User talk:WJBscribe/Archive 8

[edit] Re:

I replied on my talk page. Thanks for the note. I think it would be useful if we had a template of all the different possibilities like this. ~ Wikihermit 05:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Striptease

Scribe, there's a photo on Striptease of a Burlesque performer and there's an IP who continually re-inserts the name and the club where she performs at. This seems to me to be a pretty clear-cut case of advertising; neither she nor the club are notable. Could you weigh in with your opinion? --David Shankbone 13:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename clerking

Hi, is there a page that explains how a rename clerk is supposed to act? Is it a special position, or just something that can be done by someone when it needs to be done? Until(1 == 2) 19:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Everything you need to should be at Wikipedia:Changing username/Assistance. It isn't a special position, anyone who wants to help out can do so - generally its regulated by simple supply and demand (it isn't the most interesting of jobs...). If you have any questions, get in touch. WjBscribe 02:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Until(1 == 2) 15:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

I hate to be a bother, but Anberlin's Mediation over genres has been inactive for almost two weeks. I'm sure you have a lot of things to do on Wikipedia, or you may have forgotten about it, but could you check up on it? Thanks. -- Pbroks13 00:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten- I was waiting for further comment from the parties, but I'll take another look and see if we can get things moving again... WjBscribe 02:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks a bunch. -- Pbroks13 14:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Landmark Education Mediation

Thanks for your offer of assistance. I don't have any direct requests because I am not sure where to go to next because we are stalled. From my POV several people have attempted to offer reasonable solutions and then certain editors just come back with all the same things again and again and over whelm the rest of us with content. I can't engage on the same points over and over again at the volume those editors seem to pour it out. I know this is MY POV but I am unsure of what to take as a next step except perhaps to move it up to the next level of arbitration. I don't have any direct requests but thanks for offering though. Alex Jackl 14:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Will's day!

WJBscribe has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Will's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Will! Love, Phaedriel 06:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

Congratulations! You deserve it! ~ Wikihermit 06:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Fuller reply at User talk:Phaedriel... WjBscribe 11:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Happy Day, WJBscribe! :) Acalamari 15:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Happy WjBscribe day WjBscribe?!? The Sunshine Man is now Qst 15:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA. It was successful, and I am now, may God have mercy on us all, an administrator. Look at all the new buttons! I had heard about 'protect,' 'block user,' and 'delete,' but no one told me about 'kill,' 'eject,' and 'purée.' I appreciate the trust the community has in me, and I'll try hard not to delete the main page or block Jimbo. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My recent RfB

Thank you so much for your participation in my recent RfB. Though it closed with 72% support (below the required 90%), I'm still quite pleased at the outpouring of support shown by a fair percentage of the community.

I'm currently tabulating and calculating all opposing and neutral arguments to help me better address the community's concerns about my abilities as a bureaucrat. If you'd like, you can follow my progress (and/or provide additional suggestions) at User:EVula/admin/RfB notes. Thanks again! EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Though your comment about "EVula is sane" is highly suspect... :P

[edit] Signpost updated for July 2nd, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My dear Will

Dear Will, I'm so sorry it took me a full day to get back to you - trust me, the last days have been frantic to me! :( But there was no way I'd leave your beautiful message unreplied, not considering I've been wanting to visit you for a long, long time. I'm so joyed to see my tiny gift made you smile, and that you know how deeply we all value your hard work and admire you. In the time we've shared, I've grown very impressed and delighted with you; and not only because of your fantastic work, but your kind, positive and friendly attitude towards everyone. I know I'm not alone when I tell you, you're a beautiful person, and I hope we get to talk more in the future. I'm honored and happy to call you my friend.
And extra pleasure that the pic was so meaningful to you! :) Just so you know, I also have a Sarah I love with all of my heart... beautiful name, isn't it? ;) Love you, Phaedriel - 21:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• I would like to second these emotions. Beautifully put. --David Shankbone 21:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Hi Will, just a quick note to say thanks for participating my request for adminship. It was successful and I now have some shiny new buttons. If I can ever be of help, please let me know. Happy editing, mattbr 09:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for July 9th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter

The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter! Issue VIII - July 1, 2007 Monthly Challenge: Submit an article to our Jumpaclass competition! Languishing unloved, it is a great way to improving that article you always meant to improve but never got round to. Challenge someone else to go head to head and see who can improve their article most! Article News But I'm a Cheerleader is now GA Class! Project News Our Deputy Coordinators have been doing a fabulous job so far. Well done! The portal is now looking very snazzy, well done to Fireplace for all his hard work. The list of LGBT people to be sorted has now beed reduced by 20%. Please help us with it, all of us adding just one person a day would have a dramatic effect! The Core Topics is now largely complete. The original aim of getting some kind of publication out of it is extremely long term - any short term uses we can make of it are welcome on the project talkpage. A suggestion was made this month that we start our own wiki. Although the conclusion was that we felt we were a part of Wikipedia rather than a stand alone organisation, it seems there is an LGBT wiki already, at http://lgbt.wikia.com/wiki/Main_page . Members may be interested in getting involved there. The Collaboration is now getting rather short on suggestions. Article nominations for August through December would be welcome on the talkpage. There is now a list of Missing LGBT Topics. Help is needed to work out which topics can be made redirects or need to be created. Please contribute is you can. An LGBT banner that was created for Wikipedia's internal ads system has now been adapted so it can be placed on blogs and websites. The html is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:LGBT"><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Qxz-ad48.gif" height="53" width="445"></a> Please credit Miranda and link to her userpage: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Miranda">Miranda</a>. The banner can be seen in action here. If you have a blog or a website, please consider adding the banner, either in a post or as part of your profile. Member News 11 new contributors joined the project in the last month: Xnuala, Samantha Pignez, Jreferee, BGMurph, jmsast, Kukini, Theinsidellama, Heyfoureyes, Iceflow, NickGorton, Lynnllynn, KaiLeo, Amadscientist, and Mad_Cheese_Eater. Please make them feel welcome  ! However, this is a bit low for a project of our standing, so please consider doing a little recruiting if you can. To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Dev920 know.

Delivered on 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Vietnam

Please, join us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Vietnam! Chris 04:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind offer - I regret that I have no particular knowledge of Vietnam and don't believe I would have much to contribute. As it is I seem to have far too little time for helping out the project I am already a member of. Best of luck with the project though. WjBscribe 19:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Candidate for Deletion

Hi WJBscribe! Could you please take a look at Hollywood Zombies. Looks like product promotion to me. I placed PROD tag, but some anon removed it. I am still in the learning stage, so I could be wrong. Thank you. Zondi 00:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. So looks like I understood the deletion policy right:) Welcome back. Zondi 18:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah it probably is - its a borderline speedy deletion for blatant advertisement (see: CSD G11) but its written fairly neutrally so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. I've nominated it for standard deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hollywood Zombies. One way or another without more assertion of notability and some sources it needs to be deleted. Don't hesitate to get in touch if you have more questions in future. WjBscribe 18:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! Zondi 18:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lots of Crat Noms

Since you've been away you might not have seen it, but a lot of admins are going up on rfb and a lot of people seam like they're not going to pass, so I had a big think over all of the admins I know or have seen around and you are in my opinion the best admin that could become a crat and I would like to nom you if you want to be nomed just leave a message on my talk page and I'll create the rfb subpage. Bye. --Chris ^g 10:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Also one of the top crats thinks you'd make a good crat (only just saw that now :) --Chris ^g 09:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You'd definitely make a good 'crat... just wondering, when did you get promoted to admin? A few users consider that someone should be an admin for at least a year before nominating oneself for bureaucratship (I know this from experience), so it would be sad if you got opposed due to that. You've done wonderful work around in the renaming areas, which shouldn't go unrewarded. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 09:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Febuary this year (I know becouse I supported as Lwarf (Before I changed my username (Where I saw that WJBscribe was a clerk))) --Chris ^g 09:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Four/five months is definitely going to rattle some nerves. I have to recommend waiting a bit. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 09:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to Will to decide whether to go now or later (Wikipedia needs more Crats! :) --Chris ^g 10:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

See my comment below below to Cecropia. I have to say that I instinctively agree with Titoxd here - I have in fact only been an admin for just over 3 months (see [1]). Frankly that doesn't seem to me like enough time to establish the necessary level of trust to act as a bureaucrat - RfBs turn on the ability of a candidate to perform the most difficult part of the job (deciding to promote or not in controversial borderline cases) not ability to perform renames. I think any RfB from me would be premature - though I am grateful for the interest. If you think I would make a good crat now hopefully come some time in 2008 you would still hold that at least that opinion. Cecropia has raised an interesting point which makes me want to think this over a little longer - but I suspect it is still way too soon. WjBscribe 22:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation query

Hey there. I've been following the Anberlin mediation for a while, and was wondering if it's considered appropriate for interested observers to provide comments at all? I was going to weigh in with some thoughts, but wanted to be sure it was okay to do so while remaining an outside observer. Let me know - thanks! Tony Fox (arf!) review? 17:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response; I wasn't sure of the protocol, seeing a couple of others pop up in there during the process. I was basically going to provide some backup comments towards the outcome you're predicting, so I'll just stay out of the way for now. Cheers! Tony Fox (arf!) review? 02:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dear WjBscribe

I thank you for your heartwarming comments on my talk page, I have realised that the uncivil users rule this place and make it a nightmare, but you however are different and you bring joy here, thank you dear friend..... Qst 18:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfB?

