Jump to content

User talk:The Epopt

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 85.195.123.29 (talk) at 18:07, 26 January 2006 (→[[Paktahn heavy bomber]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requests for Comments, Spam, Reversions, and Edit Wars
Please do not post any requests for help in fighting other Wikipedians here. I'm on the arbitration committee, so I'm not going to get involved in liberating you from oppression directly — if I did, I'd have to recuse myself when your case was addressed by the committee. Post your tales of woe somewhere else.

Requests for help in research, article-writing, and editing are always welcome, of course.

On the other hand, if someone does post a request here, please leave it alone. This is my talk page; I'll clean it up if I want it cleaned up. Fight your edit wars on another battlefield.

Thank you! ➥the Epopt



Undeletion

If you need access to a Wikipedia article that has been deleted, ask me. If it's not a copyright violation, libel, or personal information, and has not been deleted as a suspected biographies of living persons violation, I will userfy the article for you.

Note that using the text to recreate any deleted article may automatically qualify them for speedy deletion, and copies of previously deleted content that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion because Wikipedia is not a free web host. We have a list of alternative sites which may be used to host your content.


I award this Barnstar to The Epopt for his gracious editing of my article on The Navy Hymn to combine it with his article. Orville Eastland 23:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sorry to bother you. I am trying to create an entry for "Dakete". Because i am new to the site i was unaware of the criteria and i made a couple of test articles with no meaningful content, and was deleted. sorry about this. i have written a full and meaningful article on the talk page. could you please undelete this entry?

Thanks, The Epopt! Finally I know why Tussionex makes me stop coughing and feel soooooo good! --MichaelTinkler, bronchitic.

Hello, sorry to bother you but I accidentally deleted the Hawkeye photo you uploaded. I was on the phone and dropped something on the mouse, and hit "Esc" but the command was already sent. Koyaanis Qatsi, Tuesday, June 11, 2002

That's sounds like it would have been fun to watch. Was there a cat involved? --the Epopt

Eh, no. Just distraction because of the nature of the conversation and my general clumsiness. Thanks for reuploading.  :-) Koyaanis Qatsi

I'm so happy I could eat a small force-fattened bird whole!Ortolan88

Why did you move calibre to caliber? I thought Wiki has a policy of accepting an article in whichever version of english it is written. For hundreds of millions of english speakers, (British-English, Hiberno-English, etc) Calibre IS the correct spelling. Only American English uses Caliber. (Europeans often joke about 'American gun-culture' - I've often wondered, surely linking culture to guns is a contradiction in terms!!! - but does that extend to changing articles on guns to American-English spellings? I'm joking by the way. Please don't take offence like so many Americans do when the rest of the world expresses bewilderment at its gun laws! One American friend of mine couldn't comprehend the fact that Irish and British police don't carry guns, or that 95% of Irish and British people have never even seen a gun. He had his first in LA aged 11!!! JTD 18:59 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

I didn't move anything -- I simply created a redirect at calibre pointing to the already-existing article at caliber.
And I don't take offence at your not understanding our affection for guns. We citizens have always been willing to loan you subjects guns when you realize you need them, and I have plenty to spare. ;-> --the Epopt
Just thought I would point out, subject and citizen are synonomous under UK law


I just tried to create a short link to myself from the Toronto election 2006 page to give a little information to any that might require it. I was not entering any poicy info, or self serving information, just a little background info for the voters. Is this not permitted on this site?

I assume that you found it did not meet your criteria as it has been deleted again. With that said, does the incumbents page not fall under the vanity rules as well? Sandra Bussin is the page I am referring to

Is the John Greer page better now? BTW, thanks for all of your help with this.

Ship Articles

Kudos for your work on the submarine articles. They are really shaping up! -- User:hajhouse

Second that! The Das Boot article is really good as well! :-) --Anders Törlind

Undocumented in Wikipedia: Unterseeboot 19 landed Sir Roger Casement in Ireland. Ortolan88

Unacceptable!  ;->

I like how USS Texas and its sub-articles are shaping up! But I have a question - should the hull type and number have a hyphen joining them or not? I see no hyphens on official Navy pages, not even on pages referring to old ships, but they are ubiquitous in DANFS, which suggests a policy change in recent years. Do you know the story? Stan Shebs 04:08 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

I was wondering how long it would take someone to ask that question. There seems to be no consistency anywhere -- chinfo.navy.mil sometimes uses a space, sometimes a hyphen, sometimes both on the same page! I've been using a hyphen (as you can tell) only because I think it looks best. --the Epopt

