User talk:John Vandenberg/Archive 8

Wikistalking and harassment by User:Jack Merridew

WP:ANI#Wikistalking and harassment by User:Jack Merridew

As you are one of this editor's mentors, I am formally requesting that the editing restrictions be extended so that this editor leaves me alone. Another mentor, Casliber, already told him to do as much and yet he is ignoring those instructions in blatant diregard for the agreement by which he returned. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I did review this when it happened, and discussed it with the mentored user via email. Let me know if you feel wikihounded again. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I while back someone called LetsdrinkTea saw me manually makeing large amounts of articles, so he gave me/taught me how to use this thing called a Java script, and he gave me a faster one, which allows me to make pages of insect species in large quantity (not of good quality though), but now people are sayin that I should sign up on the white list of auto-patrolled editors, and get approval for my bot, so here I am, can I get approved for the white list of auto-patrolled editors. Buɡboy52.4 (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone else has done this. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Delsort tab not working

...since yesterday or possibly the day before, even when I comment out everything else in my monobook (except the 2 necessary Twinkle lines) and refresh. FYI. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well ... now it's working again. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I love it when problems fix themselves :-)

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

fyi, I just hooked this up and have used on about a half dozen AfDs; I had one spot where it seemed to hang and I inadvertently poked the list option [1]; could you peek at my .js and see if there are any conflicts with other scripts that you're aware of? nb: I saw the bit about Friendly, which I have on in gadgets along with RefTools and Twinkle, and it's unclear if that issue self-sorted. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If you already have twinkle enabled as a Gadget, you can remove it from your monobook.js. Besides that, I have no idea what may have been the problem. Maybe it will also disappear like the problem Dank55 reported. (fingers crossed) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I missed that and just cut it. The balky behaviour seems a one-off; I may have just been a bit impatient for it to start-up. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Robert John Bardo

Is this a reasonable fair-use?

• File:Robert John Bardo-Police photo.jpeg

I found the source on an extant link in the article. I noticed the fairly recent addition of him being Korean-American and have not been able to source it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There should be a category somewhere for mug shots. That should give us an idea of what similar fair use has been accepted. California state may place these photos into the public domain, in a similar way that all US federal works are. Sorry this is brief; I'll take another look on the weekend when I return to a decent Internet connection. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

duh: Category:Mug shots. I've updated the license and FUR modeled on File:Dana Plato mugshot.jpg; there are hundreds in the cat. I do expect that a PD claim may be valid, but this will suffice for now. Thanks, Jack Merridew 04:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That category name was a bit too obvious! :-) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Auguste Carrière

Do you plan on expanding this article? Currently, the article fails to assert notability and could fall victim to WP:CSD#A7. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do plan on expanding the article.

I've been working on setting up the transcription: s:fr:Livre:Nouvelles sources de Moïse de Khoren.djvu

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, just wanted to make sure. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll also try to meliorate the bio. AdjustShift (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

supplied your request on RfArb, on the Clarification.

If you have any questions, I am reachable either via my talk page or via email. SirFozzie (talk) 06:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Nordic Africa Institute website

Hi. They're a research centre. Their site is;

• http://www.nai.uu.se/ - and it's also at;
• http://130.238.24.99/

We have about 300 links to their papers, but most of them are using the ip, not the domain;

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&target=*.nai.uu.se
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&target=130.238.24.99

I've fixed about 3 and looked at the PDFs, which matched both ways; example

Know a bot-way for these to get fixed? Or at least a semi-automated way? Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup. m:replace.py. You know you want to do it :P

It might also be useful to inquire about the copyright status of these; maybe we can put them on Wikisource.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I should have expected; and, hey, guess what's sitting in my downloads folder? I'll read a bit, first — including prior email. Oh, their papers are BORING; raw information.. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

New image project

Hi. This little form letter is just a courtesy notice to let you know that a proposal to merge the projects Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, Wikipedia:WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration into the newly formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media has met with general support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Files. Since you're on the rosters of membership in at least one of those projects, I thought you might be interested. Conversation about redirecting those projects is located here. Please participate in that discussion if you have any interest, and if you still have interest in achieving the goals of the original project, we'd love to have you join in. If you aren't interested in either the conversation or the project, please pardon the interruption. :) Thanks. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Hi. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey

You've got mail. AdjustShift (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Note

