User talk:SimonP

• Archive - for user talk from December 2001 to September 2004
• Archive - for user talk from September 2004 to February 2005
• Archive - for user talk from February 2005 to April 2005
• Archive - for user talk from April 2005 to September 2005
• Archive - for user talk from September 2005 to February 2006
• Archive - for user talk from February 2006 to December 2006

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	Motion	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction	none	none	29 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

---

Woohoo!!!

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1570732,00.html User:Zoe|(talk) 07:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing that. I was interviewed and photographed several weeks ago, and was wondering what had come of it. Things like this are always a useful demonstration to family and friends that I am not wasting my time by spending so much of it on Wikipedia. - SimonP 08:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah! I was beated to it... In any case, well done. I've posted a link to the Time article on Wikipedia Signposts' tipline so that it can be mentioned in the next edition. Mikker ^(...) 16:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Congrats! Wow, that's pretty cool. Something to tell the grandkids about, in any event! Have a great day! Gozel ^talk 21:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, just read the article. Congrats - not everyone gets in Time. It's even pretty balanced and informed! ;) JoeSmack ^Talk 16:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Bravo!! (Do you have a web cam, and would you consider speaking to Amber MacArthur from Citynews International, presuming the Time article is her story for today's segment, and presuming I can convince her?) -- Zanimum 14:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I would certainly be interested in doing an interview, but unfortunetaly don't have a webcam. - SimonP 15:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

hmm... I think she only does via webcam. Though wait, there's an A Channel in Ottawa, so maybe I could convince her to set up a satellite link... dunno. I'll let you know if anything develops. -- Zanimum 15:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

'Grats. Durova^Charge! 23:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

WTF they totally should have interviewed Bluebot! This is bs! :P --- RockMFR 03:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to drop you a "congrats" after reading the snippet in Time (I read it in the physical copy... I know, how 1999 of me). EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello SimonP. Heh, I've never spoken to you, but congrats on being interviewed in Time magazine. Way to go dude! Hey, can you do me a small favor? Click on that "sign here" on my signature please (if you want to, I'm totally not forcing you, and at your own time). Again, congratulations! File:SoleteRayosÑajo.gif --Tohru Honda13^{Sign here!} 04:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, SimonP. I've only been on Wiki for a few months, but after reading the article about you in Time, I had to talk to you. Congrats on being featured in Time! SimonP, you are the Duke of Data! ChromeWulf ZX 23:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations for being featured in Time dude. That's probably the coolest thing that can ever happen to anybody. John earlm 01:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Louis de Jaucourt

Hi Simon, Louis de Jaucourt was the most prolific encyclopedist of the great 18th C French encyclopedia Encyclopedie, contributing close to 25% of the entire work, about 8 articles per day for years on end, and not paid a dime for his efforts (he even had to buy his own copy of the Encyclopedie when it was completed). Our Wikipedia article on him is "ok" but (I don't read French) the French Wikipedia version looks much better and more up to date. If you have any interest in doing a translation, I couldn't think of a better person to ask. Thanks and congrats on your Time profile. -- Stbalbach 03:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting character, can you imagine loosing 20 years of work in a ship-wreck and starting all over. If you want to read more I recommend Philip Bloom's Enlightening the World an entertaining history of the Encylopedie, similar to Simon Winchester's The Meaning of Everything, a history of the OED - both were large volunteer collaboration projects with similarities to WP. -- Stbalbach 19:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi SimonP from Mumun man

Hi I am listening to you on the radio. Good :-) Just wanted to say hello. Mumun 18:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Radio? Please let the Signpost Tipline know... -- Zanimum 19:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Person of the Year 2006

Hi Simon. I am not sure how much you are into userboxes, but due to your Time article you definitely deserve the {{User Person of the Year 2006}}. Congratulations! -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for giving us a nice big reference for your article, I think time meets WP:RS :) - Again, congrats (enjoy the beautiful weather on the other side of the country, us left coasters are still shocked at the weather inversion :o) -- Tawker 23:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You made TWIT too, with a "classic photo" - whatever that means -- Tawker 08:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on your Time article Simon. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, congratulations Simon. I'm new to Wikipedia (joined August 2006). The part in the article about your including edits about the Russian Czars during your studies has inspired me to contribute to Wikipedia in the same way. As I am currently a University student I may as well update a few articles here and there with a lot of the source informaiton I've got. Congratulations again. Ekantik ^talk 04:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

More regarding Wikipedia:Peer review/Canadian postal code

Is it possible that you could get formal newspaper citations to insert into the history section of Canadian postal code? I intended shortly to submit Canadian postal code as a formal featured article candidate. Thanks. --  Denelson83  01:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you deal with this?