I have held you up as an example of someone who is on the road to 'cratship, and there is sentiment to launch an RfB for you. You may see what is being said at WT:RfA(. You would be the first person I ever supported for RfB in my years at Wikipedia. Read over the stuff and I know a lot of Wikipedians would be interested in whether you would accept or not. Cheers, Cecropia 20:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. You won't be surprised to know your message comes as a bit of a shock. This wave of RfBs hit after I left and I've had very little internet access in the meantime. Although it had been my intention at some stage to offer to serve the community as a bureaucrat, I have had no intention of doing so anytime soon. Your TiS and TiG arguments give me pause for further thought. I still think an RfB is premature but I will think it over and seek advice. In the meantime, I will get on with the jobs I do around here and take part in some of the debates surrounding the present RfBs. Your confidence means a lot and it is because of it that I'm not responding with a outright no. WjBscribe 20:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your question on my RfB

I answered your question on my RfB, if you'd care to look at the answer. Thanks. --Deskana (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thankyou WJBscribe! You reverted the vandalism on my user page. It's pretty funny because I never noticed it until right now. H irohisat^{Talk Page} 07:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CHU

I'll go with what you said, considering that you've clerked a number of renames and those were my first ones. Thanks for the advice. Sr13 18:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thank you for your comments in my recent RfA. However, it was unsuccessful. I am in no way disheartened, and I am working on all the constructive critisism I have received. If you have any further suggestions or comments, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will be happy to respond. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 04:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Followup/Foundation notification on legal threats?

Greetings! I just blocked a User:Suud Vaastereimergraadt who made an attack page and then threatened more vandalism via a comment on my user talk page. He then made an unblock request which included a legal threat.[2] Besides upholding the ban, is there any follow-on action that needs done for the threat? I didn't see anything at Wikipedia:No legal threats to suggest where to report it. —C.Fred (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

In serious cases a post at WP:ANI might be needed (you can also now get in touch with the new foundation legal counsel, Mike Godwin - User:Mikegodwin - if you think there's a real chance legal action will be taken over something) but there's no general need to report these, particularly not if they're of the casual "or I'll sue" variety. Looks to me like everything's been handled properly. WjBscribe 23:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sri Lankan Civil War

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Sri Lankan Civil War

Isnt the wiki process so wondeful :) yes I think we should simply let it go for now. Thanks Taprobanus 01:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SLCW Mediation

Thankyou for your efforts in this mediation, I don't think there's any reason to pursue this seeing as it has resolved quiet nicely. --Sharz 04:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mail

You've got mail. (Qst) :-) 84.70.208.169 15:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You've got mail again. 84.70.208.169 16:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well you will have in two mins.... 84.70.208.169 16:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

Hi WJBscribe

I want to delete my WIKI account completely: charlotte@uk-mediagroup.com. Including the USER and TALK page.

Can you please facilitate this for me.

Thanks

I have deleted your user and talk pages. It is not possible to delete an account completely from Wikipedia - it is however possible to rename it so your name no longer shows up on our list of users - I will email the address you gave when setting up the account. If you reply stating that you wish to be renamed to a generic name, I will see if I can find a bureaucrat willing to perform this rename. WjBscribe 19:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vote on RFA

Hi, I removed your vote on Cometstyles's RFA because the RFA expired an hour you placed your vote, shown here. Cheers. Miranda 18:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Under no circumstances should you ever remove opinions expressed by other editors on RfA - they are closed when a bureaucrat closes them and can run beyond the one week minimum time. It also looks rater personal to remove a supporting opinion when you have opposed the candidate yourself. WjBscribe 18:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I got confused by this edit after Qst's RFA closed. I will be watching this page as well. So, please respond here. Miranda 18:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case the opinion that was reverted was after the candidate had withdrawn and the closing templates had been placed on the discussion: [3]. RfAs end either when a crat closes it (or in exceptional cases someone else per WP:SNOW) or when the candidate withdraws. Unless one of those things has happened the discussion remains open. Hope that clarifies things. WjBscribe 18:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the explanation. Cheers! Miranda 19:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CHU clerking

Hi, I noticed you seem to be the most active clerk at WP:CHU. I had been hoping to volunteer as a CHU clerk, but the assistance page lists quite a few clerks, and seems to suggest that there isn't a need for more clerks. Would my assistance be any help, or are there enough clerks already? Walton^One 19:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well people come and go - there's prob plenty of people to keep the pages running smoothly but then again more people would be harmful. So if its something you'd enjoy doing - sign up. If not, there probably isn't any need. But all help is welcome as far as I'm concerned, WjBscribe 20:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Wikipedia:Random picture of the day RFD

This RFD actually included two redirects (see the 2nd para of the nomination). Wikipedia:Random picture of the day/template either needs to be have the RFD tag removed or deleted as well. Could you please do that since you closed the nomination? -- JLaTondre 19:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing that out - somehow I completely forgot about the second redirect. WjBscribe 20:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Judicial system in presidency towns before 1726

Hi. I was sorting stubs and don't know what to do with Judicial system in presidency towns before 1726. What would be the most appropriate tag for this article? It's poorly written. Thanks! Zondi 03:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow - that looks random. There isn't an article there at the moment is there? No reason to think 1726 is a significant cut-off so seems original research and no real way to know how to expand it. Unless you're seeing seeing something I'm not I'd tag it with {{prod}} - doesn't look salvageable. WjBscribe 03:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this page can be improved either:) So I'll go ahead and place the PROD tag. In the meantime, I went to Hollywood Zombies website [4], clicked Media -> Zombie News, and looks like some publications did write about the series. Does that mean it's okay to keep the page now? Tx! Zondi 03:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well it can't hurt for it stay on AfD for consideration - but yes I suspect it will be kept. You may want to alter your opinion or link those wishing to keep it to those publications so they can expand/source the article (or you can do that yourself). WjBscribe 03:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:

Okay, thanks! Sorry! ~ Wikihermit 04:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I am here to do something productive.

I want to do something productive. I want to make important contributions. R-1441 is my account. I created that account on 9th July 2007. Hemlock Martinis blocked that account based on poor evidence. I created this account on 10th July 2007. And, I hate controversies. Once this controversy is over, I will do someting productive. Thank you. Ravi. RaviJames 04:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Thanks in part to your support, I am Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to live up to your confidence and kind words. Andre (talk) 09:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. Be working with you at WP:CHU shortly :)

[edit] Question

Hi Wjb! I need your admin wisdom. ;-) I'm itching to delete this section, as it has nothing to do with the article itself and it's basically a user venting about being blocked in es:Wiki. Do you foresee any problems if I do go ahead and delete it? Cheers Raystorm (¿Sí?) 11:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

...And now another user, also blocked at es:wiki it seems, is raising a fuss about some sort of admin mafia and making some ad hominem arguments about me. I'm not going to feed them anymore, I'm leaving it in your more than capable hands. Cheers Raystorm (¿Sí?) 14:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

No matter, issue's been dealt with. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 14:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Or not... Raystorm (¿Sí?) 10:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Aren't all pics from Wikimedia Commons kosher for use on wikipedia? I thought that was so. Anyway, I am wondering about a pic of Farah Pahlavi, which Abu budail (sp?) the little image twirp, keeps removing from her article. The pic is of Farah during nixon's visit in 1972, which would make it free use (no copyright problems) on Wiki. Apparently, Iran only has a 30 year statute on copyright for images. Abu keeps removing it, saying that there is no source. It's in Commons, and I don't know how to source it, except to say that it is on Farah's own website, saying it was taken during Nixon's visit. Please advise. In the meantime I'm adding her official State Portrait, taken from the time she was Empress of Iran. I assume a government photo conforms to wiki copyright guidelines, It's crap like this that keeps me from participating more fully here. Jeffpw 11:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what he's getting at here. Could you give more details of the images on its page - when it was taken and the fuller details of the autobiography it appears in. I have to say I'm not seeing anything glaringly wrong with the image description page as is though. WjBscribe 14:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Empress Farah.jpg

Abu badali, could you explain to me the issue you have with this image which you removed from Farah Pahlavi - the Iranian {{PD-Iran}} tag looks fine and is used on Commons. What more than "official government portrait" do you believe our policies require as a source? WjBscribe 14:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, WJBscribe. You probaly mean Image:Farah.jpg instead. Like with any other images, we need verifiable source information. In this case, I believe it could be any reference to an Iranian official publication containing this image.

