User talk:John Vandenberg/Archive 7

FYI re my post on Cas's page

• User talk:Casliber#Thanks.

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

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

Happy New Year!

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

Dear Jayvdb,

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

Kind regards,

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

Reply to you on arbitration request.

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

Re your Everyking appeal decline

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

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

Chris Crocker

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

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

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

Thank you

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

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

Episodes and characters 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy New Year!

Not late by the Julian calendar

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

Bot problems

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

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

Incivility/unconstructive editing of User:Jack Merridew

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

Bish

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think you are getting even more confused.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you

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

Thanks

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

James Webb

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

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

AN/I Pseudoscience Thread

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of dosage abbreviations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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