This sounds rather serious. Would you be able to take a look at it and decide what needs doing? I've posted to the talk pages of some of the arbitrators and one of the clerks as well, but not any further. Thanks. Carcharoth 23:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hip roof

Hi Simon- I just noticed your article Hip roof and wanted to alert you to another pre-existing one, Tented_roof. I'm on a deadline with a project and don't have time at the moment to look into merging or linking between the articles. I tend to use your term more than "hipped", and the AHDprefers it as well. Thanks for the article. -Eric ^(talk) 16:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image:Benjamin West 005.jpg

It was tagged as db-noimage by KFP [1], so I went ahead and deleted, looks like it isn't properly linked from commons or something? —Pilotguy (ptt) 01:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Pilotguy and the image

Thanks for placing your note on Pilotguy's talk page. I too found the deletions baffling and incorrectly summarized, at best. I wrote to him in a note two above yours and he replied with another baffling and incorrect reason. At the very least, it seems like Pilotguy recklessly applied the NPwatcher tool like a machine gun. Hu 01:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that if the image was deleted, it should be restored. It is a perfectly good public domain image and much better than another I happened to notice. I don't see any record of KFP having asked for it to be deleted. Hu 01:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of Central Asia

Your input on this F.A.R. is desired. KazakhPol 02:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

History of Central Asia has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy (Talk) 23:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you know?

On 27 December, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gothic Revival architecture in Canada, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 13:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Fresheneesz

... Is being disruptive at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization. This is what tipped it. If that was "mediation", the entire mediation cabal would have already been permabanned from the project.Circeus 14:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hum... Re-reading this I see I wasn't quite clear. Could a formal probation proposal be moved for Fresheneesz? His latest creation certainly seems to warrant it.Circeus 02:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop attacking me Circeus. Why are you so upset at me? I've been nothing but polite to you and am completely baffled at what I could have done to offend you so much. Fresheneesz 02:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see where I said something that could be construed as an attack. Although, as I said above, Ibelieve you to be acting disruptively in these two instances, and did feel mildly offended (in a general fashion, as a "hard-working admin") by that "essay" of yours, you haven't personally offended me (although some of your edits at WP:OC might have offended my sense of logic ) Circeus 03:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I found nothing disruptive in any of Fresheneesz's edits. ATren 03:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

He practically barged in and started arguing with radiant, at times misrepresenting or making false statements, and then claimed to have been "mediating" when he was supporting BDJ all along (and I am not lambasting it for him, but for claiming mediation intent afterwards), and then claimed he had no opinion on the actual policy. His proposal of a poll was especially preposterous considering the whole WP:NN thing and the fact he was arguing with Radiant! Circeus 03:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

(1) All his edits were on the talk page. (2) He disagrees with the way Radiant gauges consensus (for the record, so do I) and he expressed that - is that "starting an argument"? (3) Did he try to start a poll? He just suggested it. IMO, you are overreacting here; but then again, I strongly disagreed with the conclusions of that arbitration, so perhaps I'm seeing this through a different lens. ATren 04:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't even consider freshneezs an "involved party," since he clearly hasno interest in discussing the policy, and have, as it turns out, already started a mediation request with Badlydrawnjeff.Circeus 04:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments like "I have no opinion right now" (when he's been clearly arguing one from the start) and While articles need to be verifiable, categories do not have such restrictions. are outright false statement and hardly help the discussion. I was not the only one baffled by the latter: [2]. I honestly hope this doesn't come through as anything but being as specific as possible with what I think is inappropriate editing. If you honestly think I'm overreacting, I will lay itto rst and try to ignore his intervention as much as possible.Circeus 05:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)­­­­

Untagged image

An image you uploaded, Image:Gotland.png, was tagged with the {{coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as {{seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 05:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

S. Cecilia Dougherty

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article S. Cecilia Dougherty, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:S. Cecilia Dougherty. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria.

Notice

NOTICE IS GIVEN THAT the scope of WikiProject Ottawa is being debated. Your input is requested. Thank you. GreenJoe 20:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Naming Conventions ArbCom Case

You said (in regards to Izzy Dot's behaviour) "Comments were unacceptable, but it does concern me that this issue was not really brought up by anyone on the evidence page, and that this is here more because of our own investigating"

Just to clear things up - this wasn't bought up because it was unimportant. Although Izzy's behaviour was bad, he was a very minor player in this dispute. He popped up once in a while to make a few incivil comments/attacks which everyone basically ignored. Also, he'd already been blocked once about 6 weeks ago, and hasn't made any edits since. I guess everyone figured there was no point dragging him into the case - he didn't play a very big part in the dispute and he's already gone. --`/aksha 11:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Pastorwayne: Arbitration needed?

Please see WP:ANI#Pastorwayne and category creation. Several of us have had problems with Pastorwayne and his rapid category creation, which is out of control. On 1 January 2007, he stopped actually creating category pages after multiple complaints, but he has not stopped adding red linked categories to articles, which is the first step in a technique for creating categories according to WP:CAT. The notice at WP:ANI has not received appropriate administrative attention. I left a request for information at WP:MEDCAB (see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-02 Pastorwayne category creation), but it looks like the Mediation Cabal may not act quickly on this request.

At this point, I am wondering if arbitration is needed. Since you are on the arbitration committee, could you please tell me whether this would be appropriate? If arbitration is not appropriate, could you instruct me on how to get some type of definitive administrative action in a relatively short time period?

