brockhaus and Wikipedia. Until now, 2 of them have been revealed to be true:
"10. Brockhaus bietet ein Subskriptionsmodell für brockhaus-enzyklopaedie.de an, ohne gleich die Print- oder DVD/USB-Version erwerben zu müssen: 199 Euro pro Jahr oder 19 Euro im Monat.
9. Xipolis.net wird eingestampft.
8. Brockhaus multimedial 2007 Windows, Mac und Linux werden nicht mehr als getrennte Produkte verkauft (Alternativ: Linuxversion wird eingestellt)
7. Zum Ende des Jahres hin wird eine Studienausgabe der BE21 zum ersten Mal angekündigt. Erscheinungstermin Mitte 2007 oder später.
6. Jörg Immendorff gestaltet die Künstlerausgabe der Brockhaus Enzyklopädie, 21. Auflage.
5. Wenigstens ein Brockhaus-Redakteur outet sich als Feierabend-Wikipedianer.
4. Das LeWi-NLQ-Modul aus dem USB-Stick wird auch auf brockhaus-enzyklopaedie.de freigeschaltet.
3. Brockhaus wird Contentlieferant für das “Enzyklopädische-Community”-Projekt aus .at
2. Langenscheidt senkt seinen Anteil an BIFAB.
1. Wikimedia Deutschland kauft eine Ausgabe der BE21 und lässt sie von der Redaktion in Leipzig signieren. "
Hi, Flcelloguy. I asked Ral315 about merging each week's motto's into news and notes and he asked me to direct the question here to you since you write News and notes. What do you think? Regards, Carmelapple01:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, note that you may wish to include Wikistudy in your news and notes this week. That was relased in the news, and I found it on Google but it seems like it should go to "News and notes" Carmelapple00:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Esperanza To-Do List is a place where you may list any request, big or small, for assistance. If you need help with archiving your usertalk, for example, all you need to do is list it here and somebody will help you out. Likewise, if you need help with some area of editing on Wikipedia, list it here! Again, any matter, trivial or not, can be placed on this page. However, all matters listed on this page must not be of an argumentative nature. You do not need to be a member of Esperanza (or this program) to place or fulfill requests on this page. If you don't have any requests, consider coming by and fulfilling a few! This program has not been very active, but has lots of potential!
What's New?
In order to help proposed programs become specific enough to make into full-fledged programs, the In development section of the proposals page has been created. Proposals that are promising, but need to be organized in more detail are listed here. Please take a look at what is there, and help the proposals turn into programs.
To improve both the layout and text of the front page, in an attempt to clarify the image of Esperanza, the front page is going to have some redesigning take place. Please take your creative minds to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Front page redesign to brainstorm good ideas.
Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.
In order to make sure all users who join Esperanza are welcomed, a list of volunteers who are willing to welcome new Esperanzians is at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Members#Esperanza_welcomers. Please add yourself if you are interested; we want to make sure all new Esperanza members are welcomed!
The In development section of the proposals page has been created.
Proposals page: Some proposals have been moved to the aforementioned "In development" section, some have been left as a proposal, and others have been archived. For those proposals that were a good idea but didn't necessarily constitute a program, General Esperanzial Actions has been created.
Two small pieces of charter reform will be decided on in a straw poll at Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Governance. One involves filling the position of any councillors who may leave, the other involves reforming the charter.
Until cooperation with the Kindness Campaign is better defined, it remains as a proposed program.
Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.
Your welcome again, though I was late due to slow computer service. Nice page on the board elections though. It was also very hard to find many N & N stories to cover; this week so I thought I'd cover the sidebar proposal, and Wikimania 2007 which you also did last week. ForestH2t/c20:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that was fixed. You see, I notice on the meta news think that's linked from the newsroom/other that there's always :en: but this week people forgot to add it so it was en: and the bar below the toolbox kept showing up but I fixed it. ForestH2t/c20:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to let you know that we have a bot that has been working on the SEWiktionary for a while now and it is really making a mess of the rc page. If you could botflag it, that would be great! Thanks. Your friend, --Cromwellt|talk|contribs00:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I am currently answering your questions. I will be ready in about one hour. I sadly didn't have any time up to now. When was/is the deadline? Arnomane21:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have just made my first contribution to an existing page on Wikipedia, only to find that someone who claims to be an editor has removed it and sent me a caution that my entry was vandalism, and if I "want to experiment I do so in the sandbox."
I am asking if you will serve as a mediator in this dispute and protect my rights to contribute responsibly to Wikipedia even if that contribution infuriates certain political extremists who happen to be editors. I chose you because you are from a southern state, as am I, and my challenged contribution concerns a political conservative personality, Glenn Beck. My contribution is outlined below and the name of the editor who has removed my entry is "Kuru."
As you are a cellist, you may be interested in two volumes on Venetian Violin craft, "Luitieri e Sonadori" by Stefano Pio that my wife and I translated from Italian to English. They are quite a beautiful set, lavishly illustrated and very informative. Many thanks for your help and I hope this matter can be amicably resolved and mediated in a manner consistent with the rights all contributors who wish have to responsibly contribute.
sincerely,
Robert Schoen
schoenrobert@hotmail.com
details of disputed entry contribution, and my corespondence to the editor who removed it follow:
I had never seen or heard of Mr. Beck prior to last week, and in checking him out on Wikipedia, thought I could make a productive contribution to his entry which follows.
“Glenn Beck on Headline News” subsection in Wikipedia under "Glenn Beck"
(My Additions are in parentheses)
CNN Headline News calls Beck's show "an unconventional look at the news of the day featuring his often amusing perspective on the top stories from world events and politics to pop culture and everyday hassles."[10] Beck's TV program is not supposed to be a traditional news program. He says it is a news talk show for people who can't take the news anymore.[11]
“Perceived by many viewers to be a mirthful but venom spewing clown, Beck has been cited as a "Rush Limbaugh lite" type who uses his QVC salesman personality to sell the repugnant ideas scripted for him on a daily basis by his illuminati handlers. Like Limbaugh, Mike Savage, Ann Coulter, or George Bush, the Illuminati appears to harvest their spokesman from among those most susceptible to substance abuse, which accounts for the irrationality and toxicity of their comments. CNN's hiring of Beck for its primetime slot signals that corporation's abandonment of its long-held policy to provide its viewers with the illusion of a free press. It is also a strong indicator of the administration’s confidence in the effectiveness of its ongoing mind control programming of the general populace, by various means which include the fluoridation on most drinking water supplies, debilitating pulsing ELF signals emanating from cell phone towers, and subliminal Wernike commands embedded within most popular radio and television programs. These unpublicized citizen control programming tactics have become so effective that a large portion of the population still believes the media's cries of "Wolf" over terrorist attacks, even though it has been proven beyond doubt that spectacular events such as the attack and demolition of the Twin Towers on 9/11 were orchestrated by the U.S. Government to pave the way for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Because of this technology's proven effectiveness at keeping people from realizing what is really going on, CNN has expressed every confidence that the foisting of this pathological liar clown upon the general public will go largely unnoticed and uncommented on.” Beck is the host of a weeknight hour-long show on CNN Headline News which premiered on May 8, 2006.