Anyway, Image:Empress Farah.jpg also lacks such source verifiable source information, and I now have tagged it accordingly. --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't find your answer satisfactory - if the problem is not obvious to me as an admin here and on Commons, you need to give the editor more of an explanation of what you want. What information precisely do you say needs to be added to those images' descriptions to meet policy? WjBscribe 14:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Some evidence should be provided to support the claim that this is really an "Official government portrait". The official Bush image does that by providing a link to the Department of Defense website. The Brazilian president image does that by providing a link to a Brazilian's government website.

Please, note that it doesn't needs to be online to be verifiable. --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Frankly we don't impose such strict standards on a lot of Commons images (where the requirements are usually higher). But if Jeff gives the reference number for the autobiography - assuming the bio confirms its an official state photo - you'd be statisfied with that? Incidentally given this is a user you have been in dispute with before and in light of the issues raised at ArbCom, I'd appreciate an explanation of how you became involved in this matter - it seems a rather remarkable coincidence. WjBscribe 14:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we do ask for verifiable source information for every image. Maybe citing the book (with ISBN number) that claims this to be the Official image is good enough.

I don't remember how exactly I stumbled upon this image, but it was probably really from Jeff's logs. --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

So he admits to wikistalking me. There's no reason for him to be following me, checking every contribution I make. In any event, The ISBN for the Book is 90 443 0898, the photo is included after page 192 of the Dutch edition, and it is described as the official State Portrait. It's verifiable. Jeffpw 16:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Info added to image, tag removed. WjBscribe 16:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Great job. I've formated the info a little bit. As a small reminder, Wikistalking does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy. Have a nice editing. --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, WJB...boy, am I glad I voted for you! :) Jeffpw 16:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, I wrote her a letter (an e-mail) recently, and she very graciously replied to me. Imagine that--getting a letter from an Empress! Jeffpw 17:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Impressive - now we've sorted one image, do you think you could persuade her to email OTRS to confirm that Image:Farah.jpg really is an official photo of her ;-) WjBscribe 17:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Go to her website, Abu, and ask her yourself. She's so gracious she might even take it upon herself to reply to you. I'd actually prefer to see the Farah pic as the one on the article, as I think it's a lot more regal. Jeffpw 17:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well its looks like an official photo to me, but then again some people are being picky. I might put it up for deletion on Commons and see what the consensus is... WjBscribe 17:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GNU (disambiguation)

I have recreated GNU (disambiguation). I looked for a disambiguation page today and discovered you has just deleted it after Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 July 4. Do you agree the new page with more entries should stay? Did the deleted GNU (disambiguation) or Gnu (disambiguation) ever have any content I'm missing? Is it OK if I redirect Gnu (disambiguation) to GNU (disambiguation) and change the top of GNU and Wildebeest to link to GNU (disambiguation) instead of to eachother? PrimeHunter 16:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The deletions were on the basis that no disambiguation pages existed at the time (I think Gnu had been the disambig page before becoming a redirect). You are not missing any content, the deleted pages had only 2 edits - the creation of the redirect and the tagging for deletion. If you think disambiguation is helpful go ahead an make the changes to the pages. I think that's purely an editorial decision, I don't think the RfD has any bearing. WjBscribe 16:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Good. I have made the edits to Gnu (disambiguation), GNU, Wildebeest. PrimeHunter 22:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block

Hey, do you think you could block User:Mufapylly for me? They've only made two edits, yes, and they were a couple of days ago, but it's taken me that long to get a translation of what he said. Needless to say, it was totally uncalled for and vastly inappropriate - considering I don't even know who the person could possibly be. Though I don't know Wikipedia's policies on blocking people (Nor do I really care. I'm here as an editor only and don't wish to be involved any longer with what goes on behind the scenes here), on the Wiki I run, if people do something like this, they're out, end of story. Anywho, please consider my proposal. --~|ET|~(^{Talk|Contribs}) 19:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Y Done WjBscribe 19:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You have...

....email. Please reply on your thoughts. Fpt 18:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you please correct the link to my talk page on my userpage as I cant edit it as its semi protected =). Cheers, Fpt 19:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You have more mail. Rlest 15:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry, but IMHO you are very very wrong

Dear Mr. WJBscribe.

I sincerely believe that there is a serious problem of WP:COI in the article Spanish Wikipedia. As I proof I put the lack of any argumentation against. (even in your reprimand to me!, I must say)

I stated a clear reference that shows that the explanation on the split is incomplete and that keep silence on any criticism on the es:wiki administrators.

In the talk page I exposed that data and nobody has show an explanation, neither a reason against them. Instead of this I've received many arguments 'ad hominem'.

User Raystorm behave in a manner I do consider to be impolite, with many wordings as "pathethic" "you are very sad", "thought I wouldn't find out?", "insulting is second nature to you. How unfortunate for you that I do read Spanish. This explains everything"; personal attacks and distortions. When I asked Raystorm to discuss the data and not about me the answer was: "You just repeat what I told you. This is useless" not a word on the data.

My comments on user Raystorm were not any kind of badmouthing. Raystorm insulted and launched personal attacks against me, kept silence on my arguments and data, and even accused to me. That's what she did, and that's what I commented in the hu:wiki. IMHO, she can't prohibite to me to explain her impoliteness against me, specially when what she has written in the es:wiki contradicts some of her assertions). (and by the way, in her reference to my comments in hu:wiki she very seriously distorts my words; outstanding but not unexpected I must say).

By the way, can you explain why the data I afforded [5] is not relevant to the article? Everybody dismisses my claim, but nobody has bothered to give a reason. This is what I asked for repeatedly, but I received 'ad hominem', distortions and impolite comments. I still believe that the wording of the article is biased.

Do you really believe that commenting the biased quote of a reference, mentioning only the obsolete reasons but keeping silence on criticism on the es:wiki administrators is a Forum talk ????? I don't see how? I didn't discussed the article's merits, but its mistakes, hoping someone to correct them.

If you can't reason why the data I afforder doesn't show a biased wording in the article I beg to you to rectify it yourself with the same zeal with which you come to reprimand me (IMHO wrongly!).

And if you want to see how in the es:wiki there are administrators and users (as Ecemaml and Igor21) who discuss on how to change the content of the article Spanish Wikipedia read this: Propaganda de Wikipedia en castellano en la Wikipedia en inglés and answer whether there is interference and WP:COI or not. Ask yourself if this is how you want the WIkipedia to be.

--Dilvish 10 words 16:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your answer.

You're right about that my first editions (in the section "Who will put END to Spanish administrators arbitrarity???") were too long and messy and that my feeling that I must put beforehand my bad relations with some (not all) es:wiki administrator made it difficult to understand. I considerer that editing the article (instead of the Talk page) could be too provocative.

That being said, maybe my english level is too bad, but I thought I had exposed well my proposal of changes in the opening text of " Is that O.K.or it's WP:COI?" (as it can be seen in [[6]].

The reference to the reasons that the Enciclopedia Libre argues for the split already were translated in the article Enciclopedia Libre, and they do include criticisms on the administrators behaviour (read it yourself; I don't know if "personal wordings" is a proper translation but I think that the idea is clear). The fact that all the criticism on the es:wikipedia has disappeared in the Spanish Wikipedia article and that is usual that administrators and users of the es:wiki edit the article and that they talk in the es:wiki on how to get a more favourable image in the article should remark the need of care.

As the page of the Enciclopedia Libre do is a primary source I do think that its data should be included. As this documents also is a clear criticism on the gestion of the es:wiki it should be included in the section criticism. The fact itself of the split is a symptom of a special feeling of discomfort in the es:wiki.

But I'm not sure on the question of to quote or not the claim 30 in which user Thanos report the es:wiki administrator Dodo for continuous and repetitive abuses of various kinds[7]. It does look odd to quote a claim, but this one is really and excellent piece of work, a first class work, very precise. Take a look ar it.

I wonder if it could be quoted in a foot-note. Its relevance is that, as Thanos says, the claim only mentions examples of the last three months, and even so there are about 150 examples, some of them very serious, and with examples in which the accused did the same things by which he expelled users for ever from the es:wiki. So it shows how an es:wiki administrator can conduct despotically without any control with impunity, and hence it is a proof of the criticism. That's its relevance, but still I don't if it is proper to mention it in the section criticism. My opinion is what I said: as an explicative foot-note with the link without comments or only a brief description.

I also believe that as many en:wikipedians are not es:wikipedians it's no need for the es:wikipedians (specially administrators) to edit the Spanish Wikipedia article, and hence the WP:COI policy can be applied. Es:wikipedians can afford data in the Talk page if necessary.

