User talk:John Vandenberg/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

License tagging for File:Jgp.gif and File:Jcbcover.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Jgp.gif and File:Jcbcover.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, John Vandenberg. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— AGK [•] 19:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• didn't take the bait ;) Gold Hat (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Gold Hat has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

E-mail

Did you receive my e-mail? What seems to be the issue? --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I've replied. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

rollback

Hi, as you are a trusted user on French Wikipedia, I have granted you WP:ROLLBACK. Regards, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Regards, Kropotkine 113 (talk) 09:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

As Kropotkine 113, thank you. Regards, Ludo29 (talk) 09:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Foundation list

Just letting you know that I've replied to an old post of yours on the Foundation List which somehow stuck in my mind: [1]. Best, --JN466 10:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom & Malleus

Kindly don't censor; it's an opinion, and should be given whatever weight is appropriate. Doing so without precedent calls your neutrality into question, and ultimately, your judgement and whether you should recuse as an Abitrator as exhibiting undue bias against a legitimate defence. Rodhullandemu 02:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

There is plenty of precedent for my removal of your external link. If you would like me to prove this, please ask.

Reverting an arbitrator on arbitration pages, without first discussing the matter, calls into question your judgement, which is a central aspect of this case.

The correct place to request a new party to be added to the case is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rodhullandemu/Workshop#Motions and requests by the parties.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• • ArbCom does not own its pages; the community does. However, for the sake of form, I'll make a proposal as you suggest. Rodhullandemu 02:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

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

GA/FA research cross-wiki

Hi. A user was asking for help with assessing GA/FA articles cross-wiki; maybe you have ideas?

User_talk:Cooldenny#How_to_choose_featured_article.28s.29_from_different_languages

(Sorry if this is not within your remit; it's a tricky question to answer, and I just thought maybe you might know where they can seek more help)  Chzz  ►  01:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.  Chzz  ►  13:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Gill's articles -- RS or ??

I think the disagreement between you and Elen/Jclemens is one of interpretation of statistics :-) You're saying that something like a Springer encyclopedia (and a peer-reviewed journal) is WP:RS on average. What they are saying is that given the dispute at hand, they won't venture a guess as whether a particular paper is WP:RS or not, regardless where it was published. I left a longer comment on proposed decision talk page on the latter issue. There is probably a way to capture both points (you and Elen/Jclemens being both right about different things) into the decision. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to avoid using the term 'reliable source', but I think that is pointless in this specific case. Last night I replied to you over at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty_Hall_problem/Proposed_decision#Gill110951_finding_of_fact (reliable_sources_etc.), suggesting another term which I prefer, but I'll be guided by the community and fellow arbitrators here, if there is sufficient will to avoid the term 'published research', which doesn't appear to be the case. Thank you for taking the time to assist with this case, and the article.

In addition to these publishing venues being statistically reliable (;-), I haven't seen anyone contest that these specific papers are un-'reliable', nor would they unless they are playing games with policy & guidelines in order to 'win' a content dispute without a proper discussion about the subject. Some parts of the papers may not be the best source for a specific finer point, and can even be 'wrong', but that shouldn't invalidate the source entirely, unless the whole thing is (and always was) bunkum. That FoF is stating that they are *published* as reliable sources; it doesnt address the need for these papers to undergo an additional level of 'quality control' when they are put to use in Wikipedia, in order to ascertain whether the paper is (an|the most) appropriate reliable source that supports the piece of Wikipedia text. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Email

Hi John. Please check your email. Cunard (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Ta; done. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the swift response. I've sent you another email. Cunard (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Recuse

Re [2]: why? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

this sequence kinda says it all. I was under the mistaken impression that Jagged 85 had been banned. Who could have known that someone could get away with such behaviour on Wikipedia with only a single 24 hr edit-warring block. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what you mean. Do you mean, that there were previous interactions which that edit hints at; or that edit itself implicates you somehow? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

That edit indicates I've already made up my mind on at least one aspect. If I did not recuse, that diff may be considered sufficient basis to appeal the case decision and/or cause a lot of <exercise for reader: insert missing word here> before, during and after. recusing is simpler. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. While I don't agree, I do now understand William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Lol, you've been cited in the blogosphere. And you may want to read this. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to the blog post mentioned here? Or is there another?? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I found the blog linked directly there via my Mad googling skills. :-) There's also a wiki about that: [3], which isn't quoting you yet. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess we can hope Centcom will eventually fix the problem. They only promised to stay out of Facebook and Twitter (explicitly--not that they even have to stick to that promise). ;-) Tijfo098 (talk) 04:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

hey

Thanks a lot. On some points for semi-protected page articles what does that mean like for 4 days and 10 edits, does it mean you need to have 10 edits a day for 4 days? Just wondering. Thanks! Chase Segasi (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

you've got mail

Hello, John Vandenberg. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

E-mailed with a bit of what I've been working on. Djembayz (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ta. I'm a bit pressed for time today, but will answer today or on the weekend. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Trouble with another user

I recently had an issue with another user who made a defamatory accusation. "Nazi apologist" was the specific terminology. Considering the number of times I've expressed hatred of the Nazis, and an exceptionally deep knowledge of exactly how evil the Germans were (I reject the nonsense that most of them "didn't know" or that the Wehrmacht were somehow relative "good guys."), this is absolutely unfounded. I also have anti Nazi activities that I can link here to prove my political position.

What can be done about this?

--Jüdischen Deutschen^Talk 15:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

We don't judge people by their other activities, ethnicity, etc; we judge them by their edits here on Wikipedia. From your edits, you appear to be all over the shop.

I haven't looked at this in great depth yet, but it is clear to me that you should change your approach, and/or work in a different area of Wikipedia. Threads like Talk:Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany#Should_we_say_whether_or_not_Nazis_deserved_it? are a disservice to Wikipedia.

Accusations like this are likewise inappropriate.

Paul Siebert said you were introducing "Nazi apologist bs", which is a reference to content, rather than a reference to yourself. This response is not surprising after you asked him to look at fan fiction.

I recommend that you dont make unnecessary contact with Paul, as that is what he has requested. If you do continue to work on the same pages, you need to be more objective in your discussions with him, and always have multiple sources to support your ideas. Always provide exact citations, including page numbers. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

From the amount of apperent victim blaming that was occurring, it seemed maybe this would be good. Alright, I was mostly trying to make a stupid point by adding that. It was bad editing and immature. I read the policy about making edits to make a point; it's not a good idea. I'm not understanding the connection between fanfiction and the Nazis. Why is it "not surprising?"

Saying that someone is intoducing "Nazi apologist bs" is the same thing as calling someone a Nazi. Also, the level of hostility and entrapment made this clear. This is clearly a personal and defamatory attack.

I'm probably not going to work on that article on this website, not with people with strange political views having too much control over things. With as little accusation as possible, I would like to add that the subject in question is something that I have studied specifically for a long time, and I have encountered and debated deniers before, and I am familiar with their tactics. I am also familiar with the arguments of Nazis on this subject, and not one of them ever mentions the rape of Jews, Poles, or Russians by the Red Army. They also repeat the complete fabrication that the Red Army was somehow Jewish run, despite the fact that many people in Eastern Europe were at least as Antisemitic as the Nazis. Additionally, there are no Nazis in the United States who even care about the Russians. I also realize that I seem to be very "anti German" to some legitimate and liberal people; I have been called out on this. I think it's more accurate to say anti Nazi, but I don't see any ignorance, or innocence for that matter, in the people who lived near concentration camps and didn't fight the Nazis.

Also, given the number of times that I requested that material be removed because it portrayed victims, mainly the Poles, as perpetrators against the Germans, accusations of Nazism are completely childish.

I am willing to stay off of Paul's talk page, no problem, but my main issue is dealing with a potential edit warrior. I figure attempts at reverting edits based on Nazi myths won't be reverted, assuming he is not a Nazi, which I do not think he is.

--Jüdischen Deutschen^Talk 23:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think anyone working on an encyclopedia wants to read fanfiction? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It was relevant to the issue that was going on.

Why did you completely disregard the important points in the issue that I just mentioned?

