User talk:FT2

Arbitration Committee proceedings recent changes purge this page view or discuss this template Case requests Request name Motions Initiated Votes Designating Sri Lanka as a contentious topic Motions 10 April 2024 0/0/0 [edit] Open cases Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024 Mzajac (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) — Case suspended [edit] Recently closed cases (Past cases) Case name Closed Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024 Clarification and Amendment requests Request name Motions  Case Posted Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing Motion (orig. case) 27 February 2024 Amendment request: Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 Motion (orig. case) 6 April 2024 Amendment request: Skepticism and coordinated editing Motion (orig. case) 16 April 2024 Arbitrator motions No arbitrator motions are currently open.

• Archived talk page comments: /Archive
  Closed topics are archived to approx. June 30 2007.

Wikipedia IRC channel: [1]

Services Link: [2]

Others: society -- religion -- studies -- research -- ap -- asa -- terminology -- emo -- med

RFPC draft

A/guide: WP:SIR, Wikipedia:Canvassing Contribs tool: [3] RfA list: {{Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report}}

NPOV Cite

"Wikipedia does not exist to determine truth. It is not our purpose to decide if NLP's claims are true or not. It is instead our purpose to fairly represent both NLP's claims and the claims of its critics. The purpose of consensus within Wikipedia is not to determine truth, but to determine the wording of articles. Nobody needs to modify their personal views in order to achieve consensus on the wording of the article. However, anyone who is not committed to Wikipedia's core principles is likely to be more concerned with hammering their viewpoint than they are with agreeing upon wording which fairly represents all side." user:Jdavidb [4]

Thanks...

...for closing out the Shane Hagadorn AfD, things did get rather complicted and at least three or four SPA-type accounts have been spamming the Pro-Wrestling AfD debates hoping to keep pages which should have been deleted at the PROD stage. And that one got especially tangled, thanks for sorting it out. Darrenhusted 22:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Kudos

The lengthy explanation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This Is The Life (album) was a good thing and you deserve a bit of recognition for making a tough decision. Even though my recommended course of action (weak keep) was not what occurred, I applaud your work. — Scientizzle 07:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. People put a lot of effort, and often invest a chunk of their "feel good", into new articles. When a new article's created in good faith, it seems wrong to delete or keep it without leaving those involved a good rationale why that decision was made. I would want that too if it was an AFD I cared about.

Other good reasons come to mind: a good explanation also helps clarify to editors what was missing in an article or AFD post and how policies work in practice, and hence encourages clearer thinking - always a good thing :) Administrators are just as answerable to policy and neutrality as any other editor, and their decisions should be able to withstand fair scrutiny. Last, a good explanation reduces antagonism and bad faith wikistress, by making clear why. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Email account

Sure. Done. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 11:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I followed the linked and validated it yesterday. Perhaps give it another day. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 08:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. I can email. What makes you think it isn't validated? ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 09:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, fixed. Try now. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 09:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, got it. Send what you like. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 08:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silent Hill influences and trivia (2nd nomination)

Just to inform you I reverted your change of template here, per the instructions on the template. You started the close preceedings over an hour ago, and left them incomplete. DarkSaber2k 11:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

:)  [== ANI comment on AFD:Doctor of Chiropractic]

[5] Viridae^Talk 00:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Animal communication

Oh, you are quite correct. I meant to go into more detail on the talk page once I was done with my current to-do, but forgot all about it. I'll be going to go fetch my references and go explain why I removed the paragraph on the talk page sometime later tonight. — Coren ^(talk) 00:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Lengthy AfD explanations

Although I think your long AfD explanations are generally good (from what I've seen), the Silent Hill one seemed awfully long... do you think that much explanation was really necessary? Andre (talk) 06:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (Talk) 17:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

DRV

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Shane Hagadorn. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.--Oakshade 16:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for third opinion (moved from user page)

template:History of Manchuria is suffering from extensive revert warring, and discussion is heading nowhere. A RfC was filed, but was only able to get one outside commentor[6]. Please provide a third opinion on whether template:History of Manchuria should be titled History of Manchuria[7] or History of Northeast China[8][9] to facilitate dispute resolution. Thank you. 08:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved by Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) from user page at 23:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC). Originally written by Cydevil38

Silent Hill influences and trivia

Hi FT2, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silent Hill influences and trivia (2nd nomination), this article is ready for deletion. I've moved over everything that had a direct reference, the rest is original research and/or mind-numbing trivia. Thanks, Marašmusïne_Talk 07:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Evidence size

Hi FT2. Your evidence in the Attachment Therapy request for arbitration is 3000+ words according to my word processor. Please trim it to at most 1500, and better yet 1000, to comply with the 1000 word limit for evidence. Thank you. Picaroon (Talk) 18:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Away

Away from Thurs 12 - Sun 15 July. Any matters needing attention will be seen on return FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Psycho: Music from the Controversial Motion Picture

FT2: I closed the AfD as a Keep based on both consensus and the issue regarding the Huey Lewis controversy. I was able to easily find sourcing for this issue (see here and here) which is clearly non-trivial and from reliable sources. This would satisfy the letter of WP:N. Sadly, neither WP:MUSIC nor WPP:MUSIC deal specifically with criteria for the notability of compliation albums, and WP:MUSTARD states only that albums should only be judged on a "case-by-case basis". Without anything else to guide us here, it'd default back to WP:N, which seems satisfied.

My biggest error here was assuming that the !voting editors were going to add the sources for the Huey Lewis bit. I will do so right now. If you still feel that this should be addressed by WP:DRV, by all means bring it up there. I hope, however, this has cleared things up.

Let me know if you have any other concerns. Cheers, Caknuck 04:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me preface everything by saying that you've made several valid points. I have no emotional investment in the article, and could care less whether or not it was merged with the main article for the film. I just want to make it known that I wasn't being cavalier about closing out the AfD, and that some careful thought went into it. That being said...

The dispute's notability has been established by two things:

1. It was covered by mainstream media like Rolling Stone and Salon.
2. The misconception that Lewis pulled the song because of the film's violent content still persists. Take the AMG review, which still reads: "Just before the disc's release, Huey Lewis demanded that his "Hip to Be Square" be pulled from the album -- he was offended by the film's subject matter."

As far as the album's article, I think it could probably stand on its own with some expansion. (And as general tendencies go, I'm a deletionist...) For instance, there are remixes of several notable songs -- most importantly "In The Air Tonight" -- which may not appear elsewhere. (I'll need to do some digging to verify this.)

Again, I have no objection to you either initiating an article merge or forwarding this to WP:DRV. Please let me know if you do. Thanks, Caknuck 05:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Coaching

Hi,

I'm glad to see you are interested in developing your wiki-knowhow by seeing admin coaching. Without any prior judgement whether you are ready or not to seek others views on adminship, it is always good to see others aiming to improve themselves. If you are looking for occasional hints and tips on your editing, I would be glad to give you some to-the-point feedback and pointers, and a helping hand for a while.

(Of course what you do with them, and how others view your work, will ultimately be down to you!)

If you're interested, you'll want as a first step to set yourself up with an email account, and then let me know. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} thanks for the offer. I always appreciate input on my editing and would gladly welcome any and all help in this venue. With regards to applying for adminship, I’m torn between two views. The first, is that I feel I could contribute more on the basic clean-up duties and in some circumstances “Dispute Resolution”. However, the Responsibilities associated with the privileges of adminship is also a burden that effects what I enjoy the most about Wikipedia the ability to just edit. So, will see. In the mean time, please feel free to offer any advice. It will be appreciated. Have a great day. .ShoesssS ^Talk

Ps…in the mean time I did take your advice and activated my email. .ShoesssS ^Talk

Email

Hi FT2. I've created an email to receive messages as you requested, but I haven't received anything from you beyond "hello" so I'm a little confused. I assume you're pretty busy. Anyway, post a message on my talk page when you have sent me something. I don't check that account usually. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 07:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll add my reply here in case there was more to add, but I don't particularly want to make my e-mail address available to anyone on wikipedia, was there a particular reason for asking me to do so? DarkSaber2k 14:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

(Replied on my talk page) DarkSaber2k 15:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Reason for discussion:

I'm looking at your edit history, and considering nominating you for adminship. There are many strikingly good points, not least a suitably wide range of experience and competent involvement in various areas, and a strongly policy-oriented approach to editing. Wikipedia policy suggests that editors should edit as administrators, rather than create an artificial divide; I see evidence of that in your editing history too.

The one slight issue I've seen so far is a tendency to be a little too abrupt in language use with the few editors who just don't get the point. However, I've checked, and your conduct in the actual discussions doesn't seem abusive; backing this, the couple of complaints raised by others that I have found, were in fact related to quite civil and policy-based discussion. Doubtless if RfA was proposed, this side would be inspected in more depth, which could go either way. (Or, obviously, if it ceased to be present then it would cease to be an issue too.) I don't know if there are other issues, but if so, I didn't notice them in the review I undertook.