--Dilvish 10 words 23:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S: As a matter of fact, an es:wiki administrator has just deleted all the section on criticism [[8]] a clear case of WP:COI. --Dilvish 10 words 23:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Mild Question

Regarding the article User:Rfwoolf/Evidence which was speedy-deleted and subsequently placed in deletion review, I see you added the {{drv}}.
I have a mild question simply to satisfy a curiosity: Why was the page protected?
That's it, just curious. I have no current intentions of even wanting to edit the page, but I would like to know why you think it's necessary. Rfwoolf 17:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unwatchedpages

That sounds like a good idea, and from a technical point of view there is no reason it couldn't be done. However, it would be a lot more intensive then creating a cached list as is currently done. Creating a watchlist as big as this would be on Wikipedia would probably bring the whole thing crashing down. If I recall correctly some users have actually hit the limit where their watchlists will silently fail, and this would be thousands of times that size. So this could be viable on small to medium wikis, but on a wiki as large as Wikipedia, it probably would have to be disabled for performance reasons. Prodego ^talk 21:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heroes

Please unprotect this redirect page. The Hero (disambiguation) and Heroes (disambiguation) pages have now been split as per no objections on the talk page for months. Heroes should redirect to the plural form disambig page. --Hasdrabion 13:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that edit warring results when that redirect is unprotected I will not unprotect it. I have however retargeted it to Heroes (disambiguation). WjBscribe 13:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast. Thanks! --Hasdrabion 15:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incase...

..you missed my earlier message just to inform you that you have email. Rlest 19:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied. Rlest 19:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Excuse Me

Hi. I wanted to explain to the user why, in my opinion, the block did not change the advice that I had given to him - but I did not really want to question you on your actions. This is partially because of a lack of time, but also largely because I have had recent problems with other admins who have responded in a far less constructive way than you have. Neither of these are valid reasons for not having contacted you, and this was an error of judgement that I apologise for. I do think that the contributions history of the IP shows so little activity in the last 6 months that a block was not appropriate after the vandalism stopped, and that an initial 72 hour block was not appropriate either - this is partly because I prefer to attempt to rehabilitate users where possible (I am perhaps too lenient in this matter). However this is just my opinion and it doesn't change the fact that I should have discussed this with you directly, which I again apologise for. Cheers TigerShark 12:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Rfa

I was willing to give another shot sometime later this summer of before the end of the year, as probably I don't have quite enough WP pages edits just yet, although I've improved a lot over the past few months especially with the AFD's and the Twinkle tool for reports. Thanks! I will think about that pretty soon.--JForget 02:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll drop it here when I'm ready for it.

Also, for the 209.xxx section, apparently there was a small server lag somewhere which explains that your block 5 temp contribution (22:55) on the IP appeared before your block contrib (22:54).JForget 15:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bless you...

Neranei ^T/C has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I think everyone could use a break - I've semi protected the page for a couple of weeks. WjBscribe 22:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] *'brien1000

Cheers for knocking that vandal on the head. Question is, who was he? I saw that he was a sock of another user, but not much to explain what caused the user to go rogue, and go rogue on my user pages. Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. I tried twice as it was written in the tread you pointed me out (Checco's problem). Unfortunately I had twice no answer from Brion. There was about four or five weeks between the two emails. As ln:User:Bombo I have about 1000 edits and now as IP ln:User:160.85.2.50 more than 100. The problem is not the user name, but the admin status connected to this user and the fact, that LN-wiki has only to admins who translate the interface to ln and fight spam. One of them is blocated since 27th of april as you know. As I asked to Brion, if he could put my eMail adress (from en or fr or de or als account to the ln account) as he did for Checco, the problem would be resolved. To read the two emails took probabely more time then put the email adress or send me a "no" as answer. Or does he not read the his eMails? If you know an other step I could try, it would be great. I recieved just today a long list with interface translations from two linguists from the Congo... Thank you anyway. --Eruedin 18:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring over non-free policy

Thank you for intervening and calming the dispute regarding the wording of WP:NONFREE. I think most of the participants are willing to discuss things and reach consensus. If you have a chance, would you mind taking a look at WP:NFCC? One of the participants in the edit wars, an administrator, is trying to expand the dispute by reverting quite a number of changes that have been made in that page in the past month. If possible, could we please protect that one too in the form it was in before the attempted edit war so that any further changes will first be discussed? Thanks. Wikidemo 21:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Protected. I'm afraid I can't revert before protecting though - has to be the version I come across. WjBscribe 03:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 17 July 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Galaxy Zoo, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

[edit] HP7 protection level

Hi - I noticed that you had commented on this, and I don't know if you were aware, but one of the admins apparently decided to ignore both the discussion and the RFPP decision and full protect the page anyway. I've lodged a complaint with the admin, on ANI, and the article talk page, but no one seems to even respond. Being as you're an admin, would it be possible for you to rollback to semi-protection - at least on the pretext of allowing us to finish determining consensus? I believe that the current discussion seems to be more in favor of keeping semi-protection anyway, although I could see it being no consensus. In any case, I don't see the needed support for a full protection being voiced in ANI. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 06:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to beat a hopefully not-dying horse, but I've stated a case more thoroughly at WP:AN. I understand that the admins are trying to prevent a wheel war, but I'm also very ashamed with the response I got at RFPP for restoring semi - basically they said "whatever the admins already have said". And I'm frustrated that the admins who applied (and modified) the protection are not responding to my request for further comment. Any ideas? Girolamo Savonarola 07:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't rush things - things happen by consensus, lets see how the WP:AN/I discussion develops. WjBscribe 07:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If I don't rush things, then it de facto stands, no? :( Plus, I thought that the ANI discussion showed that we had discussed this and seemed to be mostly in agreement. That's why I'm frustrated. Another admin acts rashly and suddenly nothing can be done. (At least that's how it feels.) Girolamo Savonarola 08:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hey, thanks for letting me know about the support/oppose/neutral thing. Useight 09:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hunting weapon

I'm unclear on what you wish me to respond to; is it the issue of "hunting weapon" being standard English? I believe it is, do you want my supporting arguments and evidence? scot 14:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah--I missed that the discussion had moved to the talk page. Done. scot 17:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

...Replied to at WT:WOTD. Rlest 18:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] user:86.112.234.106

Hi; this user, who you have given a 24-hour block, appears from his own page to be a self-confessed sockpuppet of, as he says, a banned user. I would have indefblocked him. Why would I have been wrong? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 00:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, fair comment. But not all editors have fluid IPs, and he really did seem to be boasting about his ability to circumvent wiki procedures, which always winds me up. Of course, there is some leeway between 24-hour and indefblock, but I guess we can wait and see what he does next. I shall, of course, not interfere, but I will put him on my watchlist. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 01:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're probably right. As we both know, it's a never-ending struggle. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 01:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Non-admin closure

Hello. I just closed this AfD discussion as keep. Did I do it correctly? It's the first time I close an AfD discussion, and I want to know I did it correctly. Happy editing! --Boricuaeddie ^hábleme 16:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine. WjBscribe 16:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Boricuaeddie ^hábleme 16:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 20:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UAA

I have flags, blacklists, etc programmed, but awaiting delivery to the main server as they are not well tested. If necessary, I will shut the bot down in the meantime, if it's not being too useful. If I am not online, but you want to shut it down, just blank the page User:DeadBot/UAABadwords with an edit summary of "blanking: disabling UAA bot", and the bot wont report anyone. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

That feature has been causing major problems, so is currently disabled. Badwords is the main factor right now. Clearing the badwords page will only stop the badwords feature, anyway. At the moment, the other similairities etc are too buggy and therefore disabled. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's really bad, just blank the page. It is reasonably useful anyway. It picks up some things that BCBot and NWBot don't. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CHU\U

I'd done a {{CUU}} note for Wikipedia:Changing username#UsurpationWanderer ← War-hammer. I did this because I noticed no one had done it. Shortly thereafter, when you did a check for deleted edits, you overwrote my note. I was just wondering if I was out of line, and should've put my name on the list of people willing to clerk before I did anything. I haven't because I haven't really planned to be active at it, I've just done it once or twice when they've been sitting there. So again, I'm sorry if I was out of line. I  ^{(said) (did)} 03:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Not at all - everything you did was fine. I don't normally write over people's notes and if anything I should be the one saying sorry. Its just that given the presence of deleted edits (and the notification had been left by then), a lot had to be changed and I knew there'd be a discussion so I thought it easier to have a fresh message. No offence intended and your help is most welcome - just an exceptional case. WjBscribe 03:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh good. Thanks for clearing that up. I  ^{(said) (did)} 03:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A question about your block

Why did you block 68.229.217.15 after only one edit? —  $PЯIПGrαgђ  00:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The edit was consistent with an old banned user - their name escapes me though. I probably should have waited for a second edit but decided it was such blatant vandalism of a familair nature that I'd just block. WjBscribe 00:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thank you for participating in My RfA which closed successfully. I am honored and truly more than a little humbled by the support of so many members of the community. It's more than a bit of a lift to see comments on my behalf by so many people that I respect. I'll do my best to not disappoint you or the community.