Regarding Talk:Mae West#Sexette opening. The change made to the file pages still doesn't correspond with the actual opening date given in a couple places, but more importantly, I can't say that changing the date addresses the other points that were made about the photo. It is a horrible photo, it is even categorized on the commons as a blurred image. It doesn't provide any context for its use based on article content and honestly, and if you care to look around at comments, it has been widely remarked upon for being a poor image. However, if I remove it, it will spark yet another huge issue. Honestly and in truth with no bias about the uploader, it isn't suitable for the Wikpedia page based on nothing else besides quality. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Furme

AWeenieMan runs Furme and he has been inactive for several months, you might need to implement Wikipedia_talk:FurMe#security_error on your own. MBisanz ^talk 07:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for letting me know. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

John Bot II

It's online again, use this tool to tag images. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Does it depend on {{commons ok}}. Should the WP:MTC redirect be updated to point somewhere else? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Images that will be moved need to be tagged with {{Jb2move}}, but this will allow taggers to specify categories to add to the image at the commons, a new name for the image (the bot will update usages of the image), and if to not mark the local image for deletion. It's an extra step, but it improves the quality of images added to the commons. I need to write up proper documentation for the process still. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The e-mail

Responded, and I am sorry that you seemed to believe that I went back on my word. I hope that I have explained it clearly (now for the third time). I also request that you read ALL of what I wrote in the Jayjg section, including the responses to G-Dett, Mackan, and Nishidani. Please feel free to request more clarification should you still be uncertain. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 08:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

ANI

If I am reading correctly then I believe that User:Sephiroth BCR is advising that I notify the three mentors of this discussion. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 09:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Manifesto?

Hi, John. :) Does this count as a manifesto and, if so, can you use it on Wikisource under your special manifesto allowances? The contributor is claiming PD and I have asked for verification of that, but it seems that most of the article is a "primary source" anyway. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved to Wikisource, and I have left a note at User_talk:Charles.hamilton95#International_Consensus_Statement_on_Attention_Deficit_Hyperactivity_Disorder

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) It seemed like something similar to the last one. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

{{Sourcebible}}

Hi, I never heard back from you on this, so I'm assuming you were ok with replacing this and deleting it. Let me know if you still have any concerns or whatnot. Peace, delldot ∇. 19:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Tool Newsletter 3

WikiProject Tool is being revived. The current WikiProject Tool Collaboration of the Month is Maynard James Keenan discography Please help to improve this article to the highest of standards.

DYK for First Baptist Church of Augusta

On April 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article First Baptist Church of Augusta, 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.

Royalbroil 12:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

OMG! John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I happen to know he's chuffed. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I was complaining about my poor track record only the other night. Maybe this arbcom business will bring me fame and fortune after all. Maybe drugs and sex as well, but I might get slapped if I mention that as my hidden agenda. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit List of fictional trios; make-up a wish-trio of any three you like (remember, it's fiction). Choose wisely. Personally, I feel that fame, fortune, and drugs are overrated. Jack Merridew 12:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Jack Merridew bot

Hi. Just created the bot account. Will confirm from my main account soon. Cheers, Jack Merridew bot (talk) 12:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Confirming that the above is me. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice to meet you User:Jack Merridew bot - read up on the Bot policy pages. I should have some time in a few days to help you.

I suggest you take a look at WP:BOTR and s:WS:BOTR, and have a think about how you would try to tackle the tasks there.

On Wikisource, you can bot with reckless abandon provided you dont screw up.

• There are a few texts under "Importing text from DJVU to pages" - those all use the meta:djvutext.py tool I wrote.
• The "Cut up formated pages" task would be done by pulling down the raw text of the pages, munging it, and then pushing it back up with meta:pagefromfile.py.

Enjoy, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

comments

I'm surprised that you should have chosen to expose a highly personalised prejudice when you were charged with writing a balance, even-handed set of proposals for your fellow arbitrators to vote on. This kind of comment, directed at me:

"Your belief that these polls gave you license to behave as you have is what got you into this mess."

shows significant bias. It's very much a blaming framework, isn't it; I'm not surprised that you have recoiled in horror at the messy case, but that is ArbCom's doing for want of a statement of scope and proper evidentiary rules. These matters are likely to be changed, I am given to believe, and the manifest unfairness of meting out punishment to people who had no idea how to respond to the sea of tongue-poking that went by the name of the evidence and workshop pages is all too obvious in this difficult case.