If you would like to discuss this, either here or via email, you have access to both. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Life line

Life line, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Life line satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life line and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Life line during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Eliz81 19:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD for Life line

That's so weird, since I use TWINKLE for xfd... thanks for letting me know, I'll put the template in manually! Eliz81 23:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not Iterator2n

Why did you think I was? --Jonathan Stray 03:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Nice to meet you. I have always had a serious interest in Wikipedia and more recently in its community too, as I am in the process of research for what I hope will someday be a popular book on popular epistemology, i.e. how people can decide if claims or ideas are true or not. --Jonathan Stray 03:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Oddly, that was sort of the idea. Aside from having a personal interest in psychotherapy, I chose to get involved in NLP because I wanted to understand how finding consensus might work in really contentious rational skepticism style cases. I'm also volunteering to mediate Food irradiation for that reason ;) --Jonathan Stray 03:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Attachment therapy

There's an update: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Re:_AWeidman.2C_RalphLender.2C_DPeterson.2C_JohnsenRon.2C_SamDavidson.2C_MarkWood.2C_JonesRD_-_admin_self-check Jayjg ^(talk) 21:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It Was Only Created For... in WP:ATA

Hi there, you added this section to WP:ATA. I'm wonder if you would mind if it was merged with WP:RUBBISH - they seem to have the same intended spirit and it would help cut down an increasingly long essay. Thanks -Halo 02:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Deathrash

That really depends upon how one goes about gettign a page salted? Will it require a new AfD or can it be done through speedy? Thankyou for the notice. -- Jimmi Hugh 17:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you know what you are talking about?

Morton Brilliant in Georgia state (regional) politics was a completely separate issue from the congressional staffers in Washington, D.C. I also took out your statement that implied that any congressional staffers were fired. And a suggestion: this list of controversies should probably just provide careful one-liners that exist primarily just to refer to the corresponding Wikipedia article and no footnotes: if footnotes are useful, then they belong back in their corresponding article.--76.203.48.177 17:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant definitely did resign, with Cox announcing it publicly because she had made a public stand against negative campaigning. We do not know if anyone got fired in the congressional staffer incident(s). They both fall under the category of "politics and Wikipedia", but they are separate incidents.--76.203.48.177 18:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy/Email

Had a chance to look over your policy proposal, but since I was doing it in class, I didn't have much of a chance to comment. I will at some point soon, really. And I've enabled my email now =) ♠PMC♠ 20:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I wrote this

I wrote this response before you removed the section, so I might as well put it somewhere.

In response to this:

(ec)I consider a self published source only acceptable to verify non-controversial claims, such as those that don't need to be cited anyways. The verifiability content applies to articles only, not discussions. Referring to existing debates on Wikipedia to make a point in a discussion is fine, but Wikipedia should never refer to itself as a source in articles. Until(1 == 2) 01:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Your query

Hi FT, I see you removed your query from V. I had already answered it and got an edit conflict, so I'll post it here in case it's helpful.

There are two main issues: reliability and notability. With the NPOV example you give above, the Wikipedia policy page would be regarded as a (probably self-published) primary source, and it's fine to use primary sources so long as you stick only to describing what they say, without analysis. So you could use the NPOV policy as a source in an article about Wikipedia. But you then have to ask yourself why you can't find a secondary source. If no reliable secondary source has seen fit to mention the NPOV policy, is it something we should bother mentioning? That's where the issue of notability kicks in. It's always better to use secondary sources, because then we know that what we're writing about is something other people have expressed views on too, and not simply something we personally find interesting — which can lead to original research when we pick and choose primary sources we happen to like, rather than the ones secondary sources have written about.

Does this help to answer your question? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Changes to WP:BAN

Greetings. Excellent attitude of boldness! However, I have restored an earlier version of the policy, I want to discuss the changes you made before they become policy. The changes are still in the history and can be restored, if consensus is achieved. I have commented at WT:BAN. Cheers! Navou ^banter 12:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments on my talk page

were these offered as an administrator? DPeterson^talk 00:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I received some information that I felt worthy of posting on the Admin Notice Board regarding your conduct. Pls see that page. DPeterson^talk 12:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• The thread is (here). Peace.Lsi john 13:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

DPeterson Block

DPeterson was blocked for that edit at 18.19. RalphLender reinserted the identical passage at 18.43. [10]Fainites ^barley 19:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Was already editing on that one too. But it'll have to wait a bit. I have an appointment for an hour. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Gosh! Real Life? Fainites ^barley 19:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyhow, thanks, but I had already spotted that, and only noticed your message when I went to check Ralph's block log to determine if he had been blocked previously for similar grounds. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

AT

Here [11] at 22.24 and here [12]at 2.04, reinserting the same or similar edit on ACT. Here at 2.07[13]stating restoring material that was added with sources and verificable citations. No material had been deleted; only added to improve article in the edit summary when in fact a sentence and two substantial passages were deleted.Fainites ^barley 05:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have asked him to edit in compliance with policy, once more, already. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

New threads

please dont start a new thread on a talk page (HoW) when a thread has been opened on the same issue as the last comment, its disrespectful to my thread. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Its on the history of wikipedia talk page [14]. I made a thread about it right above yours, perhaps you didnt see me? SqueakBox 22:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool, and yes we do have a disagreement that has nothing to do with this so lets keep discussing, SqueakBox 23:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, wanted to thank you for your help, it is appreciated and thanks for letting me know your edit summary that was helpful to. I will go have a look at what you have suggested and keep at it. I had a look at a related afd and decided it really should be kept just improved as many student uni branchs have done a lot for out cause and many unis have a nus page. with love Delighted eyes 13:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks from me, too, for the connect and all your careful work.Jean Mercer 17:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I was too quick - but I never hold deletions against people unless they're obvious vandals. Deb 19:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ze RfA

Thanks for the genuinely constructive comment on my RfA. Those are few and far between and, as far as I am concerned, the point of the exercise. I was sorta hoping more of the opposes would have visibly examined my contributions and commented on them; they turned out to be rather superficial (admitedly, many of the supports were just as superficial).

I'm going to be looking into the areas you have suggested. I didn't even know about WP:3O! I fear I'm never going to be much of a mainspace editor— but that will never prevent me from doing the less glamorous work.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 02:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks

for your copyedits in Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma. I wonder if you may want to take a look at Biopsychiatry controversy? —Cesar Tort 14:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

ok, the problem is that I am going on a long trip this Friday and don't like much to wikiedit in internet cafes. I may be available today and Thursday but then I will take a wikibreak. —Cesar Tort 01:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If that seemed messy for you, you will really, really love this!:

Controversy about ADHD

—Cesar Tort 17:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

HELP!

HELP! User:H has left Wikipedia and his talk page is bloked. Please unblock it! Temporarily (or permanently) join the Wikipedia Crisis Center and help us out!

Defender 911 (Leave a message!)

Comander of the Wikipedia Crisis Center.

16:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Will you please look?

Will you please look at Journalism scandals and my adding of Matt Sanchez Link as a scandal. Please read my notes in talk too. The article is not balanced. I do not want to get in trouble for 'warring' again. Thanks. Bmedley Sutler 23:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Note - I have limited net connectivity from now until the end of this weekend (20-21 Aug). Messages left here will be responded to but this may take longer than usual. Thank you. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Journalistic scandals article

Thank you for your work on the article. I have been working on the 'list' article. There are two issues. The first one is that there is one non-USA section on Sky News. James Furlong What to do with it? The second issue is this. IMO an issue only becomes a 'scandal' when it is talked about by multiple MSM sources, and that can include Fox, if it got several coverages. Like Jayson Blair or James Frey (although he was a book writer, not news). If something is only discussed in The Nation and Daily Kos, or Human Events and the Hot Air Blog, its not a 'scandal', IMO. What do you think? IMO about half of the entries there aren't big enough to be called 'scandals'. Plus it needs Robert Novak and Judith Miller and a few more. •smedleyΔbutler• 22:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Puerto Ricans in NASA

I accept your logic behind the AfD and appreciate that you created User:Marine 69-71/Puerto Ricans in NASA, that was very nice of you and I thank you for that. I know that some of Wikipedia's Puerto Rican community may feel discourage about the outcome because of the pride, but I'll handle that. I will encourage them to look for an alternate soultion. As a matter of fact I myself have started writting articles about the more notable Puerto Rican scientists in NASA. Tony the Marine 19:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pleasant Ridge Chili

Although I weakly took the other side on the AfD, that was a solid, well-reasoned close. Not like you need validation with your body of edits, but keep up the great work. :) youngamerican (wtf?) 20:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:ASF

I replied here. You're welcome to remove the redirect link and delete the redirect page if you believe it's useless to have it. I don't however think it causes any harm to have those section redirects (there are several others in WP:NPOV alone), nor that the section is in need of rewriting, only that it is an important autonomous concept within NPOV and that a section redirect would help for quick reference when this particular principle ("Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves") is being ignored, as happens quite frequently I'm afraid. —AldeBaer 16:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Replied again. What did you mean we should do with that list you proposed (which I think is a good idea btw)? Should we extend the ASF section with it? —AldeBaer 16:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Default assumption

Commenting on your comments here.... In the case of anonymous IPs (who, according to Jimbo himself, do not have the same civil rights as registered users) the threshold for AGF should be set lower. Demand (on the talk page or in the edit summary) that each edit be accompanied by referenced documentation or those edits will by default assumed to be vandalism and reverted on sight. Quite simple and it works. -- Fyslee/talk 06:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Software spec