--Jüdischen Deutschen^Talk 03:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but it's very suspicious that you have avoided addressing the subject, asked a strange question, and have not replied at all when questioned and asked to respond.

--Jüdischen Deutschen^Talk 19:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I've been very busy. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 20:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It's ok, I understand. I'd like something to be done, if possible.

--Jüdischen Deutschen^Talk 04:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I find the lack of action to be very strange.

--Jüdischen Deutschen^Talk 21:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Women's Sports

Hi there. User:Genevieve2 and I are avid writers about women's ice hockey. I have looked over your proposal for a WikiProject dedicated to women's sports and feel it is long overdue. You have my support Maple Leaf (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Geneviève has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a fresh pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thereby I give you this pie for creating the script, which I use to give this pie to you. :) To spread more WikiLove, install the WikiLove user script.

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jimbo Wales for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Delete

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has not been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the Oxford English Dictionary to learn more about the common misconception that -ize is American English. Thank you.tfSile (talk) 08:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Whether you want to call -ize en-GB-oed or en-US, it is still wrong :P the British National Corpus has spoken. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

help please?

I don't want to comment on the RfC because it is too stressful. (The guy went to meta to try to get WMF to reprimand me. He made accusations of inappropriate paraphrasing that he could not support.) I just want to work on the articles I've been involved with and be left alone. " Wikipedia:Peer review/Netball in the Cook Islands/archive1‎ (diff | hist) . . (+1,774) . . Racepacket (talk | contribs) (→Netball in the Cook Islands: start peer review)" Stuff like that makes it very difficult for me as all I want to do is be left alone. I promise not to edit articles that he has been involved with. I promise to stay away from running. I promise not to peer review his articles. I promise not to Good Article his reviews. I just want to be left alone! What will it take to be left alone? --LauraHale (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm watching the peer review, and I added it to my comment on the RFC. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Working for Portal:Women's sports / WikiProject Women's Sports

Bonjour John, this week and the next week, I will working for the new portal:Women's sport. See the beautiful page of introduction: Portal:Women's sport. . I am very impressed with all the work Laura have made. She is sensational! but I shall have preferred the words Portal: Women's sports to the plural mode. As it is used in English language in Canada and in the USA. Is it possible to make this change???

Laura starded the first pages for the Wikiproject Women's sport ( you can see in User:LauraHale/Good Topic , User:LauraHale/Women Sport Portal Article List , User:LauraHale/Women Sport Portal Article Athlete Birthday List . And now I will completed for the Women ice hockey. There are the drafts on my page:

1. User:Genevieve2/Women ice hockey Good Topic  Done
2. User:Genevieve2/Women ice hockey Portal Article List  Done
3. User:Genevieve2/Women ice hockey Athlete Birthday List

This week , I am going to work with Maple Leaf, He is very kind and he is one excelling co-worker in Teamworking. For the new banner Women ice hockey, I make a first list of wikipedia important articles in the Women hockey. I almost ended this week.

Thanks for your opinion and advices . Bonne semaine à vous, שבוע טוב --Geneviève (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There are many pages under the portal so it is a big move. We should discuss this on the portal talk page, and move it when there is consensus.

Your draft pages are good. I will push to have the wikiproject approved and started this week. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, John Vandenberg. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Rschen7754 05:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Close paraphrase

If there are genuine concerns regarding close paraphrasing that could be problematic (and I've checked and I've asked User:Hawkeye7 to verify already [where he found none]) and help resolve the issue of whether or not I actually did it as relevant to the Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Racepacket 2‎ and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Racepacket 2‎, I am more than happy to ask User:Hawkeye7 to scan and e-mail the relevant pages to you. (I'm not at home at the moment so I do not have access to the exact text myself.) Most of the sources are available on Google Books. I think there are only two books in question. I'd like to get that issue out of the way because it is annoying. I've already had one person verify it. No one has found any inappropiate paraphrasing with the publicly available texts and I'm rather annoyed that the accusation continues to be repeated with out anything to back it up. --LauraHale (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to help in this way. Once a list of books has been identified, we should check whether I have any of them in my library to avoid unnecessary work. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Racepacket and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Rschen7754 04:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

AfD Dekker Dreyer

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dekker_Dreyer_(2nd_nomination)

You were involved in he first AfD and I'm letting you know about another one.--Wikimegamaster 18:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimegamaster (talk • contribs)

Template:Image label begin

Hi, John. While I appreciate the thought behind this edit, I'm afraid it doesn't work right. On articles where templates that use {{Image label begin}} are transcluded, the view/talk/edit links use the article's BASEPAGENAME, not the template's.

Example: If I have a Template:Foo17 that uses the image label templates, and I transclude Template:Foo17 on the page Bar27, the links will go to Template:Bar27, Template talk:Bar27, and so on.

I didn't want to just revert your change, but it does need to either be removed or corrected. Thanks!

-- Powers ^T 13:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I broke the wiki. My excuse is I was sleep deprived when I made that edit. Good thing K._Richards_II (talk · contribs) reverted me. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed alternation at Template_talk:Image_label_begin#navbar --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut's ban

Please take another look at Zuggernaut's ban, request made as per Use reminders Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Please look at this fresh statement Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me to look again. I don't see any new justification to review the Zuggernaut ban. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Arch Oboler Strange Vacation

You asked a question about the date of Arch Oboler film Strange Holiday on the Talk:Arch Oboler page in August 2006. Well, almost five years later.....there is a reply :) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Journal is fine but

Hi the journal is fine but specific article is a translation into English of 1922 article (and not meant to be used as an academic source but rather as a study on Kasravi). [4]. The particular user Ebrahimi-Amir was aware of this as well since he made the same discussion in Persian Wikipedia and did the same editing with regards to numbers there until he was warned by admins. The 1922 article (English translation by Evan Siegel) might be useful on an article on Kasravi himself, but read the impression of Prof. Siegel which I have put in the discussion page. The other user was simply meatpuppetting based on this [5]. I already discussed the source once in the talkpage and none of the users who kept putting unsupportable numbers used the disucssion page.. Thanks. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 06:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the context. I've quickly commented and will look again next Wednesday. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

While I was deleting the long 1922 quote (article from that journal is online by the way and you can check the link in the discussion page), I inadvertently removed two paragraphs. Thanks for pointing it out, I have restored them. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I checked the online article before reverting, but neglected to read the preface properly. Sorry about that. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem.. it has been hectic week. Actually in Safavids, some ip kept removing the Azeri and Kurdish name.. I reverted him and asked for page protection, but it got protected towards his version. He is simply removing it out of anger issues. I asked for semi-ip protection and instead got a full protection. Feel free to help. Thank you. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 07:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to help however I am traveling most of the next five days. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

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

arb question

Hello John, hope this finds you well. I doubt you know me, as I very seldom participate at the rfar stuff (although I do read it often). I noticed something you used "wfm" in some of your work, and I was just wondering what that meant? Thanks, and best, — Ched :  ?  00:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

wfm = works for me, possibly meaning "I cant replicate that problem" or "Im happy to go along with that". In Bugzilla, it is one of the terms used to resolve a bug[6] John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Re

Moved to User_talk:Khoikhoi#request

Good pick up!

I just noticed that you deleted Madison Eagles. I had seen that it had been previously deleted and was about to suggest that it be tagged for that reason, but you found another reason. May I suggest that it be blocked from being re-created, if you have that power? Ultra X987 (talk) 07:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I wont lock the page from recreation as the subject may meet our notability threshold. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay. The deletion discussion seemed to indicate otherwise, but that's not my concern. Ultra X987 (talk) 07:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hadrean Ocampo wikipedia

Discussion at User_talk:121.54.92.59#Hadrean_Ocampo

sir.. can i still write an article? do you have any facebook account?Hadrean28 (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You can write about another topic, provided that you adhere to the Wikipedia policies. I recommend that you find an existing page and add some information to it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

sir.. what is the exact time will it be deleted.. sir.. do you have any facebook account.?Hadrean28 (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It will happen when it happens, and I do have a facebook account. Please dont ask any more questions that are unrelated to Wikipedia; I'm not here to have friendly chats without purpose. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much. --N KOzi^Talk 05:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It's Fixable???