I think you are making the case far more difficult than it already was by showing patent bias in the statement above, matched by a gaping one-sidedness in the funnels you seem to have constructed for the voting. I assume your good faith—don't get me wrong—but I think you're too close to the text to see it. Do you get the feeling from the talk page that people are not just unhappy, but are dramatically losing faith in the hearings process? Unhappiness about ArbCom might be expected, but the messages coming from the talk page are more than that. It is becoming bad for the project, and ArbCom is looking more like a punitive process than one that heals and solves. Where are those elements? Perhaps you are driven by a personal distaste for incivility. Please be aware that long-established editors can be passionate, and that incivility occurs all over the project on a daily basis. The reformist group has had to suffer a large share of abuse; it has never seemed like a fun game to me. I have been interested only in pursuing this major reform, and the whole thing has been a pain. ArbCom looks as though it will prevent us all from gaining closure and moving on ... no, it seems as though the trauma will be continued systemically. That is why I especially resent your blame-game statement above.

A major concern is that your draft extends the stated policy that ArbCom is restricted to dealing with behavioural issues. The ramifications of a breach of its own charter will resound for a long time, especially if the balance issue is not fixed.

In communications I have received since you posted your draft, particular sarcasm has been singled out for the mom and apple pie statements that occupy a huge tract of the page and will require umpteem "supports" by arbitrators, as though their tasks weren't already onerous. Now is the time to call a halt to the redundant restatements of policy and pillars. It is ridiculous, and makes many editors embarrassed to be WPians.

The situation can still be saved, I believe, by doing this:

1. removing the total fluff so we can all get to the point straight away;
2. removing the proposals that breach the policy-constrained ambit of ArbCom;
3. refraining from mixing up irrelevant "conduct" concerns with RFC results and consensus;
4. making the wording of the key parts clearer (it is full of ambiguities and other micro-problems that alter meaning in ways you surely did not intend);
5. requesting significant input by at least one, preferably more than one, other arbitrator, in the light of the serious misgivings about skew and gentle suggestions by two users already that you recuse yourself from the case (you are a programmer, which may be a problem, I think);
6. refraining from making further statements that make perfectly clear a negative personal intent, so that the community can more easily gain a sense that a fuller appreciation of the issues is being considered from a neutral stance.

In particular, arbitrators need to be given a few choices that are more balanced to the reformist side; the perception is of a clear bias against it through both omission and commission. Tony (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note to so that your unhappiness with the proposed decision has been noted.

I do have more to add to it before it goes to voting, and the other arbs are reviewing it to see what more needs to be added, removed or altered before we can go to voting.

Your suggestions regard the structure of the decision are unlikely to be implemented in this decision, at this late stage, but they should be raised over on the policy reform pages where they will be seen by more eyes, and probably people who have more time to focus on that.

I will try to find time to answer more of this in the next day or two. If there are specific aspects you want to draw my attention to, please break them into separate and specific subsections that are concise.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Your ongoing protection of Lar

Please stop removing complaints about Lar's behavior, as you have once again here;[2][3] compare also edit summaries here:[4]. It is increasingly apparent that some outside scrutiny of your committee and its behavior is not only warranted, but sorely needed.24.18.142.69 (talk) 09:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, naughty me. I moved a comment to a more appropriate location, and said I would respond. Quick ... outside scrutiny is required. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Naughty you, you were said to be the point person for this investigation, but never followed up.

And here you misuse the tools to silence criticism of yourself and your colleages.[5] (hint: move to obscure venue+sprotect AbrCom page = silence).24.18.142.69 (talk) 10:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This is Proabivouac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I have blocked him. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 10:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I was aware of that. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Your comment was not appropriate on that page, both due to the nature of your comment and because you not an active member of the community. You dont have a say in which page it is discussed on; I do. If you want this discussed on Wikipedia, we do it according to Wikipedia policies, guidelines, norms, etc. If you can write a balanced email, we can discuss it on wikien-l. If you would rather talk about it on WR, I'll be happy to join you there. If you want to talk about it privately, my email address is prominently placed on WP:ARBCOM, but I will say in advance that I would rather not talk to you privately, due to my own concerns that you will publish privately obtained information.

