User talk:John Vandenberg/Archive 7

FYI re my post on Cas's page

• User talk:Casliber#Thanks.

Cas seems off for the night; though you might like to give this a read. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really, and I dont think you should be involving yourself in this. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy Darwin200 Year! . dave souza, talk 22:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC) (for story line see Darwin's Rhea#Discovery)

Dear Jayvdb,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to you on arbitration request.

Reply at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request_to_amend_prior_case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FFootnoted_quotes.23Special_enforcement on_biographies of_living_persons --Barberio (talk) 12:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Re your Everyking appeal decline

John - do you think the community and the committee is truly better served by having Everyking or someone else refile the appeal and all the statements in 6 weeks, rather than have the committee simply consider and deal with it now? Avruch ^T 16:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do. The committee is very busy right now, and this is by no means a simple request. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Chris Crocker

Hello, sorry to keep bothering you but I was wondering if this page met the requirements for some protection? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I've semi protected for three months. It's no bother at all. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

For the speedy action. I don't suppose we have a way of clearing or purging log entries, do we? :P Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Not yet. Only meta:developers can play with that. There is an enhancement coming soon which will allow us to redact log entries. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Episodes and characters 3

I think you are missing one important point. This dispute is less about the conduct of TTN alone and more about several actors (including TTN) who had been acting in complete disregard of any community input they feel unnecessary.

I guess what I am trying to say is: the scope of the RFAR does include TTN but resolving issues concerning TTN alone will not be sufficient in resolving the actual problem.

-- Cat ^chi? 14:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have a dispute with other users in this topical area, please raise those concerns on RFAR. I dont wish to open a case with a very wide scope unless there has been justification given for a very large scope. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing how I fit in the picture. I have stopped editing fiction related topics for the past year due to this conduct. I have provided this evidence to arbcom before: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence#Common editing behaviour of some users (Meatpuppetry). I am currently working on a tool with Betacommand to provide statistics on AFD behavior by editors. -- Cat ^chi? 00:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The only person clearly in this "picture" is TTN. I will not support opening a case that doesnt have a clear scope, and I dont like large cases that reinforce battlegrounds. If you think that there is a dispute beyond TTNs methods, please raise that at RFAR: cite other problems which would justify a large scope. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If you read through the evidence, please... Back then, I demonstrated how a group of editors acted as a collective to meatpuppet/votestack with or without TTN to mass remove fiction related articles. Thats a mere example of their conduct. By no means that is the only example. /Evidence phase exists for a reason. If you consider wikipedia to be a chess board. TTN is the queen. Queen (chess) is the most powerful piece in the game of chess. That does not mean queen is the only piece.

Please also read the article Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. Please pay close attention to the Criticism section and the sources. The problem even made its way to the mass media. What must I do for arbcom to realize that there is a serious problem?

-- Cat ^chi? 02:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia is a community tension. The committees role is to fix disputes. E&C2 is done. We do not need a E&C3 unless the community shows that there are unsolvable spot fires between other people. So far I can only see issues being raised with TTNs methods. The analogy to chess is incorrect; a chess game has one player in control of the queen - are you suggesting that TTN and others are controlled? If so, who is the controller? If not, TTN is a prominent player, most ppl are complaining about his role, so we should focus on TTN. I will not respond again: if you want me to accept a case with a scope of "E&C", you need to add diffs showing other unsolvable disputes between other people in relation to E&C. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you know about User:Jack Merridew's arbitration case? Why was he sanctioned? What kind of edits was he doing? If you do not know the answers to these questions, I have no reason to explain them to you as that is your homework not mine. Do not ask me to do your job for you. Now if you do know the answers then you know there clearly are other people committing edits just like TTN. They however have less important roles on the chessboard.

Also lease do not be ridiculous. E&C2 resolved absolutely nothing just like E&C1.

-- Cat ^chi? 05:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Not late by the Julian calendar

May you have a pleasant, prosperous, principled and pretty-much peaceful year with as few perturbations as possible, despite being on the Arbcom -- and congratulations on that, too! Thanks for all you did last year. -- Noroton (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot problems

Once again, it has stopped noticing pages created by whitelisted users with redlinked userpages. DS (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed the last run, and cant see an example of that happening. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And now it's stopped working (as of a few days ago). DS (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a mediawiki code change has caused this... I'm working on it now. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Incivility/unconstructive editing of User:Jack Merridew

Hello! You are listed as one of three mentors to this editor and I am therefore notifying the three of you. I and another user have cautioned him for making unproductive comments as seen at User talk:Jack Merridew#Less than civility. Instead of responding to this good faith feedback from myself and User:Randomran in a civil manner, he instead has an edit summary in this edit that links to an account other than to my or Randomran’s accounts, which is deliberately antagonistic. You would think someone coming off an indefinite block would not say or do anything overly hostile. Neither Randomran nor I linked to any of his previous accounts or said anything else to be sarcastic to him. Moreover, he seems to be making Encyclopedia Dramatica allusions in various posts as well (see [1], for example) as well as other odd or unconstructive/non-serious posts as seen with such edits as this. I am therefore concerned that he is 1) needlessly escalating tensions; and 2) uninterested in good faith cautions (after all, Randomran is pretty neutral in all of this even if one thinks I am not). The bottom line is that we are all trying really hard to come to a compromise concerning WP:FICTION and anyone mocking editors and dismissing even those who reached out to him (for better or worse, I even said I supported him being mentored when he requested being unblocked back in December…) is remarkably discouraging if not detrimental to the attempt to compromise. Please notice item 5 at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Indefinite block lifted with editing restrictions. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Bish

Please clarify your proposal - you think Bish should be desysopped for one bad block, which she herself took to ANI for review? Is that correct, or am I missing something? Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That was not my proposal. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Then please clarify, because I'm looking at it and that what it reads like. It says "Bishzilla is temporarily desysoped..." but gives no reason to desysop. Please give your reason. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I did give my reason. See my comment given when I put my name down in support of the proposed motion. Obviously others dont agree it is necessary, which is a good thing. It is a collaborative decision making process.
The proposed motion is now stale as the underlying issue has been sufficiently resolved that we can proceed with an RFAR without needing to put the lizard on a leash for a little while. But .. what we do from here is again a committee decision.
p.s. Im heading offline for a few hours to deal with the effects of a close encounter of a roo variety. Thank goodness it wasnt a lizard, otherwise my car would be a writeoff. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC) If you really want more rationale of why I think this block was is a serious action that warrants consideration of desysop (which is why a temp desysop would be appropriate), I'll try to add more later. But, I have a busy work day ahead so I'd rather not add more and dont see the value of adding more given the committee has rounded decided it wasnt an appropriate course of action at the time. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sympathies on the vehicle. I am still confused, or perhaps I should say re-confused. You say it was not the block, or rather the block was not the reason. You then instruct me to view your rationale in your support of your own motion, which I have done, and it states "The block is very questionable..." and lists no other reason for concern of Bish. Now you state "I think this block was is a serious action that warrants consideration of desysop" which again, seems to mean that your proposal was to desysop Bish due to the block. I confess your clarification does not clarify; or rather, it is self-contradictory. If you have time in the future I would much appreciate a clearer clarification, if you can manage one. Thank you in advance! No hurry - as you say, it is not to happen - but I do wish to have this cleared up. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The block is the reason I felt desysop needed to be put on the table. Where have I said something to the contrary? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(out) Ah! I think I see my confusion. Someone else proposed that? KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you are getting even more confused.