On a personal note, I'd like to thank you for the very kind comments. - Philippe | Talk 07:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where do you want me to make the edit

But, yes, it's me, Matt Sanchez Blue Marine. I also have another one I don't use named MattSanchez. Matt Sanchez 17:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This I'll do. Just wanted to make sure it wasn't an imposter, WjBscribe 21:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block

Hello, I have contacted you before about permanently blocking a member who's account was created solely for the purpose of personal attacks. I come to you again because these two IP users, user:4.225.34.246 and user:4.252.85.75, whom are more than likely the same user, have only made edits on my page as personal attacks. As such, I would appreciated it if you could block these two IPs in attempt to stop the attacks which so frequently occur on my page. --~|ET|~(^{Talk|Contribs}) 16:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protecting, if even just for a short while, would be fine with me.

Though, I wonder... On the wiki I help run, we have it those with sysop. Would that be possible? --~|ET|~(^{Talk|Contribs}) 18:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your note

The whole thing is bizarre, and not the first of its kind. I will e-mail you. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Something odd

Can you take a look at Miss Understood? When I go there, it is just a blank page, but if I go into edit function, the whole article is there. I don't understand it. Thanks, and hope you're doing well. :-) Jeffpw 08:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I had to ask around a bit, but Jersey Devil was able to fix it. Don't ask me what the problem was - all a bit complicated for me. All's well with me - good to still see you around. Might you be available for a chat on gmail sometime? WjBscribe 09:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, y'all can't get rid of me so easily :-). I check in many times a week, but only have a few pages watchlisted (yours being one of them). Thanks for making that page come back the way it should (when one delegates, one still gets credit). And I'd love to chat with you. Hit me up when you have some time. My only constraint is that I leave for Poland next week, and will be away for 2 weeks. Other than that, I'm available. Jeffpw 10:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Information.

Hello,

Today, I found out that I was unsuitable for adminship. Have you any suggestions on how I can change that? Any constructive feedback would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, --Aarktica 16:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

for blocking User:70.53.110.96. This IP kept vandalizing my user talk page as well as others. Did you get this IP from WP:AIV or how? NHRHS2010 ^Talk 20:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No prob - and yes it was the WP:AIV report. WjBscribe 20:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you ^Ariel♥Gold 03:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)  :)

[edit] Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warrantless threats are an abuse of your adminship.

There is simply no reason for your extremely rude threat on my talk page concerning the reference added to Matt Sanchez.. Making reference to verifiable source such as a nationally broadcast news program can not be construed as vandalism. Although I know Wikipedia is sensitive to libel issues with living persons, this does not mean that public figures should be free to use Wikipedia as a public relations tool. Past interviews and statements are not opinions, are not libelous, are not "I heard it somewhere," they are facts. Your revert also appears to ignore consensus. Typing monkey 01:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I will not compromise on WP:BLP issues. Work on achieving consensus on the talkpage for how to present the interview information. But the word "prostitute" is highly POV and putting it in the heading is undue weight. I stand by my warning (and it was not me who reverted). WjBscribe 01:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

"Prostitute" is exactly the word used which he agreed he was in the linked audio source. The word "prostitute" is not POV, it is an occupation, just like "gay porn actor," these are not opinions, they are facts which have been admitted, and broadcast, nationally. This should not be an issue and I stand by my observation that your threat is abusive. Typing monkey 01:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to call me a dick, just call me a dick. But please do it one post, its annoying if I keep getting the orange bar telling me I have new messages... WjBscribe 02:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. You're being a dick. Don't. Though I appreciate your explanation on the talk page, which is reasonable. I'll give some thought to more neutral language. I wish you'd taken the "talking" tack first. Typing monkey 02:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I said you could call me a dick if you did it in one post ;-) ... WjBscribe 02:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The word "prostitute" is not "POV" if it is accurate and verifiable. In fact, Sanchez admitted to prostitution in an article on Salcn.com, and in an interview with Alan Colmes. By unilaterally deleting that information from the article, you broke a bunch of Wikipedia's rules pertaining the neutrality, consensus, good faith, and accuracy. Do the rules apply to you, or are administrators held to be immune from Wikipedia's rules? Truthjusticeamericanway 07:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

See my comments about this on the article's talkpage. In particular the problems of using primary sources where these have not been picked up by reliable secondary sources and the problems of undue weight in a biography about a living person. Unless a neutral way is found to add the interview to the article and place it in context, Wikipedia's policies do not allow its addition - especially not in such a way as to add "prostitute" to the section heading (which gives it far too much prominence in the article). WjBscribe 07:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what do you mean by "a neutral way ... to add the interview to the article and place it in context?" And what about the Salon.com article in which he admitted to having been a prostitute? Truthjusticeamericanway 08:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

My talkpage isn't a great place for this discussion - this really should take place on the article's talkpage so everyone is involved. WjBscribe 08:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Please answer my question there, then. I believe it is part of operating in good faith, which I believe to be a rule at Wikipedia. Surely you wouldn't be dodging my question, right? Truthjusticeamericanway 08:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see User:WJBscribe as having "broke[n] a bunch of Wikipedia's rules", frankly. Try to assume some good faith on his part (and, indeed, on Krimpet's as I see you're treating her in a similar manner). WP:BLP is a serious rule and it's best to be conservative about these things lest we stray into accusations of unfair representation. Hence the need for impeccable primary and secondary sources - Alison ☺ 09:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP is a "serious rule," eh? So, Alison, what are the silly rules? Neutrality, good faith, common sense, and civility? WJBscribe has ignored all of them in his dealings with me, and in his administration of the Sanchez page. It would seem that there is one standard for Wikipedia's administrators and senior editors (who have a marked wagon-circling tendency when challenged), and those they support, vs. everyone else here. Truthjusticeamericanway 03:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't play silly semantic games & you may get a serious answer. I don't see any of WJBscribe's "dealings with [you]" relating to the Sanchez article, unless you're referring to some other account you may hold. Any diffs to point out his sins? You're constantly alluding to a multi-tiered system but have provided absolutely nothing to back it up. Diffs, please - Alison ☺ 04:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Indicidenally, WJBscribe has banned the use of ANY primary sources in Sanhez's article, except those that favor him. This is directly in contravention of Wikipedia's rules. But that must be a silly rule, or at least one that can freely be ignored by Wikipedia's administrators. Truthjusticeamericanway 03:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh please! "Banned"??? Given the nature of the Biographies of Living Persons rule, I can understand his rationale (and I've personally no interest nor bias relating to the article. I couldn't care less). Please do point out the "[direct] contravention of Wikipedia's rules" - I'd like to see that. Which rules? Big Admin Superpowers Conspiracy - Alison ☺ 04:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

And another thing; your account has not made one, single article edit - ever! You're not in much of a position to complain, frankly. Unless, of course, you're using multiple accounts :) - Alison ☺ 04:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You need to look up Wikipedia's rules about "civility." Do they apply to you? Semms not. So much for the "user-edited encyclopedia." I'm getting the sense that plenty of Wikipedians, especially those who have twisted the rules out of shape to promote and protect Matt Sanchez, would like it if actual "users" would just go away while they do their work of omitting the truth from the article. It's very, very sad to watch this done in violation of everything Wikipedia says it is about. Truthjusticeamericanway 19:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, some things Wikipedia is not about (common misconceptions aside) is a first publisher of previously unpublished information, or a tabloid or news source. We very deliberately lag behind reliable sources, and print things only after they do, even if we "know" them beforehand. If you truly believe you've found some critical, earth-shattering information, send your lead to newspapers, magazines, what have you. If they agree, and are willing to verify, fact-check, and publish your findings, now we've got secondary sources to use in the article here. If they disagree that it's important or correct enough to publish, maybe you weren't as right as you thought. Either way, we're a tertiary source, we publish after secondary sources do, not before. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fairly clear that Truthjusticeamericanway (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of the blocked Pwok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu). 24.18.130.89  (talk · contribs) appears to be the same person as well. Per WP:RFCU we can block "obvious sockpuppets", or would you prefer an actual CheckUser first? --Elonka 20:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope, no checkuser needed. I've not dealt with Pwok before, but I certainly will recognize 'em in the future. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I "know" Truthjusticeamericanway (well, we met through mutual pixels) and he is not Pwok. I will swear to it on a stack of frivolous lawsuits. I think Pwok threw in the wiki-towel, and I can't really blame him. I understand his frustration. Really, I know it's a controversial page, but the timidity about the "controversial" aspects of the controversial article in question go way beyond what the cautions in WP:BLP were intended for, imho. I still do not understand why the Colmes interview, for instance, is not allowed under WP:BIO since it is not "invasive" and the subject is "notable". WP:BLP, I think, doesn't want us putting up birth certificates and driver's licenses, not interviews on nationally broadcast news programs. I'd appreciate any explanation of that. (btw I'm not Pwok either.)Typing monkey 00:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As I didn't block Truthjusticeamericanway it seems odd that you've raised this here. Seraphimblade might be a better person to talk to if you wish to dispute that block.... WjBscribe 00:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I am continuing the discussion here since this is where the discussion is taking place. And I guess I'll just keep posting my question wherever I can until someone answers it.Typing monkey 01:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deewar (TV serial)