My God, I can't cope - there's no regulation? No "Norfolk Manual of Style"? :-) I bet there is a rule, just need to find it. It's going to matter a little, because the choice leaks into article titles thus affecting search results (though not Google's I suppose). Stan Shebs 05:27 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships looks great! I added a bit of content recommendation. The general characteristics and other universal info could be table-ized and flowed alongside text, could spiff up the presentation a bit. Might be interesting to table-ize ships' comings and goings, but it would be more work. Stan 05:14 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)

I see my Beryllium table has again been adapted to serve yet another WikiProject. :) Have you given any thought to using different colors for the heading cells based on ship type? That would be cool. --mav

Beryllium? I swiped it from Vostok 1! The different colors is an interesting idea -- I'll give it some thought and discussion on the Wikiproject page. Any suggestions? --the Epopt 06:53 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)
Like I said the table has been copied all over the place - most people didn't even bother changing the heading color (or even realized where the table first came from - such is the power of wiki!). :) I dunno about the colors -- that will take some thought. It took a while to figure out the best color scheme for the periodic table and for the different Kingdoms, but those are areas that I know a lot about. This is the type of detail that can be worked-out later though. --mav

Nice disclaimer on the ships project! Tannin :)

See Talk:Richard Antrim. DO NOT CALL ME A LIAR!!!!! -- Zoe

Then don't accuse me of copyright violations.

On the subject of copyright, I notice that Stan Shebs refers to the RN website, saying that its info is often not good enough to copy. However, I have looked at the page for HMS Sceptre, the SSN, and I have found that your text was in large part a verbatim copy of the text on the RN website. True, you have inserted a great deal of extra material about the second HMS Sceptre, and the latest HMS Sceptre, but other than that, it seems pretty blatant copying. Since the RN website is under Crown Copyright, have you got permission to copy that? David Newton 17:19 BST Jun 20 2003

Yes, I do. If you look up the definition of a "Crown copyright," you will see that it can be copied freely as long as it is copied accurately and not dispargingly. --the Epopt 16:23 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I've checked on the HMSO website, and the waiver on Crown Copyright does indeed extend to websites, unless explicitly said so on the website. The RN website just claims Crown Copyright, it does not say that it cannot be reproduced, so I think that I was a little too zealous in my point. It's probably worth putting up what is covered by the waiver of Crown Copyright in the article on the same in the Wikipedia. David Newton 18:25 BST Jun 20 2003

Thank you for actually checking, and not just shrieking hysterically. ;->

Just to bring you fully up to date, I've gone through all of the RN warship articles, and those that use material from the RN website have had a Crown Copyright acknowledgement added to them. That should bring things fully into line with HMSO's policy on the waivers David Newton 20:00 BST 20 Jun 2003

Problem. IIRC the Crown Copyright and the GNU FDL are incompatible. We cannot say at the bottom of each page that "all text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License" when some of that text is first and foremost under the Crown Copyright. I'll ask the mailing list about this but I'm pretty sure we cannot use Crown Copyright text. --mav 19:58 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well, at least you'll be able to find the pages that have the material in them easily in the search engine now! I have also included a link back to the page that the material came from originally, so it can be seen what is Crown Copyright, and what might need rewriting.

I would certainly agree that Crown Copyright itself and the GNU FDL are incompatable. However, the waiver for Crown Copyright simply states that the text can be reproduced in any format or medium, provided that two conditions are met. One of those conditions is that the source and status of the material is noted. That is fulfilled by the links that I have put in. The other is that the material is not reproduced in a misleading context, and is reproduced accurately. Obviously, not reproducing it in a misleading context is no problem, since the articles are themselves about warships. However, the problem might be accuracy. The whole point of the Wikipedia is that dervative works of the original can be easily created. Does that make the reproducion of the text inaccurate, when quoted portions are interspersed with other bits of the article, as is the case with several of the articles that this applies too? David Newton 22:43 BST 20 Jun 2003

As I announced on the mailing list, I will query HMSO this week, explaining the GFDL and our project and (I hope) getting an official answer to this question from HM Government. L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace. --the Epopt 17:33 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

They should reply fairly quickly. When I had a copyright query and emailed their licensing department, they responded inside 24 hours. David Newton 23:20 BST 22 Jun 2003

So what was the outcome? I'm curious now. Plus some Canadian government websites are probably under Crown copyright. --Andrew 00:55, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

General Discussion

I've noticed the term Straw man being used often by users to mean "a bad arguement", which is not the proper definition. Please see the definition listed on wikipedia of Straw man for the real meaning. Hopefully this will clear up confusion in the future. Don't feel bad, this is a common mistaken use of Straw man.  :) MB 20:35 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I know I was just being picky, but thanks for fixing your error. MB 21:24 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

No problem. I was using the term in the sense of "you're shooting at the wrong target; even if you're right, it's irrelevant" -- which is a little better than "a bad argument" but is admittedly not exactly correct. --the Epopt 21:43 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)


'Yards square' is equally correct as 'square yards'.