I am concerned by your edit here. Of course it's fixable, but it is also unsourced and a WP:BLP which the community agreed over a year ago was no longer acceptable. Next time, by all means remove the speedy tag, or a standard WP:PROD, add as many cleanup tags as you want, but don't remove the WP:BLPPROD unless you are willing and able to supply a reference. Arbs should know better. The-Pope (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. My reason for doing chunks of NPP work was to build and test some new edit filters to help manage the fire hose. See Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#New_pages_without_sources and Special:AbuseFilter/402. There is a bit of irony in that I am trying to put the breaks on new pages being created without references in the first place.

These pages were all turning up on my new edit filters, and I was only doing the minimum NPP work to nuke the very bad stuff; I didn't put enough time into the false positives which appeared in the edit filter logs. I've now "fixed" that aspect of Luc Ponet, tho more cleanup is needed. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation & the fixup. If you could edit filter out the unreferenced article creations, think it could solve the "autoconfirmed to create" RFC issue that seems to have polarised editors. Cheers, The-Pope (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Oddly enough I didnt know about the RFC until looking at CENT earlier today. Using an Edit Filter will allow finer control over the thresholds and other implementation details, and it can be gradually implemented (logging only, warn, prevent). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Racepacket and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, --LauraHale (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

John, I have been assembling the close paraphrase examples, but it seems that LauraHale has chosen to go a different route. If you please, could you please clarify what "FUD" means and your relationship with User:Jayvdb to whom LauraHale repeatedly refers?

It will help me understand the discussion. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I have been patient waiting, but you have not responded nor given an estimate on when you will have it ready, are putting your time to other activities, one of which is continuing to talk about these close paraphrasing issues which you haven't yet provided examples of. We've been waiting a month; you've been picking new scabs rather than helping us investigate the existing problems you've raised.

Laura's request for arbitration was sparked by the stupid actions of an anonymous person on Commons, who is presumed to be you.

Fear, uncertainty and doubt.

I am user:jayvdb.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Question

John,

I just (very late) answered your question here. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

RFAR Racepacket

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 07:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Units of measure on .ogg files

Hi,

I noticed an issue with units of measure at Wikipedia:Featured_sound_candidates/Ave_Maria_(Bruckner) and suggested an improvement. Somebody said that this issue applies to all .ogg and .ogv files and is added by Commons. User:Tony1 suggested you might be able to help. I don't know how it all works or how to change to the way that units of measure are displayed. Can you provide any suggestions? Thanks Lightmouse (talk) 12:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I just suggested that you, as one of many Commons admins, could help. I guess there's an admins' noticeboard somewhere at Commons: is that the best place to go to gather consensus on correcting (to ISO standards) the formatting of the units and measurements automatically put on sound description pages? Tony (talk) 13:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I can take a look tomorrow. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You'll both be happy to know that these strings are customisable (seconds, minutes, and hours), however I'll need to do a bit of analysis of what is needed in other languages, and maybe also put a proposal to the Commons community. i.e. the fix isnt going to be immediate. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Jack ;)

Gimme's poking Risker, who's talk is semi'd, about whether this IP is me; it is, of course. Pop-in for a bier-besar. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 05:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we know it is you. My page is semi'd because every time the SP comes off, /b/ sends a bunch of visitors. Risker (talk) 05:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

fyi, it's not *my* IP; it's a public hotspot. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 06:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Jack, why don't you just log in to one of your accounts, let us know which one you will be using, and flag it accordingly. Right now your pointy behaviour is unhelpful. Risker (talk) 06:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

"scuttled"

means that I blanked the email, scrambled the passwords and no longer have access to any account. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 07:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

wow. looks like quitting isn't working. you can create a new account any time, ya know .. :P John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

wouldn't that be defiant? and experiencing wiki-life as an anon is enlightening; anon's get run over quite regularly. try it some time. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't need to be in a disadvantaged class in order to know they are treated badly. I'm sure you don't either. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

an example:

Osama bin Laden Assassination

would seem a plausible search term, at minimum. Yet it was declined.

anyway, your colleagues are "discussing" it; let me know if they actually do anything. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 09:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• ANI, again ; ) 125.162.150.88 (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know boo about this IP beyond that it's the ambient free hotspot at my fav restaurant. Now, on ANI, Risker's calling it an open proxy. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 05:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

and she intends to block it in an hour ;) 125.162.150.88 (talk) 06:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

then you have an hour to create an account and ask for the IP to only blocked from editing anonymously and creating new accounts. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

At which point the community intends to ban him for one year for violating his arbcom restriction to edit from "Jack Merridew" only. N419BH 06:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Surely Arbcom & the community will let him edit from one other account given that "Jack Merridew" is borked... John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the community is intent on enforcing the current restrictions and are going to ban him for not editing from "Jack Merridew" in accordance with them. N419BH 06:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for a year as an open proxy. N419BH 07:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

And unblocked just as fast due to confusion over whether or not it's an open proxy. N419BH 07:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Since I'm back in the land of teh registered users, can I have all the 'free bits' back? I asked for them to be removed on meta and Peter Symonds did so. I was about to leave Courcelles a note and couldn't (semi'd). Terima kasih. Barong 04:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure; give me an hour to check where everything is at presently. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't have filemover, but why not; it's new and I know how to use it. Barong 04:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the community opinion is settled on this with Rd232's Tortured Consensus. yay. Could you add a link from your current userpage to your prior account, so there can be no confusion about disclosed vs undisclosed. Then I'll restored the permissions you scuttled and (having reviewed your enwp and commons uploads) add filemover to boot. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll add it short-term, but I'm not going to wear it for long; it's disclosed and it will be in the history. Terima kasih. Barong 06:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

permissions sorted out. btw, did you see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Suggested new user right: Ability to edit fully-protected pages in Template space. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

thanks... no autopatrolled? ;) I saw the template bit discussed somewhere a few weeks back; might be an early version of the above, so I'll go look. It certainly could be a good idea, but I'd be more useful with the full package. There's a discussion at:

• Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Radical alternatives#A radical proposal that could be tried immediately
  (RfC-style Rfa)

makes a lot more sense than the ANi-style RfA. I think special appointments and RfA-enfranchisement being limited to current admins would be worth exploring, too.

could you undel user:Jack Merridew/monobook.js so I can grab whatever I had for scripts? user:Gold Hat/monobook.js, too?

Barong 06:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC) (might need IP block-exempt, too, in case anyone range blocks Indonesia)

the autopatrolled group was given... does it not appear in your prefs page or on the userlist? JS restored. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I was looking at what popups said: "autoreviewer, filemover, reviewer, rollbacker". mebbe a bug/feature. I'll have to go read the definitions; set monobook, and a lot of other junk, too. Thanks. Barong 07:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

same-same, but different. a redirect ;) Barong 07:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

still getting captchas re externs; WP:AUTOCONFIRMED? ;) Barong 08:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added the override 'confirmed' group. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. how about CU and oversight? Block-exempt? ;) Barong 10:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

AE case

The AE case is pretty much wrapped now, I think. You may want to complete your voting before it closes, which will probably be fairly soon now. I've left a message mentioning this on NW's talk page. Best,  Roger Davies ^talk 18:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Cheers; nicely done. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 20:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Andes U.jpg

⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the second time you've pinged me on this image :P

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I think they're really enjoying this session.

Everyone seems to be impressed!

State Library of Queensland Wikimedia Editors Workshop

Dear John,

Thanks very much for your talk with Craig today. I am more than happy to be involved in Wikimedia Australia in a leadership role. Please let me know how I can help. Some of the public knowledge projects I have been involved in include

• http://www.brisbane-stories.webcentral.com.au/
• http://www.brisbanelivingheritage.org/
• http://www.ianfairweather.info/
• http://www.energymuseum.com.au/
• http://www.abc.net.au/wrongcrowd/

I edited Livable Brisbane in 1992 which might be a good candidate for Wikisource

If you have a chance to check my article on my co-participant from ToadShow Anne Jones, here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Jones_(Australian_writer) I would be most grateful.

Thanks.