(I will be asking several members of the arbitration committee just to get some type of feedback.) Dr. Submillimeter 16:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Jc37, an administrator, has now taken a stronger action regarding this situation. Hopefully, I can discuss future concerns regarding this situation with him. If you have additional comments for me, please contact me. Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 18:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Canadian postal code

Hi, we're trying to find the source for the 1975 ad and controversy mentioned in the history section of the Canadian postal code article which is currently under review for GA status. The particular section was added by yourself on 8 June 2005 [3] and has been little changed since. You wouldn't happen to have a copy of the Globe and Mail which referenced it? Cheers Orderinchaos78 01:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been meaning to source those statements for a bit. Denelson asked me to do so a few weeks ago, and I'll see what I can do. - SimonP 02:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much, SimonP. Your help has gotten us closer to featuring Canadian postal code. --  Denelson83  03:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That's excellent :) There's four remaining citation needed pointers, once those are gone we can get it to the next stage. Orderinchaos78 08:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence question

Hello, I had a question about the current Naming Conventions case. I was in the process of supplying evidence a couple weeks ago, when my wiki-time was interrupted by the holidays (and the fact that I got stuck in the New Mexico snowstorm for a few days). Upon my return to Wikipedia, I see that the voting phase on the case has already started, before I was able to finish supplying evidence, and before some of the other involved editors had returned from their own holiday break.  :/ May I continue with supplying the rest of my evidence? Or would it be too late at this point? I'd posted alerts about my upcoming absence and return on the ArbCom talk pages, such as at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Evidence#Christmas and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Proposed decision#Additional evidence, but I'm not sure if anyone saw them. Thanks for your time, Elonka 19:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI, my section is now completed. Please accept my profuse apologies for the multiple delays. It's a been a really tough winter so far, with many power outages. I'm getting caught up now though, and have been able to finish presenting my own evidence, as well as a few extra proposed principles and findings of fact on the Workshop page. If you have time, I would appreciate if you could review them. If not though, I understand. To be honest, I feel better just knowing that I was able to complete my section, since its half-finished status was on my mind during the last couple weeks.

For what it's worth, I have no intention of challenging the final ArbCom decision, whichever way it goes. I see ArbCom as a useful part of the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution process. And just as with an AfD or DRV discussion, I may not always agree with the decision of the closing admin, but I will respect it.  :)

Despite some of the other comments that have been made about my behavior throughout this situation, it is my hope that ultimately it will be clear that I am a longtime hardworking Wikipedian, that I believe strongly in the project, and that in general I'm not groundzero for various disputes. In this one particular case though, I felt strongly that I had an obligation to speak up. But I will be glad when the matter is finally resolved, as I am very much looking forward to getting back to writing articles! :) Elonka 04:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please note that a significant part of Elonka's evidence is either misleading or downright false, as noted here. >Radiant< 14:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Cheers for all this [4]. --Mcginnly | Natter 00:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Aarush

I noticed your revert to Aarush. I've been in a bit of an edit war on that document and have recently come to the conclusion that an entry is needed. I've recently searched and most western names have definitions of sorts for names with links to persons with said names. Obviously the names that are being listed have not proved notability. However, I feel that the entry itself should be kept in place, and have recently changed my stance to refect that.

I'd be intersted in hearing your input on this, and regarding your edit. Thank you in advance. RichMac (Talk) 04:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Use of {{unverified}}

Please don't use {{unverified}}, which is intended for use on images, on articles, as you did for Abdullah Baybasin. Eli Falk 23:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Adam Lewis Bingaman

Please use an existing category when categorizing uncategorized pages, or create a category before using it. Putting in a non-existant category, as you did with Adam Lewis Bingaman, doesn't help. Eli Falk 11:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Motion to Close (Naming Conventions ArbCom Case)

I noticed the motion to close for this ArbCom case. I hope i'm not too late in asking the ArbCom members actively voting in this case to take a look at this request and consider it before closing the case? Thank you. --`/aksha 10:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Guidance

Re: Starwood Arb

I implore the arbitrators who have not recused themselves in this case to please give some direction in the Starwood Arb, or at least a timeline of when they will be able to deliberate. It quite literally has devolved into a Lord of the Flies scenario on the evidence and workshop pages, and the wikilawyering, off-topic diatribes and verbosity are making it difficult to make heads or tails of what is going on. I am not trying to impose upon the process, I am just asking for some feedback & order. - WeniWidiWiki 17:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Chilean edits

Hello, SimonP, since you have made several edits to articles about Chile, you may be interested in looking at the Wikipedia:Chile-related regional notice board to pick up on other topics that need attention, or to express needs which you perceive pertaining to Chile. JAXHERE | ^Talk 02:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ottawa Citizen

Ooh, that's gotta suck. ~ Flameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 18:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of article 'WinBot'

I'm not sure who voted in the deletion on this or when, but this was a notable article, having been published on cover CD's of magazines in the UK and reviewed on various websites.

See PC Plus DVD edition, Issue #204; July 2003. Contact me if you need more.

Ok, confusion abound here. There appears to be two pages, One called WinBot and one (that i contributed to a while back) called Winbot without the capital B. The second of the two is the page which should remain, sorry for any confusion -- however, would it make sense to redirect one to the other? Braindigitalis 22:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_January_27#Marsden-Donnelly harassment case

A disagreement has arisen regarding the interpretation of your previous comments on the case, so your clarification is appreciated. ~ trialsanderrors 01:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University

Dear ArbComm Member of Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University;

This note is to bring to your attention two issues which are creating upheaval in the article located here [5]and placed on probation under the premise of "Any user may request review by members of the Arbitration Committee."[6]. This request is based on enforcement or remedies stated in the arbitration process and failure to follow up on it.