My proposal is exactly what I posted onto RFAR and it is my motion. What you wrote when opening this section[2] conflated proposing a motion with supporting it after consideration, and dumbed down my motion considerably, so I simply rejected your attempt at paraphrasing, saying "That [i.e. your paraphrase] was not my proposal".[3] Sorry I wasnt more clear in that response; I was annoyed because your question seemed very aggressive. That is something for me to think about... John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

So, and I ask this with some trepidation, you failed to AGF, and decided to nitpick with your responses? As though you could have possibly thought that my paraphrase was meant to be verbatim! And now you tell me you applied such quibbling standards in framing your response. I simplified (I reject your "dumbed down", so sorry but I find that insulting) the motion because I was asking for clarification, and simplified versions are usually less prone to nuance and misunderstanding - they boil down to the essence of a thing. What I've gotten from you since has been, it appears, you giving vent to your annoyance and not any attempt at answering my question in any useful or informative way. I conflated nothing, sir. You proposed "Bishzilla is temporarily desysoped..." and gave 'no reason for that. "until the underlying issue" refers surely to the FT2 issue, as that is the only underlying issue. The reason, or rationale, was not given until your support. I naturally read your rationale there, "...this block by Bishzilla. The block is very questionable..." You only ever mentioned the block. So I came here and asked if I was correct in that the block was your only reason. You equivocated like a Machiavelli, and now have the rudeness to tell me your discourteous and misleading responses were because you thought my question was aggressive? You, sir, have behaved reprehensibly. I asked you a good-faith question and you've had me chasing my tail. You could have simply answered my question, and had you any grounds for concern about my tone, enquired as to whether I had realized it could be read as aggressive. You have fallen considerably in my estimation, I am very sorry to have to say. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to simplify this again, this time with a focus on your accusation that I "conflated":

• KC: Please clarify your proposal. (desysop Bish, from proposal, reason:block, from support)
• JV: That was not my proposal
• KC: Then please clarify(...)reason
• JV: I did give my reason(...)when I put my name down in support

and yet somehow you're comfortable telling me that when I took your reason from where you supported, and your proposal, and said, Oh, this is reason for proposal? that is conflation. Even though you told me to do exactly what I'd already done. And don't bother telling me, I know I'm correct about this, it is right there on this page. I don't even have words for how snarky you've treated me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In regards to justification of my proposal, in context of what I proposed it, I hope that how much thought I had put into the motion isnt deemed to be the most important point. I am not going to explain how much research I did and when I did it. It would be ideal if committee members did fully think through every motion before clicking submit, however I think it is more important that the affected parties are aware of what is being considered. If an outcome is put on the table, members of the community can assist us evaluate the motion.

If the community requires that committee members have fully thought through and researched all motions before posting them, the effect will be that needed motions are never raised because the committee members havent been able to find time to research the problem in isolation, or the committee will be pushed to do its thinking behind closed doors. In my opinion, neither of those are healthy. I hope to push much of the internal thinking onwiki, where feasible and appropriate.

Maybe it wasnt appropriate for me to post the Bish motion at this time; if I had waited a few hours, it would have been obvious that the motion would be deemed unnecessary, but during that time, who knows where the internal discussion would have gone, or who else might have decided to follow in the lizards footsteps.

Keep in mind I am still green, as is half of the committee, and we are all trying to work out better practises, and the community feedback on this is appreciated. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have advice for you, and it has nothing to do with when to propose something. My advice: AGF. It costs nothing and prevents wounding and insulting others and wasting their time, as you have done to me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Always good advice, all around. Sometimes when one gives advice it's a good idea to check to see if it applies to oneself as well. ++Lar: t/c 04:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

? To what, specifically, do you refer, Lar? KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a general principle. But reading over this thread, taken as a whole, I'm left with the impression that there is a chance that you were not always 100% assuming good faith. Per assume the assumption of good faith I of course think that wasn't your intent, but it's the impression I get reading your words. My comment is about impressions. Hope that helps... because, really, it does read rather like you're haranguing John... There's another truism that sometimes applies, which you might also want to keep in mind... the first person accusing the lack of assumption of good faith is sometimes (but not always) the person who actually is lacking in the assumption. ++Lar: t/c 05:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

An amusing essay, Lar, one very reminiscent of Catch 22. . dave souza, talk 09:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In some ways, yes, it is. Has some truth, though. Can't take any credit for it. ++Lar: t/c 16:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Setting aside the catch-22 aspects, what specifically did I say which read as tho I were not AGF'ing? Vague allegations do not help me see wehre my words might be misinterpreted. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure. This struck me as pretty snarky and jumping to unwarranted (ahem) "theories of mind":

and yet somehow you're comfortable telling me that when I took your reason from where you supported, and your proposal, and said, Oh, this is reason for proposal? that is conflation. Even though you told me to do exactly what I'd already done. And don't bother telling me, I know I'm correct about this, it is right there on this page. I don't even have words for how snarky you've treated me.

As I say, that one really jumped out at me, but the whole exchange gives the same sort of vibe. ++Lar: t/c 16:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Anything from before Jay said he was being persnickety because of annoyance (not a direct quote. Your paraphrasing may vary.)? After someone confesses to you that they're being a twit, you know, AGF is silly. the bit you quoted was not me AGFing - it was me chastising him and protesting because he'd insulted me and played head games with me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I get the vibe from the whole exchange you had, starting with your very first question. I would have been put off by that first question too. And now I'm getting it from this exchange as well. I've said my bit. Do with it what you will. ++Lar: t/c 20:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, "he'd insulted me and played head games with me" is your interpretation. Especially the latter bit. And it too is a lack of AGF, or reads like one (how do you KNOW he was "playing head games"? That's a theory of mind). As others below said, perhaps what really happened here was that he and you were talking past each other. My point stands. Casting the first stone in the AGF game is dangerous business unless one is completely without blemish in that regard. So I try not to do that, because I'm not perfect. ++Lar: t/c 20:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, Lar, I post my interpretation, whose did you think I would post? And I have, I think, made it abundantly clear that view, however phrased, came in the complaint portion, which was based on Jay's statement of failing to AGF but being non-informative out of annoyance. I do consider that "head games". It was not the What? portion, during which I did indeed AGF, and was in fact earnestly seeking illumination, which I did not get for some time, while Jay played his games. And you really might want to stop using "Theory of mind" so much; it cannot but remind people of Moulton. If you ever had a point you've buried it completely by using that phrase to me, not once but twice. It is a singularly accusatory and senseless thing to say. Puppy has spoken; puppy is done with this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• My reading: John proposed temporarily desysoping Bishzilla during the resolution the underlying issue which she was bringing attention to, and also proposed a separate case to deal with any non-temporary ramifications of her actions after the resolution the former issues. The paraphrase at the beginning of this thread does not accurately represent everything John was proposing. "Desysoping" without qualifiers is commonly read as "desysoping until re-passing RFA". John objected to the paraphrase of his proposal and the reasoning assigned to the proposal. KC misunderstood that John was objecting to her paraphrasing of his support reasoning alone and they both talk past each other. My speculation is that John proposed this motion not because of a strong desire to see Bish desysoped, but rather because of a strong desire to table the ongoing discussion of her actions and refocus the discussion on the underlying issue. Reading John's full proposal gives me the impression his main focus in not on Bish or her block at all, and I think the initial question here is missing the point which made it rather diffuclt to answer satifactoraly.--BirgitteSB 18:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you BirgitteSB. Your reading and speculation is on target.
I do believe a Bishzilla desysop is worth tabling (note the word "tabled", "proposed"), and that an RFAR is desirable for this (unprecedented?) blocking of an arbitrator for a reason clearly outside both the blocking policy and good practises. (Bish raising it at ANI doesnt make it "all OK", as this is not a marginal block.) I would prefer that the committee accepts tightly focused arbitration cases where the community asks us to review strange admin actions; this gives the community a well organised forum for thrashing out whether it was an acceptable action or not.
However, I wanted the FT2 business sorted out first so that the community could assess her action fairly, in context of the outcome of the FT2 business. That is because the question of whether "the end justify the means" is likely to play a part.
One aspect that you didnt pick up on is that I left room in the desysoping motion so that (if passed) a resysoping motion could follow it without an RFAR. The phrase "until ... a separate Arbitration case can be considered" was supposed to indicate that the need for an RFAR could be re-evaluated by the arbs after the FT2 business was concluded. That could have been phrased more clearly. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

How hard would it have been for you to tell me that when I first asked, Jay? KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think difficulty was rather high. I imagine his inbox was filled with higher priority correspondence and his mood was extremely poor given the things he revealed were ongoing in his personal life. So his dealing with someone in that time frame, who had chosen to ignore his effort to refocus current discussion away from Bish and rephrased his words in a way that reflects poorly on him, had a really low chance of ending satisfactorily. I expect John would admit he could have handled this better, but so could have you. Sometimes Assuming Good Faith means assuming someone is responding poorly because they are having a crap day. Personally when I get unsatisfactory responses, I ask people to look at it again when things have calmed down and they might be able to respond differently to prevent needless misunderstanding [4]. I personally have found that continuing to demand immediate satisfaction Doesn't Work (TM). Most often when people cannot manage to give answers that satisfy you it is because of immediate context of their lives at the time not because they willfully wish to avoid giving you satisfaction. My experiences with John tell me that willfully avoiding to give you an answer you found satisfying would be out of character for him, so I am going to assume this difficulty was mainly due to him having a crap day.--BirgitteSB 15:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

As I wasn't doing any of those things, I fail to see how that applies.