Vacuum
The 4000-ton submarine did not leave a debris field only 60x60 feet. The only interpretation of "400 yards square" that makes sense is 160000 sq yd. (To those of you wonder what the hell we're talking about, see USS Thresher (SSN-593).)
I've heard plenty of people use 'yards square' to mean the same thing as 'square yards'.
Plenty of people may *use* them interchangeably, but that does not *make* them interchangeable. "400 square yards" is 20 yards x 20 yards, "400 yards square" is 400 yards x 400 yards. Elde 18:16, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hmm... Your edit comment under Ohio Class leads me to think you wear the patrol pin. What boats did you sail on? Elde 09:47, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Two years in the shipyard watching her being built, then two years sea duty on Ohio (Blue crew) herself. --the Epopt, ex-MM1(SS)

Just curious as to why you think German aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin is a better name for the article? Wasn't the ship's name simply Graf Zeppelin? --Rlandmann 04:41, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

After much discussion, summarized at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships, we settled on nationality type name for ships that don't have standard prefixes. The main advantage is readability -- "He served on the German aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin" is a good English sentence. Obviously, we can't simply title the article Graf Zeppelin.

MediaWiki Messages for Ships

I've put a couple of new MediaWiki messages into circulation. One of them is for DANFS, and the other is an experiment with the Iowa class battleships. Please let me know what you think. David Newton 23:08, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I like the idea of msgs, and I like the class-list msg, though it will probably be impractical for the larger classes; e.g., the Gato class submarines. I'm not quite so thrilled by the DANFS msg, simply because I hope that DANFS won't be the only source for our articles and having a hard-and-fast msg might actually discourage people citing other sources. Many of the Sturgeon class submarines have a stub in DANFS which must then be expanded using other sources. However, the message can be easily overwritten, so let her run. --the Epopt 01:48, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Good to know that you like the class message idea. I also approve of your suggestion of omitting the USS/HMS(although I haven't done any RN lists yet)/whatever prefix. On the DANFS message, I made it because so many places use DANFS material, and the copyright paranoid might be likely to blank such pages for copyvios. I altered quite a number of existing pages which pointed directly to the DANFS page, although I still left a large number of submarines to deal with. As for short articles from DANFS that need expanding, I'd say that's what the stub message is for.
Stan Shebs also expressed some concern over the larger classes of ship being impractical. He seems to like the idea as well. I actually beat him to creating a DANFS message. David Newton 20:06, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Frankly the message feature is starting to be way overused. Elde 09:17, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Good edits on articles

Great edits on supercarrier, USSR aircraft carrier Ulyanovsk, and blue water. What else did you edit at the time that was related? -Joseph 15:10, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)

Thanks! Just adding links from other articles to maritime geography, unless you're interested in USS United States (CVA-58) and the Revolt of the Admirals.

Re: Rex071404 John Kerry ban

Given the extreme pro-Kerry condition of the John Kerry page when I began editing it and the furious reaction of the entrenched editors there, I am not surpised that Arbitrators would leap to their defense. I am however, surprised that you do it so easily based on what amounts to their half of the story of a tit-for-tat battle.

With election 2004 underway, the ponderously slow process of the Arb committee means that my "temp" ban is in fact a death sentence.

For your information, I was patiently and thoroughly tallying details (many already submitted into evidence) about Neutrality, etc's equally agressive efforts as mine.

But alas, this Wiki has turned into bascially a pro-Kerry farce - with only the aggresive "anti-Kerry" editors being banned. The pro-Kerry crew it seems, can do no wrong.

Rex071404 17:00, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Note: this is a cross-post - I have responded at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404. Martin 22:16, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Being accused of pro-Kerry bias is the funniest thing that has happened to me all week. Thank you for the belly laugh, Rex071404. --the Epopt 17:04, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Falls of Clyde

Most excellent! Now that there's more text, there's room for a couple of my photos taken onboard a couple years ago! Re dups, yeah, I'm spending more time these days knocking down free links that are just different spellings/phrasings of existing articles... Stan 05:34, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sub Articles

Hi there, Epopt!

Just wanted to ask you something. In your article on the Soviet submarine K-3, you wrote:

"On June 17, 1962 К-3 reached the North Pole underwater, a feat performed nearly four years earlier by USS Nautilus..."

My sources tell me that the Soviet "K-3" didn't "simply" reach the North Pole, it surfaced and fixed the Soviet flag and the Navy pennant in the ice. Looks like a "simple" underwater journey under the North Pole wasn't enough for the Russians :). This was a great achievement as well, wouldn't you say? Do you know anything about this fact? If yes, do you think we could insert it in your article? Thanks!