Thanks for the spec, hopefully I can have a beta working soon. Shadow1 (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review notification

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Pleasant Ridge Chili. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mind meal 02:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

La Martiniere

Thank you for your recent close of that TfD. I was most pleased with your measured approach to its close, and i think coming to the right conclusion. Cheers. Twenty Years 14:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Can i prod the song template? because of the TfD. Twenty Years 15:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You deserve a barnstar

		The Barnstar of Peace
		For such an excellent effort to resolve a difficult dispute and help everyone move on, I award you the barnstar of peace. Melsaran (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Here here! Thanks!--Rambutan (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Pleasant Ridge Chili

Since you are adamant about bringing up WP:NOT, without delving into which part of WP:NOT the article violated, I am asking you to explain your argument. WP:NOT provides all examples that have established a consensus, and you have not pointed to which part of the policy Pleasant Ridge Chili supposedly violated. A few administrators arguing to delete something without being backed by the very policy they cite is not consensus. So please carefully look over WP:NOT, find the area(s) my article violated, and then post that at the deletion review. "Indiscriminate collection of information" is a summary of the entire page, and also a subheading within. It is not, in and of itself, an argument for deletion unless an example from that policy is used to demonstrate just how an article is an indiscriminate collection of information. Surely you understand this? (Mind meal 03:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC))

(Note for archive and for own ref: query relates to an AFD "delete" closure for dubious notability; later taken to DRV and endorsed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

La Martiniere

Cheers for all of your help with the template. The creator has said that if i can gain consesnsus on the talk page, he will agree to speedy them. Can you make a comment here when you get a chance. Cheers. Once again, thanks for all your help. Twenty Years 09:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Therapies for multiple sclerosis

I posted this article as a good article candidate; but noboby reviews it. Since I see that you have edited an article on treatments for diabetes; as well as many others in sciences and other topics I thought you may be willing to review it. Thanks in advance.If you want anything please answer me in my talk page--Garrondo 14:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Rambutan

And he's immediately back to jumping into raging disputes and targetting me directly: [15].

Please reconsider your unblock. Phil Sandifer 15:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I undid an anti-consensus BLP vio, and Phil immediately reverted it without explanation or dialogue. I'm leaving well alone now - Judd can deal with it himself.--Rambutan (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I am reading and will comment in a bit. I have no opinion at this moment, having not read. But note that I do not wheel war. If there is a problem, I have stated I have no objections to appropriate action by others. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I've read it; it seems fair. Thanks for all your time.--Rambutan (talk) 07:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ebay-purchased articles

I added some info about the ebay buyers at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User Democrat4 paid to create articles in wikipedia for customers: A new MyWikiBiz? and didn't know if you could provide additional info from the article you deleted. The Kevin Eggan article dates jive with one of the purchases, but I don't have the dates for Gloria Irwin creation/edits to see if they corresponded with feedback dates and the similarity of the edits. Based on the buyers' other purchases (99 cent ebooks of links, chunks of content for online dating websites, etc.), it seemed like the articles written would also spammish. The Eggan article seemed out of place...almost like a sample or a "clip", which would make sense if the seller is a keyword factory (like an essay mill). Hope this an appropriate request, and thanks in advance either way...I like to get things noted as well, so adding any info to the notice board instead of talk pages might keep it all together. :) Flowanda | Talk 21:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

test

TonyBot Do: search|hello. |{{{3}}}|{{{4}}}|{{{5}}}

Yeah that will work as expected. However to execute it you would have to edit this page with an edit summary of "execute" (without the quotes). Dunno if that was part of your test, but if so it worked, sort of. :) You also used "add self" as the edit summary in adding your name to User:TonyBot/Users and the bot would ignore that, but I added you in anyway. I'm still working on what is more convenient from a usability point of view and it'll get better. --Tony Sidaway 01:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Rambutan

Hi, FT2 - I noticed that you were involved with the unblock of Rambutan (talk · contribs), who I had my first interaction with a couple of days ago. I just now read your review in his talk archive...good job, by the way, I totally agreed with your analysis after looking into the history. However, it seems some of the problems that were highlighted before are still ongoing - I ran into this situation because I watch User talk:Blofeld of SPECTRE. Rambutan was making some deletion nominations of articles on Tibetan communities that Ernst was creating. I understand it was possibly an honest mistake, but Rambutan wouldn't withdraw the noms even after WP:OUTCOMES was pointed out to him. Ernst's response was somewhat prickly, but he attempted to mend fences, however, his good-faith messages have been removed with "reverting vandalism" edit summaries and messages that he's "blacklisted" so far as Rambutan is concerned. Ernst has now stepped away from the situation, which I think is a wise move.

Since you have experience with the user, I was hoping you might look at things, and offer advice on whether it's time to elevate this to an RfC or something similar, given the lengthy block log and ongoing issues. Regards - Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I leave it in your capable hands. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

I'm interested in this program and am asking you to be my coach if you're willing. I know I have a lot to improve on, but I think I could be a valuable addition. Momo Hemo 07:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Watership Down (film)

I've been keeping an eye on this tonight; you've certainly put a lot of work in there! The new version is definitely a significant improvement. Loganberry (Talk) 23:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Labrador retriever

I updated my response to your comments on this article quite some time ago, but I haven't seen a response to them, nor have I seen the issues addressed. The GA on hold click is ticking - if the issues aren't addressed by September 28, 2007, I will have no other choice than to fail the article. Dr. Cash 05:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Proabivuac

Just a heads up - I unblocked him (her?) - the discussion on the talk page is not overly contentious, and as far as I can tell the user did not even violate 3RR so it seems to me that a block is uncalled for at this time. If s/he violates 3RR, block - and if it happens two or three times then a week's block or longer may be justified. But the edits in question do not change the policy, and there hasn't been a revert war. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment on your talk page. But the unblock is respected. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment on my talk page. to be clear; I am not supporting the actual edits. With respect, you have been vague about how he is violating his probation. I realize some editors want him blocked, but personally that to me is just not enough to justify a block, no matter how much they disagree with his edits. To be clear: had he violated 3RR I would have supported your block. And if he does, or if he skirts it by reverting three times a day for more than one day - well, I would consider that disruptive editing. I just didn't see anything like that. I respect your views too - you iknow that - and i only unblocked because in this case I thought you were being overzealous. If you think I am wrong please just spell it out for me. thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 17:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

See your talk page FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. I brought up 3RR because it seems to me to be the easiest rule to break and has the lowest threshold for a block. I think the accusation of disruptive editing requires a higher threshold to justivey a block. Frankly, I am worried that some editors just do not want to have to deal with him/her and this is a way of avoiding having to i.e. a sign of bad faith. I do not queswtion at all that this editor needs to cooperate more with other editors, but it has to be a two-way process. I don't think he/she is trying to be disruptive, I think at last in the edits I saw s/he was acting in good faith and other editors seemed not to want to discuss it. Also, if someone makes an unpopular dit, and is reverted, and does not revert back, how much of a disruption is that? Can we agree to see how things unfold in the next 48 hours to see whether a one week block really is justified? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I just left a stern warning on the user's page. Please let's just see what happens in the next 24 hours. If you still think I was wrong to unblock, block him, or tell me to and I will do it for you. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion being spread over your talk page, mine, and his, doesn't help. Let's see what happens, and hope it's best for him either way. The other risk is that if he doesn't rapidly understand that his best course is to just edit constructively on topics, and not vent, the next person might go directly to indef block/ban instead. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

current RfAs template

I replied on the Helpdesk, but I'm replying here too. Is this the one? {{User:Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report}} — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 03:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Just to let you know that I have filed an RfC on Phil Sandifer; it concerns his disputes with you. It's worth reading it.--Porcupine (prickle me!) 07:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Please be very clear, and re-read if needed. As best I can tell at this point, Phil doesn't have a "dispute" with me nor I with him. I have reverted one of his blocks and explained why, and declined to agree with another. Please do not put a dispute you have, or an RFC you raise, in any way as being "my" dispute unless I have engaged in it very significantly, and on one specific "side". It would be something I'd like you not to do. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've replied to your email :-) Just for the public record, he disputed your unblock of me, and the RfC process includes criticism of "all involved editors". Your are on the periphery of the dispute, and I thought it would be polite to notify you.--Porcupine (prickle me!) 09:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that the RfC in question has been deleted, with the nominator withdrawing it over concerns that Phil Sandifer "has lots of friends" and "will do anything to win." I'm not passing on the truthfulness of any of that, but I worry that, much as when a user wants to delete his own work for bad cause (rather than good cause), I think this RfC shouldn't be deleted because of the filer's felling of intimidation, whether warranted or not. I wanted to contribute my thoughts. Here is the outsider's view I was working on. It is essentially complete in the arguments made about Sandifer, but I still need to work on the section about the other(s) involved in this situation, as well as take the time to find supporting diffs & links. --Ssbohio 18:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Kelly Martin's RFA

That's a very thoughtful and convincing reasoning you gave there. But as you said "Please let me know if there are points I am unaware of", maybe you would be interested in reading this; it explains why a 'need for the tools' isn't really a requirement for adminship. Just a thought :) Melsaran (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I was the last editor on that essay page, a few days ago. The comment you're seeing, an afterthought to the more serious concerns, is at the end of my post; it's the last one, not the main one.