Why did you delete this page Deewar (TV serial) and leave the links to the page intact, rather than to change the page to a redirect page to the new name of the article Deewar (TV series)? Dbiel ^(Talk) 08:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Because I had no idea Deewar (TV series) existed. I simply deleted the broken redirect (the page redirected to Deewar.). WjBscribe 14:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I actually found the new page by clicking on the link to the deleted page and then clicking on the talk page link that then automaticly connected me to the talk page of the renamed article. That entire process had me a bit confused. After checking it out in more detail, I found that the entire process of changing the article name was done the hard way. It should have been done with a simple move command rather than creating a bunch of temporary pages and then leaving them all just hanging around. I flagged two of them for deletion. Dbiel ^(Talk) 03:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do you think

...You could delete my userpage so that I wont be clogging up my contribs with userspace edits as I'm going to re-design it now and many admins delete there own userpage regularly. Regards, — Rlest (formerly Qst) 16:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, do you want it deleted now or after you've redesigned it (so edits you make in the process of designing it are deleted as well)? WjBscribe 17:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No its OK actually, cheers! — Rlest (formerly Qst) 18:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undeletion

Can you undelete this image for me please, if only temporarily? It got deleted but I don't know why and it might be worth putting back for the Austin Nichols FARC. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Its a pretty obvious promotional picture. The uploader tagged it as "The individual who uploaded this work found it on an unconfirmed website". WjBscribe 21:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou. I didn't remember putting an image called that on his article. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] St. Francis Xavier's College (Liverpool)

Greetings, I've posted a similar request to this now on both User:JzG and User:violetriga talk pages, however I didn't realise that they were involved in some sort of dispute with each other at the time. In any case my request has gone unanswered so now I turn to you! To save my explaining all over again, if you could read my comment regarding this article on User talk: violetrigaI'd really appreciate it. Thanks in anticipation! Liverpool Scouse 23:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'd like to know a little more about what you would do if allowed to edit the article again. This appears to be the controversial material. Do you intend to readd that material if the article is unprotected? The problem as I see it with mentioning quashed convictions is that people often assume that someone actually did something wrong - and that they just got away with it. Any content along the lines of "John Smith was convincted of beating his wife but later found innocent" isn't great. Wikipedia's articles have a really high google presence so anyone looking for the person in question on google will find our article as one of the top hits. Effectively it makes the person unable to get away from the controversy - other reports fade from google over time but our articles stick at the top. There is also the problem that mentioning his defense means letting people know that he did download indecent pictures - although not knowing they were of children - which is also rather a problem. Generally school articles should not contain that much detail about individual teachers and the teacher wouldn't qualify for his own article. Anyway, I'd like to know what your intentions are with regard this article before deciding whether to unprotect it or not. WjBscribe 23:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. This issue came to light when I tried to add a project infobox yet found it was still protected. That's all I want to do intially, and then perhaps add further background and history regarding the college when I can dig up the info and sources. Regarding the "Controversy" section, initially I thought that rather than just wholesale removal of it, it could be suitably modified such that issues like those you have raised could be addressed. But upon reflection it seems that doing that would leave nothing of any real value anyway, so it's probably best left out. I certaintly won't put it back in, and I'm of course I'm happy for it to be monitored to that end. Liverpool Scouse 23:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I have unprotected the article. WjBscribe 23:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help and for dealing with it so expeditiously. Liverpool Scouse 23:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pardon Me

Just to let you know, I just sent an email to you. I'm having some difficulty. -WarthogDemon 02:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elonka

I would think its pretty clear from Elonka's old RfA that there are a lot of people opposed to Elonka being an admin and they have many genuine concerns and nothing will change this time from the last time.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of the last RfA. It was nearly a year ago. As I see it Elonka has addressed most of the issues raised. She no longer edits articles about her family and what I have seen of her conduct over recent months has been outstanding. Ned's oppose is pretty bizarre - if she indeed demonstrates the chracteristics he suggests (effectively being a POV-warring tendentious editor) how can that be squared with the fact that Arbom - the body we entrust to regulate conduct - made no finding against her? Frankly if the community is unwilling to give people a fresh state and allow someone with time to overcome past mistakes, it will be a weaker community for it. May I ask the purpose of your post to my talkpage? WjBscribe 17:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Committed identity doohickey-thingamajig?

Allo. (this is going to sound sooo professional and schtuff)
What was that committed identity stuff you were talking about in the request for admin talk page? (A link to related reading is fine as well) Bladestorm 21:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure. It came up when we had a problem with various admin accounts with week passwords being hijacked. The best explanation is I think this article in the Signpost: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-14/Committed identity. WjBscribe 21:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice! Thanks a lot. Bladestorm 22:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute resolution on Food Irradiation

I would like to pick your brain as how to best proceed on an article stuck due to edit warring. There have been verbous disputes on the Food Irradiation article that led to edit protection. The disputants then agreed to enlist the help of the Mediation Cabal and despite a strong effort by the mediator there were no converging viewpoints. Please see the mediation page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Food_irradiation/Mediation_discussion for an overview of what was going on. In my viewpoint the core of the issue is one of due weight of minority opinion that is causing this article to be in distress. My question to you would be with regards to how best proceed moving forward. There has been a proposal to move this to formal mediation but my gut feeling is that the mediation failed not due to lack of process or mediation abilities on behalf of the Mediation Cabal but rather because of a lack of good faith assumptions by some of the contributors. I would like your opinion on whether formal mediation might help despite previous efforts in that direction, whether arbitration is the way to go, or whether there are other options to puruse. Thanks RayosMcQueen 22:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ryulong

Please see User talk:Ryulong[9] where I asked for an apology, in the conversation you participated in regarding his WP:BITE and WP:BLOCK, for blocking me for a week without cause, and instead of apologising, he redacted my post seconds later. 121.208.181.37 23:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

He removed my second and third requests each time, and still offered no apology. I won't contact him again to avoid 3RR edit war, but I would appreciate an admonishment for his surprisingly horrid behaviour in face of a simple apology request. His last edit comment was "My removal of your comments should be a hint as to drop the damn issue". Thank you. 121.208.181.37 23:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea whether you are a sockpuppet or not, but I strongly urge you to stay away from Ryulong's talkpage. I do not find your block as problematic as other issues. WjBscribe 23:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not a sock-puppet, and the block is problematic in that it was unwarranted and came after someone already pointed out that I live in a different area of the world. I have no similarity to any other contributions to the supposed puppeteer, as a simple 'user contrib.' check would have shown, but only that someone on my IP happened to use the same cite (not even the same wording as the banned user, but a direct quote from the citation) on ONE article (which is not a blocking offence). I already said that I was staying away, but Ryulong's behaviour, telling me in edit summary to 'drop the damn issue', then again saying to drop it on my talk page, is horrendous, given that a simple "I'm sorry" would have meant that I would have gone away. I've reported him elsewhere too. This is beyond silly, and a perfect example of WP:BITE and WP:BLOCK. 121.208.181.37 23:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, please note that I wouldn't have had to ask him to apologise again if he hadn't removed the request without comment the first time, removed my second request with edit summary: 'enough', and removed my third request with that rude edit summary. Am I supposed to read his mind (his 'hint')? No. I gave him three chances to apologise so that he had every opportunity to ask forgiveness. All I wanted, still want, is a simple 'I'm sorry', and it's not too much to ask, especially in light of his recent rudeness. I come here in my spare time as a volunteer, and have wasted too much of it trying to get an erroneous block of his (made without any enquiry by him) first reversed, then apologised for. 121.208.181.37 23:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

WJB-I admire you for asking Ryulong to step down-he didn't deserve adminship in the first place.--Xterra1 00:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Xterra1 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy day!--Xterra1 20:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anberlin

WJBscribe, three weeks ago you moderated an argument regarding Anberlin's genre, stored Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Anberlin here. Now, User:Skateremorocker is refusing to abide by this mediation. I'm unsure how to move forward -- I've reverted twice, but I don't want to escalate this into an edit war. Skateremorocker has reverted 3 times in the past 24 hours, once while not logged in, but I'm not sure whether it's my place to put a 3RR warning on his talk page since I'm the other party in the reversion attempts. A request for mediation seems to be redundant, since you just resolved this earlier in the month. Jpers36 18:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jpers36. Thanks for getting in touch. Something to bear in mind about mediation is that it's a purely voluntary process and isn't binding. All it can do is help the people who are arguing at about something at one time come to agreement. Technically the parties to a mediation aren't bound by the outcome - though its understanadbly seen as bad form if they go back on what they had previously agreed. But I think its quite understanable that someone new might be unwilling to be bound by a mediation they were unaware of and took no part in. Its definitely not a good idea for me to try and enforce the outcome - mediators can get rather possessive of the compromise agreed on their watch and neutrality is therefore lost. It probably needs a fresh pair of eyes. The arguments that came up in mediation remain valid however and you may want to direct the new party towards those discussions so he understands why the compromise came about.