As Beck is a controversial figure, many of his critics have wondered why CNN would hire him. Part of the reason CNN has gone out on a limb with Beck is to attract younger viewers, which in this case means under 60.[12] At the time CNN hired Beck, his radio show was the third highest-ranked national radio talk show among adults ages 25 to 54 according to Premiere Research/Arbitron.[13]
Glenn Beck on Headline News airs nightly at 7:00pm Eastern Time, repeating at 9:00 pm and 12:00 am.
My contribution to the Glen Beck Wikipedia entry was removed, only to be replaced by me, and this went on several times. I assumed they wanted me to correct the spelling and happily complied. However I was given a warning by a self-appointed editor named “Kuru” that my contribution was considered “Vandalism.”
I am including below some correspondence with Wikipedia editors.
I hope this is the proper way to reach you with my reply to the controversy that has erupted over my contribution to the "Headline News" section to the Glenn Beck entry. "Kuru" has removed my contribution, claiming it is abusive. I am of the opinion that it is a valid and worthy observation pertinent to this section and well written.
I am enclosing a copy of my response to "Kuru" and would like for you to instruct me on how I may appeal for a third party intervetion or overview of this dispute. many thanks Robert Schoen
Dear Kuru,
As a new contributer to Wikipedia, I am appalled by your characterization of my contribution to the Glen Beck page as "Vandalism." Every element of my small contribution to the section devoted to the subsection, "Glenn Beck on Headline News." was factual and pertinent to the topic. What you may consider "Vandalism" will no doubt be regarded as honest and worthy commentary by many others. In fact, my insertion is merely a collection of pointed observations by an objective and unbiased viewer who had never heard of Glenn Beck before two days ago and could therefore have not held any previous opinion on him as a broadcaster one way or another, as opposed to someone like you who seems to be motivated by a distinct political agenda and affinity for Mr. Beck's extremist views. Through my addition to this entry, I was seeking merely to add a deeper perspective and analysis to the extraordinary circumstances under which a major news organization with a reputation for objectivity would hire such an inflammatory persona to fill their most watched newshour.
An intent to disparage Mr. Beck or create vandalism on this site would have included the use of abusive language, indiscriminant commentary, and extensive changing of any of the ten subcategories or frames prior to the section devoted to "Glenn Beck on Headline News." Instead I limited my comments to a only few sentences devoted to the reasons why CNN picked up this controversial host that was literally buried within the body of the entire article in the eleventh subsection, and addressed an area of expertise which I am qualified to contribute.
As someone truly alarmed by the decline of our nation's civility, morality and decency, my entry is a heartfelt contribution which no doubt runs contrary to much of the prevalent negative and biased political thought that dominates our nation and the irrational hopes expressed by Mr. Beck and his supporters for further war in the Middle East. Just because you do not agree with my contribution, I think you are being completely abusive to the spirit of Wikipedia, by engaging me in an "edit war" though your continued removal of my contribution and am writing to inform you that I intend to take this matter up with other editors at Wikipedia, who may question the political biases behind your ungracious actions, which from my perspective, are abusive and undemocratic.
sincerely,
Robert Schoen
i am sorry, i am late, my harddisk died :-( anyway, better late than never, so here are my replies... thanks for patiently reminding me btw :-) oscar 16:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ARCHIVE 09: A new year, a new role Messages 703-808, dating from December 2006 to March 2007 This is an archived talk page. Please go to User talk:Flcelloguy to leave Flcelloguy a message. Thanks!
I noticed that you put up the jpg of The Flagg "I Want You" Uncle Sam poster (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Image:Unclesamwantyou.jpg). I would like to use this image to recruit volunteers for my daughter's school. I was wondering if you had an even higher-res image lying around, and if I could arrange to get a copy from you.
Do you think we should add a template like we did to the Arbitration election series and the Wikimania series? Make it become a series......Let me know. ForestH2t/c16:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Flcelloguy. I believe the licensing for the image is indeed GFDL. The image was posted on the website of a massage and spa shop and the site did not say "all copyrights reserved." QuizQuick00:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to stop by today to tell you I'm retiring. Thanks for all your hard work to Wikipedia and your helpful comments to me. T®eebarkt | c21:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here in Wikipedia there are hundreds of wikipedians whose work and efforts go unappreciated. One occasionally comes across editors who have thousands of good edits, but because they may not get around as much as others, their contributions and hard work often go unnoticed. As Esperanzians we can help to make people feel appreciated, be it by some kind words or the awarding of a Barnstar. This is where the Barnstar Brigade comes in. The object of this program is to seek out the people which deserve a Barnstar, and help them feel appreciated. With your help, we can recognize more dedicated editors!
What's New?
September elections are upon us! Anyone wishing to be a part of the Advisory Council may list themselves as a candidate from 18 September until 24 September, with the voting taking place from 25 September to 30 September. Those who wish to help with the election staff should also list themselves!
Appreciation Week, a program currently in development, now has its own subpage! Share your good ideas on how to make it awesome there!
The Esperanza front page has been redesigned! Many thanks to all who worked hard on it.
Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.
The September 2006 Council elections will open for nominations on 18 September 2006. The voting will run from 25 September 2006 until 30 September 2006. If you wish to be a candidate or a member of the elections staff, please list yourself!
The new Esperanza front page design has but put up - many thanks to all who worked on it!
TangoTango has written a script for a bot that will list new members of Esperanza, which will help those who welcome new Esperanzains greatly!
Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.