What I think WP:AAAD is trying to get at is this: if you have a good editor, who checks the boxes however they need checking, but isn't active in adminship areas or particularly planning to be, that's not really a good reason to say no. They already have proven activity and trust, so the assumption is unless there's evidence to the contrary, they will continue to do so. Its examples are likewise focussed on editors who are active in some areas, not others. The concern would be risk of misuse, and a candidate with a good track record comes to RFA with reassuring evidence not to worry. In this RfA that's not evidenced. Adminship is not sought on the back of a solid and reassuring recent record with likely use for the project's benefit if ever used. If all else was fine, I'd note the non-need and decide if it's an issue or not -- bear in mind AAAD is not set in stone, it needs judgement how much it applies in given cases. However given the other concerns, the fact that in addition not even a substantial reason is evidenced... it is worth noting. It's not the most important point, and alone as a 'reason' carries little or no weight, but as a side observation in the context, seems worth noting.

Hope that helps! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there are valid reasons to oppose a candidate because they haven't been active at all as of late, or because they clearly need more experience, because then you cannot be sure that the candidate has enough knowledge of our policies and the way things work and that they will use sound judgement in their decisions. However, we should generally grant adminship to anyone who can be trusted with the tools, even when they won't use them that often. Your comment said something like "this user doesn't need the tools so why should we grant them?", so I thought you meant that we should deny adminship to someone who won't use his tools but can be trusted with them nonetheless. May have been a misunderstanding on my part :) Melsaran (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Rescue template

Greetings, thankyou for your assitance and words of wisdom on Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_September_24#Template:Rescue. Although personally I believe it should be left on the article pages, I have worked on a new template to be placed on the AfD page as you suggested. Please view the template here, and it in action here. If I could ask you to place your comments on the template here to keep it all in one place? Thankyou for your time. Fosnez 11:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just regarding the usage on article pages, and I'm sorry if I am harping on about it, but I can understand your position on because of it being a project tag that it can't be used on article pages. Here is an example of it being used well, and here is one of it not (far to many tags on that page, interestingly Wikipedia:Categorization#Wikipedia_namespace seems to suggest all the cleanup tags should be on the talk page as well?). My question is, if it were to become an "official" wikipedia tag, that is "owned" by the community, but "served" but the ARS, could we continue to place it, in a rewitten form, on the article page. I know this next statement might sound self serving, but having it on the article page is where the ARS got most of it's members from (from them noticing it on the article page, it's certainly how I found out about them) and having more people fixing articles can never be a bad thing IMHO. I am not the only one that feel like this and as I said before, as this is only to be placed on articles that are up for deletion in five days anyway, where is the harm? - Fosnez 12:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I think you've slightly got the wrong idea, though I can see where you're coming from. I closed the TFD on the basis not of my own opinion, but on the basis that both policy, practice, and around 2/3 of the discussion's participants who expressed a view, all concurred that the article was the wrong place for it. The participants all saw the reasoning you have given, but even so that was the view, and it's fairly well supported by existing communal agreement too.

There's no real difference between an "official" and "unofficial" tag. It's mostly down to how widely adopted it becomes. If many people use it, it will gradually become seen as a part of how things work. If not it'll be seen as a tag used by a small group trying to do their own bit to help. Either way the same policies would probably apply. The point is, most people who'd research to improve an article would likely click through on the AFD header anyway. The people you're hoping to reach are the ones who might express a view, and therefore care enough to perhaps improve it. I have made one other suggestion on the project talk page which I see no problem with, but you'd need to get the agreement of the folks at AFD since it would involve minor editing to the AFD template.

If you want, then the way to present it is not as a quirky project or a "we need it". Project templates are much more based on what helps to encourage good process and conduct and thus benefit the encyclopedia. So what matters is much more that there is a legitimate case following the TFD, that this is what deletion policy says, but it's often not clear to readers of the AFD template. If it were able to be noted in the existing template that improvement is sought, perhaps more editors would be interested in doing so.

I don't know how it'd be received, but that's my thoughts for the few minutes I'm around.

Hope this helps! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Radionics

Please kindly observe that the definition in the lead of the article doesn't match the definition given at the citation's source. The definition previously changed by user jennylen was a direct citation of the same source fully matching. Also, empty sections or subsections seem to be unnecessary, they could be created when there is some content there but at this time would be logic to delete the empty sections. (I have no opinion on the article itself but I was verifying its sources when the edit war started). ℒibrarian2 17:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind and most complete explanation. ℒibrarian2 10:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

On the topic of that article, have you noticed the latest message from jennylen at the talk page? can that editor make what he is doing? ℒibrarian2 10:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Re-reading your kind explanation of the introduction (I did like it and it is very instructive) I found a slight error which may produce some misunderstanding. Reading about it and consulting some people involved in that kind of practice, it appears that the so called "energy" is not sent from person to target but from a device to the target, the practicioner is not a healer but he operates an apparatus which is assumed to do the healing.

I don't know if I am enough clear, the matter is that the definition says "sent from person to person" and that is not the case, there is always an instrument used for sending such "energy" or "rate" tuned in the apparatus, the practicioner has no healing intervention whatsoever beyond to operate the instrument. The ESP connection they claim is related with the diagnostic side in which the operator is "sensible" to the reactions of the apparatus, however there is never a direct connection or "subtle" link between the practicioner and the target. I don't know if my explanation is clear, let me know ℒibrarian2 10:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the discussion we're having to Talk:Radionics, and answered your comment there. Thanks! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but I rather abstain from that kind of environment, I just wanted to assist in avoiding a possible inexactitude, I am good with whatever you see fit ℒibrarian2 12:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have left an answer to your question at the discussion page of the article Radionics. Brad Morris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.191.101 (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Infomration Request

I kinda figured that admins telling me someone's IP address was off limits. I guess I am just letting this guy get to me too much. This person has "followed" me from one site to another making constant rude and defamatory comments about me and the site I used to run. I have a good idea of who it is, but no proof, hence my request. If it keeps up, I will report them to AIV or ANI and let them handle it. I wish the two diffs in question could be deleted outright because they are completely false (I ran SVRTV.net and I think I would remember being sued) but that is for a totally different board. Thanks for your help though. Take Care....NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Lordosis image

Thanks for the note about removing the lordosis image. The thing is, while lordosis (excessive lordotic curve) can be a medical condition (like obesity), a lordotic curve is normal and need not be medically diagnosed. Some people just have more of a lordotic curve, and some people don't (commonly called flatback[16]). So while an excessive lordotic curve is not just a medical condition, but also description of posture[17]. Like saying someone is skinny, fat, short or tall, it doesn't have to be vetted by a doctor (although a nice peer-reviewed longitudinal study with normal distribution data would be helpful). It would seem to me that these things are considered common knowledge, and the photo describes this common understanding.

Now I agree that we shouldn't post undiagnosed photos of people without their permission, but since lordosis is not necessarily a medical condition, there need not be any privacy or medical problems. What do you think? Rhetth 17:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The points are fair ones, but you ask what I think... and what I think is, the perception and representation is that of a medical condition. The article will have a medical title, the photo will be captioned "person with lordosis" or similar rather than "person with pronounced curved lower spine", ... the perception presented and fact represented will be, "this is a photograph of a person with an abnormal medical condition". The term "lordosis" is not a common one, as best I'm aware.

Since it's discussed in the context of a medical-sounding article ("lordosis" rather than "spinal curvature") we have to take more care about how we represent it. Thats fair and commonsense. A clinincal looking photograph of pronounced curvature should not be too hard to source. But J. Random Person with a quarter face profile, in the everyday high street, labelled with a medical-sounding condition, and sourced from the context of a dubious blog, is not the best kind. We can probably do better.

What you might want to do is make more clear that lordosis is simply a medical term for a pronounced dcurvature of the back, rather than a medical problem.

Hope this helps! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Hey there. At my unsuccessful RfA, you were neutral suggesting that I get a little wider breadth of experience with admin processes. Before I try again, I wonder if you'd take a peek at my contributions of late? CSBot causes most of the traffic on my user talk, but you can still find the signal in the noise, I think. — Coren ^(talk) 14:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time. It's not what I wanted to hear, but that's also why I asked someone who didn't support my previous request.  :-) I don't think I'll ever get much mainspace-fu; this is just not where I feel I can contribute (beyond the occasional typo/format fix, maintenance tag or fresh reference). I guess I'll just wait until the weight of the rest of what I do distracts away from my non-mainspace-ness. — Coren ^(talk) 19:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your point. I guess what I was asking is whether you think I currently have too little mainspace focus to, as you say, understand how it works? There is a fine line, I think, between contributing usefully and "making busywork" — the latter I find very much distasteful. So if you think I need the extra mainspace experience in order to be a good admin, I'll just pull up my sleeves and get to work. If I only need that extra experience to look like I'd be a good admin, I'd rather expend that effort doing something I'm actually good at and defend my position when the time comes. — Coren ^(talk) 19:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Endal

I am Endal's owner Allen Parton and i am just contacting you to express my gratitude for all the work you have done on researching Endal and bringing his page in to line with the Wikipedia rules. Thank you so much for all your effort and time on this project

regards Allen Parton Endal and Allen 18:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The Editor's Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I noticed that your edits were impressive and so I've decided to award you this Editor's Barnstar! Wikidudeman (talk) 06:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Problems with User:Anonimu

Hello

I encountered non viki-civilised user who seems to be specially interested in subject like fascism or communism. He reverts all my contributions and do not engage in discussion. From his talk page and links it is clear he was already banned at least once. Could you please help me starting some action to moderate him? He even removes my contributon to his talk page.