As to the wider question of policy, there is nothing to stop you informing him of 3RR via a warning, and you can consider reporting him should he break that rule (though you should not yourself). Try and get into discussion with the user and point out that reverting back and forth previously got the article no where and that he might want to give thought to the merits of the compromise that was reached. WjBscribe 08:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin question

Hi sorry to bother you, however I saw you were an Admin the other day, and I just wanted your advice on ssock puppets? I had always thought that someone who posts both as a registered user and as an IP user could be classified as a sock puppet on wikipedia? In this talk page Talk:English people#Obsessive vandal IP user - User:68.110.8.21 who also seems to be User:Lord Loxley given their responses and recent edits, claims that IP users cannot be sock puppets, stating that, "an IP address is never classified as a sockpuppet". Is that correct as I am sure I have seen instances of IP users being identified as sock puppets. They are quite clearly one and the same user, and they have used both accounts to revert edits on that article in what to me seems like an edit war with another user User:TharkunColl who between the two of them seem to have reverted each others edits over and over the past few days on the article. I really do have no wish to be even slightly involved in any disagreement with Lord Loxley/68.110.8.21 having previously come into contact with them on here, as they don't take criticism or disagreement with their view well. However something needs to be done on that article by an Admin in my opinion. I don't know the rights nor wrongs of either of their views I must admit, but just wonderd if you could, as an Admin, have a look at the 3RR and about the sock puppetry issue. Thank you. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just to point out...

On the CHU/U board, you said that Linux had been notified of the request, and he had not. I know the requets was denied, but I just thought I'd let you know. i ^{(said) (did)} 04:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me - my latest post to that request may explain things. I usually add the notification myself where the person requesting the usurpation has omitted to do it themselves, but (for the same reason I was unable to flag up the problem with Linux as username) I wasn't able to do that as I intended when I said the notification had been left. I'd forgotten all about that bit. WjBscribe 04:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Ben Watton

Hi, on 20 July you removed this under CSD-R1: talk page of a redirect to a non-existant page. Unfortunately, the original article has been the subject of several erroneous moves, and I've just moved it back to the original name. Could you please restore the talk page? Thank youErrabee 07:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Done - I've managed to track down where the talkpage ended up, undelete it and move it back. WjBscribe 07:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request to Undelete

Forgive me, but I'm really REALLY new at this. We had an article on Wikipedia on the HBDI, Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument, which the deletion log shows you deleted due to it being redirected to a non-existent page. Our website was recently redesigned and that is probably the reason the page no longer existed at that URL. Would you please undelete it and I will update it so that it directs it to our new URL? Will you let me know if and when you do this? I would GREATLY appreciate it.

16:55, July 20, 2007 WJBscribe (Talk | contribs) deleted "HBDI" (CSD R1: Redirect to non-existent page)

Thank you. --Brenda D. Weaver 16:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand, I deleted HBDI because it merely pointed people to another article that had been deleted. The administrator you probably want to speak to is Kingboyk, who deleted the article itself.

19:15, July 18, 2007 Kingboyk (Talk | contribs) deleted "Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument" (CSD G11: Advertising)

By the way, as you obviously have a connection to the subject matter, it might be an idea if you had a look at our rules on conflicts of interest. WjBscribe 20:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do you know an other way?

Thank you very much for your help. I tried twice as it was written in the tread you pointed me out (Checco's problem). Unfortunately I had twice no answer from Brion. There was about four or five weeks between the two emails. As ln:User:Bombo I have about 1000 edits and now as IP ln:User:160.85.2.50 more than 100. The problem is not the user name, but the admin status connected to this user and the fact, that LN-wiki has only to admins who translate the interface to ln and fight spam. One of them is blocated since 27th of april as you know. As I asked to Brion, if he could put my eMail adress (from en or fr or de or als account to the ln account) as he did for Checco, the problem would be resolved. To read the two emails took probabely more time then put the email adress or send me a "no" as answer. Or does he not read the his eMails?

If you know an other step I could try, it would be great. I recieved just today a long list with interface translations from two linguists from the Congo... Thank you anyway. --Eruedin 19:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Sanchez talk pages personal attacks

Hi, I know you are somewhat familiar with Matt Sanchez commenting on the talk pages of the article about him. I feel he has again crossed the line into personal attacks and would appreciate you looking into it or advising me what would be appropriate steps to take. Thank you for your time on this. Benjiboi 20:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the personal attacks and given User:Bluemarine a final warning. WjBscribe 21:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly my troll

Scribe, this User's behavior and demeanor is remarkably similar to my troll's behavior and demeanor Chichichihua (talk · contribs). They've already violated the 3RR. --David Shankbone 00:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a little suspicious - though so far its concentrated on that one article. I'll keep an eye. In the meantime I've semi-protected Chihuahua (dog) so new accounts and IPs can't edit it - it seems to have gotten a ridiculous amount of vandalism over the last couple of months. WjBscribe 00:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you sir. --David Shankbone 00:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for taking the time to add your thoughts to the discussion at my recent Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Angus Lepper RfA, which failed, with no consensus to promote me. However, I appreciate the concerns raised during the course of the discussion (most notably, a lack of experience, particularly in admin-heavy areas such as XfDs and policy discussions) and will attempt to address these before possibly standing again in several months time. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 16:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

I've answered your optional question, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Giggy. Thanks, Giggy _U^CP 23:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can a move end an AfD?

Greetings! The AfD in question is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wake Forest-Rolesville Middle School Dance Marathon. The event got nominated for deletion. An editor suggested that the content be merged into an article about the school. Since the article didn't exist, he moved the marathon article to Wake Forest-Rolesville Middle School and started expanding around the marathon.

It stands to reason that effectively this is a new article, and the AfD should be closed as a merge (or at least relisted, since there's a fundamental change in the article under deletion). However, since I've already participated in the discussion, I don't feel independent enough to do a speedy close, or at least not without consultation. What's your read on this? Thank you, —C.Fred (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, the article still has far too much coverage of that dance marathon, though I guess that kinds becomes a content issue. And the notability of the middle school may be questioned. There are two options really:

1. Relist the AfD by adding {{Relist}} and moving the AfD to today's page.
2. Close it procedurally and start a new AfD about the middle school, linking participants in that AfD to the current discussion.

Dunno what you think is the better option. Let me know what you think - I'll do either of the above if you think its better that you don't, though neither actions is that controversial (especially as your initial opinion was a delete one). WjBscribe 05:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help with RfA nom

Hi Wjb. :-) Listen, I finally bullied Dev920 into accepting to take a second chance at RfA. I would appreciate it if, with your experience in these kind of noms, you could oversee that I've done everything correctly. I had to write my nom over a previous one by Jet123 that Dev did not accept and that for some reason hadn't been deleted, which is where my main concerns arise. Also, I was surprised to see there's only a week for voting? :S Anyway, I would appreciate it if you could supervise things a bit. ;-) Wouldn't want her to fail the RfA just because I'm not transcluding or whatever appropiately, sigh. Cheers! Raystorm (¿Sí?) 12:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

A week is right. If Jet123 was happy for it to written over I wouldn't worry about thatt. One of you needs to add it to WP:RFA and then the end time needs to be adjusted to seven days after you've added it. But all looks fine. WjBscribe 12:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hello WJBscribe, I don't believe we've interacted with each other before, and I hope you will bear with my long message. I see you around, and admire your work in various aspects of Wikipedia, including the Mediation Committee and the LGBT studies WikiProject. I am concerned about a recent remark of yours; I hesitate to post about it, but it is something that has been on my mind lately. On Ryulong's talk page, you said,

Personally, I think Ryulong was remarkably civil and he was quite correct to tell Abu badali to get lost. Abu has a vested interest in defending people who use contrib histories to harass. There's a difference between being open to criticism from outside parties and letting someone with an axe to grind soapbox. WjBscribe 05:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me make it abundantly clear that I have a certain vested interest, in that I appreciate the work that Abu badali and Videmus Omnia do, in that I do similar work, and in that I have argued in favour of Abu badali on his RFAR. I hope, however, that my affiliations and opinions will not affect your consideration of my argument.