Hi, I checked the current Signpost this week and was very surprised that you hadn't mentioned the fact that we had reached 100,000 assessed articles on English Wikipedia. I posted a comment on the Tip Line in case you weren't aware of it. Was this just an oversight, or were there particular reasons for omitting it? I was thinking that with Jimbo recently stressing quality over quantity, this amazing milestone deserved a mention. It also represents an enormous amount of work by hundreds or thousands of people, with each non-Stub assessment taking several minutes. I had been tempted to let you know about earlier milestones, but decided to hold off until we reached the big 100k to maximise the impact! Thanks for your time, Walkerma03:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I'm trying to use the AutoWikiBrowser and it seems I need to be approved by an administrator.. and I see that you've recently made edits! So hopefully you're online, and if so, would you mind putting me on the "allowed list" or whathaveyou? anyhow, if you need to know what I'm going to do with it, I'm (at least right now) going to use it to add boilerplates to WikiProject Dallas articles. When I can't find anything else to do I'll probably look for common misspellings or something.. anyway, thanks. drumguy8800CT16:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you deleted a section someone had inserted about the 1953 overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh. In the 1970's I do not recall this as being a disputed historical fact. The section which was deleted may have been POV and lacking verifiable documentation, but do you object to a couple of NPOV paragraphs acknowledging that it happened on Ike's' watch? The article on the Iran Hostage Crisis says "In 1953, emerging democracy led to the election of reformist Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh; under Operation Ajax, the CIA helped the Shah and conservative elements in Iran remove Mossadegh in what was widely seen as a coup d'état. Those opposed to the Shah, because he did not grant them freedoms and reforms he promised in the early 1960s, greatly resented this action by the Americans. Moreover, the Shah and his elite supporters were seen as enriching themselves and living an opulent Western lifestyle; this particularly bothered religious conservatives. The social and religious opposition combined to topple the Shah's regime in the Iranian revolution, and the Shah fled the country in January 1979." In the Ike article it would be good to bring in references to any input Ike had to the decision, from biographies of him. Sound ok?Edison03:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I recently put my name in the AWB CheckPage, it was removed a while later but I wasn't added to the approved user list. Was there no approval? I have more than the required 500 edits list and a familiarity with the tool as I am using it in other projects. MoRsE06:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm lost in a flood of questions there.... that is one question long rfa.. you've had a few questions and I can't seem to find your new one -- Tawker00:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, it's such a hot issue - it's not making life fun for our 'crats. If they close failed they get shit for not discounting all of the crappy !votes, if they promote they get shit for not "vote counting" instead of argument understanding.... it is not fun for them -- Tawker01:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We are going to have to disagree on this one. I take away a completely different experience from you on what Wikipedia considers an appropriate link. I believe strongly it is a significant addition, and I find your labeling of a nationally syndicated columnist "non-notable" subjective. I must express I fail to see how deletion is not POV. I read and listened to the Savage interview. I find the information regarding the Santorun campaign funding Green party candidates (implication being to funnel away votes from left-center) significnt, and extremely worrisome. Sorry to meet under these circumstances. My best, Jim CApitol322:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ficelloguy, it is fine that we experience the same thing differently. I do not question your character, you sound like a really fine and very interesting human. I love Copland, and have been learning more about The Tender Land lately. As I said on the Santorum talk page, we are not going to agree on this. Could I be wrong on my observation of POV? Possibly. But let's give this a break and revisit it later, or not revisit it. And, please accept my apologies for mocking your very friendly (and polite) signature. In my frustration it seemed prepackaged and smarmy, and I realize now given the amount of typing/coding it makes perfect sense that it should be formatted. Cold here in Boston today, but sunny and clear, a nice opportunity for a bike ride. I hope you have a pleasant afternoon. Jim CApitol316:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Flcelloguy, how are you? I have just joined Meta today. So it is about Meta:Proposals for new projects page, where many users complained that its a total mess. I have an idea to make the page like WP:FA, that each project is placed in a different page. Then we can put templates on the main proposal page. How about that? I will do it real soon. Cheers -- Imoeng12:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A little secret on the non-Western scripts- append "?uselang=en" to the URL, and it'll give you an English printout of the stats. Ral315 (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Today I noticed that links to TVRage.com were removed from my articles in the Russian section of Wikipedia. My investigation ended up here. May I wonder, what the reason for marking an informative non-commercial project as spam was? Ambidexter17:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lostpedia is currently under deletion review. Blacklisting the URL at this time is counter productive to this process. Please read the talk page on the spam blacklist [48] for more --90.192.92.10121:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MatthewFenton, the requester of this blacklisting has a vendetta against Lostpedia after being banned from the site. His request is not made in good faith. The link to lostpedia.com is not currently on the Lost (T.V. Series) page, and is being discussed on the article's discussion page. This is an editorial disagreement, not spam. Thanks, --Jabrwocky722:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking about this year's ArbCom series- If you're interested in handling this year's series, that'd be great (though of course I don't expect you to handle it, and if you're not interested, that's fine as well). However, I would like your input- how do you think we should handle it this year? We're already 5-6 weeks behind last year's calendar (though nothing's happening with the elections yet- nobody's even registered as a candidate so far). Basically I'm asking you, whether you choose to do the series this year or not, to help me draw up the calendar (I've started here, but it's very tentative right now...)
We essentially have from now through November 27th issue to discuss the election- the way it runs, the way ArbCom runs, etc. December 4th, voting starts, running through December 17th. The December 18th issue will be a wrapup, and if Jimbo acts quickly, a results issue (if not, we'll do a "breaking news" article like I did when Kelly Martin and Kat Walsh were appointed in October 2005, with you or I writing it right away). I've merged some of the articles where we probably could, for lack of time, combine things (about ArbCom and History of ArbCom).
And an additional thought- perhaps we should do "notable cases" in the last year; the wheel warring and userbox fiascoes come to mind. Ral315 (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work! I just saw that go by on recent changes. Good to see an article on it now. Funny, that tune has been running through my head the last couple days (the beginning one... F#-D-C#-D-B-F#.) Cheers, Antandrus (talk)03:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Admin Coaching needs coaches!!! If you are an administrator, or even a generally experienced user, do consider signing up to be a coach.
Admin Coaching, now being coordinated by HighwayCello, is a program for people who want help learning some of the more subtle aspects of Wikipedia policy and culture. People are matched with experienced users who are willing to offer coaching. The program is designed for people who have figured out the basics of editing articles; they're not newcomers any more, but they might want some help in learning new roles. In this way, Esperanza would help keep hope alive for Wikipedia because we would always be grooming the next generation of admins.
What's New?
The Tutorial Drive is a new Esperanza program! In an effort to make complicated processes on Wikipedia easier for everyone, Esperanza working to create and compile a list of tutorials about processes here on Wikipedia. Consider writing one!