1) An article-banned user [7] orchestrated a come back through proxy IPs from Japan and then through an account "Some people" which has been blocked twice. The problem with this is that this user had modified the entire article in less than 12 hours on January 28 2007. This user partner, TalkAbout; acted in synchrony with 244 on that night and made some changes as well using "Some people" new version. User Andries had a minor edit of that version as well.

Request to investigate user Some people [8] Analysis of situation [9] Suspicion of sockpuppet account [10] Blocks to user Some people for "a reincarnation of the editor who formerly posted from the IP address 195.82.106.244"( As admin Thatcher put it) [11]

2) The only admin we've dealing with is Thatcher131. I would like to bring to your attention what I consider to be "lack of neutrality" and fairness from his/her part. Even though, user "Some people" was blocked by Thatcher131 under a strong suspicion of him being user 244 (banned by the ArbComm for a year) Thatcher131 supported the new version of the page which are the versions of a banned user.[12] A request for enforcement of arbitration has been submitted long time ago before user 195.82.106.244 (aka 244) made several changes through his sockpuppet account "Some people" [13] but the request is still sitting there.

User "Some people" transformed the article with over 30 + entries on 22:41 28 Jan 2007 [14] and then User TalkAbout added some content and at that point, that was considered the new "good version" of the article.

I would like to request the following: 1) the article to be reverted to a state before "Some people" took over. 2) To change the "admin in charge", Thatcher131 to someone who is not emotionally involved in this issue (Thatcher131 was the clerk in the arbitration case and helped user 195.82.106.244 to file the case and presented some evidence against me but not against 244[15])and that could enforce normal wikipedia procedures are taking place. I appreciate your time and prompt consideration on this.

Truly Yours, avyakt7 21:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Replied on User talk:Fred Bauder [16]. Thatcher131 22:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Replied on same user Talk page [17] Thank you. avyakt7 21:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children of the Prime Ministers of Canada

Hi Simon. I hope you're doing well in Toronto. Do you think you could help us out by voting to keep this article? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children of the Prime Ministers of Canada. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote, Simon. They've also put Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parents of the Prime Ministers of Canada on AfD as well. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Durova/Community enforced mediation

I've based a proposal on the mediation from the Piotrus-Ghirla case. Your input would be welcome. Please reply on the proposal talk page. Durova^Charge! 21:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Location Maps

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, you had either explictly declared a general interest in the project, or had participated at a discussion that appears related to Location Maps for European countries.
New maps had been created by David Liuzzo, and are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions), and also which new version should be applied for which countries.
Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. The subsections on the talk page that had shown David Liuzzo's original maps, now show his most recent design.
Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 7 Feb2007 20:35 (UTC)

A-Channel report

Heard about a preview of a news report about Wikipedia which you are in. So I will check this out tommorrow at 6. Cheers!--JForget 04:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Just getting around to this, but I did see the report air on A-Channel Ottawa way back when. Seemed to be a good feature; no doubt there are always more items that could be mentioned about WP culture. Dl2000 01:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than two years

Hi Simon. WP:AR2 is empty at the moment, and I noted it's you who populates it with new entries from time to time. I don't mind lending a hand with this - how do you identify the oldest requested articles?

This way if I ever see it empty, I can add a few articles. There always seems to be some very dedicated editors willing to take these long-requested articles on when all else has failed; an empty page feels counter-productive. Proto::► 16:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes? No? Proto ► 00:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

RfArb "Pakistani Nationalism"

Hi, I noticed that the title of Rama's arrow's Request for Arbitration had been changed to "Pakistani Nationalism." I think the new title unfairly tilts the balance in favor of the initiator, Rama's arrow. I am not sure if everyone knows that the RfArb was initiated by Rama's arrow at 16:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC), a full 16 minutes after (and therefore likely in reaction to) an incident at WP:ANI, against Rama's arrow (See here:"Admin abusing his privileges") filed at 16:43, 12 February 2007, by the other editors (Pakistani) now involved in this RfArb. As a neutral editor who has battled both sides in this dispute at different times and occasions, my own view is that nationalism exists on both sides of the Pakistan-India border and both sides are equally prolific in edit-wars on Wikipedia. In my perspective, Rama's arrow has been selectively aggressive towards Pakistani editors and, correspondingly, selectively benign towards Indian editors. I think the way that this RfArb is framed, Rama's arrow comes out looking as a concerned, but, perhaps, neutral administrator and his "interlocutors" as somewhat rabid nationalists. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Motion to revoke remedy of Kosovo arbcom (October 2006)

Dear Simon, on 21 October 2006 the Kosovo arbcom found that I had been given 96 hours probation for edit warring on the Srebrenica massacre article and based on this (presumably) gave me one years probation and revert parole. I have raised some questions regarding this remedy (see below), and Fred Bauder has initiated a motion to revoke these remedies. Since you were one of the members of the arbitration committee I respectfully ask you to consider my case. I have also posted some comments regarding Dmcdevit's reply, here. The questions I raised regarding the decision of the Kosovo arbcom were:

• why did the Kosovo arbcom consider my misconduct on the Srebrenica massacre article? Nowehere is the Srebrenica massacre article names as a 'related article'. Nowhere is the reasoning for linking the two articles given.
• it seems a rather harsh remedy to give me one years probation and revert parole for a 'crime' which I had already served time for (so to say).
• is it possible to appeal the Kosovo arbcom's decision?