KNewman 23:03, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long to see your comment -- I don't usually read my user page. I'll look into K-3's mission and make sure they get the credit they deserve. --the Epopt 04:50, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
While K-3 may need to be given greater credit, let's not forget that Skate surfaced at the pole only a few months after Nautilus went underneath it. Elde

Hey there Epopt,

I was just about to do an article on the USS Pipefish (my dad's submarine) and you beat me to it by about two hours. Any reason you decided to do the article just now? Any connection? Rsduhamel 04:20, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yep. I saw your spelling correction, and decided to put the DANFS article up, hoping it would inspire you to add information from your father's patrols. --the Epopt 04:50, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Alphabetization of, well, you

I recently alphabetized Wikipedia:Wikipedians somewhere unspecified in the United States of America, but I wasn't sure if I should put you under E or T. Please correct me if I fouled it up. Thanks. -- SS, a Wikipedian living somewhere unspecified in the United States of America, 15:41, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You did it correctly; file me under "E" for "Epopt."
Great! -- SS 04:39, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

CSS Oregon

I may be confused somewhere (wouldn't be the first time ...), but you seemed to have added the following to USS Oregon:

and one ship of the Confederate States Navy ) have been named USS Oregon, in honor of the 33rd state.

I can't find a dependable reference for a Confederate ship, presumably the CSS Oregon. Can anyone help me here? Did such a ship exist?

Any why would the Confederates name a ship for a Union state? I'm confused.

dino 02:00, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The answers can be found here. --the Epopt 04:02, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

USS Thresher

I just wanted to say thanks for catching that vandalism. I guess I didn't read what I was reverting to as closely as I should have. Cavebear42 17:47, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ensigns or jacks?

You were the first person to add flags to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships. So you would be the best person to answer User:Tkinias's question on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Flags as to why some navies are represented by their jack and some by their ensign. Gdr 12:49, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)

Back when I was the only one doing this, I chose to use jacks because they are specific symbols; c.f., the various colours of the ensigns of the Royal Navy. Where a given Navy didn't have a jack -- or I had trouble finding a good image of the jack -- I used the ensign. As others joined me in working on ships, they added whatever they felt was appropriate. I do not think we should replace any naval jacks with national ensigns. The jack is the symbol of the Navy; the ensign is the symbol of the entire nation. Precision is valuable. The popularity argument doesn't float for me -- an encyclopedia's job is to be right, perhaps even educational -- not made inaccurate to avoid surprising the ignorant. If anything, we should replace the fifty-star USN jack with the one currently flying on the warships of the US Navy. --the Epopt 15:49, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Epopt. I want to upload an image of the British signpost for a roundabout to improve the Roundabout_intersection article. I've found an image at the Highway Code (Dept. of Transport) site which says it is Crown Copyright. Does that mean that if I upload it, and add the crown copyright tag that should be fine? I mean, that will acknowledge HMGov as the copyright holder, and an image is not going to be edited... PaulHammond 14:44, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is no hard-and-fast answer. On the first tentacle, our use of any material under Crown Copyright is fine -- we use it accurately, not disparagingly, and so on -- but we then license that material for others to use under the GFDL, which does not include those limitations. Someone could take the image from our site and somehow use it inaccurately, disparagingly, and so on, and claim that we had given him permission to do so. We don't have the right to give that permission. On the other tentacle, we also include material by claiming "fair use," which other people may or may not be able to claim. Somehow, people have decided that slapping the GFDL onto material that we only have "fair use" of isn't a problem. On the third tentacle, I am not a lawyer, so this is not legal advice. The only thing I know for sure is that HMSO sent me an e-mail message stating very clearly that Crown Copyright and the GFDL are not compatible. ➥the Epopt 17:57, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
We do not have any rights to license Crown coyright material. Only HMSO and those to whom HMSO has delegated authority have the right to do that. Anybody using Crown copyrighted pictures from the Wikipedia must obey the same stipulations as the Wikipedia or risk being sued. David Newton 18:47, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not Being a Dick

I just wanted to say, no VfD vote in a long time has made me smile and laugh quite as much as yours. Snowspinner 13:52, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

List alphabetization

I see you're altering the ordering of the USN submarine list. I would contend that you are doing it incorrectly. For example, you put USS George Washington after USS George Washington Carver. It is clear to me that the addition of Carver to the name places that variant after plain George Washington in an alphabetized list. A c is after nothing in the alphabet. David Newton 17:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but open-paren comes after a C. I did the alphabetizing by means of the Linux "sort" command, which compared "USS George Washington (SSBN-whatever)" to "USS George Washington Carver (SSBN-whatever)." The result is clearly incorrect in this case. I was entirely interested in getting all of the [ABCDEFGHKLMNORS]-boats in the right place, and didn't think to look for the side-effects you found. Well done! ➥the Epopt 21:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