Kind regards,

Robert Whyte Robertwhyteus (talk) 09:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC) e [email protected] 2 Eton Street, Toowong 4064 p 07 3335 4000 m 0409 055 325 w http://www.toadshow.com.au

SOWN e [email protected] http://www.saveourwaterwaysnow.com.au http://www.arachne.org.au —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertwhyteus (talk • contribs) 09:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Filter 408

What was filter 408 supposed to do? I had to disable it since it was gathering a massive number of false positives. (Since it is private, feel free to e-mail me details concerning it if you do not wish people to see them, and leave a {{YGM}} on my talk page.) Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't do anything other than provide a list of edits to review for a specific problem as described, but the other hits are also worth looking at. 'bot' accounts were excluded, and I have excluded them again. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

BLP and flagged revisions case

I would like to ask you to re-read the comments at the "BLP and flagged revisions" case and reconsider your decision to decline. In particular, I would draw your attention to:

Statement by SlimVirgin

Comment by Sjakkalle

Comment by Eraserhead1

Comment by Guy Macon

...and if you don't re-read anything else, please at least carefully consider the points made in:

Comment by TotientDragooned

Statement by Will Beback

Thanks! Guy Macon (talk) 08:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I did read them all very carefully. At the end of the day, the problem goes away once PC has been removed from all articles. There are problems we could address in a full case, but it would be a colossal waste of time, and wouldnt achieve anything that an RFC wouldnt. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for your time. Guy Macon (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Edu-Boycott-1955-03.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Edu-Boycott-1955-03.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 17:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

User:John Vandenberg/Deletion sorting tool

Hello, I was looking into adding WP:DELSORT functionality to Twinkle and saw this post you made, asking about integrating your tool into Twinkle. I've linked to that comment and mentioned your tool at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#Twinkle deletion sorting. If you still have an interest in this, please see that thread. Also, Twinkle and morebits.js were recently overhauled, so the tool may no longer function as expected, or it may be that existing bugs have been cleared up. Thanks! ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 09:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It would be fantastic if someone could do this, as my tool is rotting slowly and I'm only finding time to add bandaids. It should be fairly simple now that Twinkle is more mature. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• I love this tool and regularly use it. However, in the last few days, it has stopped working. I didn't add/delete anything from my monobook.js file, so the problem must be with the tool, or am I missing something? --Crusio (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, this was actually my first time trying this tool, I didn't say anything because I thought I did it wrong. WP:TWINKLE just got updated, so I guess that means that this tool doesn't work now. @John Vandenberg, there has been no response from the devs at the above link. If you'd want to comment there, it might help speed things along. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 14:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'll fix it again if a knight does not appear shortly. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

They've added it to the todo list, but there are no additional comments, so I'm not sure what the state is... ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Your edits to Rodhullandemu's pages

I presume that these are ArbCom sanctioned actions? I ask since I and a few others have been keeping grave dancers off of them since Rh&e's RfAr. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

There has not been any committee decision supporting my edits and action, and there is a slow moving discussion about it. If he doesn't want grave dancers, he needs to stop begging for attention from Wikipedia. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether Rh&e has any opinion on grave dancing has not factored into my actions - I have previously acted to stop grave dancing per se, as I have with other userpages in the past. However, if this is being done under notice to the Committee then I shall assume there is some silent assent from the body entrusted with dealing with this editor and any appeal. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC) ps. I was not inferring that this was a case of grave dancing, just noting that the pages were being supervised.

FYI

• I have changed my comment at the deletion discussion for the template {{Political neologisms}}, diff, and at Template talk:Political neologisms, diff.

Just giving you a heads up regarding: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_May_25#Template:Political_neologisms, so far there are twelve (12) editors advocating for "delete", and four (4) commenting for "keep". The deletion discussion will likely be closed within under the next twenty-four hours, as "delete". Might not be worth the efforts you are putting in to edit a template about to be deleted in a few hours. -- Cirt (talk) 04:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for removing Santorum anyway. I have changed my vote to keep. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. -- Cirt (talk) 04:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Dogwood Crossing meetup

Thanks for the invitation, John. I'll have to turn it down, though, as I'm way too far away (Dubbo, in actual fact; I need to change that on my user page). Thanks again, but I'm sorry for being unable to turn up. --JB Adder | Talk 16:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries; thanks for letting me know. We should organise a similar meetup/workshop in Dubbo or Bathurst. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your invitation, John. I'm sorry that I will be unable to attend as I have prior commitments then. Cgoodwin (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Do you know anyone else who might be interested? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiMedia Australia interwiki?

Hi, I noticed you put an external link/direct URL for WikiMedia Australia on your page. Is there no interwiki link for international chapters? That seems a little silly seeing as how they are official chapters. We still have an interwiki prefix for wm2005:, and that was a one-time event with 380 attendees 6 years ago. WikiMedia Australia is current, it should have an interwiki link. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 09:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

There are interwikis for chapters which use WMF hosting, but WMAu runs its own wiki, and I dont think there is an interwiki at present. No doubt there is a page to request this, somewhere.. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikia has interwiki links to WP, so it's in the software, it would just need to be enabled. Something like wmau:? I don't mean to be presumptuous, I was just reading up on the chapters after seeing the note on your user page (I didn't realize WMF had international chapters, that's pretty cool). ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 09:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

wmau: already exists on meta:Interwiki map.! ;-) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Y'know, I could have just tried that in the first place. Cool! ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added a table of international chapters to Help:Interwiki linking. I'm not sure how to align it properly, but it does the job. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

very nice. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Façonnable

Discussion at User_talk:JzG#Façonnable

arbitration

Hello John, thank you for your prompt attention regarding the matter, would you be so kind as to contact me through email ? thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penyulap (talk • contribs) 04:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Private information needed for an arbitration request should be sent to arbcom-lwikimedia.org, so that all arbitrators may consider it.

If you would like private guidance about requesting arbitration, you can email clerks-lwikimedia.org.

If it is something else, you can email me at jayvdbgmail.com

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Opinion wanted

Lately I have collided with Joluata (talk · contribs) a few times. I feel that this user may mean well, wanting to contribute to articles related to accountancy in Nigeria, but often the changes are no more than a link from the list of search results. Formatting is uniformly awful, e.g. Nigerian College of Accountancy Jos. I have reverted a few of the changes, but don't want to get into a war. I saw you welcomed Joluata a while ago. Maybe you could take a look and give advice? Aymatth2 (talk) 11:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for popping by. I agree that they are a well meaning user, but lack good editing skills. I doubt they will edit war if we talk to them. We should tidy up their edits, removing any problematic content, and also direct them to some reading material on outreach:Bookshelf if we can find something that will be useful for them. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The fact is, I was trying to pass the buck. How about you take Pan African federation of Accountants, Certified National Accountant and Nigerian College of Accountancy Jos and I do clean-up on PAFA, NCA, Securities and Exchange Commission (Nigeria)? Then maybe we could switch over after a few days and I do the new ones for a while. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

;-) That sounds like a good plan. I've already started on one. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I am impressed. If the user can learn how to do it right and stays interested, they certainly know about an area that is very poorly covered. I don't see any POV-pushing, and do see fairly strict concern with sourcing, the two key principles in my view. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice work on the DYKs. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Last night while I was looking through new pages I saw you repeatedly helping out the same confused article creator. Cloveapple (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

message

To: Jimbo Wales

I wrote to you as a concerned parent. My child has been harrassed by a user who has done this to others for several years. My child warned me that I would run up against deaf ears.

Sure enough, your administrator show that they lack the ethics to be an admministrator. They wipe out the complaint and ban me. They even remove my messages to a Wikimedia employee.