Sincere regards Osli73 10:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

using diffs

FYI regarding the diffs I am required to use as evidence,I'd just like to mention that I have used diffs for most of the evidence I have posted. Other evidence which I am posting or will post not using diffs are for the reason that the specific peice of evidence is from an archieved page and a history cannot be checked since it's archived.

I hope that's okay with you guys.Regards.--Nadirali نادرالی

I never posted that comment on Hkelkar's talkpage

FYI I am extremely upset at the false "evidence" RA is posting against me.I never posted that comment in Urdu on Hkelkar's talkpage.Please check the history of that page.

And another thing that I "attacked" muhajirs is so wrong.I AM PART Muhajir from my father's side.My father is Muhajir born in India of Azeri ancestry from his mother's side. Many Muhajirs despise this Muhajir nationalistic belif that cooked up by the MQM that Muhajirs are the only "educated" people in Pakistan.Does that mean they become anti-Muhajir?No.

I'm sorry but it cannot allowed as evidence.Those are simply unproven assersions which RA usually posts.--Nadirali نادرالی

Yes, I am in error about that Urdu comment on user talk:Hkelkar. The comment was actually made by MirzaGhalib (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and tagged {{unsigned}} by user:Bakasuprman. I should have double-checked this - I apologize. As for the anti-Muhajir comments, the diffs are perfectly clear and Nadirali is responsible for it. Rama's arrow 22:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

How can you accuse me of attacking Muhajirs when I AM a Muhajir from my father's side.My father is a Muhajir of Azerbaijani ancestry from his mother's side.Therefor he is of Azerbaijani descent born in what is today india. I still stand by my claims that I dislike their mentality of being too conservitive.I once had a Greek tutor who would repeatidly attack his people because he felt they were too arrogant.Does that make him an "anti-Greek".

If you think my comments were attacking Muhajirs,then atleast you can call me a "self-hating Muhajir" rather than an "anti-Muhajir" which is quite ridiculous and somewhat quite laughable :-)--Nadirali نادرالی

I saw nadirali at the top of page history, the urdu text at the bottom and assumed it was nadirali. After learning it was another user, I promptly changed it. I cannot make it look like anyone edited anything, since I cant hack mediawiki software.Bakaman 02:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

OTRS matter

Hi, Simon

I wanted to contact you privately regarding an OTRS matter, but your email is not set up. So I couldn't. So let's figure out another way to handle this. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 20:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Election promise

There is a user who is currently deleting a section of Election Promise which you originally created when you created this article. Can you watch the page too? Travb (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"Don Jail" is an unofficial nickname.

The Toronto Jail is named just that; the Toronto Jail. "Don Jail" is only a slang term or nickname. It's my opinion that posting the article under the nickname would be like posting an article about Frank Sinatra under the heading of "Old blue eyes" without disambiguation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jc128842 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC). --Jc128842 18:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

---

SimonP wrote:

Wikipedia has a policy of using common names. It is standard policy to use nicknames when they are what a person or thing is commonly know by. e.g. Jimmy Carter and Tony Blair. Don Jail is pretty much the standard name for the facility, used by most books, newspapers, and websites. - SimonP 21:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if we are to use the nickname, then the more common usage is not "The Don Jail" but "The Don". During my 17 years as a correctional officer I don't believe I have ever heard anyone (staff, inmates, etc.) actually say "The Don Jail". So the article, if we are to follow the standard, should be titled "The Don". As for references in newspapers, etc. the names of facilities are often mis-stated. I have often seen the Mimico Correctional Centre referred to as the Mimico Jail, Mimico Correctional Institute, etc. --Jc128842 14:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I back up SimonP on this one. Living in Toronto, I've heard of it many times, but only ever as the Don Jail. I've never heard either The Don, nor Toronto jail. Hope this helps. -Oreo Priest 00:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Woodbine Avenue at Deletion Review

Your undeletion of Woodbine Avenue over the AFD close has been brought to deletion review for discussion. Please come offer your explanation and opinion. GRBerry 18:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Prechter

Hi Simon. I've made an amended version of the FoF on this arb case. Please take a look. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom status

At your convenience, could you kindly clarify whether you wish to be considered "active" or "inactive" for now on pending ArbCom cases. Obviously, you can vote on any case you want to, but at the moment we were not counting you in calculating the majority in a few pending cases, and if you are active again I will want to adjust that. Thanks and regards, Newyorkbrad 03:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I believe another arbitrator had previously marked you as inactive on the list at WP:AC. I will go through and fix all the majorities for pending cases. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

CityNews

Hello, you might already be aware of this, but your interview on CityNews was broadcasted a few minutes ago. —LOL 03:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Again?

"... Eventually I managed to get most of these biographies reinstated by waiting several months and then trying again, when Louis Blair was not looking. ..." - Sam Sloan (Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:12 pm)

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/browse_frm/thread/7d8fd30b87dcbe95?scoring=d&hl=en

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=68693060#Sam_Sloan

(This is posted here by Louis Blair (March 13, 2007))

Engoish reformation question.