A discussion on how Esperanza relates to the encyclopedia has been started; please add your thoughts.
Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.
The list of proposed programs has been updated, with some proposals being archived.
There is now a new program: the Tutorial Drive! Consider writing a tutorial on something you are good at doing on Wikipedia.
The suggestion of adding a cohesive look to all the Esperanza pages is being considered; join the discussion if you are interested!
In order to make a useful interlanguage welcome template, those involved in translation projects will be asked what English Wikipedia policies are most important and confusing to editors coming from other language Wikipedias.
Shreshth91 informed everyone that he will be leaving the Esperanza council as life is rather busy; his spot will be filled by the runner up from the last election, HighwayCello.
Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.
Thanks for uploading Image:Godotcom.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
No one seems to be acting on any of the requests here. You took action on one of the requests; Naconkantari is on a Wikibreak. If you're not able to act on the requests (time problems, etc.), any idea where to go to find someone who is available for this? Thanks.—Chidomtalk05:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. Please don't feel that I was complaining; I just found it strange that no one was responding to the requests. I'm glad you'll be able to get some of them done; when you do so isn't important. Thanks for your help on this; take care and have good days.—Chidomtalk07:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate your explanation for the removal of my link from the Xiangqi page. I would like to ask a question about a related site: the Wikipedia Shogi Page. On this page, there is an External Links section with a sub-section entitled Equipment. The sub-section clearly states:
This article or section may contain external links added only to promote a website, product, or service – otherwise known as spam.
There are already two commercial shogi equipment sites listed in this sub-section, but when I posted my link, it was removed twice. The administrator who removed it is unavailable to ask for clarification because he/she is on a Wikibreak.
Is my understanding that it is acceptable to place a commercial link in this subsection incorrect? If not, what is my recourse?
The article Frederick Douglass has recently been chopped due to CV. It needs quite a bit of addition on this significant American. (Some of the data exists in previous versions if rewritten and it has extensive source data). Please look at it and accept, reject or let me know and I'll reassign it. I added it to [[your desk as history. Thank you. RJFJR17:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation about links from the shogi page. The two links from the Equipment sub-section are also commercial sites, so I assumed that my commercial site would also be acceptable. Do these two sites contribute significantly to the article?
hirohurl.net - Genuine Japanese Shogi Sets.
Shogishop.de - pieces, boards and literature
Re: External links
Hello! The template that you cited on shogi is actually intended to convey the opposite meaning, although I can understand where the template can easily be misinterpreted. Instead of saying that the section allows such external links, it instead informs readers that the section may already have such links and requires cleanup to remove any excess and inappropriate links used for spamming. I've reworded the template slightly to make that clearer, which will hopefully solve the problem. Again, though, as a general rule of thumb, links need to contribute significantly to articles in order to be added, and the inclusion of links for commercial purposes is heavily frowned upon, even considered spamming. I hope I've made that clear and answered your questions; if not, please don't hesitate to ask for clarifications or any further questions. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost: Link to French Wikisource did not work
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're doing a series on ArbCom candidates, and your response is requested.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry boss, if you cannot do it quickly, please pass it to somebody who can
I am trying to do excerpts from the latest Signpost and have no idea what e-Primers are. Unfortunatly if you use a jargon, you have to explain the meaning to those who are not initiated.
However, I can always leave it out, if you prefer that.
Please, and all the best, LouisBB20:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the quick answer. I guessed that the meaning was what you just said, but as you capitalised the P I was not sure. The translation is going out now. Thanks again
Hi, FIcelloguy. I've recently filed an RfM at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). I thought there had been a consensus to pursue formal mediation at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television), but I was apparently premature in posting the RfM — some of the participants are objecting to the way some of the questions have been framed (as well as other details), and are editing the RfM page. Is there a way to salvage this situation so that we can still pursue formal mediation? Can we work out the wording and start over again? I know that you and the other MedCom members are busy, but any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, FIcelloguy. The RfM page has been locked, on ^demon's recommendation, and we're trying to work things out on the RfM's talk page. Once we reach a consensus, I presume we'll ask for the page to be unprotected (as an administrator, I could do it, but I think it would be better if someone uninvolved did it). Then... what? Since you say that there's no official wording for the list of issues, does that mean that it doesn't matter how the issues are worded? Or should we change it to a better version if we can come up with one? If we change it, do we need to ask all the participants to sign their agreement again? I suppose I'm just a bit lost. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your confidence in me (especially from a Wikipedian of such esteemed standing), and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future. Cheers! -- nae'blis22:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated myself to be a part of the Mediation Committee. I'd really love to get accepted and became a Mediator. But I'm confused...do I need to take on a case to demonstrate my abilities or anything? Or will just nominating myself and filling out that form be enough? Seeing as you're a Mediator and all, I'd figure I'd ask you. ^^ --Cookie05:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Um fine whatever. I will remove my nomination. Thanks for the "help"? --03:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! My apologies for bugging you, but I've been waiting on my request for whitelisting since November 17 and until it's approved or denied, I can't update my userpage (which I sorely need to do, seeing as I've finally finished high school and feel the urgent need to brag about it); I came to you because I see that you've made whitelisting decisions before. Anyhow, I submitted a request for whitelisting of my blog, so that I can link to it on my userpage. The link to my request is here. Would you mind helping me out by either approving or denying it? Thank you. misanthrope03:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Summary table, I added a column "Examples" with links that exhibit a candidate's arbitration skills. My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well.
So far I have entered examples for the candidates who registered first, and I'm not sure if and when I will get to yours, so you may want to enter an example or two yourself. — Sebastian(talk)23:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm nobs' AMa advocate on his request for appeal. I understand you would undelete the pages iff you had some more details. The idea is the following: in the arbitration after your mediation, arbCom simply ignored the evidence of it (then User:Fred Bauder recognized it was a mistake). What we need are some diffs that prove nobs' good faith at that stage (he says there is such evidence, I believe him) in resolving the dispute in order to reach our pettion of change his conditional ban into a mentorship. I know it is a difficult thing to do and you're right on asking on more information before doing it... If this wasn't enough, maybe you'd like to take a look on Wikipedia talk:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/Nobs02. Thanks on advance! --Neigel von Teighen13:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We recently had a nom for MedCom from Cuke monster. Upon fairly quickly getting a 2 oppose due to lack of experience (from yourself and I), he blanked the nom (and a second time, after AntiVandalBot reverted his blanking). I restored the nom to it's proper rejected form and moved it to the archives, as we usually do. I left him a note on his talkpage, letting him know I undid his blanking and archived it. However, this evening I logged in to find that he wishes to keep it blanked and no record of it exist. He left me a note telling me this. I know we archive old noms, but he clearly doesn't want to be counted amongst them. Could I get your opinion on this? It's kinda an odd situation.