New ship table template

I've spent the last few days working on a new ship table template to enable us to centralise the editing of things like weapons outfits for a particular class of ships in one template (so with the Fletchers or Gearings or other big classes you only have to edit in one place to alter a mistake rather than in dozens or hundreds). Please have a look at the WikiProject Ships page's talk section and see what you think. I haven't written the instructions for using it yet, and I want to see whether there are any table cells people would like me to include that aren't present yet. There are two example tables, one with all the optional cells present, and the other with some excluded. David Newton 14:03, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jealousy

You have a collection of Lensman source material ? You lucky son-of-a-gun ! What sort of stuff have you got ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:27, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

As well as every word Doc published, I have a few obscure books, such as New Lensman and The Universes of E.E. Smith, several biographies, a starkly wonderful stack of correspondence with Doc's daughter, Verna Smith Trestrail, and notes from interviews with a few of Doc's contemporaries. I accumulated most of it during my tour of duty as Historian of the Lens. ➥the Epopt 21:53, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Littoral Combat Ship

Your edit comment, Freedom, has nothing whatsoever to do with the contents of your edit, which simply changed capitalization of two links. It makes it difficult for me to go through my watchlist when people don't bother to leave edit comments. It really isn't so difficult. Please play nice with the other users. Avriette 16:34, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The main change I made was to add a link to USS Freedom. ➥the Epopt 18:06, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Littoral_Combat_Ship&diff=prev&oldid=13518445 ... Perhaps you should be more clear, or make separate edits. The latter is common practice when large groups of people are working on a shared piece of information with version control (eg in software development). Besides, what is your opposition to adding two words ("changed capitalization")? Brevity is not an advantage in edit comments. Avriette 18:12, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Revolt of the Admirals audio

The quality is superb! Great work. DanielHolth 28 June 2005 21:30 (UTC)

Merging my article with your copy

Hi! I was in the process of writing a wikipedia article on The Navy Hymn. After posting my article ("Eternal Father Strong to Save"), I came across yours. I'd like to possibly discuss what parts of the articles we should merge. I know you posted a bit more info than my article, though I have added a few bits that the US Navy's FAQ doesn't have. (Biblical references, film and TV uses, plus an additional verse on Space travel). user:Orville Eastland

Many many thanks

Thank you for contributing to the USS Trigger (SS-237) article. My great grandfather, William Zugecich, was aboard that submarine when it disappeared in the pacific. The information you and others have provided are very much appreciated by everyone in my family. This is the most thorough record of the Trigger's voyages that I have yet seen, and is a wonderful dedication to those who died to protect the freedoms of our beloved land. Salva 01:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

War of the Worlds

I have to say that your article of the Sacrifice of Thunder Child motivated me to do some modest additions, as well as add additional WoW battle references. It's a great book and the chapter regarding HMS THUNDER CHILD one of the best chapters of it. Expatkiwi01:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help me defend Wikipedia noble principles of Consensus decisions by Principled Negotiation, not Tyranny of the Majority

Bananas is leading a cabal with Blowbite [[user:Nathan Ladd|Nate Badd] and [[user:Sasquatch|SasSquat] and CarBite and others to impose a Tyranny of the Majority on Truth True Epistemology and Knowledge. They make personal attacks against me. All their comments are ad hominem/poisoning the well type fallacy. They commit the fallacy of conflation of belief and knowledge, two completely different things. This is part of their Obscurantism. They refuse to include my view that the only reasonable thing that can be said about truth is that "Snow is white" is true is redundant in as much as it says nothing more than is said by "Snow is white", so truth is just something that is in accord with an actual state of affairs in the particular case. They started a Request for Arbitration against me. They started an injunction against me to unfairly prevent the minority view from being presented. They block me at the drop of a hat because I am in the minority. Please ban all of these users, so Wikipedia can return to the noble principle of consensus decisions by principled negotiation and no personal attacks. The cabal has others user:Curps user:Jtkiefer McAttack FoolWagon JimWae Byped Canderson7 Essjay Meelar Spangineer CryptoDerk Asbestos BaronLarf Veratien Ancheta Wis WhiteC Ravenswood Asbestos Christofurio Kzollman Gkhan

How can you say you will not help? You are an Admin. It is your responsibility to defend noble principle of consensus decisions by principled negotiation and no personal attacks. --DotSix