I have only recently started editing articles on the English reformation, so I am somewhat uncertain about the inclusion of attributing cause and effect. For example, English Reformation recently had "Many factors contributed to the ferment: the invention of the printing press, the rise of nationalism, the transmission of new knowledge and ideas; but the story of how the different states of Europe adhered to different forms of Protestantism, or remained faithful to Rome or allowed different regions within states to come to different conclusions (as they did) is specific to each state." added to its lead. There are similar later statements and discussions on the talkpage about what historiography to go with. I've always been under the impression that Wikipedia reports the facts as far as possible without getting into historical disputes (unless it is to report on them), so this struck me as being irrelevant. However, I am not familiar with the style of history articles and was hoping you, as the author of so many FAs in this area, could tell me whether this is normal or not. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Starwood RfAr case

User:Kathryn NicDhàna has given another statement (I think it's semi-evidence, but it's placed on the main case page) at here. Please advise action. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but I noticed that Penwhale posted a link to a statement that Kathryn made about this case that did not include my response. I hope you will consider it as well. [18] Rosencomet 05:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Rosencomet has written a rebuttal at Kathryn's comment. I've subsequently moved it back into his/her section here. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 05:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Related to anthroposophy

Is it possible that you could check Talk:Anthroposophy#About anthroposophical sources, please? I'm sorry that I was first unaware what ”arbitration” means. Erdanion 14:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Toronto ravine system

On 23 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Toronto ravine system, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 06:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Simon!

I live in Ontario too. Keep up the good work! ^^

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

undid Brian O'dea edit

although the statement is opinion(imho). I decided to put up a citation needed there to see if it could be verified. If it isn't in about a week or so I'll remove it.

AfD nomination of List of university libraries

I've nominated List of university libraries, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that List of university libraries satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of university libraries and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of university libraries during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- Seed 2.0 13:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong arbitration

Hi Simon. I don't know if it might be useful for strengthening the FoF or not, or if you may want to reconsider any of your positions, but I compiled some more info on the edit warring on the main Falun Gong page on the workshop. I'm recused since I locked the page frequently and blocked Samuel once, so I'm not going to edit the FoF. As well, I made two edits to the page; once when I saw Samuel add his own website, I removed it, and another time there was this unsourced info about a scientific study on six people which said that FLG caused health benefits. In any case, I haven't finished yet, but if you look in the bit about the June 2006 edit warring, there are clearly some guys there who did 20-30+ reverts in the three weeks that the page was open to editing. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

My reverts: HappyInGeneral

Hello Simon. Could you please answer the question I posted here: [19]?

Basically I would like to ask you to comment if you think these changes were legitimate and in accordance with the Wikipedia Spirit.

Thank You and Best Regards, --HappyInGeneral 09:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

roll back?

[re: Blacksburg, VA] I sourced these images from an archive of photo content that I maintained from work that I did (website design) for some of the local business in Blacksburg (e.g. Gillies, Bollos, the Cellar). I believe they are all taken by me, using a Ricoh KR-10 35mm, and a little cheapo Alaris Digital Camera around spring of 1997. However, I also have an archive that includes photos provided by the clients. I will review to see if I have any images mixed in from between the two archives.

I noticed the page had been rolled back to prior any changes --- are you suggesting that none of these images are mine? Also, I added relevant Geography text with internal links back to other Wikipedia references. Has this information also been deleted?

- LmL6 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.160.36.56 (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

RFArb Transnistria

Hi, Simon. As you are an arbitrator in the case regarding Transnistria, please take a look at [20] and also at the talk page. I think we should checkuser the suspected socks not with their recent contributions but with their old ones, before suspected sockpuppeteer knows about the suspicions. Losing time can mean losing evidence. Thanks.--MariusM 18:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Queen Square.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Queen Square.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. hfx_chris 23:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Architecture of Ottawa

On 3 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Architecture of Ottawa, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 19:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Clickable map on Ottawa

Do you know of a reason why the clickable map you added to the Ottawa page would be invisible to me (on IE 6). When I go directly to the template page itself ([[Template:Ottawa map]]), the map appears in all its glory. Thanks. — Grstain | Talk 20:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

McConn on revert parol for a year?

I've just noticed that this is the conclusion you've come to, and I'm quite surprised. I doubt that there is anything that I can do about your decision, but I still feel the need to defend myself. It's true that I've engaged in edit warring, but rarely have I ever reverted without discussion (in fact using the talk pages to explain each of my edits is something I make a priority of), and rarely have I ever participated in a revert war that wasn't over edits that were quite clearly inappropriate. I believe that I've also been regarded by most other users as very reasonable, including by those that are on the opposing side, such as Firestar and Tomananda. It's rare that people rationally complain about my editing behavior. I also make a point of using the talk pages to discuss content without pushing my opinion about Falun Gong. And because of these things, I haven't felt any warning or threat that some action might be taken against me. I appologize for the fact that I haven't been following the arbitration case or participating in it. This is mostly because I was away from wikipedia for about two months, and only really came back after the pages were opened up to make some edits that I thought were rather straightforward. (I understand now that this was probably wrong and that I should have waited for the arbcom case to finish before making such content changes). Anyway, were I to know or have been warned that my editing behavior has been a problem I would change immediately; you don't need to put me on any kind of restricting parol to do that. I respect your position and understand that you've done your homework, but from my perspective this kind of decision without any warning seems like jumping the gun. Thanks for listening. Mcconn 16:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Rules applied inconsistently? Seeking clarification

Note about this query in this section: This is more of a question seeking clarification from arbitrators / similar ranked persons on Wiki about Wiki rules rather than a complaint. I wanted to keep the query to the ArbCom decision talk page but if I can't get an answer there, please give me a reply either here on your talk page, or preferably, my talk page, thanks!