John, looking forward to your reply when you get a chance. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts regarding all this KC; it is helping me come to turns with how to handle these types of inquiries. This is one part of the job I really hadnt prepared for, or even anticipated.

BirgitteSB has done a great job of explaining things in my absence (I am surprised at how well she has done this, but I shouldn't be surprised from my past experience with her..). One point she couldn't know is that I don't have much internet time at the moment, and what little I do have is precious as I am on dialup. More clarifications from me could help, but with diminishing returns given the motion was sunk even before you came here to query it.

I still have a clogged inbox, and more important things to do both onwiki and irl. The motion is sunk, other motions have passed, and things are moving on, so I'm not keen on beating this dead horse urgently.

There are nuances in the wording of my motion that could have been better spelt out, and I have mentioned one possible improvement here, but the motion itself wasnt too difficult to comprehend. Your question here was asking what I "think" rather than what the motion itself meant. I am not (yet?) comfortable with how to answer questions that try to establish what I may be thinking while an RFAR is still being considered and motions are being considered on or under the table. My initial response above was that I was not going to elaborate. It didnt answer your question intentionally, but it wasnt intended to be a head game. Again, sorry I wasnt more clear at that time.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

<ri> If I'm reading your responses correctly, John, your sole reason for proposing a temporary desysop of Bish was the one block which was the subject of discussion. The point is moot, as the consensus was clearly against that motion.[5] I'm disappointed in your approach, but appreciate that views differ and trust that the committee's review of improved practices will be fruitful. . . dave souza, talk 09:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

For your prompt attention. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For the quick response. (As far as the "offending" edit was concerned, and how fast I reported it... I only stumbled across it a day or so before I emailed (maybe two days ago now?), so it was unfortunately already old. Ah well, ca c'est la vie.) Best, umrguy42 15:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

James Webb

Hello. Do you think this disambiguation page could do with some protection? An anonymous editor has repeatedly been adding a James L Webb which is not clearly linked in any other articles and who is apparently the Founder of JWSI (JW Systems Incoporated), a company that don't seem to have an article. Any advice/help would be great. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say this one is too infrequent to use semi-protection. Add a discussion point at Talk:James Webb and try and get through to the anon that their name will continue to be removed until they are "notable" enough. Then welcome 212.139.106.170 and inform them of the discussion at Talk:James Webb. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

AN/I Pseudoscience Thread

Per your comment here[6], I suspect the reason that other admins have not helped with enforcing discretionary sanctions is that Elonka has threatened them with desysopping[7]. There are similar diffs where she has said substantively the same thing to other admins, which I can dig up if you want.
Also, would you mind clarifying at that thread whether you are acting on behalf of the Arbcom, or just as an admin? Thanks, sorry to be a bother. Skinwalker (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

And she's just threatened another admin.[8]. She seems to believe she is acting with unfettered Arbcom fiat - I'd appreciate if you could clarify if this is the case or not. Thx, Skinwalker (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

More diffs would be handy. I see you have added another (thanks for the e/c :P) I'll review when a few more have been provided.

 

My ANI comment and undo are acting as a community member, however this list has been raised with the arbs a few times recently, and a clarification request was recently on RFAR, so I have quite a bit of exposure to it.

No bother at all. I can understand that it needs to be clarified that my hat is in my pocket on that one. I've been meaning to establish a personal practise that will make it more clear when I have my arb hat on. Thanks for asking, which is nudging me to hurry up with that. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your role. It can be a little disconcerting when several arbitrators pop up out of the blue.

I looked for a few more diffs, and found this one[9], but Quackguru isn't an admin. That so, these diffs[10][11][12] show where she added the "overturn me and get desysopped" principle into policy. Perhaps I'm putting that a little dramatically, but I feel that is the implicit message she is sending.

Furthermore, this diff[13] shows Elonka advocating for a content interpretation on the article, which is a de facto demonstration of involvedness. I realize it's a bit arcane and out of context, so let me explain: an ongoing bone of contention on the article is whether or not something can be called a pseudoscience without a source that explicitly uses the word "pseudoscience". She seems to be directly taking a side in that dispute.

Please take some sort of action on this either way, because the sanctions are generating significantly more drama than they were intended to prevent. Regards, Skinwalker (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look tomorrow. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not looking at this as I am recused on a similar request currently at RFAR. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing this. Skinwalker (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

List of dosage abbreviations

Hi I noticed you seem to have been creator of List of dosage abbreviations. This recently noted by Medical Wikproject as a small subset duplication of main List of abbreviations used in medical prescriptions, and with proposal to merge [14], I've redirected the page and added discussion thread for items not already included (several of which I suspect are uncommon venetenary). Hope you don't mind :-) David Ruben ^Talk 00:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I dont mind at all, except that I will need to create another stub today to keep my stats going up.

This list was a while ago, but I suspect that I never saw List of abbreviations used in medical prescriptions, otherwise I wouldnt have bothered creating my list. I think I remember seeing another list at the time, which wasnt as tightly defined.

irt the list I created, I was intending that the "Frequency" section would be augmented with other sections to focus on other groups of abbreviations. Long tables kind of annoy me, but that is a layout preference issue, and I really dont mind so long as the information is there.

Thanks heaps for letting me know. I'll drop over to the WikiProject discussion later. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I created it when they were all on a much bigger page[15], a few months before user:Mikkalai created the page List of abbreviations used in medical prescriptions. The two related edits are [16] and [17], this last edit being the reason behind it all. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I've now updated two links that were no longer correct due to the recent rearrangement.[18][19] John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted (they linked to [[List of medical abbreviations not the List of dosage abbreviations) - but concur more directly relevant :-) David Ruben ^Talk 20:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Jayvdb. I don't understand how voting can start [20] without the independent review of the evidence by Arbitor Cool Hand Luke being completed [21]. Isn't that totally against proper procedure? I am afraid this is not fair at all... Cheers PHG (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

PHG, CHL posting the proposed decision indicates that he is highly confident that it is a good foundation. Voting is started, but this phase does allow for arbitrators to change their votes due to opinions of others. I see now that CHL is expanding his evidence evaluation. This will be taken into account by arbs who are yet to vote, and those who have already voted. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you John! Cool Hand Luke has indeed now completed his independent review of the evidence here. It basically shows that my contributions have been based on proper sourcing and are not even "undue weight", contrary to what has been said. Isn't it then highly unfair to ask for continued restrictions? It would be a shame if the Arbcom followed (and encouraged) the lingering enimities and unwarranted accusations of a few critics, rather than pass a fair judgement about my work. I strongly appeal to your sense of justice in this matter. Best regards PHG (talk) 07:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Giano RFAr