I hope you stand up against this really unethical behavior and bad service. This is the incivility that you wrote about in the Wall Street Journal several months ago. This is a valid complaint that people keep removing (which is the same thing that happens in dictatorships...they fire upon those that have grievances and refuse to even process them)

cc: Philippe John Vanderberg Parentsp3 (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

To: John

I wrote to Jimbo Wales about a user who is harrassing my child and has done so to others for several years. It was suggested that I complain. When I did, administrators removed the complaint. Your committee should not tolerate this kind of misconduct, wiping away complaints. Parentsp3 (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase&action=historysubmit&diff=432600224&oldid=432464753 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parentsp3 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Please see my statement on my user talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, this will be a shift for me towards, as you put it in your recent statement, "critical topics", namely - articles about U.S. Supreme Court cases on Wikipedia. :) -- Cirt (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Kudos

John, I just wanted to pass along that I'm saddened you're involved in the santorum mess, because it means you can't participate in the ArbCom case on "political activism"—and I think the statement you provided is the most insightful, even, and cogent position on the RFAR posted so far. It's appreciated, and I agree with your viewpoint. I hope the Committee takes it to heart. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for popping by to let me know. being involved means I can help try to fix the problem, so it is not all bad. ;-) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:OWN

If you feel there are factual errors, take them to the talk page or fix them. Do not lazily revert what is surely a large improvement, citing unspecified errors that you have not bothered to fix.

Put more simply, this page came up on foundation-l as having issues. We need to address those issues. You know as well as anyone that the aim is collaboration and not simple reversion. If you can suggest what you find inaccurate or unfixable, or why you disagree these are improvements, on the talk page, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

To be blunt, this page had more issues after you tinkered than it did before hand.

I've provided a list of factual errors on the policy talk page. The grammatical problems are more than I have time to explain, much less fix. I really don't like editing community policy pages while sitting as an arbitrator, but I'm not going to sit idle while you continue to mess them up, especially when you often introduce subtle POV under the guise of copy editing. I will revert whenever I see POV, grammar, style or factual errors. Like many of us, you are better at spotting the errors in other peoples writing, and can't see them in your own writing. Please take your time, get consensus, and phrase things neatly. Any time you don't do this, we see a stream of consecutive edits, and it is very hard to watch. Use diff & preview, ffs. You're not a newbie. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

See comment on the talk page - and thanks for the bullet list. That's exactly what is helpful. To be clear, I have no objection at all to your reverting per se, purely to doing so without enough explanation to allow discussion (WP:BRD) or unwillingness to listen to other viewpoints.

The rest, especially your "continue to", I'd say is unfounded in all ways. I have probably written more of the accepted, stable, community-accepted policy wording over the years than almost any other user, and much of that writing has remained stable for years, not mere days or months, with comparatively minor enhancements only. So I think I might be well aware of how it's done. You'll notice that I gracefully listen if others disagree, which usually produces a good consensus. However any time you feel any user makes a policy edit that's not an improvement, I expect and hope you will explain why, and also fix if it's easy, and if not, then willingly discuss (with or without reverting). In my view, being an arb as well as an editor is no reason not to do so.

As for preview - I self-edit a lot. Even if I've used preview there is often stuff that only jumps out after. I'd like it to be otherwise, and I have acknowledged it before and surely will in future, however that's how it is. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Case in point. On reviewing my own post, I notice the wording I have no objection at all to your reverting per se, purely to doing so without enough explanation to allow discussion (WP:BRD) or unwillingness to listen to other viewpoints. I review that and it now strikes me, does the superfluous word "your" (your reverting) personalize it and make it more likely to be seen as hostile, than if I quickly took it out? What about the last part, might a reader think I am implying you had shown unwillingness to listen, which wasn't the case? Should I edit it to ensure those points won't be taken wrongly or misunderstood?

That's why I re-edit my own words. One short post, previewed, yet even so it contains two possible bases for misunderstanding or hostility, if misjudged. Best avoided either way. A case in point to explain how it happens and why editing sometimes seems a good idea. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to be involved in your internal thought processes while you figure out how to word your messages to other people, or what are surely large improvements to policy. I don't want to see each iteration. Nobody does. We all screw up occasionally, but you almost always start with a screwed up edit and then you gradually fix it, one edit at a time. Then your edits stop. They stop before you've finished fixing it. Anyone watching starts to wonder when you will resume. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

If you are so graceful and accepting of WP:BRD, why did you come to my talk page and say "If you feel there are factual errors, take them to the talk page or fix them. Do not lazily revert .., citing unspecified errors that you have not bothered to fix."

The edit summary doesn't provide enough space to document the errors with those edits. I identified the type of error, in the same way that we revert people who have been way too bold and created a mess in a content page. Given the number of errors in those edits, the responsibility to see and fix your own errors does lie with you. If you really couldn't see any of those errors, I am .. speechless, and I hope this is not indicative of your policy editing elsewhere.

Rather than coming here and telling me how to suck eggs, and how wonderful your policy writing skills are, how about you read the WP:BRD essay and continue to outline your intended policy on the policy discussion page. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

"The edit summary doesn't contain space to explain"? That's what the talk page is for. How often do we tell users "take it to the talk page"? You know that. The words "see talk page" fits nicely into an edit summary, and that's what was missing. When you revert obvious good-faith edits with thought behind them, it's helpful to provide some detail, and lazy not to. In this case the later addition of the bulleted list has helped in explaining the concerns. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Bold, revert, discuss. Of course it would have been better for me to explain my revert on the talk page (didn't I ask you to stop telling me how to suck eggs?), but it is your responsibility to take it to the talk page when you've been revert. (Didn't I ask you to read WP:BRD before commenting here again) You wanted to respond quickly to the foundation-l thread; you're the one wanting a quick change to policy. Obviously, not everyone agrees that your quick fix was desirable.

We do not require that every revert is accompanied with a talk page post. That would mean we are enshrining WP:RANDY as best practise.

I don't care whether your edits are good faith or not; they were wrong, mangled, and part of a stream of edits which left me with no faith that you were going to address the problems.

Are you going to acknowledge that your editing style (half-cocked revision + constant tweaking to fix the obvious problem) is what caused the problem in the first place?

Are you going to undertake to fix this editing style of yours? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

John, John... "we do not require" is true. But "we avoid it in cases it's useful" is lazy. It would have been better, as you said. You didn't. Learn the lesson for next time, and all will be well. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You are not a newbie. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

RE: +10

Hi John, good evening (ART). Yes, it was an edit of mine made five years ago! Time flies! It was something related to the Impossible is nothing ad campaign focused on football players sponsored by Adidas. I just corrected the article to a WP:DAB so that both Adidas Football and UTC+10:00 are mentioned. Regards, Mxcatania (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Lovely. yes time does fly. thanks for getting back to me so quickly. maybe in another five years another entry will be added to the dab page ;-) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket closed

An arbitration case regarding Racepacket has closed and the final decision is now viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Racepacket (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for one year
2. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) is admonished for blocking editors with whom he has had recent editorial disputes
3. LauraHale (talk · contribs) and Racepacket are prohibited from interacting with one another
4. Hawkeye7 is prohibited from taking administrative action "with regards to, or at the behest of LauraHale".

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 21:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Women's Sport

Hello! Not sure where the proposed WikiProject for Women's Sport is at, but I was thinking if it is stalled, you might consider a taskforce under WikiProject Women's History for the time being? While this would not include BLPs, it would still cover a large number of Women's Sport related articles, and allow editors interested in these topics to organize their work. Let me know what you think. Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It was a planned stall; we'll kick it off soon. Regards, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Brisbane meetup invitation

	Brisbane Meetup Next: To be decided (watch) Last: Saturday 13 January 2018
See also: Australian events listed at Wikimedia.org.au (or on Facebook)

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a barbeque and meetup at Southbank this Sunday (26 June). Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Brisbane. Hope to see you there! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser to all users in Category:Wikipedians in Brisbane)

Fair use rationale for File:Integrative and Comparative Biology 46 6.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Integrative and Comparative Biology 46 6.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Smile

Check this page and search for "redjohn". :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Argh. It is spreading! :-) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

RfC/U: Cirt

John, further to the recent Political activism request for arbitration and various arbitrators' comments at that request to the effect that there had not been to date an RfC/U on Cirt, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cirt. Best, --JN466 13:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Baltzer Science Publishers

Hi, from the edit history of this article I see that you have edited this before. I'd appreciate if you could have a look at the recent edits there. I'm a bit tired of interacting with Laurenz Baltzer (who has emailed me a few times about my "vandalism" of this article), who is apparently now editing as User:Laurenzbaltzer. Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Jack Merridew's continuing stalking