1. I notice that Samuel has been deemed incapable of promoting a viewpoint outside his activism and has an obvious conflict of interest in that sense, but don't Falun Gong practitioners also have a similar COI? Many of the pro-FGers did not even want to see a Criticism section. Now, they are only willing to see one that is heavily truncated and has been responded to by their Leader or Master. Isn't this an inconsistent application of the Conflict of Interest rule? (If not, pls explain)

2. Moreover, if users like Asdfg (pro-FG) are given a second chance and commended for turning over a new leaf and now appears to conform to Wiki rules, why shouldn't Tomananda be given that chance, and Samuel (who had 3, not 7 blocks btw, if overturned blocks are not to be counted)? I find it once again an inconsistent application of Wikipedia rules that anti-FGers must be banned yet pro-FGers have, at the very most, only been given a year's parole (except McConn). I also note with amusement that despite User:HappyInGeneral having declared a POV war previously on the FG discussion page, he can be found not to merit even a revert parole.

3. Arbitrator Fred Bauder also mentioned that the real flamers have not been sanctioned (e.g. User:Omido) so far so should this ArbCom decision be expanded to include these users? Or are arbitrators bound to only consider the users involved and mentioned in the ArbCom case?

4. I note from Fred Bauder that NPOV does not require excision of POV language. I accept that, but hope that he would expand on this point further, preferably by giving examples in this FG case. Moreover, if that edit I made was objectionable then does that mean Fire_Star's one (the version I reverted to) was also objectionable, or is it my edit in itself that was objectionable?

5. How exactly do we deal with unregistered users who vandalize Wikipedia + Wiki user pages? Note that there have been a series of anti-FG vandalism actions recently, which is curiously well-timed as they hardly existed before this ArbCom case, as well as the fact that there have only been numerous pro-FG vandalism actions before. See also the numerous times anti-FG and '3rd-party' users had their talk pages vandalized. So how do we prevent abuse of this, especially when banning IP addresses does little good to an organization that exploits the weaknesses of Wikipedia? (If you cannot answer this one, that is understandable, but if you have an answer that would be of great use)

Now just one suggestion:

1. Instead of revert parole-ing numerous users, how about simply revert parole-ing entire Wiki entries, namely the FG-related ones here? This would be the best way of preventing edit wars ESPECIALLY by unregistered users (or users exploiting this Wiki weakness), as has been supported by my relatively limited number of edits on the main Wiki FG-related entries (compare the edits I made + content I wrote on the pages' talk pages, compared to the actual entries themselves). Jsw663 19:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:OSGOlogo.png

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:OSGOlogo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:OCDSBlogo.png

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:OCDSBlogo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria arbitration

I would like to express my surprise concerning the probable outcome of the Transnistrian arbitration.

On one side you have an astroturfing network, proved media manipulation, and sockpuppet farms. On the other, you have guys that uncovered this large-scale manipulation and are now calm and reasonable (once the main manipulators are gone, that is). And what this ArbCom does is to inflict similar bans on both sides.

How is this ethical? Do you mean that fighting manipulation attempts is punishable? The only way of bringing down a manipulator being to accept the same punishment? And how about balancing punishment with evidence? Dpotop 12:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

your pro censorship ruling

Is it ok to have in the User:Tobias Conradi page the following

---

The orginal version of this page contained admin right abuse listing and was deleted. The deletion is not shown in the deletion log.

This user thinks Wikipedia should be more tranparent with respect to admin actions. All users should be allowed to have annotated listings of admin actions, e.g. listings of admin right abuses.

Unfortunatly the ArbCom ruled that "Tobias Conradi is prohibited from maintaining laundry lists of grievances." and referring here to a simple listing of annotated diffs. User_talk:Tobias Conradi/RfA

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tobias_Conradi/Proposed_decision#Laundry_lists_of_grievances

So User:Tobias Conradi is denied the right to collect evidences of admin right abuses.