I'm not sure what you're asking for here. What, exactly, beyond a dozen diffs of extreme personal attacks is necessary to show an actionable issue here? What threshold of evidence is necessary, in your mind, to make the case acceptable? I would think that twelve diffs of actual personal attacks is better evidence for a pattern of personal attacks than an RfC attesting to it, no? Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The evidence that I seek is of contributors having tried and failed to resolve the conflict via dispute resolution. And dont bring evidence of that to RFAR - take it to the RFC in a format that the community can endorse your reading of it. People have whined about Giano for so long, yet nobody has started an RFC until now. I am unlikely to accept any RFAR about Giano while the RFC approach hasnt been full explored, unless there is a emergency of some sort. If this RFC does not dig deep enough, I will likely request another RFC before I feel confident that there have been adequate attempts to resolve the problem within the community. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, that is a breathtakingly patient solution for a user who has made such egregious personal attacks so frequently. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The community as a whole has been breathtakingly patient with Giano, as an RfC is years overdue. It is now four weeks into this year, and we have dispute resolution on the right track. This RfC did not start on the right foot, as there is no current dispute/catalyst or attempt to resolve a dispute, and there wasnt much research into prior disputes. Hopefully the RfC yields good results anyway, but if it stalls and other users are subject to what they feel are personal attacks, they should still follow the standard dispute resolution, which would likely result in another RfC before it is escalated to RFAR. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Re-ordering of Living Marjas without discussion/references

Dear All, it was agreed upon by the authors of the article List of Marjas:

1. The list would not be re-ordered, and any names will not be removed without giving references or discussions.
2. The order of the list for living Marjas would be alphabetical, and for deceased Marjas would be reverse chronological, until all agree on a better standard.

The two things which require discussion are:

1. The list has been shrunk from 24 to 18 without any discussions and references. The removal of reputed marjas like Nasser Makarem Shirazi, Qorban Ali Kaboli, etc requires some justification. Please discuss on the article's discussion page.
2. The list has been re-ordered with apparently no standard at all, e.g. Ali Khamenei was moved to last. Please discuss on the article's discussion page.

NEDian (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Azturkk

Hello, and happy new year. Thank you for the earlier introduction. I am wondering if you can help me. I am being harassed by a user name Azturkk who is apparently also IP reverting and writing in what appears to be Azerbaijani on my talk page. He vandalized several other pages including the Safavids, Karabakh khanate, and now Erevan khanate. I wonder if you can tell him to stop.Shahin Giray (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for my delay. I have been offline a lot recently. I have provided a translation of the Turkish message. That message is not harrassment, and it isnt helpful to call the edits vandalism. The articles you are editing are very heavily disputed. This means you need to add more comments on the talk page and express your concerns there. Sometimes it can seem like a waste of time, but do try to find solutions that everyone can accept. To prevent people writing to you in other languages, I suggest you add a "Babel" box to your userpage (User:Shahin Giray); e.g. "{{Babel|en-3}}". It is 3am here; I will respond to your other message tomorrow. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 17:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Questions

Hello,

I wrote about page on Erevan page about you but you did not answer. I wonder if you can advise. Please, also on Khanate of Nakhichevan. Article was a mess, and i added much information and removed a lot of irrelevant sentences. Now, my edits are being vandalized. My quoted statements from iranica being removed and same quote used to tell a lie while using old citation. My requests for clarification ignored. For example, I see iranica calls nakhichevan khanate a provinse of Qajar perisa and then someone named brandmaster and grandmaster vandalize it and say the quote calls nakhichevan an "independent azeri khanate" and adds azerbaijani language of latin text for name of this state. Why? can you please explain this?Shahin Giray (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Whine whine whine

Whine whine bitch bitch patrolbot moan moan complain complain. DS (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry; I feel your pain, and the Wikisource patrollers are groaning at me too. I've had internet issues; this weekend it will all be sorted out. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Privatemusings

Hi, I came across this comment [22] by Privatemusings which I feel highly inappropriate. Not only was it clearly WP:POINTY it also was a clear cut BLP violation as Privatemusings must know well that there is no RS that he is Roy's son so it is not a genuine or valid question. While occuring on a user subpage talk page, so only a minor issue, I feel it is highly inappropriate for anyone who clearly knows it to be false and knows it is a violation of BLP policy. I have already informed Privatemusings of my feelings on this matter but noticed while there he had apparently been banned from editing BLPs by the arbcom and found out when I looked into it you were apparently one of the mentor appointed when the ban was lifted, so I feel your words may carry more weight if you agree with me. Nil Einne (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

D W Wheeler + Kitty Barne

Most interested to read your comment on the Talk Page of Kitty Barne. I am interested in Wheeler and know that they were related. I have information from census returns in the UK and hope that you will contact me about this. Mikeo1938 (talk) 08:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for supplying info about her dod. I was very annoyed that I had two sets of conflicting information, and at the time I wasnt able to get to the library. I was hoping that Kitty Barne would be a DYK, but didnt want to list it until I was confident I had her dod right. I even felt naughty clicking save. As it turns out, I was naughty: three months worth of people have been reading the wrong information.[23]

I'd love to find the link between Wheeler and Barne as well, because the bibliographic record at s:Author:Kitty Barne is messy in its current state.

All help will be appreciated. Maybe we can do a five fold increase so that it qualifies for DYK? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Scott Mulholland

An article that you have been involved in editing, Scott Mulholland, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Mulholland. Thank you.

Image issue

Discussion is at User talk:Jonoikobangali#more image issues

Proposed deletion of Cascade Community Federal Credit Union

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Cascade Community Federal Credit Union, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Non-notable credit union.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. StarM 04:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Err, didn't realise this was one of your articles. I don't see the notability, but I'll remove the PROD if you want as I'm sure you had good reasons for creating it. StarM 04:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Leave the prod in place. It was a fair call; I'll detag it if I can find some more content. I created it due to my edits to Hucrest Elementary School. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahh gotcha. Makes sense. I couldn't turn up much of anything, which was why I PRODded but maybe you or someone else will in the next few days. Have a god night. StarM 04:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Forum for Stable Currencies logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Forum for Stable Currencies logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

New Page Patrolling bot action

Hi there,

I don't know if you remember back to Ocotber last year, but there was a discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page about setting up a bot to patrol as read articles with some sort of tag on. There hasn't been any discussion on it for a while (my fault mainly, i haven't pushed it much), but there are some comments on the tag that could be used.

As you suggested your bot could do this, are you happy with the level of consultation that has happened, or would you rather there was more first? If you are happy with it, are you still OK to implement it on your bot? --GedUK  09:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

G'day, sorry... I have dropped the ball on this, completely forgetting about it. In October, I wasnt planning on running for Arbcom. :-) I'll planning on doing more work on the bot this w/e, so this is a timely reminder. If you do want to consult more people, the daily list of en-wiki patrollers, especially user:DragonflySixtyseven, would be a good place to start. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think yuo dropped the ball at all, this was my baby and i left it to fend for itself for too long! I will message the top few on that list to garner opinion. Thanks! --GedUK  09:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, I think we've come to a consensus! Could you let me know if there's anything else I need to do before you're happy to set this up? --GedUK  09:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this ready to go now (or indeed is it already going)? I've lost track of the technical discussions you were having. --GedUK  10:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It is on hold until I have a few days clear to do the coding. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem! Hope I didn't sound like i was nagging! --GedUK  11:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Username issues

ClueBot and AntiAbuseBot's rvs of that person have left a variety of incarnations of that username in article histories. The edits have been oversighted, but the rvs have not. See here. Obviously I can't tell who's oversighting what, but since Raul doesn't appear to be around yet today, maybe you could find a checkuser to dig through the bots' contribs and try to clean up that mess. Guettarda (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it has been fixed. If not, please explain it a little better, or email oversight-l. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I emailed you. Hopefully that makes more sense. Guettarda (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I can now see what you are referring to, but I have forwarded it to oversight-l so others can act if they wish. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sindhi people

Is my naming an injunction against me taking action. I haven't edited the article since Skatergal cropped up and actually I didn't initiate the RFC, GMG9 started a link on the RFC notcieboard and I went there. Well, I can go to sleep. SOmething else for WT:INB if anyone cares. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I havent looked into the involvement of you or Master of Puppets; I was merely hoping that you could help us out in whatever you feel is appropriate. If you dont think you are involved, great ... get involved. Which noticeboard did you notice this on? (Perhaps mention that in a statement on RFAR to fill in the background?) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The article RFCs. This seems pretty obvious, but I'm pretty suspicious, especially considering my pollitical isolation. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Stalked, persecuted, blocked, IPs outed - what to do about it?