Cautious 20:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep going. You already produced enough NPAS to gurantee a block.Anonimu 20:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hope you engage in discusiion in the end. Cautious 20:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No need to fight about this, everyone. See the bottom thread on Cautious's talk page, as well as on Talk:Vasily Zarubin. Please read up on the three revert rule too, Anonimu and Cautious. *Cremepuff222* 22:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Your post on Angel David's talkpage

That was wonderfully phrased. You should save it -- maybe even post it as a WP essay, if it isn't essentially duplicated by another one.--SarekOfVulcan 03:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

(For future reference: relates to this post) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom request post

Hi there. Just wanted to drop you a note to point out that you've mis-spelt a name on that ArbCom request post (the Sadi Carnot one). It's User:Wavesmikey, not "Wikismikey". I would have put the following at the ArbCom request page, but that is getting a bit long. In my view, the AfD of Wavesmikey's early efforts, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human thermodynamics 2, makes plain that the user should have been aware that this was unacceptable material. You also ask whether it would have been possible to find a "better way to keep the good and avoid the bad", but this ignores your earlier point where you ask "Are his good contribs really good?" and answer by saying "unclear as yet". I too think a topic ban would have been appropriate, but a detailed investigation of the contributions is also needed to identify which ones need clearing up. Carcharoth 15:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Typo fixed - thanks! Evidently too much wiki on the mind :) Also the other two addressed - the AFD's dated to 2005, they arent really evidence of more than "should have got a clue", which was the case anyway, I'd be reluctant to interpret a 2005 AFD as a "warning" for a 2007 case. The last of the 3 is clarification mainly (grammar) and fixed - thanks again! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: email

Replied. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 09:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 19:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC) David Mestel^(Talk) 19:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Socratic Barnstar
		Hey FT2! I was puttering around the 'pedia and happened across your comments twice today. I was very impressed by the careful thought you put into your arguments. I hope this brightens your day. Cheers —Cronholm144 20:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA

The WP:NPA page is protected, due to edit-warring. On the talk page we worked out some text over several iterations and after days several editors agreed to it. Then you come up with a different format for the text and after minimal agreement went ahead and added your version to the protected page. I don't believe that is the best way to draft policy. I'd prefer, if you're going to edit a protected policy page, that you add the version that actually has the consensus. Or, even better, wait until the page has been unprotected and the consensus is mature. While we should move expeditiously, I don't think we should rush to a conclusion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I added the clarification since it was being well received at WT:NPA by several editors including yourself, and it merely clarified existing words for certainty. As you rightly noted, it was a footnote only, and posted a note to say this was done.

Shortly after, I noticed the page was protected - since admins can edit through protection I hadn't realized this immediately. Page protection applies to all; as soon as I realized I'd edited a protected page, I self-reverted the footnote you mention in its entirety. The only change I left was a minor format change only - namely an italic of a clause that by then we had all agreed was the important one, to leave it more prominent. Not one letter of WP:NPA was altered. The protection was honored a fair while before you asked.

Apologies for this; hopefully by checking the record you will see I had fixed it myself already, removing the footnote an hour before the above note :)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain. I've accidentally edited protected pages before too, so I know how that can slip through. I wouldn't have mentioned it except this has been a difficult process and I'm hoping we'll achieve an unquestioned consensus on the proposal. Thanks for your participation and help in that direction. Cheers, ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Interest of RFA

Yeah, I was keeping an eye on that RfA myself (and abstained from commenting because of the obvious parallels; I felt that would have looked self-serving). I think the decisive factor was the nomination— being nominated by a well known and respected admin does give one a leg up.

I've been practicing my mainspace-fu, mind you. Durova has been kind enough to poke me into making headway in that direction, and I've got a DYK under my belt, now.  :-)

Thanks for thinking about me! — Coren ^(talk) 18:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD closure of Anthony Chidiac

Thanks for providing a close to the discussion. It is clear from your closing comments that you spent time considering the discussion. I appreciate your doing that. I was afraid that the closing admin would give a one-line close statement... instead we get this! Thanks a lot for taking the time to spell it out. -- Ben 16:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD Deletion of Anthony Chidiac

Hi FT2, I thank you for the time in reviewing this article. Though I believe your comments seem valid, they do not allow for the fact that I put the article up as a stub and within hours it was nominated for an AfD, without due process of "assuming good faith". I and others were going to contribute to make the article worthy of quality that meets wikipedias standards which, by the way, is a constantly moving chalkline, when it went down the AfD road. I don't think that is fair. I have been following the advice given by other admins and people involved in the first write and believed I conformed to all rules. It is therefore impossible to make such a judgement of delete without in fact seeing how the article got expanded. Could you please explain to me how when I followed a consensus of opinion that I keep getting my efforts shot down in giving it a go? I feel very disheartened by this result, without due process of expanding article before being challenged in this way. Please help me with this as the person is notable and needs to be stubbed in order for others to work on and expand without such "last resort" process. Thanks in advance for your thoughts on process itself, which is what annoys me the most about such. PS - For the complete BIO that was prevously deleted, please go [here] I only mentioned two of the many things this guy has done, and needed to cite the rest of the material before adding it. I believe that is what is called a quality article. Please comment on original article. Thanks!--T3Smile 05:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

And thanks for the note. I'll try to explain; I don't know it it will be what you hoped to hear, but I'll do the best I can.

This relates to a biographical article on its second AFD. It had been through one AFD; its creators knew some of its flaws from that and rewrote it. The problem is basically this. Articles need to reach a certain quality to endure in article space. The article did not have "hours till marked for deletion; in fact you used the "hangon"template and the speedy notice was removed. It then had around 6 more days to be worked on, before being submitted for full discussion at AFD at which point it was actually a good size biography.

It was then allowed not the usual five days at AFD, but an unusual full 7 days to be assessed. During this time flaws of notability were pointed out but not apparently able to be fixed. The article was not deleted as being a stub; in fact it was not a stub at that point, it had a picture, templates, several good size paragraphs, some dozen links. The problem was that at AFD it transpired the view of the community was that the subject was by evidence, and practice, non notable in encyclopedic terms. Of all the extra ways to show notability you say you might have added, in 2 weeks not one significant source of notability ultimately was.

It was for this reason, and not "stub-ness", that it was removed. It did not in fact influence the final decision that the article was written with alleged COI and puppetry (both unexamined). In the end, all the writing in the world did not change the fact that no genuine notability was identified second time around, as none had been the first time it was deleted at AFD in July, even despite extra time being available. This is a routine AFD decision.

This is completely different than stub/nonstub: a one line stub saying "The Airbus A380 is the largest passenger jet in the world" would (probably) be notable and endure. The problem is, even a 1 line stub subject must be notabile, and this was a full bio article size and (as assessed) did not.

If you need more time, then your best bet is to create the article in your user space, thus: User:T3Smile/Anthony Chidiac for development (if you want the old text back let me know), and when you consider it ready, then and only then page move it into its correct location. Others can edit it in your user space if you want them too.