I do have other things on the plate now, so the response wont appear immediately. But, I am writing a response, if you will be patient. If you niggle in any way, I will delete your comment placed at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#Functionaries, delete the draft response I am writing, and go back to more pressing matters. And I wont loose sleep over it either. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion continued via e-mail. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The J&S case

Hi Jayvdb,

I hope this isn't inappropriate. I fear some of the evidence may have gone ignored by those who have already voted, so I urge you to read the evidence discussion page and perhaps also a couple of the talk pages from the relevant period before you vote. Apologies if you have done so already. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

RfA

You might need to file a new one, for procedural reasons (I don't know their standards), but I don't object to your new revisions ;). 76.117.247.55 (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Nazi news note

FYI. No reply necessary. -- Noroton (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

topic ban

why should i be topic banned from baronets and knights ?? Shouldn't this proposal be split into 2 - one for vk and one for me so people can vote seperately? Kittybrewster ☎ 09:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI Giano (talk) 10:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The main reason for you being topic banned is due to the statements of Tznkai, SirFozzie, and most recently BrownHairedGirl.

Would you like an arbitration case to allow evidence to be submitted to attempt to justify of a topic ban? The committee may eventually decide to not topic ban you, but that evidence will be submitted.

My motion is an attempt to avoid that, and avoid you both looking down the barrel of a community indef ban in the future. You will be able to appeal this motion after a bit of water has gone under the bridge, and we will probably consider more relaxed editing restrictions once the COI has been discussed privately with the committee.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes please. I would like that. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Noted. However I dont think it is beneficial, especially as in the course of trying to defend yourself, much muck will be thrown on BrownHairedGirl. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The motion is unjust. Neither BHG nor I have done wrong. We both deserve a barnstar for defending the wiki.

When you asked "would I like...", were you asking out of curiosity or because you did not expect the answer "You bet I would" and you planned to come back with a rejection of my affimative reply? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It was primarily a rhetorical question, however your answer was informative. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Question

You said: "his long dedication to the project and its ideals do".

Does the above include Everyking's attacks on Jimbo? On the FA process and Raul's work? On many, many editors who have ever opposed him? How about the personal attacks and hatred that can be found in the tarpit, which I know you have access to. How are personal attacks and references to Jimbo's wife in attacks like this showing anything but a lack of dedication to the project and its ideals? Hell, he trashed ArbCom many times, or, as you can refresh your memory here, didn't think you should have been a member. I could go on, but we both know the rest that exists out there. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Your description of Everyking's comment there is overboard; Everyking selects quotes from Jimmy Wales, which still appear there right now, as something that should be pointed out to people. If you think that is an attack, we had better delete Jimmy Wales as a WP:BLP violation. I dont agree with everything Everyking says, least of all his opinion of me, but he has a right to speak his mind when he discusses these matters on Wikipedia Review. :You'll need to point out specific and recent WR comments, privately if they would be inappropriate to mention here, as what I have seen this year (and I dont read everything) doesnt show any signs of wanting to disrupt or break Wikipedia.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a BLP issue. This isn't Jimbo's biography issue. This is about him stooping to using references to a user's -wife- in attacks against the user's -actions-. That violates the very basics of NPA. The fact that he would do that to one of our primary contributors and founders shows an attack on wikipedia as a -whole-. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#PLOT

I just wanted to say that I appreciate the advice. I'm not even sure that your advice will be helpful, to be honest. But it's a relief to get even the smallest amount of constructive advice on how to resolve the conflict among ourselves, considering we've tried so many things already. We really could use new ideas, if only because people won't let go of the old ones. Randomran (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It's good to know it is being comprehended.

By this stage it is a "meta" problem - a problem about how to solve the problem, or a problem defining what the problem even is. And of course there are a lot of people who want to import their own problem into this problem, making it more unsolvable. Trying to find left field solutions is also important to avoid getting worked up about it. Sometimes a new approach requires disengaging from the ongoing battle and undertaking a three month project that sets the scene for a new and better discussion.

Along that train of thought, an idea you might like to try is to grab a group of the less involved pro- and anti- PLOT contributors, head over to Wikibooks, and try and collaborate on a "book" about a clump of en.WP articles which mostly consist of plots. See b:A-level English/Wise Children, b:The Dark Is Rising Sequence: A Reader's Guide, b:Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter, b:Chronicles of Narnia, and others in b:Category:Annotated texts. It may not directly help the Wikipedia policy debate, but it may help all involved work together to learn what is possible over there, and to then rethink their position on what should be accepted on Wikipedia in order to avoid overlap.