Several of us would like to be able to email a responsible arbitrator to take an objective look at what's going on at Talk:Mae West and links from there for the last few days. How can we do that (correspond under our own names and from our own email addresses with you) if we don't want to be subjected to any more stalking and don't want to publish our email addresses? Pls reply to me, I am one of the unfairly "investigated" users not at all involved in the dispute, though I am deeply shocked at the disruptive and destructive behavior of some old hands and one administrator who archived that talk page today and is using checkuser in a most personal way that we find indefensible. There is also a BLP issue involved which is heading for disaster the more one editor increases her jeers and smears against that LP. SoCoColl (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The article says Mae West died in 1980, so I'm not sure what you mean by saying there is a BLP (biography of living persons) issue. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

To understand that you have to read the latest discussion about a name they keep removing from a photo caption in the Mae West article (a photo that the LP is in, now being labeled a "coatracker") and how the dissing and public smearing of that person, if we are to consider Wikipedia talk pages public, is getting worse. SoCoColl (talk) 01:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You can either email the entire committee using "arbcom-l@wikimedia.org", myself at "jayvdb@gmail.com" or another arbitrator at their email address listed at WP:ARBCOM. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have decided to try to contact the LP and see if he wants us to pursue this any further. Maybe he doesn't even want to be in that photo caption they keep removing him from, a rather minor issue it would seem, which the big mess is all about. He agreed to be mentioned and was pleased to be there from the beginning. I do know that about 6 people in Sweden and several in America have a hard time understanding why this issue has gotten out of hand and why it is so important that the LP be removed from the caption (he is in the photo). Some of them are frequent Wikipedia users, but have not been editors until recently, when they thought things were starting to go too far. What we don't want, above all, is for it to get any worse. I heard the LP has felt embarassed several times, but I want to try to confirm that on my own now that we have this new objective opening. SoCoColl (talk) 01:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me know if you need any assistance. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone in Stockholm is hoping to hear from you by email in response to a question sent you the other day. SoCoColl (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!! This one slipped through the cracks and never really left an imprint so I was even wondering what you were referring to. Found it! Replying now.. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Just for clarification here. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EmilEikS/Archive, which identified User:SoCoColl as a sock of User:EmilEikS, who was discovered to be a sock master during Wikipedia:Requests for comment/EmilEikS. It was at that time this particular account contacted you. Also see here.The original sock User:Fiandonca was blocked at that time but User:EmilEikS was not, in order to allow him to participate in the RfC, although he chose to quit Wikipedia. After taking a bit of a break from it, the editor returned to take up his issues with the Mae West, using only IP connections. As the postings went on, it became apparent that what was purported to be different persons were coming from the same person. That is when the sock investigation was opened by User:Durova, confirmed and as a first step, a soft rangeblock was placed on the IP. A return on an IP that was slightly outside of the rangeblock prompted a semi-protection on the West pages and the EmilEikS account was finally blocked, as it was overlooked at the close of the RfC. There is no indication that a number of persons are editing regarding this besides the one account. The issue has mostly always been trying to coatrack one individual upon the Mae West page for whatever reason this person seems to have and accusing everyone and anyone who posits in opposition as being biased or part of some cabal, including User:Durova, who had not been involved prior to the past week. The person who originally uploaded images and tried to insert Lars Jacob into the West article has a personal/working relationship to Lars Jacob through an entertainment and genealogy club and has, therefore, a WP:CoI in promoting Jacob. As an aside, User:EmiEikS advertised on his userpage [24] a relationship with Southerly Clubs of Stockholm, calling himself Deputy Chairman Emil Eikner for the Board of Directors, which is rather reflected in the username determined to be related to Emil - SoCoColl. If you need more information, I can probably find the webpage that established this relationship more conclusively. This User:SoCoColl account is being used now to game the administrators, which is something that User:EmilEikS persisted in doing with other administrators, including User:Kingturtle and others. This just goes on and on, and each time, he protests there is a large block of "others" involved - all from the 217.209.96.* range. This is really taking much too much time from otherwise productive editing for the editors in good standing here. I think everything you'd need to see the background here is present in the RfC case, the sock puppet case, and in the archives of Talk:Mae West. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't even realize this thread was here until just now. In the last day Jehochman indeffed EmilEikS. I was willing to give this person one more chance and if s/he would like to seek a courtesy unblock s/he can contact me via email politely and request it. I can't implement the unblock directly, of course, but would be happy to endorse the request if this person settles down and acts reasonably. Durova^Charge! 04:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Iberian-Guanche inscriptions pdf

Why did you send the pdf to the arbitrators and avoided people to look at it?. Probably,it is right,but I do not understand this move. This is a crucial reference that according to Iberomesornix was deleted by Kwamikagami from Commons.It showed how some administrators and users were cheating Wikipedia and readers.They were using for deleting the page a reference also by Pichler but about an altogether different subject-

Coud I discuss in the Arbitration page? Iberian-Canarian page was deleted by Kwamikagami.Previouly Iberian-Guanche page was deleted by Fritzpoll after a Deletion Discussion. Kwamikami apparently send Iberomesornix to Arbitration.

I am sorry to disturb you but I do not have much experience in handling Wikipedia although I read it very often.--Virginal6 (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)--Virginal6 (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)--Virginal6 (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)--Virginal6 (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The PDF has been deleted from Commons because of permissions problems. I havent assessed the permissions issue, so I cant undelete it.

I am an admin on Commons, so I have access to this PDF, despite it being deleted.

The PDF does appear to be important to this arbitration request, so I have forwarded it to the other committee members for them to review.

You can add a "statement" to the Arbitration request. Ask a Clerk if you need assistance.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the pdf is going to get around the problems that led, I think correctly, to the deletion decision. If it's the email that was on the editor's talk page, I wasn't convinced that it showed they understood what they were 'permitting'. dougweller (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought the same, but there is a chance that a better permission can be obtained with a bit of hand holding. The OTRS permissions queue has all the boilerplate messages to try and obtain a precise permission. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a side of Wikipedia about which I know very little. I think he will need a lot of hand-holding even if he does get the permission he wants. dougweller (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

New Message

{{tb|Addshore}} ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 08:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Please restore file Iberian-Guanche inscriptions.pdf

{{Talkback|Iberomesornix}}

Replied to both. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Miscellany on John M(artyn) Harlow, Phineas Gage

I moved "John M Harlow" to "John Martyn Harlow" thinking it would be easy since (I innocently thought) only Phineas Gage links to the old page. Actually, the moving itself is easy, but I also set out to have the old page deleted. Now I see this frightful list of possible links into old page. I'd much prefer to avoid the redirects, and since the page is so new it's now or never. Can you fix it so the old page can be deleted after al (if it's not too much trouble)?

And one other thing: I would like to add text to "Phineas Gage," per your suggestion, reciting that "bar-burial" is a commonly-repeated idea with no actual support -- that I can find, and believe me I've looked -- beyond its being commonly repeated. Lots of modern papers say it, because they don't think it's worth looking into; they maybe cite to an earlier paper that says the same thing, but then you find that the earlier paper cites to nothing (on this point, anyway). Sometimes you have to take three or four "cite-hops" before you dead-end. Meanwhile, working from the primary end, there's no question that there's nothing anyone could be citing anyway, because there's simply nothing in the primary record. If anyone's found something in the primary record (whether from Harlow or anyone else) they're keeping it to themselves. How to I explain all this in the main article without it coming out as OR? And yet it would be manifestly wrong to state it as "disputed": I doubt (can't be sure of course) any of the authors who have made the offhand statement that the bar was buried really care one way or the other, nor would they care to "defend" that factoid if the matter was brought to their attention. The :Talk page sets the record straight I suppose, but somewhat distastefully, and anyway I don't suppose the article proper can say "see unpleasant discussion at :Talk for more on this"??? I might add that the question overall is not trivial; tremendous effort is being made to trace details of Gage's life in California, and what went on in the family in SF after he died, and otherwise trivial details like this do have bearing. Please advise.