I am astonished by per this edit, an Indonesian IP compatible with the location of Davenbelle/Diyarbakir/Moby Dick/Jack merridew (god he has FAR too many sockpuppet accounts) which is stalking my contribution. -- Cat ^chi? 19:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Huh... he seems indefinitely blocked... Not sure what to make of it. I am accused of stalking Jack Merridew in ANI I am unsure if this is a work of Jack Merridew - I would welcome you to comment at the ANI thread since you understand the background of the dispute. -- Cat ^chi? 19:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Jack Merridew has watched User:Diannaa for quite some time, I believe. Anyhow, edit was from five days ago, I blocked and unblocked many IPs since then, and I am fairly certain that Jack Merridew won't be returning to Wikipedia, for the time being. Amalthea 19:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That is pleasant news indeed. Unfortunately this individual has a way of "reappearing" as he did 4 times in the past (as I documented in my graph: User:White Cat/RFAR/graph). I want to actually update that graph but am unsure what happened in the past one or two years since his unblock. Is there a good location for me to establish timelines? I just want to mark RfCs and RfArs for future reference as it had proven to be very handy in the past. -- Cat ^chi? 19:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

For the love of god, can we focus on mainspace and stop stalking each other (and yes, that goes both ways)? Merridew -- gone. I'm certain he'll let us know should he return in the future. Amalthea 19:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I merely want to document this users history using public information such as dates of rfars and rfcs. -- Cat ^chi? 19:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Merely? You complain of being stalked with one hand, and keep detailed tabs of the user with the other? This is all feeding into each other. Can't you all just disengange? If you feel stalked by him again in the future, ping me -- this whole episode has burned itself pretty deeply into my brain. Amalthea 19:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Jack and I have been friends for over a year; our first communication was at WP:EAR, where I helped out for a while last summer. It was my idea to nominate the graph for deletion User talk:Diannaa/Archive 10#Barong. If the graph is to be kept, which it probably should, it might be better if it was in the AC pages, along with the rest of the case materials. There is no other copy. --Diannaa (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

The site that you helped build is being systematically deconstructed. Please see this site as well as Danvers Statement wiki page. I fear the edits are agenda driven. Please also see discussion on NIV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toverton28 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Rollback on Cricket Coach 2011

Hi, in this edit, you include the logo for the 2009 version of the game in an article about the 2011 version of the game, using an edit summary that suggests that you rolled back the edit. Clearly, the removal of that logo is not vandalism, as firstly, the logo is plainly wrong (for more info, see this), secondly, the non-free logo did not have a fair-use rationale, something that is required per our WP:NFCC policy. As you claim here that Delta should do his research better, may I also ask you to properly check whether the edit that you are reverting results in a correct page, and not to use rollback when reverting edits which are not vandalism. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I saw you repaired the article further, thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I mistook that the image was for only the one year. I am doing my edits one by one. Even in that edit, his edit was sub-optimal as he left the caption in place. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but sub-optimal is not the same as vandalism. And Wikipedia is full of sub-optimal edits (this - revert, fix, and in any case, ask the editor to stop for doing suboptimal edits?)? I'll post these edits also to User talk:∆, which seems to be the current place where we discuss sub-optimal edits. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

DA! video

Re. File:T8iUU.ogv (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Scott.taves (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). This is not necessary and is replaceable; free media can be donated by the copyright holders. File:DA!_band_photo.jpg may also be outside our WP:NFCC as it is also replaceable in the same way, however it is more necessary to visual the band members, and is lower resolution. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi John - the video you reference is created by one of the band members. Can you please let me know how to communicate the director's permission to Wikipedia so it remains on the entry? Thanks.

- Scott — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott.taves (talk • contribs) 14:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Scott. The person who owns the copyright will need to release it from traditional copyright restrictions.

You can read more about this at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/List of missing journals/Queue

Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/List of missing journals/Queue, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/List of missing journals/Queue and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/List of missing journals/Queue during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Crusio (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

NFCC materials and your edits

John, with all respect and collegiality, I really think you need to slow down and reassess what you are doing. I've been reviewing your edits over time with respect to non-free imageas and I am seeing a considerable number of errors. I'm not trying to find fault with you, but rather get an understanding of your experience level and knowledge with respect to NFCC issues. Also, I am not here to berate you about your behavior towards Δ.

As the most recent example (I see examples dating back to 2007), you reinstated File:JHudson-AndIAmTellingYou-2006.ogg to Dreamgirls (film) with this edit, and subsequently modified the file's description page to add "soundtrack for Dreamgirls (film)." ([7]). WP:NFCC #10c requires a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item. Yet, on the image description page of this file, there's a generic non-free rationale that is not targeted towards any article, much less to Dreamgirls (film). As is, the image should be removed from all three instances in which it is used as there is no separate, specific non-free use rationale at all.

I am not accusing you of anything; I am merely pointing out, using this example, what appears to be a significant lack of understanding of our NFCC policy, NFC guideline, and common practices (as discussed). In looking at the edit history of WT:NFC, prior to today's editions I've not been able to find any edits by you to that page over the last 10,000 edits, and that takes us back over three years. NFCC policy, compliance, and enforcement is a highly complex environment. A huge number of editors have undertaken efforts to attempt to streamline things, explain things, make it easier, etc. Believe me, we've tried. Wikipedia:Fixing non-free image problems is the most recent example. But, it's not helping either, as I expected (posted elsewhere I thought it wouldn't help, but worth trying).

I encourage you to take a breath, step back, and re-evaluate what it is you are doing with respect to this issue. You are a newcomer to it. I understand it looks well out of whack, highly distorted, and nonsensical. That's the reality of the NFCC world here. We try and try and try to make it less so, but despite years of effort by probably hundreds of editors, we've not made much headway in making this any easier. Going after Δ isn't the way through this. If you have concerns about NFCC enforcement, then by all means please post them to WT:NFC and we'll explain them to you and/or gladly listen to your suggestions. A fresh voice is always welcome.

Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Mate, I am not a newcomer to NFCC, nor do I have any lack of respect for NFCC. #10c should be ensuring that there is a fair-use claim that is applicable to each usage. If it requires a copy&paste with a different article name, then that is a silly interpretation of the word use in that clause. If you are so keen on having a template appear three or four times on File:JHudson-AndIAmTellingYou-2006.ogg, you could have done that in the time it took to write the above message. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 19:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• I did not say you had a lack of respect for NFCC. As to creating the rationales, this claim has been made by dozens of people before you, and rebutted I'm sure nearly as many times. Yet, WP:NFCC is clear; it is the responsibility of those wishing to include non-free content to provide a rationale. Getting back to the abstract, my point remains; you haven't been involved in the WT:NFC discussions in at least 3 years, nor in WP:NFCC enforcement. I understand your frustration with it. It's nothing new. If we could wave a wand and fix it all, we would. But, we can't. We've been trying all sorts of things to help with not much progress over the last few years. If I came busting into ArbCom declaring lack of using your brains, making poor decisions, etc. you would probably calmly point out my lack of experience with ArbCom stuff, and attempt to guide me with regards to common practices and what not. You are doing the same thing in effect. We're trying to help you. There's no need to be combative about this stuff. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Sharpville-massacre.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Sharpville-massacre.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. damiens.rf 19:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Rivoniaraid-star.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rivoniaraid-star.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. damiens.rf 19:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Everett Bookmobile rear.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Everett Bookmobile rear.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. damiens.rf 19:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Everybody Loves Eric Raymond 2006-02-22, Cancomical Lynchpad.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Everybody Loves Eric Raymond 2006-02-22, Cancomical Lynchpad.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. damiens.rf 19:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for assistance

I hope that my assistance at the new page on US Copyrights...did not get in your way earlier today at [8]. I am contemplating a FOIA request in California and am keen on the topic. En passant, I thought perhaps the time is ripe for the matter I am posting at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Geofferybard#Request_to_John_Vandenburg; I'd appreciate if you could take away from your schedule to take a look, thanks.