It reminds me on people committing crime and when the victim wants to change things by making the crime public he is additionally abused by being censored.

http://transparency.org

---

Tobias Conradi (Talk) 12:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:BetacommandBot

Please unblock this bot. It's doing very necessary work. Of course people are complaining about it--they upload non-free artwork without providing as rationale, and it follows policy in tagging that artwork, obliging them in turn to follow policy. --Tony Sidaway 15:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I also recommend unblocking this bot, it is keeping Wikipedia out of legal trouble. The complaints against it are not based in policy and it is only doing what it is approved to do. FU have suffered 2 years of neglect and we need to get them back in line. ^(H) 15:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Seconded, the bot should not have been going so fast, but if the operator agrees to run it at a managable pace of 2-3 edits per minute, I think things would be fine. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 15:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

2-3 per minute? That is a crawl, at least 10-15. ^(H) 15:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There are enough issues here that I think a break before restarting the bot is still a good idea. The rate of edits, whether speedy deletion of these images should be suspended, and the exact demands of our fair use policies, all seem to currently be subject of debate. A day long pause will not harm the encyclopedia, and some time to discuss these issues could be useful. I'm not going to lift the block, but I am also not going to impose any limitations once it expires. - SimonP 15:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Really? I thought policy was rather clear in this area. I guess Wikipedia will just hold onto its copyright violations for 24 hours longer. ^(H) 15:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

(Copied from User talk:Tony Sidaway) There seem to be two very different discussions happening on this issue. At Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) there is a near consensus that these edits should stop, while at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard there is a near consensus to just the opposite. There does seem to be a debate about whether current policy demands a non generic fair use rational for certain images. To me this seems to be a legitimate argument, the fair use rational at Image:BizarreRideIIthePharcyde.jpg has been presented as an exemplary rational for fair use of an album cover, but it still seems to be to be totally generic.

I'm thus going to leave this bot blocked. There is a problem with fair use, but it is not a crisis. 24 hours of discussion and debate on this issue will do no harm to the encyclopedia, and could help clarify some of these issues. - SimonP 15:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the debate has to take place on the fair use guidelines page. Permitting ad hoc consensus to overrule established policy isn't good. On the blocking issue, well I think a brief block was enough to clarify things. He can be unblocked now that we've established that he's been executing an important part of Wikipedia policy. Blocking him for longer would, I think, tend to pre-empt policy. --Tony Sidaway 15:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed that discussion at the village pump seems to not be based on either policy or the law of the land our servers sit in. They should be discussing this at WT:FU, where we have a long standing existing policy. Brief discussion at the village pump do not override policy. ^(H) 15:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The village pump has confusion between WP:FUC (policy) and WP:FURG (guideline). The argument there is that they conflict. Policy trumps guidelines last time I checked. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 15:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

SimonP, you must remember what Wikipedia is all about — a free content, freely redistributable encyclopedia. The non-free images make it less of one. BetacommandBot has done the best work in making Wikipedia more free in recent memory. The people complaining about it are newbies who don't understand what Wikipedia is all about; they just want their images that are non-compliant with the fair use policy to not be deleted rather than doing the necessary work to make them compliant. I don't think their complaining is justifiable reason to block the bot. Yes, the bot is going to ruffle feathers, but such is life. The work is necessary, and if it pisses fair use zealots off so much they leave, that's an added bonus. --Cyde Weys 00:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you do not wish to reverse this block. However, given the general consensus against this block, how do you feel about another admin reversing this block? ^(H) 01:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The block is about to expire, but I agree it should have not been done. Fair use rationales (detailed, individualized ones) are a requirement, not a nicety. Wikipedia is, first and foremost, intended to be free-content. If someone wishes to claim they have a valid exception to that requirement, they are and should be required to provide a very good reason why they think so, not just a boilerplate. Exceptions are made on an article-by-article basis, not an "all X are fine" basis. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Lisgar

You went to lisgar collegiate in ottawa? --Adam Wang 21:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

i'm in the class of 09. --Adam Wang 02:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Gary, from mesh conference

Hey Simon, it's me, Gary King from the mesh conference (I told you that I recognized you from the TIME magazine article?) Anyways, could you modify the Cleanup template so that the text that says "a more specific message. points to a section that actually exists?

Also, do you have an IM address that I could contact you at? ;)

--Gary King 02:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Published

I was told to get my stuff published. It has been! I think you failed to read the Talk:Republic page where I point out that I have been published in Sparta, Journal of Spartan and Greek History 5 May 2007. A peer review journal. The title is: The Spartan Republic. Please read up! I can be accomodating. How about a return to the Classical definition of republic? Or will you just be constantly reverting?WHEELER 04:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Dominant estate

Thanks for editing the capital letters for style. I usually post the stubs, and return later to edit them for style and typos. I appreciate your handiwork. Bearian 16:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

1RR per week

why did you vote for putting me on 1RR per week? I never even violated 3RR. Even if one admin claimed so in the block log - my first block I received. And the first in a long row of false blocks. Pls tell what I did you think to cure with 1RR per week. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Harvard National Model United Nations

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Harvard National Model United Nations, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Mystache 23:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved from user page

Hey simon.. i've noticed recently that the OLHP pages (order of the left handed path) have been deleted. aka 'ordo sinstra vivendi' i ask that u check into it.. or have someone you trust check it out :P - honorablepassion (—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.111.56.48 (talk • contribs).)

List of films by gory death scene AfD

Hi. I'm doing a heroic last stand at the moment and I've been underwhelmed by the participation of people who have worked on the article for a long time. Is there any particular reason why you haven't been around? --Kizor 14:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget...

Please don't forget to add [[21]] and [[22]] to the "Proposed decision" area for arbitrators to vote on. This area [[23]]. Martinphi and Davkal are the main focus of this arbitration and the person who initiated it. I would hate to see their frequent violations of policy be overlooked because it was never nominated to be voted for by the arbitrators. Also please add [[24]] and [[25]]. to the "Proposed decisions" area. Thanks.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)