I hope this helps, let me know if you need any more information on any aspect.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi FT2, In a hazy cloud called the internet and a hazier site called wikipedia you do make perfect sense of it all. It is just that I am deathly afraid to put the article User:T3Smile/Anthony Chidiac up into mainspace in its entirely for fear of scorn, salting, and all other kinds of debate that don't concentrate on the shortcomings of the article and add no opinion as to how to improve it. My userspace article has had several revisions placed, but, as I said, being really afraid to move this article in my userspace into mainspace was the reason why I stubbed it. I think the body of work in the userspace article gets the WP:BIO across the line, but the problem will then be citable sources, and the main source has been chidiac himself and his work colleagues in my interviews and of radio and TV interviews, some of which are on YouTube and linked to article. I mean, we can place a "lacks sources" banner on top of the mainspace article which would be good, but I am wanting to create a "Biography without holes" - ie a quality one. I would appreciate your thoughts on the userspace article and where else it may lack. This article is just about haunting me as it was my first go at a major piece, and I am stubborn sometimes and can't see why others don't think some little aussie guy is notable enough to have made a significant contribution in what you may or may not have in your living room today. Your time in reading the User:T3Smile/Anthony Chidiac article will be most appreciated and well regarded. Looking forward to your razor sharp thoughts on such.--T3Smile 07:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure :) The only thing is, be sure to check the subject really is notable. If others don't see evidence they are, then that's going to be that no matter how skilled your writing. A big problem is that we do not in fact write about everythiung here, but only those things that "reliable sources" have already taken significant notice of. A person discussing themselves, or a person being interviewed by a TV program, may not in fact be enough to make that decision. Instead of a full article, why don't you try and think through in bullet points, the evidence and reasons that you think he's notable? I'll be glad to look at them for you. The only thing is, I'd need you to understand and accept that 1/ it's only one person's opinion and others may differ, 2/ I might say 'probably not'. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Update: See User talk:T3Smile/Anthony Chidiac for a review. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ft2, where were you when I first started here on the subject? You are a godsend! All I and others asked for at the start of the first AfD was some clear points to work on, and nobody gave them to me or others collaborating on the piece. I'll spend time reviewing the piece on your comments and I am really grateful for giving me such clear direction on this piece. Would you mind if I reviewed the piece User:T3Smile/Anthony Chidiac and asked you if you felt its was ready for mainspace in the near future? How can I be "adopted" by you on wikipedia? ta T--T3Smile 22:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi FT2, I have listed the userspace article in Deletion review The funniest thing about it is that I agree with the previous two deletions one by you and one by the 1st AfD, yet I am afraid to post the rewritten bio in my userspace for fear of scorn, salting, and whatever else evil lurks on the dark side :). I dearly would like this "tenant" to move out of my userspace. I have followed your recommendations but simply cannot in such a short time provide the citations aside from the subject himself and his colleagues. I found that once the article in full was on mainspace in round one of the AfD, it bought people out of the woodwork and with that, the articles, media, and citations I was looking for that failed the article in round one. Could you please keep my rationality in check in this process, and others too? If you think you could cut me some slack with the article I can assure you that once in mainspace it will be transformed by way of others known to this guy clarifying it all further and providing the media articles that reference the bio. Thanks in advance for your positivity on my quest. I tend to dwell on things that give me roadblocks! Apologies for that  :) T--T3Smile 02:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Editor's Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I issue this Editor's Barnstar for your help on a practcuallr edit to WP:COI to help clearify a problem I was having. The edit which I was talking about is at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest&diff=next&oldid=167501188 The previous statement of that Nutshell statement made ti seem like articles like Internet could very well be in violation of this despite it being written in neutral. The new nutshell statements implies that you can't write or edit an article if its in your interest. Thank you for being Bold. Sawblade05 (talk to me | my wiki life) 09:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but this was at heart, a communally agreed decision. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The navigation tool box on the WP:ANI

Hello, FT2, I'm Appletrees, and just want to thank you for your navigation tool box on the WP:AN. Previously, I reported regarding some editor's abusive behaviors but due to my lengthy contents, sysops didn't care much about my report. And accidently by a bot, my reported was removed, so i felt unfair at that time. However, I was so impressed to see your tidy and folding navigation box to enable people to engage in a case. I removed some irrelevant contents and rearranged my report with the tool that you used. I really thank you for enlightening me on such the tool. It helped me a lot to reduce my case too long. And more surprisingly, you're a sysop also, so if you could spare a time to look at my report on the incident page, I really appreciate more than anyone. Thanks. --Appletrees 16:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

please provide a reference

Question reviewed and previous treatment still seems correct both by policy (WP:V+WP:RS), communal practice elsewhere, and commonsense interpretation of the purpose and intent of these. Additional direct (non-circular) source located to confirm.

Discussion copied and moved to Talk:History of Wikipedia to ensure accessibility for others, given that self-ref issues are likely to be a future question on this article.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

sockpuppets of a banned user?

Hi -- I saw your note about banning some of the sock puppets of a banned user. I was just curious how you knew? Jessamyn (talk) 04:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

This is a reincarnated banned user. Unfortunately I'm not going to be answering this one. It's a legitimate question, the difficulty is that my aim is to remove disruptive users, and due to his history this is one that we remove, but do not explain "how we knew". However the evidence was exceptional; it was not a "maybe".

I'm sorry that on this occasion I can't meet your curiosity, however I hope you'll understand.

Best,

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

no problem, thanks for the reply. Jessamyn (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

18th century journals

Good start, but this is just the beginning. I left a note on that page. You did say you wanted an "expert" and I'm as close as you're likely to find here.  :) DGG (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :)

I'm far from expert, but I can see the holes that need closing. This was a new article suggested as a "challenge" by jayvdb, but it really will need expert input to get it good :)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Please Intervene

Dear FT2, I note that you have been the most informative and neutral admin on the subject of an article written about me - Anthony Chidiac. Firstly, thank you for doing such. It is very important to me to keep factuality about the proposition of inclusion into wikipedia, if in fact I pass such notability greater than a racehorse that is of good breed that is covered by wikipedia.

I am writing to you today in the hope that you will be able to action the cease and desist of behaviour by a group of people keen to discredit and defame my name by taking discrediting and derogatory actions against others that have an interest in writing about me as a subject of the encyclopedia. I understand the application for inclusion of an article about me here has been spawn by one person and her lecturer User:T3Smile User:Rdpaperclip whom one is a novice and inexperienced, and the other a lecturer. I forgive the wikipedia novice and her teacher for such editing process failures, but when she is being bombarded by a "bully" war and my name is implicated as the motivation for this unfortunate series of untrue allegations, that I would noted such as defamation "by proxy" in that the untrue allegations about ones identity is published on a public site (as opposed to "chat" in a chatroom (My LA Lawyer can quote you laws on it). If you believe the actions of these initiators, I apparently am of aboriginal origin, a lecturer, and the subject of article at the same time - thats the way this group of people are trying to portray it. I believe such behaviour is not tolerated in both Australia and the United States in any form of public communication, especially when there could be a measure of quantifiable loss associated with such by a person or persons.

If you cannot sort out this I am afraid I will have to as a last resort, insigate legal action in both the US and Australia on the offending persons and wikipedia, and that will not be in the spirit of this website nor the thousands of others that do in fact comply with its rules for publishing, and K.I.S.S. I have, and will allow User:T3Smile and her teacher to work on an article that meets or exceeds the quality standards set here on wikipedia and its guidelines, if in fact my career qualifies for such inclusion. This warring via "investigative efforts" by people with too much time on their hands needs to stop as I have been innocently been dragged into the crossfire, and privacy breaches will also be of concern to me and noted by my legal representatives in such case.

Thank you for you thoughts to sort out this "bully" war on the two people trying to contribute here to a biography on my career. Please e-mail me or message me directly with your take on resolving this issue that impacts on my good name and career. I believe you have a penchant for sorting out messes. I suggest you wear a bulletproof vest for this one. Sincerely, --Achidiac 11:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I am drafting a response to this and will post shortly. Please in the meantime - request to others, do not post for now, in response to the above. Thank you. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

(done) [link]

This is probably the most comprehensive and balanced dispute resolution I've ever read on Wikipedia. As an uninvolved observer of the Chidiac articles and AfD's, thanks for your considerable efforts in bringing what has been a needlessly contentious issue to a well-reasoned close. Euryalus 00:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet or meat puppet of Spoctacle / HeadleyDown

I am pretty sure I have become a victim of this HeadleyDown strategy, perpetrated first by Spoctacle and now by Vannin:

"Eventual vicious personal attacks on more neutral editors, especially alleging bias or pro-<subject>."

"Plays the game with policies, especially WP:NPOV, cites, and demands for cites. Eventually turns to virulent personal attacks (alleging bias, promotion, covert support for topic X) to kill off any editors who might object to their actions. Appears to be within rules and yet somehow the article keeps getting more and more extreme, even as claiming to be "helping" it or making it "more neutral".

The article in question - Davis Dyslexia Correction has not become more slanted toward the Spoctacle/Vannin point of view, mostly because I am very vigilant, especially about fact checking & source citing. However, it has become more slanted toward the opposite point of view, because they kept demanding more verification & I kept obliging. Or else they would post a false or misleading unsourced statement, which I would try to correct -- leaving me with an edit history that seems all one-sided, when in fact it is mostly a response to efforts to undermine the veracity of the article. (It may help you to know that Davis Dyslexia Correction has a strong philosophical connection to NLP).

This has been going on for months but I was not aware of the Spoctacle/HealeyDown connection until this week.

The result is that Vannin has filed a COI complaint against me for reasons that have always been fully disclosed on my user page (I post under my real name & link to a web site with my bio). I do have an interest as well as specialized knowledge; I generally do not edit topics that I have no interest or knowledge in, unless I happen to run across an interesting tidbit. This has led the COI team to come down like a ton of bricks.

I need help - suggestions on how to deal with this. The article was marked for deletion and was asked to provide evidence of WP:N - which could be done with all sorts of sourcing that I would not continue appropriate for a Wikipedia article (such as evidence of extensive discussion of the topic on internet forums) - so I created a separate sub-page with that info & linked to it, figuring that the last thing I wanted to do create a bigger NPOV issue by putting all that extraneous stuff on the main page.

Also, if you have ways of figuring it out, it would help me to know if Vannin is or is not another HealyDown sockpuppet -- it certainly looks like it & Vannin will not provide identifying info, but I have no clue how to determine this. Armarshall 08:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I'll be in touch on this, but it might take a few days to review. As you surmize, it's messy.

Thanks, and speak soon,

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

SSP

F.Y.I. - I went through the posts of the SSPs at SSP and revised as necessary. He/they wasted a lot of time for others, but presently there are no lasting effects. -- Jreferee t/c 17:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to Participate in a Survey

Thank you very much Zhan Li ( email: zhanli at usc dot edu ) Zhanliusc 07:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Editor's index

Thanks; yes, I agree that it should be moved to project space. My intention is to do that in late November or (more likely) by mid-December. I've been holding off because I'm slightly more than halfway through writing a book that is based on the index; that gives me the opportunity to do a sort of "final scrub" of the index (particularly its organization) before it becomes "official".