I can say I will not help like this (now watch closely as my keys go up and down): I will not help you. I am not only an admin; I am an arbiter. Bring your case before the Committee and we will judge you. (Including your oh-so cute listing of your alleged attackers as ...[[user:Robert McClenon|McAttack]] [[user:FuelWagon|FoolWagon]] ... oh my goodness, that's persuasive; how can I refrain from leaping to the defense of someone who makes such terribly clever personal attacks?) Until you appear before the Committee, I will not get involved. As my banner states, do not post requests for help in fighting other Wikipedians here. Doing so will not help your cause. ➥the Epopt 15:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

R'lyeh/Pohnpei distance

Hey Epopt, are you sure the distance numbers you added to R'lyeh and Pohnpei are correct? I don't have the books handy at the moment, so I cannot check, but 5000 miles is a quarter of the distance around the globe and definitely not a day's voyage for even a very fast ship :P .. Ferkelparade π 09:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the location and the distances are correct, and who am I to contradict the stories that say they traveled for only one day? You're right: the ship would have to make over 200 knots to get there in time. ➥the Epopt 13:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's been ages since I read the stories, I always assumed the distance from Pohnpei to R'lyeh was supposed to be maybe a couple dozen miles...but if these numbers actually appear in the text, then of course we should also list them in the appropriate articles (and maybe add a note that these numbers, however improbable, are actually based on the Lovecraft texts) -- Ferkelparade π 13:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yuber arbcom case

Hi, FYI [1] SlimVirgin (talk) 06:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed this, but on the off chance you did oppose, please check it. Fred Bauder 12:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caution

While vigilance is a good thing, and as an allophone I sincerely hope native speakers of English will help polish mine where needed, I must insist you (double-)check your facts before 'correcting' an error, as in the case of my article Fustuarium where it was quite easy to find out, e.g. via gauntlet (disambiguation), that gantlet is NOT another, better word but merely an older form of gauntlet.

When you do find things that need mending, please consider linking to a useful source. Fastifex 07:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not only have I (double-)checked my facts, but The Columbia Guide to Standard American English (1993) apparently has as well. See http://www.bartleby.com/68/8/2708.html ➥the Epopt 12:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, while a quick reading on Bartleby may be confusing, it clearly states that both are alternate spellings of the other, and relies on a 1924 dictionary (which seems rightly out of favor). Had you followed the link to http://www.Etymonline.Com, which supplies far more useful information, the whole (word hi)story would have become clear - a usefull diagnostic tool to add to your favorites? Fastifex 10:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Доверяй, но проверяй.

I babelfished this, on the Cool Cat proposed principle 4, "Stalking", and it said "Entrust, but check". Could you put an English translation in brackets? I'm pretty sure most English speakers wouldn't understand the Russian. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would have, except that someone deleted it. It is the original form of the phrase popularized by Ronald Reagan, "trust, but verify." ➥the Epopt 02:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah now I look at it, the words do have some symmetry, like a proverb. Thanks. --Tony SidawayTalk

Transliterated: doveryay, no proveryay." ➥the Epopt 13:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rusty, but would't it be "doveryah, no proveryah"? (Or is that pesky й messing with what I remember?) - Tεxτurε 17:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can't argue with you, Texture -- I transliterate Cyrillic by typing on my keyboard while jumping on my pogo stick. What I have above seems to be popular on Google, tho. ➥the Epopt 00:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I missed this and have not found it; care to point me at it? — Davenbelle 03:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony pointed me at it... — Davenbelle 04:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections

Hello, The Epopt. In case you haven't noticed, I'm writing a special series on the upcoming 2005 ArbCom elections for The Wikipedia Signpost. In the October 17 issue, we will be profiling the current ArbCom members. Note that this should not be a platform for re-election; rather, it should serve as an insight into what you feel about the ArbCom, and your opinions of it are. Thus, I hope you don't mind answering a few questions. Many thanks!

1. Are up for re-election this year?

No.

2. If so, do you plan to run for re-election?

If I were up for re-election, I probably would not run — I don't think judges should be chosen by popularity; I'm certainly not on the ArbComm to make friends. Also, I'm not sure this job is worth going through the Hell that was last year's election.

3. How do you feel about serving on the ArbCom?

Tired.

4. What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom?

We have been given something close to carte blanche to build our own jurisprudence — we are not bound by any procedure or precedent that we have not chosen ourselves. This freedom has allowed us to design a process specifically tailored to our mission of protecting Wikipedia without being distracted by noble but irrelevant concerns.

5. Weaknesses?

Sloth — it is an unpleasant, thankless task that is easy to put off; alas, this means that cases take several months to resolve.

6. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?