I assume you are not in accounting field, so I took the libertty of changing a phase to better describe the document. Specifically I change the fourth paragraph to read ..."it first stated its finding that the Foundation operated 'in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America' in the auditor's report with appropriate links.
Hi there, my name is Neille and I'm a producer at a public radio show called Weekend America. We're doing a piece on the ArbCom elections and would love to chat with you as a front runner if you have a few minutes today or tomorrow. Thanks! I'm at: nilel (at) marketplace (dot) org —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neille i (talk • contribs) 19:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I'm an amateur cellist, sixteen years old and have been playing since I was nine. I live in the Winter Park/Maitland area, right off Horatio.
Do you teach by any chance? Are you familiar with Mr./Mrs. Johnathan May, Mrs. Tabashnick, Mr. Miller, the FYAO, the FSYO, or even Trinity Preparatory School by any chance? I'm looking for someone competent to play the Vivaldi Double Cello Concerto (Movements 1+2, I'm not quite ready for the third movement yet).
Anyways, awesome to meet you.
Leave me a note on my talk page sometime, eyh? Thanks!
and I was wondering if you can apply it to an infobox too. I've got a really long caption which I want to hide, but the infobox interprets the pipe in the table code as a cue that there's no more input. Can you have a look at Perry Millward and see if you can fix this? - Mgm|(talk)12:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The notice at the top of your page now ought to read "This user is an administrator and arbitrator"! Many hearty congrats, and have a great festive season. – Chacor03:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. Do you think FloNight and Blnguyen are appointed, or elected? I'm coloring the new ArbCom member tables, and I was just wondering what you thought. Thanks! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka05:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are indeed correct about what I was asking. I'll leave the chart as is. Thanks for your input, and good luck with your term! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka22:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! I'm most especially glad you were chosen for the ArbCom, in what has been perhaps the best election yet. You'll make a great arbitrator, I know that for a fact. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 11:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the help on the Signpost, and I'm sorry to see you go. Whatever you do, don't hang around Mark too much; he turns people strange... Ral315 (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My deepest sympathy on your election to the arbcomm ;). The arbcomm will be better for having you in it...now lets just hope your sanity survives. Guettarda18:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being a bit late, but I too want to offer my condolences congratulate you on the election. I guess that means you won't be working on the tool for a while... :( ;)Titoxd(?!?)08:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Archive standardization is the approved task for the bot and is probably a necessary task, but if it is conflicting with any other archiving bots, such as Werdnabot, then the latter need to be changed to update this so that the two bots do not keep on conflicting with each other. Problems with Gurchbot 2 should go to Gurch, and if Werdnabot needs to be changed, Werdna needs to be informed. (I've directed both of them to this thread, since it seems like both their bots will need a little modification to avoid the conflict.) Thanks!
GurchBot 2 moved about 2,500 sequentially-numbered archive pages with non-standard names to standard ones. It only ran once and won't run again (until it gets approval for a different task), though I may move some more archives manually. Werdnabot just moves blocks of text to whatever page is specified. So neither bot will need to be changed; the only thing that needs changing is the instruction to Werdnabot at the top of affected talk pages. Since automated archiving is not allowed on article talk pages, and I didn't move any user talk pages, that basically only leaves Wikipedia talk pages, of which only a few are automatically archived. Correcting the instructions was on my to-do list, but Christmas got in the way – Gurch18:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thank you for telling me that! I never knew that lol. I did it once before I think, but I got lucky that time. Sorry, and thanks again. =) Nishkid6400:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not sure what was up with that, I'll have to have it purge the page when it runs from now on. I didn't think that the date had switched over because my computer's clock still says it's the 26th; it's not on UTC. Thanks for the note, though! Shadow1(talk)00:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am suddenly having big question about monobook. I didn't create Monobook.css, but I did create monobook.js for popups to revert vandalism from Lupin's tool which means I'm using Lupin's tool to revert vandalism. But I still didn't get to know about monobook.css. Well, In My opinion, Monobook.css and Monobook.js is very similar. Is Monobook.css multipurpose for anything that could be used in Wikipedia. Wikipedians normally use Monobook.js for newspaper in wikipedia about Arbitration Committee, and something elses. Anyways, Could you please explain the Monobook.css. Please respond this question in my user talk page. Cheers! Daniel5127<Talk>06:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm one of the few who are using that template for articles nowadays, and it's high-risk, so it's probably best if it's left protected permanently. Also, there are more baseball DYK's that I have in the next few days, so the template will be shown. Nishkid6400:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it will only email users who are on that page, and myself. Also, yes, it would be good if you could delete the /Report page as well. Thanks again! Shadow1(talk)17:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, feel free to tell anyone you like, since the protection makes it admin-only. I was considering putting a note on AN, but that might be overkill. Shadow1(talk)17:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, no problem. I had the same question, as well. I saw it at RFPP and mistakingly removed it because I thought the previous anon had added it. At least that clears that up. Thanks. Nishkid6402:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good evening (GMT time); I hope you're having a nice night. Just dropping by to let you know I've posted my nomination at the Meditation Committee nominations area, in the event that you choose to support, oppose or otherwise comment on my nomination.
Actually, the problem was that I had written the purge code, but wrote it into my perlwikipedia bot framework, then didn't write the code into Shadowbot2 that would actually purge the page. It should be fixed now. Thanks! Shadow1(talk)13:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Although, I'm still not sure why the report was sent at 5:00 UTC. The cache shouldn't have been retained that long. But as long as it works... Shadow1(talk)16:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You recently noted a donor who donated $186,648 in stocks...is that the same as the $286,800 donor? And if so, are either or both one of the matching donors? I'd like to have an idea of what I'm talking about when reporting on the fundraiser this week :) Ral315 (talk) 12:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo there, nice to meet you here again. I've recovered from my illness and is full-power back onto work again. How's Mind Benders going now? --Deryck C.09:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just !voted Support, but I suppose the alternative is you go back to protecting the templates every day, and I'll help code Arbitbot to take care of this new job you seem to have picked up. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad17:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's nice to hear that things are fine. Being back again, I'll focus on casual discussion and article editing, and try to be less involved in disputes so that I can keep my temper down. Glad to hear from you too! --Deryck C.14:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and congratulations on being named to the Arbitration Committee. The Wikipedia Signpost is doing a post-election interview with the arbitrators elected this year. Please answer these questions to the best of your ability. We request that responses be submitted any time between now and Monday, 17:00 UTC, to guarantee that your responses will be published. Please reply on my talk page. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do you feel about getting the opportunity to serve on the ArbCom?