The shortcut, WP:EIW, won't change, which is why I put that as a link in my last posting. Hopefully that will suffice for your purposes. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It will, and we'll talk on the index later which sounds interesting too. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality Project

Hi, I'm trying to ensure that the Neutrality Project has not become inactive. If you would still like to participate in it, please re-add your name to the Review Team list. _Jame§^ugrono 07:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware it might've :) But consider me signed up there and will add input on the project page :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason I am taking the time to message each person on the review list is because even with about forty people supposedly "reviewing" requests, we have still built up a backlog of requests. Even requests which are technically open have become stale. I am trying to make sure that even though it appears to be working, it actually is. I am extending this from my usual self-imposed clerical duties of Projects - I usually tidy and keep pages archived and so on, however, in this case, there were far too many articles in the backlog than is acceptable. If you mean you will participate by checking the Category that articles with the NPOV tag get placed into, then I would appreciate it if you removed your name from the reviewers list - anyone can check for NPOV. The reviewers' list is specifically for people who will review requests on the Project page. _Jame§^ugrono 07:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The project page listing is what I meant :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi; thanks for your support to my RfA, which closed successfully at (51/1/2). It wouldn't have been appropriate to say so while it was ongoing, but the support of one of my admin idols gave me a warm, fuzzy feeling.  :-) A support from you meant a great deal to me, and I'll work damned hard at not letting you down. — Coren ^(talk) 23:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's the community you're responsible to, not any one individual. But sentiment noted and, congratulations. :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Dirty Images page

Your welcome. I just found it weird that the page had survived the time that it did. Cheers, Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 18:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Village Pump Response

Ah, okay. I coulda sworn there was a single policy, but I guess I just mixed two of them together. Thanks for your help! Anakinjmt (talk) 23:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(note: refers to this)

re: A blunt answer

(Re: this note, which in turn followed on from a question raised by User:JayHenry at Village Pump)

The question was not rhetorical. I fully expect a very complete answer from User:Durova and I expect it sooner rather than later. I want an explanation because today one of the best editors in the history of Wikipedia was indefinitely blocked. The current incarnation of this user had never made a single disruptive edit -- not one! -- had over 100 credits at DYK, and was actively involved in copy editing and improving our featured articles. Apparently, none of the "senior editors" who reviewed the evidence remembered that encyclopedia building is part of what we do here. So I mean my question quite literally: if one user can be blocked after 100 percent constructive edits, what protection do I -- do any of us outside this elite of "senior editors" -- have? The blocked editor, by the way, had many powerful friends on the project. I do not.

I eagerly await an accounting from User:Durova. But I fear that she has little respect for the community, little respect for editors like me. A fear that seems to be confirmed as the hours wane and my question remains ignored. --JayHenry (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

At present I haven't looked into that issue (I gather that others are, so it's not being ignored). What I have given you is specifically and simply, my own view on your question and editor removal, and my own understanding when it may be applicable. Hopefully it adds a measure of certainty and reassurance. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It does add a measure of certainty and I thank you for that. A clarification, however, I believe you were responding to my post at Questions for Durova, rather than a post at the Village Pump. --JayHenry (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - you're right! :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Craigslist killing

Thank you for resolving and judging fairly on the Craigslist killing deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craigslist Killing -- You also thankfully deleted the associated "Katherine Ann Olson" page but you forgot another one! Michael John Anderson was the attacker and the page was created by the same user who created both the other two. As a result I believe you have grounds to immediately delete that one as well since it is also directly associated with the discussion. If you could please do so as soon as possible. .:DavuMaya:. 04:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Checked and agreed - thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Index lists

Hi. I'd appreciate your input on this complex issue, which I've drafted a summary of at Wikipedia:Lists/Index lists: where to ask it, your thoughts on how I could explain the issues more clearly, and your thoughts on the issue itself. (I want to get it right the first time. I'm tired of RfC's without sufficient response!)

Does it belong at Village pump (policy), or somewhere else? How would you tweak it?

I plan on leaving pointers/notices at the talkpage of everything mentioned, plus people who have commented before. Is there anyone you'd suggest I notify in addition, for valuable/specialized input?

Reply wherever you prefer (I watchlist). There's more I'd like to ask, and context to give, but I don't want to snow you with details, and am just trying to get everything as concise and accurate as possible. And just point me towards someone else appropriate, if you don't have the time or inclination. Much thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 06:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit late here; quick thoughts though. There aren't many good places for major discussions on subjects that aren't already part of some page. You have several options how to do this... (eg: collapse-box on VPP, RFC, subpage, user space etc) some of which may work better than others. I'll discuss it on that page's talk page though, to keep it centralized - grab me tomorrow.

Best, FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Morning :)

I wasn't sure whether you meant for me to remind ("grab") you, so that's all this is. I'm trying to go slow, but hoping to be ready to post the issue somewhere by tonight. Email is fine/fast too, if you prefer that :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Lists/Index lists. However, you look very busy with arb-nom stuff, so I'll go poke some other semi-random admins for feedback. No worries :) -- Quiddity (talk) 05:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thread moved to the Pump: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Index Lists, if you'd like to take a look. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wizards and Muggles Rock for Social Justice!

Could you please revert the article, Wizards and Muggles Rock for Social Justice! to it's original content as the Harry and the Potters article is a Featured Article candidate. I will comply with CSD A7 and also WP:NOTINHERITED and will therefore expand the article so that it is notable and worthy of its own article. Hpfan9374 (talk) 10:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've restored it to your user space, at User:Hpfan9374/Wizards and Muggles, the last version prior to its removal. Note that I've commented out the categories (by replacing them with "[[:Category:...]]") since its not yet an article and article categories shouldn't be added to non-article pages.

What I'd suggest is, improve it, to the point you feel an article should exist, then visit deletion review and post a link to it, commenting it was speedy deleted but you believe it now merits an article, can someone review. In fact, it may be better to sum up your evidence and cites (on its talk page) why you feel it's notable as a band, and ask someone to review that, rather than going to all the work of writing an article, only to find others still not agreeing.

Best, FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Esskater11/Dirty images

In light of the prior discussion at WP:AN, I'm not convince, as you've asserted, that this page wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being kept at MfD. I have thus restored it and nominated it for discussion there. Please feel welcome to express your opinion on the MfD page. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Very nicely put...

I just wanted to stop by and let you know that I thought your comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Esskater11/Dirty images was very well put. Thanks for saying it better than I ever could :) --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)Tell me what you think! 16:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom questions

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.

1. What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?

2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

4. In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?

5. Why do you think users should vote for you?

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 » 04:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats

I thank you for your comment and update about WP:THREAT policy.

I think that what you have written about the policy should also include any legal actions that is in progress (User:Sam Sloan is one of them - blocked for actual legal lawsuit against, persumably another Wikipedians over edits on article about himself, among other disputes outside Wikipedia.) SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

(Note for future reference: relates to this edit to WP:LEGAL - FT2)

User:Jeeny

The Block log [19] isn't showing a reblock. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Was considering the block log briefly - now addressed. Thanks! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Common sense dictates that the page should have been protected first. But my experiences with you leads me to believe I'm wasting my time. El_C 22:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(For future reference: this refers to this block - FT2)

Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately I disagree. Strongly.

Page protection is used to protect high profile pages and cool down intense edit wars (WP:PPOL). Repeated breaches of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA WP:EW do not warrant protection of the user's talk page. There was no edit war on it, nor would protecting that page effectively protect the community in any way from such actions on other pages and other users' talk pages. It would also mean the unblock template could not be used.

Until further abused, the talk page and email access were both left unblocked, on the basis that unless proven otherwise, Jeeny may have (this time) actually used them civilly and for their intended purpose. I was not willing to prejudge that she would not, and that is in line with communal norms such as assuming good faith. The harm if wrong was non-existant as the page can be protected later if abused.

In short, there is zero basis in policy for page protection as a result of one person's breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Wikipedia also tries to use minimum measures.

By contrast, WP:BLOCK is specific to the editor who is attacking others, and does refer to repeated personal attack and incivility -- numerous times.

The final answer is simple. Policies aren't there to be 'gamed'. Jeeny knows very well the community's view on attacks and incivility, having headbutted it many times now and had it cited to her, and the issue is not the page (which is not being warred over), but her conduct which needs attention.

("I expected my talk page to be protected and you didn't do it" seems a very strange complaint.)

I take this moment to say that I hope when the block expires, she will edit with others without the need to act poorly as has been the case in the past. It would make things a lot easier.

Thanks, and hope this clarifies why not blocking her talk page was in fact the best interpretation of communal norms and policies on this occasion.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A user talk may be protected when a blocked user gets out of hand, to stop that disruption. Block extension just punishes for this disruption but allows for it to continues and might result in more frustration and yet further disruption. You should follow common sense not the convoluted above. I was trying my best to explain this simple principle to Swatjester, but failed. Looks like I fail again with you. El_C 23:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems you are asking me to assume bad faith, assume Jeeny's response, and protect a page on which she might wish to seek unblocking, and that had never needed to be protected before? That's an pre-emptive bad faith assumption I feel we may not agree upon.