I would dramatically increase the number of arbiters, so that when half of them get tired and disappear, the Committee isn't paralyzed by lack of quorum. Of course, finding that large number of arbiters is much easier to type than to do.

7. Do you regret accepting your position? Why or why not?

No, this is a necessary job, and one that could easily go astray. I'm glad to have had the opportunity to get it started in the right direction.

8. If you could say one thing to the current ArbCom candidates, what would you say, and why?

You're full of fire and ready to make a difference now, but will you still be so determined in six months? Don't sign up unless you're prepared to go the distance. Arbitrating is not a sprint, it's a marathon, through the mud, and there's no glory in it even if you do finish.

9. Do you think your job is easy? Hard? Explain.

Both, of course. It is hard to make sense of the mountains of argumentation we're given as evidence, but once I've read through it, a decision is usually very easy. There are exceptions, but most subjects of arbitration are clearly liabilities to Wikipedia.

10. Looking in retrospective, is there anything you would have done differently?

No, I don't have any significant regrets. There are cases I would have handled somewhat differently, if I knew then what I know now, but only in degree, not kind.

11. Do you feel that the ArbCom is appreciated by the community? If not, how do you think that could be changed?

I don't think the ArbComm is noticed much by the community, and that's the way it should be. While being appreciated is nice, before working on that, I'd rather work on getting the community to be more reluctant to involve the Committee in their affairs. Arbitration should be a painful last resort, only invoked when all other avenues of reconciliation are exhausted.

12. What is the most frustrating thing about being on the ArbCom? Enjoyable?

The most frustrating thing is the difficulty we have in closing cases, caused by vanishing arbiters. The most enjoyable is successfully removing from our community those that hinder the creating of a free encyclopedia.

I hope you didn't mind me bombarding with you with questions; by no means feel obligated to answer all (or any) of them. Thanks for serving Wikipedia, and for taking your time to help a Signpost reporter! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 14:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 19:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merkey RFAr

Hi, The Epopt

I'm posting here because I couldn't seem to find out if there was a proper place in WP:RFAr itself for comments on arbitrators' opinions. I wanted to bring to your attention that although Merkey has made numerous legal threats in the past, he does appear to have withdrawn them for now. His current talk page says, "I will not be pursuing any legal action against Wikimedia, its founders, Wikipedia, or any authors on this site." --Exabit 04:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On an unrelated note except that it's to do with the same ArbCom case - Epopt, you might want to sign your vote... PurplePlatypus 18:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The Signpost

Hello, The Epopt! I just wanted to deliver this week's issue of The Wikipedia Signpost, which features the current ArbCom, directly to your front door. :-) Also, if you wish to read your fellow Arbitrators' full and unabridged responses, you can find them here. Thanks again for all your help! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 21:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help! I am being hassled by what appears to be a sockpuppet vandal

Please take a look at the edit history for Accountable 1135. Please help if you can. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 01:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:FierceSnake Olive.jpg

Only articles can be speedied as blatant copyvios. Please review WP:CSD. Thanks. Superm401 | Talk 02:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did. I also reviewed WP:IAR. There is no doubt the images I deleted should be deleted. More will follow. ➥the Epopt 03:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Greetings! I hope you’re well. I would like to thank you for declining my request for arbitration and accept ArbComm’s decision unequivocally. Your decision, after all, demonstrates the validity – or not – of both my and Chris Bennett’s positions, while supporting neither, and the importance in Wp that users can diametrically differ yet still continue to grow Wikipedia. What was mildly irksome was how Arbs Fred Bauder and Kelly Martin characterised their decisions (particularly before CB submitted his statement), not the decisions themselves: as neutral third-party arbitrators, there is an expectation to not be diminutive and offer more indifferent or no commentary, as Mindspillage and you have done.

As I’ve stated, I believe my decision to RfArb was and is correct but was not taken lightly: I opted for a “nuclear” option as I believe CBs behaviour required it, was escalatory, and would not change with other modes of resolution; I am familiar with them and garnering positive results. I am a paragon of neither virtue nor linguistics, and am not faultless. As I hope my long contribution history demonstrates, however, I’m not a “bully”, “racist”, or unilateral in nature (as CB has characterised me), having constructively worked with others to help enhance this ingenious project of community.

I will disengage from CB until the Big Crunch (if this event occurs, given current theory) and hereafter exercise more caution when discussing fallacious user decisions in the first place.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Thank you again for your consideration; take care!

Yours sincerely,

E Pluribus Anthony 04:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone/Proposed decision

Would you please answer my questions on the Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone/Proposed decision page. Thank you.