What do you think of the election? Do you think they were conducted properly? What could have been improved, in your opinion?
What would you say to those who supported you? Opposed you?
What do you think of the other Wikipedians who were appointed along with you?
After about two weeks on the job, what are your initial thoughts?
How active a role do you plan to take on ArbCom workshop pages, and in writing ArbCom decisions, a role that has historically been handled mostly by just a few individuals?
What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom? Weaknesses?
If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
Do you plan on finishing your term? If you had to make a choice right now, when your term expires, would you run for re-election? Why or why not?
If there's one thing you could say to the Wikipedia community, what would you say, and why? Is there anything else you would like to mention?
Hi there - I've noticed over the past 24 hours that edits such as these are being made every now and then. Is there a way to put that URL on a spam/blacklist somewhere? --HappyCamper10:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it's also not up to us, in general, to set policy on the inclusion of such internal links. -- no, but it is up to us to recognize what policy is, and the definition of "attack site", as referenced in WP:RFARB/MONGO, needs clarification. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆17:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Flcelloguy. As you are our mediation for Transnistrian referendum and the mediation is stagnant, I suggest you write to thew users who didn't state theri position yet and ask them to explain what is their position. I am reffering especially at User:Pernambuco whom I asked to state his position and he reply: "Why do you ask me, why do you not ask anyone else, has the mediation started, and are you the man who is in charge of it, or what? where is the mediator, does he agree with everything that you are doing, you are not the person who owns wikipedia Pernambuco 14:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)". Meantime, Pernambuco was engaging in edit wars with me at Transnistria (article currectly locked) and History of Transnistria. Also, Tekleni and Vecrumba should state their position in this mediation, a reminder will be good. I added also a new aditional issue because, while the other parts in mediation don't show the desire to explain their positions, they used the fact that mediation is in progress to stop adition of other relevant information in the article. MariusM[reply]
Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad19:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comet Hyakutake has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are hereJeffpw09:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks for not biting the messenger.:-) I haven't even read the article yet; I just do admin stuff clerical tasks at FAR. Jeffpw23:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this is the type of thing that is more likely to get pounced on by the slashdot or other IT crowds these days, but I thought I would report this to you for a signpost exclusive if you want! (it may also want to be referred to folks higher up in the wikipedia world as it is one of those "conflict of interest" situations). In summary - while doing a bit of browsing I happened to travel by the AstroTurf page - it looked quite spammy so I took out a few dodgy lines and re-arranged some text. I then had a second glance and noticed a big amount of edits had came in in the last couple of days - all from the same user - all adding the same marketing PR speak. I then traced back to the first set of edits, added by 216.248.156.53 - who then started editing under User:Tygast411, then back to the IP addy, before finally consistently editing under the username. A whois on the IP address gives, Richard French & Associates ITCD-216-248-156-48, a google search later and I arrive at [51], the blurb being:
Richard French & Associates (RF&A), LLC is a strategic public relations and creative marketing firm headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina. RF&A is an affiliate of Manning, Selvage & Lee (MS&L), one of the world's top public relations firms that has offices in 29 countries throughout North America, Europe, Asia, Latin America and the Pacific Rim.
If it ended there then some would say that's that. However, User:Tygast411 is still active and operating a pretty hefty POV editing campaign on AstroTurf rivals FieldTurf, e.g. diff. I am aware of the heavy irony in all of this (the original article I was trying to find when on my random browse being Astroturfing) but it looks like I didn't just sit the theory - I got the practical demonstration!) Feel free to log this on up the chain (I presume some something will have to be done) - I have blanket reverted both articles to their former states pending any further action others may wish to take. SFC939400:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My edits to either article weren't some sort of crafty marketing scheme. Yes, I'm an Art Director (Not a PR rep) for FWV, agency of record for GeneralSports Venue and AstroTurf, which allowed me to learn more about synthetic turf than I wanted to. And because of my unique circumstance I know first hand that the information on both articles is incorrect. And according to the WP_COI policy, it is this first hand and accurate knowledge that doesn't allow me to make valid and neutral edits to the articles. FYI, I'm not getting paid by AstroTurf to do this. I'm doing this because I wanted the articles to be more accurate and I happen to know a little something about the topic. The problem is that there are countless number blogs online that copy/paste content from WP on a daily basis and if they're relaying false information without a source or disclosure that the information could be incorrect. The solution to stem the flow of misinformation is to correct the source. Which is what I was simply trying to do. So sorry Flcelloguy, you didn't really stumble upon or reveal some secret undergroung conspiracy to make AstroTurf the uber grass of Wikipedia. I appreciate you informing me of the COI policy which I've adhered to. Ben16:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited my statements to reflect recent Personal Attacks and Harrassments by PhilWelch, Harrassment which I predicted and to avoid which I removed myself from the situation. It's exactly what I knew would happen, it's why I said I don't want to be anywhere near him. It's clear the only way to avoid him may be to leave wikipedia. ThuranX22:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply on the talk page. I did not mean to be putting you on the spot. I do think we will see a 7-5 or 8-5 rejection (almost happened with Latvia), and it would be good for those who want to leave things alone to explain that they know what might happen. But that's for them. You've been quite clear, and I thank you for that. Jd271815:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re. revoking decision by the Kosovo arbcom (Oct 2006)
Hi, on 21 October 2006 the Kosovo ARBCOM found that I had been given 96 hours probation for edit warring on the Srebrenica massacre article and based on this (presumably) gave me one years probation and revert parole. I have raised some questions regarding this remedy (see below), and Fred Bauder has now initiated a motion to revoke these remedies. As you are an active member of the arbitration committee I respectfully ask you to consider my case. The questions I raised regarding the decision of the Kosovo arbcom were:
why did the Kosovo ARBCOM consider my misconduct on the Srebrenica massacre article? Nowehere is the Srebrenica massacre article names as a 'related article'. Nowhere is the reasoning for linking the two articles given.
it seems a rather harsh remedy to give me one years probation and revert parole for a 'crime' which I had already served time for (so to say).
is it possible to appeal the Kosovo arbcom's decision?