Commonsense says Jeeny herself has the capability to post or not post, and she alone must choose on each occasion whether she does so well or poorly. Protecting in advance when there was no visible cause, would pre-empt that decision of hers, and either be, or give the appearance of, bad faith.

Jeeny herself is responsible for her posts. If she feels the need, she could post upon unblocking a courteous note on her page that if she is blocked again, her talk page should also be protected to prevent her making it worse for herself. That would probably be fully respected and honored - but it's her choice. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how not protecting the talk page led to Jeeny being uncivil. The act of not protecting the page allows for unblock appeals. 1 != 2 03:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I see you're not quite finished. I will likely publish in the next 5-10 minutes; I'll take the last thing you've saved on my talk page and copy it over. If you have any additional changes, you can add them yourself here. Ral315 » 07:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Traditional Knowledge Disclaimer

You will recall edit request made on the 'General Disclaimer' talk page, to insert 'traditional knowledge' into existing list of potential, pre-existing intellectual property rights that may be contained in Wikipedia articles?

You asked me to advise on outcome of my searches re: United Nations Declaration, country statutes, court law etc. Please now find below initial outcomes of those searches (for which I needed to go outside Wikipedia!), copied from posting on Village pump

Given the above, is there any chance you might reconsider, or perhaps recommend other/alternative action/ direction? Bruceanthro (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

My addition was a comment on the legal nature of a disclaimer and a quick sanity check if the proposal had meaning legally. If the case makes sense legally then I'll support, if it doesn't have a good legal basis it's hard to. I've copied this note to that page (link), as it's best discussed there not here, and I'll catch you on that page instead :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Regis Silva, Hotel des Arts, and User:Greatartists210

DELETE ARTICLE ASP

A tag has been placed on Regis Silva requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. WebHamster 03:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This was a cleanup of a bio posted by the subject; the text is GFDL'ed. It probably will be deleted, but SPEEDY isn't correct since it makes a possible claim of notability which needs more eyeballs to decide. I listed it for AFD instead. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

HOTEL DES ARTS

COPYRIGHTS VIOLATION

copyrighted material

if you use this fragmented sentence: "Materials used include wall-mounted vinyl records, plastic bags, graffiti, fabrics, three dimensional art work, and even installations."

you must give a reference to it. It is violating the copyright material without giving credit to the author or source.

AND also YOU will need a signature and documentation from the owners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatartists210 (talk • contribs)

Already commented on your talk page long before this. Short answer (again!): text posted under the GFDL is licensed like everyone elses' here, and is not for you to withdraw at a later stage. That is why we state clearly beneath every edit you make, "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL".

You have been asked, and were explained, many times, that Wikipedia is not intended to be used to promote yourself and your art, by multiple users who have tried to help explain that this is an encyclopedia of knowledge.

Please re-read your talk page carefully this time, remembering the aim is to promote general knowledge. Instead of trying to write text primarily about yourself, consider adding your profound artistic knowledge in other areas where it would help people around the world -- but do not add content and links about yourself. That's all.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

REMOVE ALL INFORMATION

please remove all information of the artist above. and do not publish IP if you dont want me to remove it by myself.

remove all artist information from wikipedia

The artist above sent me a request to remove all his information from wikipedia. The artist is complaining that his name is showing associated with wikipedia on google search. The artist never agreed in any way or any form to be associated with wikipedia. Please remove all information from the artist above from wikipedia web site and seach database.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatartists210 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom table with portfolio links

Hello! As we did for last year's election, we are again compiling a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. This table contains a column "Portfolio" for links that display candidates' pertinent skills. I will be going through each candidate's statements and gradually populate the column, but this may take some time. Please feel free to add some links in the form [link|c] if you feel it shows conflict resolution skills, or [link|o] otherwise. It would also be helpful if you can check if the information about you is correct.

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. I believe that conflict resolution skills are most pertinent to the position, but if you want to highlight other skills, please feel free to use a new letter and add it to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table#Columns of this table. — Sebastian 05:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

After reading your statement, I am very impressed with the links you are providing there already. You are setting the standard for everyone else! This surely secured my vote! — Sebastian 06:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your enthusiasm! I replied to your message on my talk page. — Sebastian 17:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)    (I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so here and let me know.)

Jeeny

If you look at User talk:Jeeny#Continuing our discussion, you'll see she has agreed to follow all guidelines relating to civility and AGF. She seems to have calmed down, and is willing to work with me to resolve conflicts before they escalate. I've posted this to Swatjester, too. Jeffpw (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If mentoring works, then it will solve the problem well. Provisionally unblocked to allow trial. See comment on Jeeny's talk page for more. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much FT2. I am taking this very seriously. I feel my own reputation is on the line, as well, and will do my best to be a good mentor. Jeffpw (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

My support's there too if needed. To underline that, if you need to find me or you or Jeeny need a hand, I'm often able to be found quickly: I'll drop you some ways to contact me by email. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

thank you for comment

Thank you for your advice. You certainly took the time to think and write. I am not on a campaign about my husband. If I were, I'd go through dispute resolution, not RFA. In fact, I pledge to be desysoped if I intervene with my husband's account.

I realize that the chances of passage is extremely unlikely but the ideas I possess are good. If others learn, that's good. If they pass it, it's even better. Heidianddick 20:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Email

I didn't get it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

I have a question for you here. edward (buckner) 11:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. What is the etiquette here? Can I reply to your reply? There are some details that I would like to point out. edward (buckner) 16:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

After giving the matter some thought, I have cast a vote for you in the ArbCom elections - as despite your run-in with me, I honestly believe that you will make a fine arbitrator sans that single aberration. The rest of your works show talent at mediation and understanding. However, please consider the source next time you examine a wildly false post on ANI, as you will save other Wikipedia users from unnecessary stress. Thanks, and good luck. FCYTravis 05:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bodil locket.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Bodil locket.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That was years ago :) But okay, I guess it needs updating :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Question again

I think you misunderstood my scientific bias question. I did include a diff to what you said here:

• Scientific (including anti-scientific and scientific skepticism): favoring (or disfavoring) a scientist, inventor, or theory for non-scientific reasons. This can also include excessive favoring (or disfavoring) prevalent scientific opinion, if in doing so, notable viewpoints are no longer being treated neutrally.

Most of it is your edit, yes? The bullet point illustrates examples of bias, one of which is 'scientific'. By editing this you implicitly endorse the context of what you are editing, no? Thus, no 'straw man'. You are not quite right on 'straw man' either, by the way, but let's not go there. edward (buckner) (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

PS I'm writing here because the existing thread is too difficult to edit. edward (buckner) (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections - Voting Talk page

Good afternoon. I know you and Dbuckner have been in communication regarding the talk page of your voting page. Dbuckner has blanked the page, citing a mutual agreement with you. His discussion on the matter with WJBscribe may be found here. As much of the material was objectionable to you (based on your comments), I doubt very much that you would disagree with the decision. However, purely as a pro forma point of procedure, I wanted to notify you of the edit and inform you that, should you object for some reason, you should let me know. It looks like a good resolution to the situation, and - unless you inform me otherwise - I'll leave it alone per your mutual consent. Best wishes for your candidacy, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

You got a Christmas card! → → →

Wishing you and yours the very best of the holiday season. May the coming year bring you peace, joy, health and happiness. God bless us, every one! Jeffpw (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeeny redux

From the festive (above) to the sad. Have you seen the post on the ANI board? Jeffpw (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw. My first question too was, "is that someone else". You did the best you could. Credit to you, and also sadness as well. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom Question

That's a very good answer. Thanks, and good luck in your work, should you be appointed. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Russell Bishop - Tag

I've added a hatnote. Anyone who doesn't get the hint after that is too dense to warrent further consideration.Geni 17:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Then we assume that most people have worked out that sometimes a name belongs to more than one person. If not we take the position it is not our job to deal with the problems caused by those unable to function in a modern civilisation.Geni 18:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Trying to argue a BLP case is amusing but since BLP deals with the subject of the article it is entirely irrelevant in this case. Please I'm geni if you want to rule lawyer against me have the decency to do a better job than that (I mean seriously I could make a better case that the template is in violation of BLP that is how weak your case is). Try some right of personality IP law or something. Sure you will still lose but at least it shows some effort.

Anyway now we've got that out of the way perhaps we can consider the actual issues. First you contend that an appearance on the front page of the New York times doesn't help much in making you notable (February 26, 1886). Second the BBC has things like this with no "oh noes there be more than one person in the world called Russell Bishop please take this into account". Why because they like the most people assume that the general public can cope with the concept of two different people having one name (no the US goverment is not part of the general public). So the correct response to the email is that we are very sorry to hear that but other people's inability to cope with basic concepts is not our problem (obviously in slightly more diplomatic language). Hatnotes are not an answer because there is not a problem we should be solving. They are simply required in this case because of the existence of a disambig page.Geni 18:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

OTRS decisions do not have the level of power you seem to suggest they do. If there is no reason to legitimately disambig the person then remove the hatnote and disambig page.Geni 19:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

horrible time

I have been having a horrible time staying connected and I was unable to support in time. But I want you to know I was EXTREMELY impressed by the way you answered questions and your final answer made me a big fan. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)