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

GeoBard^Rap 22:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to extend the editing restrictions placed on User:Communicat

Hello, I have proposed that ArbCom extend the editing restrictions which it placed on Communicat (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Motion to extend editing restrictions on Communicat/Communikat and would appreciate your views on this. Thank you Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Voting without knowledge at the tree shaping proposed decision

I can't believe you guys are voting with out even knowing what the current situation is, let alone the background issues. As demonstrated by the fact that Elen seems to believe that Sydney Bluegum is topic banned from the article space and no-one has corrected this miss-assumption. Sydney Bluegum was never topic banned, which is stated on the main case page. What have you guys read? In proposed remedies section article and subject scope, the feeling that I have been unhelpful just shows how much you guys are not aware of. I have offered valid suggestions of different titles, I found the references and quotes for alternative title suggested here 65-75 entries (except for arborsculpture Slowart did that) please note pooktre is not listed. I even suggested tree shaping article to be merge with pleaching on the workshop page. I know you guys are busy but if you are voting at the very least you should read the different pages that are part of the arbitration. The workshop page shows that some of the editors not listed in the proposal decision are behaving badly or clearly advocating for arborsculpture. Please take the time to read the pages pertaining to this case. I've post this on all the listed admins' talk pages as it seems some of the pages of this arbitration are not being read I'm not sure that you would see this otherwise. Blackash have a chat 05:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

In light of how I have voted so far, do you have something specific that you want me to look at ? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe that other editors' behavior needs to be accessed especially Duff and Martin Hogbin. Elen of the Roads has commented that due to family trouble she has been unable study this properly. Elen quote "I have the sense that there have been other people who have been problematic, but not the time to look at it deeper. It's unfortunate" For example

• Since Duff restarted editing again he has shown his pro arborsculpture bias is distorting the tree shaping article. He is using the article to create a WP:POINT by listing 28 refs next to arborsculpture in the other names section and has stated that he will edit at what ever speed he wants and won't slow down to let consensus form. He has removed reliable cites, in one case all I did point the pooktre had been used generically [9]. Plus other stuff. Duff's technique seem to be do a mass amount of edits then writes essays that can be taken two ways, full of miss-information and spin. A few time on the workshop page I entered a discussion with him to demonstrate just how far his spin goes.
• Martin since he first stated about COI editing (over one year now) as though I edited badly, but with no evidence he has used this as a means to not discuss content to the point where I feel harassed had to repeatedly ask him not to.

What I don't want is for this case to be closed with out the other editors behaviors look into. Blackash have a chat 07:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

John it been pointed out I should have started this discussion on the proposed decision talk page would it be alright if I move it there and point it out to other arbitrators? Blackash have a chat 07:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do centralise this discussion on the PD talk page. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Done Blackash have a chat 07:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

hi

Hello, John Vandenberg. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

SatuSuro 08:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

M1 Group

Just thought I'd drop you a note to say that although the DRV may not have gone entirely the way you wanted, I was as good as my word with the translation! All the best—S Marshall T/C 22:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

As I said, that is besides the point. The article which appeared in the signpost (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-04-18/In the news) is still deleted and the contributors have been called spammers. Oh well, I tried. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

A user approached me with a BLP problem in the topic area of Buddhism

I think you did some work on the Dhammapada, at WikiSource . A user approached me concerns about what looks to be a wheel war in a Buddhism topic area with respect to an otherwise highly respected Buddhism teacher who has had a biographical incident in recent years which WP editors are fueding over. If you are a potential arbitrator on the matter, it might best that you don't take a look at the request for assistance I recieved at User_talk:Geofferybard#Please.2C_take_a_look but perhaps you can make a referal; alternatively, I would be grateful if you could take a look at what I was presented with and suggest how this issue should be dealt with. I know you are pretty busy and mostly concerned with the meta infrastructure issues, but I would appreciate if you could either step in, or advise us on how to proceed. GeoBard^Rap 21:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Carnatic Music

I am contacting you since you took recent action regarding Carnatic Music Between July 4th and 11th User:Ncmvocalist has reverted 9 times edits of about 4 different editors. He has ignored requests to discuss before reverting. He is making a wild assumption that all are someone else. Please stop him from reverting without reasons. Thanks. Naayar (talk) 06:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, is this regaring this?

Those sources [10] and [11] dont appear to be reliable sources; and you are removing Encyclopedia Britannica, which is a reliable source.

It seems that you want to add other cities & festivals to the introduction. Please start a new discussion at Talk:Carnatic music and explain why other cities and festivals should be mentioned in the introduction. Are they as important as the Madras Music Season?

Perhaps an alternative is to add a new section to the article, a bit further down, where we describe the other cities and festivals which are important. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Following your lead I visited Britanica. I could not access the online reference 1 here] that the article is referring. However, I noticed that the reliable source Britanica [12] uses original name as 'Karnatak music' for south Indian music which at least I know most Keralites use. I am curious why is the title in Wikipedia uses 'Carnatic Music', an alternate/secondary name. Thanks Naayar (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

We have our own naming rules & guidelines, and we use WP:Consensus, and they are occasionally different from other major encyclopedias. For this topic, the web predominately uses "Carnatic music" (1.2 million) rather than "Karnatak music" (19,000), so a community discussion about the name is very likely to be that "Carnatic music" is the most common name. When this happens, we create redirects like Karnatak music, and sometimes we mention the other common names. Do you have some reliable sources to show that Keralites use "Karnatak music"? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Being new, I am not sure whether Wikipedia goes by the majority's opinion or actual facts. Even the most popular book by Prof. T. Viswanathan (Prof of music at Madras and US universities) titled "Music in South India: The Karnatak Concert Tradition and Beyond: Experiencing Music, Expressing Culture" uses word Karnatak. Regarding Kerala, current famous musicians such as Price Rama Verma of Thiruvananthapuram, Respected Father Paul Poovathingal of Thrissur mostly use the word 'Karnatak Music' in live interviews[13]. I see there are enough reliable sources to show that the original name is 'Karnatak Music'. After doing the research on the article archives I did not see that a consensus was arrived. (Please correct me if I have missed any). Also please clarify if number web-hits serve as a Reliable source of information. Thanks Naayar (talk) 07:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Google search at 10:40 PST (US West Coast Time) yields 13,600,000 for 'Karnataka Music', 2,120,000 for 'Carnatic Music' and 192,000 for 'Karnatak Music'. Also well known books use name 'Karnataka Music'. (e.g. 1. Iyer, Panchapakesa. 'Karnataka Sangeetha Sastra'. Chennai: Zion Printers, 2.Satyanarayana, R 'Karnataka Music As Aesthetic Form History of Science Philosophy and Culture in Indian Civilization ISBN : 8187586168'). Therefore title need to be revisited. Thanks Naayar (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

In order to choose a title, we have a discussion where each person shows the facts that they think are relevant, and we look at the policies and guidelines which have been developed. WP:CONSENSUS may form, or the result may be "no consensus" and the page will not be changed. I could not find a previous discussion about the title, so we could start a discussion about this. However it i useful for you and I to keep researching and chatting about this here. Then we will be well prepared for a bigger discussion on the article talk page.

Thank you for mentioning the two books. There are many well known books which also use "Carnatic Music". The title will usually be the name used by the most number of important books written by experts.

My search on "Karnataka Music" only returns 39,000 results. This search uses quotes (") in order to do a "multi-word search", otherwise it would include many other pages which mention "Karnataka" and "Music" but do not mention "Karnataka Music". John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that it yields ~14 million search results indicate web recognizes the word 'Karnataka Music' more than 'Carnatic Music'. Since number of search results may not be prime criteria for decision we may have put it in the background. My research showed that the key supporter of title 'Carnatic Music' user user:Badagnani is banned indefinitely. I saw many discussions around user:Badagnani about the title but no consensus about using non-original title 'Carnatic Music'.