Dmcdevit, the administrator on the Kosovo arbitration committee who initiated the remedies against me has chosen to vote against revoking these. I have, in turn, replied to his argumentation here.
Sincere regards Osli7300:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking a look at my case. The main problem, as I state above, is that I don't see why one editor, who had blocked me in the past for breaking the 3RR on a different article felt that I should be given an entire year's punishment. This principle was not applied to other editors. Regards Osli7309:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've lost interest in discussing anything with Ed, it is completely futile. He's utterly determined to whitewash the essay (note he removed all the criticisms, but oh, wait, the good points are still there). So I thank you for protection, but can I ask that you revert it back to this previous version of Steve Block's, which was before Quadzilla's edit that sparked this edit war? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I object to that request! The new version of the essay has now been up for a day, and only one editor (Dev) has objected! Also, the criticisms against Esperanza are still there, but in a smaller summary.--Ed¿Cómo estás?05:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only Dev has objected because no-one else has the fucking patience to deal with Ed and his cronies! Flcelloguy, seriously, look at the version I want you to revert to, and look at Ed's version. Ed's version makes virtually no reference to criticisms at all - does it seem at all clear why Esperanza was deleted? Does it not give off the impression that Esperanza was a fabulous, thriving organisation cut down for trivial metters? This essay is ridiculously NPOV as it stands, and I respectfully, but strongly urge to consider reinstating what it looked like a month ago and has now been skewed because of Quadzilla's single edit. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled across the article in the listing of backlogged articles needing cleanup. This happened right at the cusp of the RfA. Great timing, no? After making some initial edits, I realized the entire article was unworkable and went to the talk page to see if there was *gasp* oh my, this really *is* a contested article. Anyway, I want to help however I can. To that end, I have done some info digging. But please do not take this as definitive. It's more like a "friend of the court" brief.
I think there are twothree goals here. One is to avoid an edit war without the ugliness of blocking users, etc. Two is to draw some general guidelines with articles concerning topics such as these, where a "well known event" has an official explanation that is disputed by one or more otherwise reputable sources. New. A third is whether or not Wikipedia will be 'neutral' regarding the reliable sources, or if some sources are "better" than others (and who can make that determination).
The first RfC failed when Southofwatford, frustrated with Randroid's approach, withdrew from the RfC. The two RfM attempts failed before "getting off the ground". The first appears to have been started by Randroide (not 100% sure about that), but Southofwatford stated he would not move forward with an RfM while Randroide continued to make controversial edits. However, that particular point was not so cut and dry, since what Southofwatford actually wanted was that Randroid voluntarily revert his redactions to the article, which in Randroid's view would be violating wiki policy by restoring unsourced material. The second RfM attempt was started in early February with all sides (including Igor21) trying agree on the "bulletized" issues. After a week, it appeared that a consensus had been reached on what these issues were. On February 16, Randroid "discovered" that RfM guidelines suggest first applying informal resolution methods, leading him to insist on starting the RfC. At this point, Southofwatford proclaimed that only Arbitration could be used to resolve this.
I sincerely hope this (a) correctly summarizes the debate, and (b) can be used by you and other arbitrators on where to take this.
Thank you for responding to my comments on the Brandt voting talk page. I appreciate the thoughtful response.
Since I participated in the ArbCom elections I have been following the work of the committee. The care taken in deliberations and proposals is quite obvious. Jd271803:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am being ignored by the Arbitrators, and I have tried to explain a few things. Please read this to know my position [52][53].
I am not bothered about this unfair ban anymore. I am leaving Wikipedia anyway, but I need to know if my account only can be blocked. My IP is shared, and I can assure you that nobody will be using it to edit Pakistani articles. Please reply to this. I didnt know I was to be treated unfairly aswell as being ignored. --Unre4LﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝUT04:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to understand. This is only my temporary IP. I dont mind you banning my real IP. I can promise you I wont be editing at all. Please also take into consideration the "offences". I am not a vandal. I really wish you to take my last request seriously. I am asking you as a friend, as I have always had my best intentions on Wikipedia, and I dont deserve a dishonourable discharge. please let me know what you can do for me. --Unre4LﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝUT23:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, It appears I misunderstood the blocking procedures. So let me get this straight. My account will be blocked, however, other people using their accounts on the same IP will still be free to edit on Wikipedia?
I understand the implications of block evasion, and I can assure you as an honest Wikipedian that I have no wish to evade my block. I wont be returning to Wikipedia as an editor as I have learnt how things work here. However if I do decide to return, I will let people know I am Unre4L. I appreciate your reply as you are the first Arbitrator (of the half a dozen I have tried to contact), who has taken me seriously. I wish you knew me better, but I guess its too late now. --Unre4LﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝUT00:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks for your help. I am still not sure about what is going to happen.
The banning policy quotes:
"Except for partial bans, the primary account of any banned user is customarily blocked for the duration of the ban.
If the banned user creates sock puppet accounts to evade the ban, these may be blocked. When evasion is a problem, the IP address of a banned user who edits from a static IP address can also be blocked for the duration of the ban. When a banned user evades the ban from a range of addresses, short term IP blocks may be used. Typically, these last 24 hours."
According to this, only my account will be blocked, however I wish to be certain before the ban takes effect. Thanks for trying to help me. Appreciated. Unre4LﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝUT01:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to say thanks for protecting Great Depression. I don't even remember when it ended up on my watchlist but there it is, being vandalized daily. Hopefully the vandalism will curb now and I'll forever think of you when I don't have to revert several times a day. If I were graphically inclined I'd make a barnstar just for you. Since I'm not you just get this thank you. :) JohnCub00:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Texas Tech image that resembles the bumper sticker (with Texas Tech written over 'university') is not, to my knowledge, an official Tech logo. I have never seen it on any official TTU letterhead, websites or merchandise. It does, however, tend to appear on stickers and t-shirts sold by third parties. The image that I uploaded is an original recreation of the sticker logo similar to the one already present on the wiki site. The only major difference was that it was created with proper anti-aliasing and with a background matching the page background. There were two versions because I was unsatisfied with the way the original was resized on the page, and since aesthetics was the purpose of the revision, I improved it.