Further, let me state my opinion about harassment: I disagree that the actions of Videums Omnia or Abu badali constitute harassment, but I understand and acknowledge that many editors do not appreciate their actions. I acknowledge that sometimes, especially when an editor feels that a large number of images by one uploader ought be tagged, more delicacy than a series of templated messages is required. This is even of further importance when the editor is involved in a dispute or when the editor has had previous communication with the uploader. Unfortunately, Abu badali and Videmus Omnia, among other people (including myself), have not been delicate where delicacy would be appropriate.

We as a community need to be open, honest and engaged in discussion about these issues. There are many images which should not be included in Wikipedia, and others which should not be included or excluded without debate. Everyone, even editors with vested interests at any point on the non-free content-continuum, should be included. When editors engage in actions that may be perceived by reasonable people as harassment, or when editors label another editors' actions as harassment, the opportunity for reasonable discussion including everyone on the continuum is denied.

I feel strongly about the importance of discussion, and it is why I now post on your talk page: not because I have an axe to grind, not because I wish to soapbox, not because I have a vested interest, but because I sincerely want everyone to have an equal opportunity to participate in discussion, acknowledge their biases and consider others' arguments based upon the quality and persuasiveness of their thesis, not their affiliations, biases, or unrelated opinions or actions.

There is a difference between open, honest discussion, criticism and soapboxing. WP:SOAP says it best: "Wikipedia content is not propaganda, recruitment or advocacy; .... opinion pieces; .... self-promotion; .... [or] advertising." Nowhere does it say that an editor with a particular bias is disallowed from engaging in discussion related to his or her bias.

It is by my foregoing argument that I ask you to please reconsider your statement on Ryulong's talk page. Abu badali does have a vested interest in the tagging of non-free images; I seriously doubt that he would deny that. But Abu badali does also have a right and an obligation to openly and honestly discuss these issues, and by suggesting that he should get lost because of the simple fact that he is not unbiased, because of the misplaced accusation of soapboxing, is, in effect, stifling discussion where we ought be promoting discussion, and furthering disingenuous and divisive assessments of certain editors' actions.

Abu badali is committed to this project. I argue that Abu badali is also acting in good faith; he makes no attempt to hide his biases, he openly and honestly discusses his opinions with other editors, and he has been here for at least a year (upon a quick glance of his contribs). Absent damning evidence, one could not convince me otherwise; my interactions with him, his sheer volume of his edits, his commitment, despite terrible treatment by his colleagues, and my willingness and desire to assume that most editors on the project are acting in good faith, is enough for me, and I hope enough for you.

I hope that I have not offended you, and I hope that you will seriously consider what I have said here. The Wikipedia community does not need more polarization of the sensitive and personal issues of image tagging and non-free content, nor will we benefit by precluding individual editors based upon their open biases and other opinions. We need help; we need opinions from all sides, including editors who think that the scope of non-free content should be broadened; but most of all, we need everyone to find the capacity to assume that their colleagues are acting in good faith. Without good faith, one cannot possibly enter into discussion with an open mind, willing to listen to the opinions of even the most different Wikipedian.

Please consider this and your prior statement, and please help us. Thank you, Iamunknown 06:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that a long post. Let me make myself totally clear. I believe that Abu badali is a huge liability to all people engaged in dealing with images on this wiki. I have on occasion dealt with the bad fair use and no license backlogs (though these days my image work focuses on Commons, where I am an admin). I do however often make comments to support the work of those dealing with fair use in particular - and I support the work of Betacommand's Bot. But I have also over the months observed Abu badali and his attitude, which I firmly believe is harmful to this project. Those who chose to tag images for deletion should do so dispassionately and be ready to help when questions are raised. They should be sensitive to the feelings of other editors and realise that their work is bound to upset. Many of our best contributors of written content do not understand our image policies - teaching them is better than slapping them in the face.

Simply put I believe Abu badali is a bully. I believe he uses his knowledge of our image policies to harass and intimidate editors he dislike. It is very hard to prove intent, and I can only express the opinion I have formed. He has on numerous occasions admitted that he will verify the contrib history of all people he interacts with. For my most recent dealings with Abu badali see my archives her. An editor who has contributed valuable content (including getting an article to FA) left this project because he felt intimidated and upset by the fact he was continually hounded by Abu badali. Abu's conduct was such that even Theresa Knott (a former Arb) asked him to stop wikistalking. I was recently delighted to find that Jeff had decided to return to the project after many months. Not long later he approached me on my talkpage to say an image he had uploaded had been tagged for deletion. That was not astounding - Jeff's views on images aren't quite in line with the present appoach. But two things did surprise me when I looked at Image:Empress Farah.jpg: (1) that by coincidence Abu badali had tagged it despite past incidents and (2) that the problem with it was a picky point that doesn't come up even on Commons. At most Abu needed to ask Jeff to reference the autobiography the photo was obtained from to confirm it was an official image (though its pretty obvious form looking at the image) - there was no need to tag it for deletion. Abu badali admitted he had discovered the image from tracking Jeff's contribs (even though this was many months since their original disagreements). That incident fits with my longstanding opinion of Abu badali.

I am more than willing to support all those doing legitimate image tagging work - which I agree is essential to our goal of creating a free content encyclopedia. But I will not tolerate poeple doing so to harass. I advise you to pick your battles - defending Abu badali does not in my opinion stregthen the cause of image tagging it weakens it. His attitude seems to me at odds with the core ideals of this project on a community level. I do see your point about WP:AGF, but may experience of Abu badali has been sufficient that I no longer can do that in his case. He may be misguided and believe that the tactics he use are necessary, but in my opinion they are not. WjBscribe 06:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thus far this conversation, for good or ill, is not going where I intended. I think that is my fault; I conflated quite a few issues and thus my post become very bloated. I originally posted my opinion of and relation to Abu badali because I did not want to be accused of maintaining a vested interest of an axe to grind; I wanted to be very clear and open, which I think it essential to effective communication. I am very sorry to hear of your opinion of Abu badali, but I am aware of others who maintain similar opinions.

That those opinions are conflated with your interactions with Abu badali, however, is more precisely my concern. Yes, you dislike Abu badali, yes, you think he is a liability to the project, yes, he has a vested interest in non-free content and image tagging, but that does not excuse the attitude that he should be precluded from conversation, as your statement on Ryulong's talk page suggests. You may disagree with him, but that does not mean that he should be precluded from engaging others in conversation.

My original post was not to try to convince you that Abu badali's actions are necessarily good or bad; my original post was to point out the detriment to the project that would happen if editors, who are neither blocked, banned nor topic banned, yet are excluded from conversation based upon their actions, opinions, or based upon others' opinions of them. My original post was directly related to this diff and, if possible, I would like to separate that diff from the larger issue of Abu badali's actions. I hope that you will consider this. Again, thank you, Iamunknown 00:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for catching and reverting the vandalism to my user page, it's much appreciated. Trusilver 21:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leonardo DiCaprio

Scribe, could you protect this article from new or unregistered users? For about a week now it has sustained heavy vandalism from a user who simply does not like the lead photograph. They have been reverted umpteen times. --David Shankbone 01:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There does seem to be quite a lot of vandalism generally, I've semi protected the article for month. WjBscribe 06:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signature

WJB-How do you keep and create customized signature?--Xterra1 19:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ryulong RFC

I don't believe it's canvassing to bring this up, as you mentioned something before, and I need a second person to sign off on it. I've reopened it: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ryulong. I've also not been able to complete it as fully as I would like; any input would be appreciated. The Evil Spartan 20:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Probable copyright violation

Hey WJB, I'm not sure where to report this, so here it is: Image:Quitaped.JPG is marked as being in public domain, but I'm about 99.999% sure that it has not been released to the public. The description given states: "Image is of the Quitaped, a fictional species of creatures created and owned by J. K. Rowling; scanned from my own copy of the book Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them." Since this book was only published in 2001, there's no way this is in the public domain. (I have the book, and it has the standard no reproduction, blah-dy-blah, copyright verbage.) Aleta 04:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Hi, WJBscribe, and thanks for your participation in my RfA. I've withdrawn it, and will be writing up an "analysis" of it, which will soon be available at User:Giggy/RfA/Giggy when it's done. Please come around when you get the chance, and give me feedback on how I can improve. Thanks again, Giggy _U^CP 04:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Done

I responded at Template talk:Done; in fact, you're making the same point I'm making about the use of that checkmark elsewhere, so we don't disagree. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Hello. Two images uploaded by User:Mhart54com, Image:Asdsasd.gif and Image:Sasukesharingan0112.jpg are improperly tagged as public domain images created by the user, yet there does not seem (at least according to the options Twinkle is giving me) to be a relevant CSD tag to place. Do I change the license and tag accordingly for a lack of a fair-use rationale, or is there another option? Much appreciated. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think CSD G12 just about covers those. In less clear cases you might have to nominate images for deletion at WP:IFD. WjBscribe 23:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I see. Thanks again. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)