There is a related problem which would be called WP:NOT#SOURCE if anybody gave a #&^* about it, where articles are created here with only a dump of a source text, which are almost certainly either a copyvio or they belong on Wikisource. But if they are "notable" texts, they also belong on Wikipedia, but it is a lot harder to find good information about old notable texts, so we end up with very crappy articles consisting mostly of a source.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 18:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You may want to see Wikipedia:Fiction, which I've cautiously supported. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Watchlisted. It looks promising. It would probably be a good idea for this to settle for at least a few months before the push towards a guideline, otherwise it will be another failure.

Wikipedia:Plagiarism was a semi-abandoned proposal for ages - simmering to let it grow on the broader community and find its way in more watchlists.

I hope I dont see any drama there; when your name came up at RFAR, I was pleased to see the diffs were old. Hopefully it stays that way :P John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC) p.s. thanks for the user page tweaks.

I see that going to policy as a necessary step prior to WP:NOT#PLOT going anywhere; said so at Wikipedia talk:Fiction#Rewrite. I fear it may turn into another llama if mobbing occurs.^{see mobbing behavior, too}

I'll have a read of the plagiarism piece. It seems a no-brainer that that we should have some policy on that issue. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I've had a good read of the plagiarism piece and tidied it up. The WP:Fiction page has moved a bit and I'll comment to Phil tomorrow. He's agreeable to going incrementally and hopefully it can stay on-track. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

CeleritasSoni

User_talk:CeleritasSoni

{{Talkback|CeleritasSoni}}

{{Talkback|CeleritasSoni}}

Mail

Hello Jayvdb, you have mail. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

As do you. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey

You've got mail. AdjustShift (talk) 06:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

meta

John, Thanks for your comment here. Very helpful; until then, I had no idea about meta and MediaWiki's other inter-language functions. Tony (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you like me to arrange for your page to be imported to the meta project? The en.wp history will remain intact. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

.

Iberian Scripts

Dear friend: There are some Wikipedia editors who do not want even leaving a single phrase which "Iberian Scripts" is lacking for completion. I would ask you an advice of what to do or whether you could mediate. Please,see also User:Virginal6 discussion Thank you very much Regards --Virginal6 (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I see that Virginal6 and Iberomesornix (and puppets as User:Tintagel67) are again making war of editions and accusing of conspiracies, censorship and even bullying to other users. All this was discussed and rejected as not only lacking any reliable sources and maybe self-promotion, but also showing the oppinion of reputed experts who "oppinate" on these theories with expressions as "compulsary comic" or "unmitigated disaster" (see, just to quote the main link Iberian-Guanche inscriptions deletion talk). I am tired of the accusations and provocations by these users. Regards. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I can not help you mediate this. My advice is that if you are knowledgeable about this topical area, use your knowledge to expand related articles in ways that are not contentious, and come back to this "Iberian Scripts" problem later on.

For example, Canary Islands in pre-colonial times, Tifinagh, Guanche language, or Berber languages would all be good articles to work on.

If you can find the text by Nicoloso da Recco, we could archive it onto Italian Wikisource and then translate it into English.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Jay. Dumu and his puppet Kwami are again going mad about adding accepted facts already approved after a long discussion .These facts are necessary for Wikipedia robustness and are not fundamental changes. I have seen that Iberomesornix is himself Tintagel67,because he redirects ALL activities to Iberomesormix.On the other hand,I am not a puppet of Iberomesornix.Virtual or puppet Dumu Eduba,where are you?Anyway,best regards and I recommend some yoga or other type of calming down exercise.--Virginal6 (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jayvdb. You see the kind of provocations we have to endure from people like Virginal6.

The truth is that there is a clear scientific independent consensus stating that the linguistic work wrote by Arnaiz-Villena is fringe science (quotes are as "compulsory comic", "lacking any scientific value" or "unmitigated disaster"). I put the references to published papers by reputed experts like Lakarra, De Hoz and others (I am awrae of some more, but they are not first class experts or have published their criticism in non regular publications, and so I did not quoted, but they exist and all of them say the same thing). Pichler was stated by Virginal6 as an expert who supported Arnaiz ideas, but I found a Pichler paper clearly rejecting as absurd theories, Virginal6 afford no evidence, neither from Pichler, nor from any other expert. Lacking any reliable reference has ressorted to write accusations against many Wikipedia users.