Beyond that (and just very quickly): if cites were inserted as needed (and that's a lot!), do you see any reason Phineas Gage shouldn't be re-nominated for "Good Article"?

EEng (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It is standard practise to create lots of redirects, in order to assist people find the page. The move is good, and the redirects will sort themselves out.

If there is no scholarly work which currently says that the rod was not buried with him, we need to wait for someone to publish a piece to that effect.

Regarding good status, I think that newspaper clipping will be a problem, as it is an eye sore. We need to obtain a higher resolution image, and it needs a caption to indicate exactly when it was published in Ludlow [Vermont] Free Soil Union. There are still many details in the article which are vague, but not inaccurate.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hee, hee, it was your suggestion that the article "warn readers to not state it as fact without checking the cited sources," and I do think that's important. As I write this I think I see a way out; please take a look.

Should we drop the clipping until/unless a better image is available? Personally, I feel it's better than nothing--adds color of the times. The exact date it appeared in Free Soil Union is unknown--all we know is that Boston Post credits (as seen in the image) "Ludlow, Vt., Union" which by inference can only be that town's the Free Soil Union. The Union"' sold its printing plant soon after, and almost none of its issues survive anywhere.

To the extent there's vagueness in text from me, it's usually studied: I tried to say nothing false and yet not offend people's cherished misapprehensions too much (you saw what happened with the rod-burial). And in many cases being more specific would necessitate a complicated explanation. ("An ounce of imprecision saves a ton of explanation" -- though not sure this is an appropriate aphorism for Wikipedia!) Maybe as the many missing cites are added some of that vagueness will clear up. After that I'd like to ask your opinion again. Thanks, again, for your hard work. EEng (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Ibero-Guanche inscriptions

Dear Jayvdb, I have gathered during this week end the following information: 1-Permission for the reference you removed from Commons was sent time ago to the E-mail yo ask. Please,release the reference. 2-They have tagged as Iberomesornix shock-puppets to 3 0o 4 people in order to close down the deletion discussion and the “”Ibero-Guanche “ inscriptions page.. Could not they be just people who agrees or support his views anout “Ibero-Guanche-Inscriptions? I am very bussy but I see I have to open my own page.

Please,look at Dumu Eduba,Trigaranus and Kwamikagani they are acting,CONCERTED,against the “Ibero-Guanche” inscriptions.Are they the same person? Are they shoch-puppets?The same can be said about Iberomesornix and myself.

Getting into these matters is just distracting the core question: “Iberian-Guanche inscriptions” are intentionally censored by Spanish scholars at least since the 1980 (when Pichler compiled them),who had the power to do it (Internet did not exist).All their lives work shoud have to be re-written.The same scholars are now fighting to censor the inscriptions in Wikipedia.

See what Trigaranus wrote in my page yesterday:apparently a German gentleman thought like many scholars think now in Spain (including myself):there were Iberian scripts in the Canary Islands.But ,he was convinced by somebody to attach to other interpretations.Censorship worked.

I am also posting this note to Fritzpoll ,who looks like as upset for being utilized.

Thank you . Best regards --Virginal6 (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, John Vandenberg. You have new messages at Iberomesornix's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Penco

Thanks for fixing the edit of mine that broke the earthquake link. Sorry I didn't notice it at the time. Colonies Chris (talk) 11:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Also take a look at [25]; that seems like a fix your AWB rules should have caught.

It was nice to do something productive during the three hours put into reviewing your block. Of course I was tempted to hit edit on half the articles; so many terribly formatted articles. But I'd never get anywhere if I did.

Luckily the contributions I was reviewing were quite productive and useful, aside from the date delinking aspect, so your edits definitely left the article in better shape. That made the reviewing task less onerous. I'm writing a more detailed response on AE; it should be up in half an hour.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Answer

Yes, indeedie. I've reformatted my queries post thusly. Thanks, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Good questions, especially considering it is any edit to "those" pages, rather than pro-science or pro-fringe-science edits - a formatting improvement is neither. If you have any ideas how to improve the motions so that admins have a better picture of what pages are in the topic ban.. I'm sure we would like to hear them. Otherwise we will need to leave it to admin discretion and recruit more scientists to be admins ;-)

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the statement "Requests by ScienceApologist for clarifications of whether articles are within scope are to be made by him to the Arbitration Committee by email" doesn't fit with with transparent arbitration enforcement. I'm assuming you guys have some plan to publish such clarifications, since none of the arbs have responded to the problem. Last week after those AE threads and after SirFozzie made his clarification, I was considering blocking Science Apologist for an edit to Aluminium (and two others around), but fortunately I read his talk page first and discovered Casiber had given him "permission" to do this. If it had been a different time of day (it was a reasonable time only for west coasters), he might have gotten blocked by someone else. This wouldn't exactly have been fair on Science Apologist, nor on any admin doing the blocking -- who'd just be enforcing an ArbCom ruling. The ruling in question gave SA the motivation and encouragement to play personality games and see how far the ruling would actually be enforced. This was fairly predictable, and is not abnormal behaviour in this type of user. ArbCom is handling this now like it is and is coming down heavily, with a "how dare you try to game us" justification. It is good that the ArbCom are using their common sense and recognizing that someone was trying to take them for fools, but arguably fairness instead recommends that SA be constrained by a ruling of a more "electric fence" nature. I thought something like the following might be better:

ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) is banned from editing any article relating to fringe science topics, broadly construed, for a period of six months. ScienceApologist is further prohibited from making edits concerning fringe science topics, even to articles that would not be considered fringe science topics. ScienceApologist is free to make good faith spelling and grammatical fixes, and to edit the talk pages of such articles. Any uninvolved administrator may however, on his or her own discretion, impose specific restrictions on ScienceApologist banning ScienceApologist from editing any science related article or talk page for specific periods of time. All restrictions and sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at [...].

Though I don't think the open ArbCom ruling has helped matters, it is pretty clear that ScienceApologist is very unhappy and not in the spirit to obey ArbCom rulings. It is possible that he needs time to accept the ruling. It is possible he won't. So I'm not arguing there should not be a 2 weeks-3 month block-enforced site ban, but I would be interested to see if ScienceApologist became more co-operative with time. A heavy ban does though look like heavy-handed escalation. The truth is that if AE admins had been firmer and he got regularly blocked for his gaming infringements (including the typos), it wouldn't be back at ArbCom now. The vague ruling gave SA too much leeway and discouraged admins from enforcing ... or rather, put too much reliance upon individual personality. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You'll note I appear to be psychic [26] ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have that on tap? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Something I'm thinking about

Hi John, I see you're both an admin and an arbitrator here at Wikipedia. Regarding my post here, it's incidents like that that make me want to walk away from Wikipedia entirely. Wikipedia has a policy against Wikilawyering, but then issues a temporary injunction, a big legal term, and immediately threatens with banishment those users who don't even know the injunction exists. (Perhaps this was just the particular administrator, but I think the "I could have easily banned you for 24 hours" should have been more like, "now that you know the rule exists, if you violate it again, you will be banned." Even vandalism warnings start out very neutrally.) I know that in the real world, ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law. But when Lightmouse released his script, I assumed he was a validated user, especially since he was running 3 bots approved by Wikipedians. I had no idea of his previous account history (like others, it seems). And while many laws are common sense (don't hurt someone, don't vandalize public property), I could not have known that a tool I saw many other people using was perhaps harming Wikipedia (by going against consensus) or vandalizing it. I don't know, maybe I'm just venting. But since you hold higher positions here at WP and may have more input than me, FWIW I think that if there are huge policy disputes like these, they should be published using the banner box that appears on our watchlists sometimes with announcements. I should not have to check the vandalism page, for example, every time I revert vandalism, to make sure none of the rules have changed. I really didn't know that a tool that I and others had been using for months, without receiving warnings, was suddenly in hot dispute. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 04:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The administrator could have handled it better. You have pointed out some ways it could have been better, and it would also have been better to use "blocked" rather than "banned", as the word ban suggests a permanent ban. Also if you were blocked, and appealed that you didnt know about the injunction, most administrators would have unblocked you promptly.