Regarding book I guess Iyer's book was the first (~1921) book on South Indian Classical music and it uses 'Karnataka Music' (1921) well before some started using 'Carnatic Music'. From preliminary research it appears that the use of 'Carnatic Music' either got started or intensified after the 'Mysore State' was renamed as 'Karnataka State' in 1970. The change in the name of the state is nothing to do with the title of the music. Since we are running out of indents please suggest me a better way to continue the discussions so that others can also participate. Thanks. Naayar (talk) 07:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Carnatic Music article got my attention when I was researching on Kerala artists in Wikipedia. I think other cities should be included. As per your suggestion I will start a discussion on this. Please instruct User:Ncmvocalist not to delete discussions as he/she is doing now.Naayar (talk) 05:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You haven't started a proper discussion yet. this and this are not helpful.

We do not need the title to be translated into many languages; we do have guidelines on titles which you should read. WP:TITLE. We have interwiki links for the other languages.

We already mention Andrapradesh, Karnataka, Kerala & Tamil Nadu in the article. You need to identify information that you think is missing, and start a new discussion on the talk page. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Naayar (talk) 05:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Ncmvocalist is repeatedly posting wrong information on my user page. Please stop him/her. Thanks Naayar (talk) 07:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I cant do that at the moment. You have made a few edits which are quite similar to another user, who has been banned.

If you continue to edit Wikipedia, constructively, and dont appear to be the banned editor, we'll remove that information from your user page in a few weeks time. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I will follow your advice.Naayar (talk) 05:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

{ygm}

Uncontroversial Obscurity (talk) 08:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Armbrust has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a fresh pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appétit!†

Filters 409 and 410

What is the use of filters 409 and 410, except to log the addition of "daily mail", "dailymail.co.uk", and "blog" to BLPs? Is action being taken when people do so? Otherwise, I'd recommend disabling these filters. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Meetup

Anyone here yet? I think im here but no one is here yet, I think. Don't know who im looking for. 01:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Australia at the 1996 Summer Paralympics

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not "soccer" it's Association football

I am absolutely aghast at the way the AFL zealots on Wikipedia are renaming every page that has anything to do with Association football in Australia with the word "soccer'> The term is not official and is not the name of the code. It is an insult. And the results such as at Song Jin-Hyung are farcical where the cats make it look as though he plays two sports. Is there any way this can be rolled back. Silent Billy (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

For Excellence in Welcoming a New Wikipedian

	The Fraternité Award
	Thank you so much for the extremely thoughtful and helpful welcome. I really appreciated it. PurpleMint (talk) 08:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ummm....

Five votes to close, none opposed, and you add a new finding of fact? Not cool.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not cool that there was a new fact worthy of inclusion. My vote only ensures that the committee has time to review the new development, and either they will agree that this needs to be addressed now, or another arbitrator will vote to close and the clock starts ticking again. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Your vote against would have stopped the closing clock without invalidating what the other arbs had already voted on. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

My FoF doesnt invalidate anything. The case can still close with the new FoF failing at 1-0. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

True, but they voted on a case that didn't include that FoF. Granted, it's almost impossible for that to be accepted without the 4 others who voted to close being aware of it, but still. Outside of Wikipedia, changing the slate after elections begin is unheard of. Why couldn't it just be handled by motion or amending the case if necessary?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Committee members almost always adds items to the proposed decision after the initial decision is posted. And when we do, we inform the rest of the committee of the nature of the amendments for them to consider. This is all the boring committee process stuff which could be put on the new arbcom-en-public list mentioned at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Motion 2 John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind welcome!

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

Reasons To Delete J1c3d (Y-DNA)

1. Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)
2. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
3. Categories representing overcategorization

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
The hold on editing has been taken off without explanation, to my knowledge, as of this moment, without justification.
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
The one who took this off the edit hold did so without reading the talk page.
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This is about Haplogroup J1c3d (Y-DNA)? I think you should talk to the fine folk at Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biology. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

User page edit

[14] Now there's a change to my user page I don't remember asking for. Not even sure where on Wikipedia I've mentioned which city I live in. --Richmeister_talk 16:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

G'day and my apologies. If you'd rather not have this information on Wikipedia, I can email you the details and instructions on how to have it removed. The reason for my edit is I've been categorising hundreds of userpages of Australians using information that they have self-disclosed, in order to build a map showing the geographical distribution of Wikipedians across Australian. Category:Wikipedians in Australia now has 48 sub-categories. These categories are helpful for finding Wikipedias who might be interested in future Wikipedia:Meetups and/or can help our partnerships GLAMs (such as State Library of Queensland and State Library of Victoria), especially in regional areas and the capital cities. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of AnyDBM

The article AnyDBM has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable software. naming confusion with other non-notable software. no references.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see what I can do, but I'll admit that it will be pretty hard to find good sources for this. sigh! ;-) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Amanda Fraser

Thanks for adding this article. DYK needs you. Victuallers (talk) 08:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Integrative and Comparative Biology 46 6.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Integrative and Comparative Biology 46 6.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Tree shaping RfM

You may remember a recent Arbcom decision in which editors were requested to agree on an appropriate name for the article currently at Tree shaping. There has been a careful discussion on the subject, followed by an RfM which was hastily closed as 'No action' by involved administrator SilkTork. Was this what was envisaged by Arbcom? Perhaps you could take a look and give your opinion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Sisterlinkqsc-author

Template:Sisterlinkqsc-author has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Evil IP address (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Editing the comments of others.

Please see this discussion. I believe your recent action at the BLP case evidence page is out of order, out of process or out of something else. I don't disagree with the aim, but the method seems strictly against basic principles that the rest of us have to abide by at Wikipedia. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Your help is needed to remove more unsubstantiated evidence

(cross posted from Cool Hand Luke's talk page)

Dear John Vandenberg. Can you please remove the following unsubstantiated claims from User:Prioryman's evidence at the Cirt-Jayen case evidence page? The last two bullet points are what concern me. They make several claims about Jayen's motivations without providing any diffs, links or other evidence. For reference:

• "To the best of my knowledge, at no point did Jayen466 dispute any of those edits or articles or use any dispute resolution procedures on Wikipedia concerning any of those articles. The only conceivable purpose served by indiscriminately highlighting Cirt's contributions was to put pressure on Cirt to stop editing any article remotely related to Scientology/cults.
• By contributing to this campaign, Jayen466 engaged in Wikihounding and off-wiki harassment. He is less culpable than DC, the instigator of the campaign, but had every reason to know that the intention of the campaign was to intimidate, harass and pressure Cirt into abandoning a topic area."

Here is the link [15]. Thank you for your concern with keeping the evidence page clean of unsubstantiated claims that could be construed as personal attacks. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I've already resolved this. Prioryman (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope, not yet. I replied to you on the talk page.Griswaldo (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I should have asked Hersfold this and I came here out of frustration with how certain things are being handled (not frustration with Hersfold). I apologize for that. I'm going to back away for a while as I notice my levels of frustration rising and its not good for anyone. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Good morning Griswaldo. Has it been resolved to your satisfaction now? If not, let me know and I will take a look. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

He's removed most of it himself. I don't think its worth quibbling over the remaining sentence. Thanks for your attention.Griswaldo (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks a lot for suggesting me to Siska for the Lontar Foundation program; it appears to be a good learning experience and will assist Wikipedia quite a bit. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Good luck with it. It sounds like it will be an interesting project. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Delsort tool

I can't seem to figure out why my delsort tool is not working for me anymore. I currently work in Firefox, can you help me out? Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It is broken, and needs to be rewritten. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I came to ask the same question! Firefox/monobook in case you need that info for any fixes. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I imagine is eternal, how can we work on it? I am mostly interested in fixing it for chrome, which I think I have already identified the main issues...--Cerejota (talk) 09:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Aha! Same problem I'm having...Firefox 6.0 and vector here. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 00:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright for image

What wasn't complete with the permission I forwarded for File:AnimalBabies.jpg? Silverseren^C 20:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

OTRS is confidential. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 20:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

As in, you can't talk about it with me or, as in, you can't talk on-wiki about it? If the latter, please email me. Silverseren^C 21:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was cryptic. I'm not the person handling the ticket; I just tagged the image so it isnt deleted while OTRS waits to hear back from the copyright holder. It's in good hands; no multitude of emails all of the place needed. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, John Vandenberg. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Addihockey10 ^e-mail 02:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)