Trigaranus got an e-amil from an expert on Canary inscriptions, saying that he was the first one to suspect they could be Iberian, but that soon realize it was an absurd and untenable idea, especially as he found bilingual inscriptions. Yes one of the many problems of Arnaiz-Villena translations of Canarian (and Etruscan, Hittite, Ancient Egyptian, Sumerian, etc.) inscriptions is that are refuted by bilingual inscriptions (or am I to be accused of being a puppet of Thefarie Velianas the author of the Pyrgi inscriptions?).

Virginal6 has been asked many times to afford reliable reference. He never answers.

So it is a fake, a lie and a coarsness to say that the consensus stating that Arnaiz work is fringe science are some wikipedians, consensus are the reliable sources, published in reliable books and journals and writen by well known reputed experts!

Virginal6 editions are severely flawed. He put forward as a proof alleged words ans alleged meanings of some ancient languages (all of them absurd invents from Arnaiz fringe work). I ask him for the sources and references from dictionnaries (such as from Sumerian), he could not. But he is still keeping on a war edition and a pityful badmouthing against the wikipedians that do not agree with him. He is here only to disrupt wikipedia and polute it with the fringe pseudo-science "compulsory comic" ideas published by Arnaiz-Villena, as scientific as Von Daniken's.

BTW: When you say Kwami is involved regarding editions on Na-Dene, remember that the Na-Dene theory has nothing to do with Arnaiz-Villena cracpot ideas, who claim as being Basque languages ("usko") Hittite, Berber, Ugaritic, Ancient Egyptian and others languages that no Na-Dene proposer would dare to include as are well known as Indo_European, Semitic and Afrasian languages.

Regards. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 11:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This problem came to the attention of the Arbitration Committee. We rejected it because the community decision at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Iberian-Guanche_inscriptions was appropriate.[6]

I have asked Virginal6 to refocus their efforts elsewhere to make non-controversial edits, and have emailed them email to clarify their relationship with to Iberomesornix. If they continue to edit language articles disruptively, please let me know.

When I said that Kwami is involved due to Na-Dene, it is because Kwami has edited Dené-Caucasian languages and also reverted Virginal6 (talk · contribs) without explanation (as far as I can see). See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ryulong/Proposed_decision#Rollback for why this becomes a problem. At times like that, it is best to ask other administrators to decide whether an account should be blocked. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your answer Jayvdb.

My concerns on the Dene-Caucasian question is the phallacy used by the Arnaiz supporters that Na-Dene hypothesis confirms the validity of Arnaiz crackpot theories. But I understand that it is better to be prudent.

I am also concerned by the personal attacks against an author written by Iberomesornix here (BTW Virginal6 also wrote very similar accusation, coincidences again!). I asked reliable independent references for that also. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Jay,could you please do some intermediation (public or not) to please ask Kwami to stop tagging my page as puppet,without addressing any particular subject since the page is still blank?(Please,have a look)I will not even look at Iberian scripts for a while and will do another works

I would think this is is personal persecution and has nothing to do with any Wikipedia contents--Virginal6 (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Jay,this is Virginal6.Kwami has blocked my still BLANK page.Could you please unblock it since there is no particular topic to block?

Otherwise,could I open another page and work from there ?--Virginal6 (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Query

Hi. I am interested to know why you included my name here. Thanks for your attention. --John (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Due to multiple passes of the same articles, such as Clement Attlee, you added to the sense of Fait accompli.

See /Evidence#Clement Attlee and /Proposed decision#G-Man.

user:G-Man was also added to the case at the same time. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be three edits to the article on my part, spaced over four months, with the last being six months ago (i.e. way before this became an arbcom matter). Do you really feel this necessitates an arbcom restriction on my editing? --John (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry it has taken a while to investigate this, and the fact they were so long ago doesn't alter the fact that these events contributed to this bitter dispute. G-Man became involved in policy development due to the repeated delinking of all date links, against the spirit of the style guideline at the time, only to be rebuffed there as well.

Your involvement is far from limited to three edits. All of your delinking edits are part of the problem, as I have not seen any evidence that you left a single year link behind after you used the script on each article.

Here are some more instances of skirmishes involving you, found due to looking at G-Man's reverts as opposed to any careful analysis of your contributions.[7][8][9][10]

More careful analysis of your contributions may indicate that you backed away from this dispute, or make entered into productive discussion with the people of the opposing viewpoint. If you have any evidence of that, please let me know. If you believe I could frame your involvement better, I will be happy to spend some more time digging a bit deeper. It isn't my intention to misrepresent the truth.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)