It is true to say that I do have more input in the administration, however usually I don't have much liberty to use that ability wherever I like; being an arbitrator requires restraint, and also demands I put my time into the issues that the community requests that I focus on.

An idea that only just occurred to me is that the script could have been enhanced at the beginning of the case so that it displayed a warning until the editor disabled the warning, indicating that they were aware of the situation.

I'll have a think about that one for this current case, and also how to warn unsuspecting users about future injunctions.

Thank you for taking the time to vent here. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

John, I feel the need to defend myself for some reason. I do admit that I could have handled this better, but there is more to this story. I take offense to the use of ban instead of block because I specifically said block so I have no idea where the idea that I was going to impose a ban came from. When I received a response from ROL on my talk page, I made a clarification because I recognized that it could have been worded better. The major thing I have a problem with is asking other editors behind my back why I was rude: [27]. If there was a question, ROL should have came to me like she did in response to my initial warning and asked the question. I would have gladly responded. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

RainbowOfLight used the word "ban" in their proposed alternative wording. HTH clarify my message.

Sorry I cant answer at greater length at the moment. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to see

Sorry to see that you were considering coming over here to Australia for the Powerhouse function but the flight times didn't work. It'd have been a privilege to meet you in real life. :) —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel the same; it would have been great to meet many of you. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Christmas in March

is due next week. ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

About your permission for fringe-science-banned editor to edit N ray

I can understand why you gave this permission. The edits were, in themselves, harmless. However, the intention behind the edit may not have been. The disruption that resulted was predictable, and SA was at this point engaged in a series of tests of the edges, making edits that he knew would cause some editors to claim ban violation, with other editors claiming that they were harmless. I argued in the RfAr/Clarification that such minor and useful edits were not harmless, because they complicated arbitration enforcement and would erode a boundary which is made simple precisely to avoid debate and disruption. Based on his declared intentions, had the technical ban violations been accepted, he'd have then pushed the limit a little further, each time staying within what a substantial segment of the community would consider perfectly acceptable, continuing to create disruption, always raising the provocation to a level designed to do this.

The N ray edits looked harmless, for sure. However, there is a See also link at the bottom of that article to Cold fusion, which is a fringe science topic, i.e., a field of active scientific inquiry, with ongoing publication in peer-reviewed journals, but not accepted by general scientific consensus. The banned editor did not add that link, it had been there for almost a year. However, when people want to condemn Cold fusion as preposterous, as pseudoscience, unworthy of consideration, they claim that it's like [[N ray]s. The link from N ray will give readers exactly that impression if they read about N rays and follow the link, it will frame their reading of Cold fusion, where the topic is treated with much more respect for the varieties of opinion and the subtleties of scientific review of it (which is generally that more research is needed to come to any firm conclusions).

I removed the link, and a user very involved with the banned editor restored it; I removed it again (pushing my own boundaries, I don't edit war, but I'd made what I'd thought would be telling arguments) and another editor reverted it. I'm not requesting any assistance with regard to content, but I'm pointing out that the banned editor wanted this article to be good because it's useful, he thinks, in impeaching a fringe science topic. It wasn't unrelated. In the arguments over my removal of the link, now, supporters of the banned editor are claiming that linking to this fringe science topic is due to a clear relation! The edit to N ray was actually part of the banned editor's plans around fringe science and pushing limits, and the substance of the arguments for keeping the link is that, yes, N rays are related to a fringe science topic.

And while you should have made it known that you gave permission, the editor quite possibly deliberately withheld that information, because being blocked for the edit would be exactly what he'd want to have happen. He could easily have avoided that, just as I showed how he could make his spelling corrections without violating the ban, and he contemptuously rejected it; the reason is obvious: the goal wasn't the spelling corrections, it was to defy and weaken and impeach the ban and anyone who dared to enforce it.

Indeed, it should not be necessary to ask an ArbComm member to make a minor, harmless edit. He could already have proposed the edit in Talk; it is no more cumbersome to do that than to ask ArbComm for every edit, and far less disruptive, and far more open. Further, as I showed, he could simply have made the edit and reverted himself. It would probably have been back in in minutes.

But reverting himself would mean accepting the ban and cooperating with its enforcement, which is precisely what he did not want to do. That suggestion should stand as an option proposed to topic-banned editors who want to make minor corrections. It's far more efficient than proposing the edit on Talk. Indeed, I'd argue that, unless an edit is actually disruptive, even blocked editors should be able to make such edits as IP; if they are self-reverted, they create no disruption at all, they should be ignored as enforcement and never used as evidence of "block evasion." (But this doesn't apply to disruptive edits, such as Talk page vandalism and insult, where the blocked editor simply wants to have the insulted editor read it.) To go even further, such edits, if openly noted and claimed, would establish intention to cooperate for the common welfare of the community, and would stand as evidence that a ban might safely be lifted. "Revert self; banned editor (username)." I'd argue that an admin seeing that should not block the IP, and, indeed, if the edit is useful, might revert it back in, thus turning ban enforcement into useful edits, and building cooperative spirit even with banned editors, and if the edit is harmless, just leave it alone, it's gone. --Abd (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone could also argue that almost any article could fall into a Fringe science topic ban, if they tried hard enough. I reviewed the article N ray, and agreed that it would be a good article for him to expand. Yes, it is on the fringe of fringe science; I know that. But he was going to focus on it and unless he put on a Spiderman costume, he would not be able to edit that article in way that upset the fringe science apple cart, unless they were looking for ways to be upset. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Jayvdb. I wasn't at all complaining about your permission, per se, and his actual edits weren't a problem in themselves. Your reasoning makes sense. But, given the context, it was a trap. He got the permission, and did not disclose it. He knew full well what would happen. I've also shown a likely motive, a reason why he would be particularly concerned with that article, it's because of how the article was being used, with Cold fusion as a see-also. I removed that link, and two SA supporters promptly appeared to revert this back in. (As I wrote, SA did not insert that link.) (Note the contradiction: SA supporters pointed out that the article wasn't about fringe science, it was about pseudoscience. But when it comes to keeping a see-also link to a fringe science article, well, that's quite a different matter.) So I discussed it in Talk, and it became apparent that the community agreed with me, or would agree, and they disappeared. This was a heads-up regarding a plan to discredit ArbComm and anyone who dared to enforce the topic ban (which plan is also known from SA's admissions).

Just in case you wonder, I'm not interested in taking sides on Fringe science wars. My goal is effective and maximized consensus rooted in careful and civil consideration of issues. --Abd (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion sorting tool

Hi John. "importScript('User:AzaToth/twinkle.js');" is described as "mandatory" for your deletion sorting tool, but I don't want every Twinkle tab; that makes the edit screen run off the page. I use:

• importScript('User:AzaToth/twinklespeedy.js');
• importScript('User:AzaToth/twinklearv.js');
• importScript('User:AzaToth/twinkleprod.js');
• importScript('User:AzaToth/twinklexfd.js');

Do I need any other Twinkle modules than that to make your deletion sorting tool work? Thanks. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Twinkle adds an library of useful functions that are use by all the Twinkle tools. If you have any part of Twinkle installed and working, the "Deletion sorting tool" should also work.