I also reformatted the photograph of the seal for aesthetic purposes. The version you posted is not level (among other things detrimental to the overall presentation.) In the coming weeks I intend to take several photos of the campus for use on the wiki page with the goal of exhibiting the architectural theme of the campus. I plan to attempt to make the images seem as though they are all part of a series, with a similar format, photo quality, and size. My idea is to have several photos formatted in 16:9 aspect ratio instead of having a batch of photos that look like they were taken by people's camera phones.
If you think my first logo should be marked as a copywrited image, then I'll defer to your expertise. My goal is to remove slap-dash graphics in favor of professionally rendered ones and provide quality to the page. I might note that I also personally rendered the official seal logo at the top right of the page and the double T logo. The ones originally in place on the wiki site were very low quality, blurry, pixelated images so I made new versions to replace them. -Elred
Yes, the Image:Ttusticker2.gif is the final version I intended to be diplayed on the page. If you think it should be tagged as though it is an official logo I have no issue with it. On the Seal image, I did edit your original photo. I did that more as a test to get a feel for the layout I'd like to use when adding photos. I plan to replace that and most (or all) of the current campus photos shortly. I'm going to wait until all the trees bloom and all the flowers are planted on Arbor Day. ...and I plan on having them all hi-res images. I'm thinking about attempting a sort of panoramic style on some of them, but I'll have to see how it turns out. cheers. --Elred04:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure it's a good idea of you to delete all the relevant information on the Sinbad hoax from the logs. Could you please restore it? As you'll see from my summary of events on the talk page, the log is actually a demonstration of how fast wikipedia corrects its errors. The media may frown on the removal of this information from wikipedia.
Jens Nielsen14:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, can you put the diffs somewhere else maybe so they can be linked to on the summary of events section on the Sinbad talk page? Jens Nielsen15:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Walter seems to have been created with a large amount of false information, perhaps gathered from a phony/ anonymous press release posted at "www.richarddwalter.com". Walters's false testimony was actually confirmed in NY v. Robie Drake. In 2003 and again in 2006 his testimony was determined to be false, misleading and could be presumed perjurious on at least one point (perjury being a very specific type of false testimony) by a fedeal judge.
This is all confirmed in the judge's ruling at: "NY v. Robie Drake" (2006). The acrobat file here was obtained from United States District Court, Western District of New York. Just select judge John Elfvin's rulings for March 2006 re: the Drake case. You'll need to select more than 100 documents per page to see it. Get the drake file.
I editted the many factual inaccurancies in the page with references to the court record online and articles regarding Mr. Walter's false testimony. However an anonymous editor immediately swooped in and removed those edits. I have reverted the page and posted a warning to the anonymous editor. Now Buzzle45 (talk·contribs), an original anonymous creator of this false information page designed to rescue Walters flailing credibility, has stepped in to replace anonymous editor 24.240.17.187(talk·contribs·WHOIS). I am not certain these are two separate individuals.
At any rate, I expected that whoever created the page would change the edits and that this issue would become something that needed an official look - as there are quite a few dedicated and obsessed people determined to keep the actual substance of this court ruling from being public. It hurts Walter, and it hurts more than a few because of their association with him.
Anonymous editor 24.240.17.187 has removed the Richard Walter page at least six times aleady and has also removed this section from the Talk: Richard Walter page at least six times, since 3/18/07 to prevent me from even having a civil discussion about it with others. Buzzle45 (talk·contribs) has done the same. Not exactly actions that are conducive to resolution, let alone communication. They just don't want the ruling public because of their hero worship (that's assuming that one of the individuals is not actually Richard Walter -this a very distinct possibility).
This informaion is not libelous. It is corrective. It is the posting of a court's ruling using the court's own document. The Wikipedia entry currently states that Walters was exonnerated by the judge in the Drake case. This is not just false, it is beligerantly deceptive at this point.
Note please that I am the only person in this dispute who must testify in court on a regular basis, under oath - and that I am also the only one willing to be identified.
As it stands, the article is full of false and bloated information about Walters that is designed to prop him up despite the court ruling - so that those who use Wikipedia as their primary nfo source (and there are many too many) will be misled. It is a disgrace to the professional community, and it is the furtherance of a weakly crafted fraud.
Do not hesitate to contact me for further assistance.
Why is Mr. Turvey so relentless in trying to slander Richard Walter?
To accuse someone of perjury is a serious charge. Mr. Turvey makes that claim on his own websites, but that is a matter between Mr. Walter and Mr. Turvey to settle in civil court.
I hold Wikipedia to a higher standard.
In reading the court document, in the final ruling in the Drake case, the judge overturns the appeal.
In his opinion, the judge states that Mr. Walter "may" have committed perjury (which he did not), but he rules that such an issue is a moot point because Mr. Drake does not have the basis for appeal.
Thus, Drake's appeal, and all of its allegations are ruled false.
I welcome you to read the decision on Lexis-Nexis and not Mr. Turvey's version on his websites.
While on Lexis-Nexis, I would also encourage you to read about Mr. Turvey's false statements under oath in Mississippi last year and his previous false statements under oath regarding his employment by the Sitka, Alaska Police Department as a detective. (Mr. Turvey lost in court in his bid to claim that he was employed as a detective in Sitka).
Because Mr. Turvey was not allowed into the AAFS, he has spent his short career creating his own organizations and schools. His organizations are nothing more than him and a few of his former "students" posing as a substitute for the AAFS.
Still, the bitterness of rejection has never been exorcised from his soul. He maintains a website that lists several well-respected forensic pathologists as "frauds" (Mr. Walter is not his only victim).
With all due respect, his situation reminds me of a jealous child in the playground who wants to "take his toys and play on his own".
I suggest that the Richard Walter page remain permanently locked in its pre-March 17th state.
Please disregard Bturvey's threat to "show why wikipedia can't be trusted as a source in my class". He has many more enemies than friends; no one will stand in his defense.
I had a self-embarassing moment when I mistook the pronounciation of your name for another, cruder meaning... Sorry about that... It won't happen again... Thanks, Spawn Man08:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23:58, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
(talk) July 6, 2005 23:27 (UTC)
Thanks for strong support and comments in my recent RFB nomination. I'm now WP's newest bureaucrat. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:59, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
15:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC).svg){kind=small}
Shauri Yes babe? 20:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
23:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
--Delzen 00:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
\(caint) 22:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
) in the top right corner of an article to indicate that it is a good article on Wikipedia. —RJN 11:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
13:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
![16:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)](http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Flcelloguy/Archive#c-PFHLai-2006-07-23T16:48:00.000Z-Re:_"Image:Flloydlandis.jpg"){kind=link}