I think that these are the only two mandatory Twinkle includes:

importScript('User:AzaToth/morebits.js');

importScript('User:AzaToth/twinklefluff.js');

It is easier to recommend that people install all of Twinkle. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

RE:RFAR

Hey, sorry, I've been dead tired and busy for the last while. Where exactly is my name mentioned? I'll look over it when I get a free second later. Thanks for letting me know! Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 17:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Sorry about the massive delay! :( Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 19:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries at all. It might have been useful if you had thrown in your 2¢ worth at the time, but it wasnt necessary. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 20:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikisource

Would File:Fort Wayne Journal Gazette Armenian Article.jpg be good for Wikisource? MBisanz ^talk 09:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Move it to Commons, and then place the text at s:Page:Fort_Wayne_Journal_Gazette_Armenian_Article.jpg

I'll help with the next step. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Email

I sent you an email about two days ago about a checkuser matter. Thanks Secret ^account 14:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I had a quick look, and couldnt find much. Replied to email. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair use

Can you see if Source wants PIRA Constitution in light of User_talk:MBisanz#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FPIRA_Constitution and delete if you don't want it? MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, looking ... John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikisource does not accept fair use. see What we include.

However, this may be ineligible, or could fall into the vaguely defined territory of s:Template:PD-manifesto. So I have imported it to Wikisource, deleted it from here, and initiated a discussion at s:Wikisource:Possible copyright violations#PIRA Constitution

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jay, I hate to delete things that might be good for source. MBisanz ^talk 21:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking injunction

Could you look at this proposal at WP:AN/AE and perhaps suggest a way forward towards implementing it (if you agree with it, of course)? Full disclosure: I've only contacted you for the moment, but if you'd like to ask your fellow arbitrators to comment/review the proposal I've no problem with that. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi John, in the light of this comment, would it be alright if I used the script for the Main page featured article? It would only delink 4 full dates (month-day plus year). I would only use it for that one article. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no chance of getting permission from me.

If it has already been given the status of featured article, there have been a lot of eyes reviewing the links on it, and they have OK'd it already. And if you are going to find fault with the featured article, for Pete's sake focus on more important things like the broken link to "Selling the Stairway to Heaven or, Weaver Was a Bargain" and the lack of a date of publication for that ref.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not a problem with that one link, the entire Wayback Machine site is down. The article passed FAC when it was a requirement to link dates for autoformatting, but I won't pursue. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Changing a featured article merely to delink it would be viewed by me as part of a program to win a battle. Also, it presupposes the outcome of the date delinking case and/or upcoming RFCs. I am glad you will not pursue it. There are more important things to do.

It looks like that cafechess article is a recent publication... ah...found it.

I see at least 10 sources in that article which are now in the public domain and could be obtained and digitised onto Wikisource, which would benefit the average Wikipedia reader and improve the ability for editors to check any future changes. See s:Wikisource:Chess if you are interested in this topical area. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, John Vandenberg. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_March_10.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Someone reverted your changes, so I ask you reconsider your keep. Cerejota (talk) 12:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for reminding me. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I think {{terrorism}} ok, am of the terrorism-is-WTA view (I know you are in general not), but not dogmatic about it, there are indeed plenty of places were the term belongs - I just feel that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter is central to NPOV. Also I get my coat racks at Ikea, not Wikea ;).

BTW, could you take a look at History of Terrorism. I think we need more input, because the discussion is becoming unproductive. In particular an anon user has repeatedly removed issue tags alleging they are vandalism, and that they are not explained, which they are.--Cerejota (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt I will be able to find time to get involved in History of Terrorism. I only became involved in the template because I saw it on the IRA article while looking into #Fair use, and I thought wikt:what the?. Bowing out... sorry. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sourceebible

Hi, replied to your message. Peace, delldot ∇. 14:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, another reply delldot ∇. 22:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment at RFAR

I don't know if I'm out of line in saying this, but this is not part of the "edit war" which took place on the 16th/17th. I doubt this will change anything, but it's just something that's gonna bug me if I don't say something about the assumption (unless it's just "You have to say why you're undoing the edit when you use 'undo'").—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out; I've corrected it now.

An undo without an edit summary or user talk notice is essentially a revert. We all get lazy and skip this at times, but that edit was to an article within a topic of dispute between you and Mythdon, and the edit was after the RFC concluded and while the RFAR was underway. i.e. not a good place or time to be lazy about issues raised at the RFC and RFAR. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Gonna need a CU stat

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Someguy1221, specifically:
• Pixel's appalling bad faith

Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Gosh; that is some bonus drama for the day.

Let me know what comes of it, if it doesnt end up escalated to my desk by being proven true :P John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh I hope he presents whatever he's thinking. I expect I'll support Someguy1221; he must be doing something right. Terima kasih. Jack Merridew 10:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Rackham

It's Arthur Rackham, with an H, not Arthur Rackman, with an M.[28] You might want to fix the wikisource page, too [29]; I have redirected the Rackman page to the correct spelling. Thanks, Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out; I have moved the Wikisource page, and added it to the Arthur Rackham page. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Twinkle, Huggle marking pages as patrolled

I understand that your NPP bot could also autopatrol pages with deletion tags, but MrZ-Man told me "the discussion seemed to have died". Per Amalthea's comment at Wikipedia_talk:NPP#Automatic_patrolling_after_a_tag_is_added, this functionality can't be added directly to Twinkle. Can you update me on where you want to go with this? Many, maybe most, CSD deletion tags don't result from NPP patrol, and the lack of marking-as-patrolled is driving up the work of Dragonfly and others. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Time is the limiting factor for me.

bugzilla:15936 does limit when Twinkle can obtain an rcid automatically, however the rcid is always provided on Special:NewPages, and it is always provided when a user clicks a link from NewPages.

Twinkle can be extended to autopatrol pages. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

American Academy of Financial Management Edit Warring

Jayvdb - I appreciate your intervention on the above article. There is a commercial dispute going on between two parties who jointly own the intellectual property associated with this professional association. One individual claims the rights to certain IP under common law in the United States, while the professional association operating as a non-profit in 145 countries has registered multiple trademarks associated with the association around the globe.

On December 8th, 2008 at a board of governors meeting the name of the association was changed and the structure and charter was amended - however this had the effect of isolating the US structure and one of the founders of the association.

At this point this dispute is likely to continue for many months until a clear legal decision is made my the courts. The registered trademarks associated with the structure are owned by a non-profit structure supporting the members, no individual has a claim on them. The edits made by GlobalProfessor and FinancialLawyer have been made in an effort to cast doubt on this ownership.

How would you proceed - should the article be deleted until the matter is resolved? While we could reach consensus for the group/association as a whole - the individual in the US is undoubtedly using multiple editor identities at this pint to muddy the waters...

Brett_K —Preceding undated comment added 21:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC).

You should discuss this on the talk page, in a way that allows uninvolved people to understand the dispute.

If there is now a separate organisation with a significant membership, my guess is that it should have its own article. But only if reliable sources are available.

Then the dispute comes down to how to frame the split. The real world controversy needs to be described; the Wikipedia article should not enter into the dispute.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet allegation by User:Pixelface

Since you performed the first CheckUser regarding PF's accusation that Jack Merridew and Someguy1221 were the same person, you ought to be told that there is a thread at ANI about the whole matter. Reyk _YO! 03:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Calendar trip-planner advisory alert......

Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney#April, drinks at The Belgian Beer Cafe, 6pm til late!

'nuff said. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Bundoora (John So)

I believe and read that John So was born in Hong Kong. Arrell (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've reverted myself.[30]

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Broken evidence page

Ahem! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. It's all OK now (I think). Carcharoth (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you (to Dragons flight who fixed it). I noticed this soon after, and was promptly faced with a) internet disconnection, and b) toothpicks snapping.

Do you have the toothpick concept there? Perhaps there is a wikt or wp page in that meme..

The "Getting Old Survival Kit" is a cack; maybe it can be attested to Hitler :/

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Haha

This made me laugh. :) Prodego ^talk 02:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

PD question

Hi. I need some clarification on how to determine if a source has become public domain. :) The article Leyden Papyrus X reproduces a 1926 translation of a 3rd century Greek document. The translation was published in the American Journal of Chemical Education. I presume it was published with a copyright notice. It seems likely, though I don't have access to the original. How can we tell if copyright was renewed? I didn't find any reference to the journal or the author at [31], but that's specifically for books so perhaps that's to be expected? It would probably be more appropriate on Wikisource anyway, but I don't want to delete it for copyright concerns if it is pd. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)