Your username

I saw the stuff on Lightbringers talk page. Even with out reading you user page it's obvious that Mason Boyne (Orange Lodge member) is a made up name. CambridgeBayWeather 14:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that if you spell ‘Mason’ backwards you get ‘Nosam,’ which is a five-letter word beginning with ‘N’ like ‘Nitwit’? It's all there if you just shoogle the letters around a bit. ➥the Epopt 14:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Who's side are you on?

I didn't see you make any comments or ask any questions in my ArbCom workshop, but you displayed extreme animosity in the findings, so I wanted to know what you think I could have done better. --Zephram Stark 04:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might begin by reading the RfC against you. ➥the Epopt 04:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I read it, but I didn't see any suggestions. It appeared to be merely a device to get rid of me. --Zephram Stark 21:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbringer

I've blocked Lightbringer indefinitely. --Scimitar parley 21:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Behavior of Ted Wilkes

User:Ted Wilkes is still removing my contributions to the Elvis Presley article, though they are well supported by credible sources. See [2] and [3]. He also aggressively continues to make personal attacks against me (and some other users) on the Talk:Elvis Presley and the User talk:Onefortyone pages and repeatedly violated the 3RR rule. I think the arbitration committee should place a note about this behavior on his talk page. 80.141.255.90 20:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Procedural Guidance Requested

As I have been preparing the Evidence for my Arbitration case, I have made three TALK posts on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Polygamy/Evidence.

  • My unique problem, Guidance Requested
  • OK to "Yield" DIFFs in DIFF-Count?
  • Items Still Pending in Preparing Evidence

While I wait to hear back from my AMA advocate, your procedural guidance on those issues will be very much appreciated. Thank you. - Researcher 21:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbringer - the sequel

I've changed Lightbringer's indefinite block to a 1-week block, because I now feel I over-reacted. I believe he's currently using the sock Call of Duty to edit Freemasonry-related articles, but I'm not entirely sure- you might want to take a look. Call of Duty is a new account, created after the block, and its only edits have concerned freemasonry.--Scïmïłar parley 17:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

141

Would you be so kind as to examine my edits to James Dean and Nick Adams? As one of his assigned mentors, I have attempted to distill onefortyone's edits, which I consider, in these two cases at least, to be well-sourced, balanced, verifiable and encyclopedic discussion of the actors' sexuality. They are repeatedly being reverted (and I've now been taken to WP:3RR as "violating the ArbCom order." I do not consider them to do any such thing. I would appreciate your input. FCYTravis 22:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My e-mail

Hi, I was wondering if you got my e-mail. Regads, Jayjg (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-sent it now, please let me know if it arrives. Jayjg (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Níðhöggr > Nidhogg?

I had hoped that we could settle the issue of Norse mythology names with the naming convention vote but now there is once again a request to strip an article title of diacritics and nominative ending or, in your pithy wording, "heathen unAmerican characters". If you can spare the time your opinion would be valued at Talk:Níðhöggr. There are already redirects in place from every alternative spelling and there is a list of them in the article itself. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration re-opened

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2 has been re-opened. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Workshop. (SEWilco 03:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]


Wilkes, Wyss, 141

Hello Sean. After reviewing a bit more, I've realized Wyss hasn't been anywhere near as malicious as Wilkes. I would like it if Wyss is taken out of the remedies (which may not have a point as she's apparently left) but I think we should separate them as a package and deal with them separately. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 03:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just for your information. Wyss has not left Wikipedia. He/she continues to denigrate arbitrator Fred Bauder (see [[4], [5]) and now even attacks Jimbo Wales. See [6]. Onefortyone 20:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You voted to reject ...

... accepting the request for arbitration that I filed against SlimVirgin for abuse of adminitrator priviledges. Would you please tell me your reason? Marsden 16:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Do you support the creation of a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct as I have just now suggested at User talk:Jimbo Wales#A sincere question? - Ted Wilkes 18:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wildfire-ISS007 Mosaic2.jpg

Please use Wikimedia Commons to upload you images and even more important give valid source and background informations. Thanks, Saperaud 07:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Citing yourself

I think in E. E. Smith, you will have to give your real name in the Article. "The Epopt" is not satisfactory and it points to User:, which is a cross-namedspace reference and breaks when the data is exported.

Fplay 06:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mcfly85

Hi there David, Im SWD316. I am informing all the users with the checkuser ability under "advice" given by Celestianpower to run a CheckUser on Mcfly85. This user "claims" to have NEVER once opened an IP address to vandalize; list of IP addresses that vandalized my user page are suspects. I also suspect he created/opened accounts to vandalize too. (ex. Rock09, 4benson3, Capnoh, Oneandon, Sigma995, Sven66 and Pwner.) A few days ago I was running for adminship and he got on there and edited. Mcfly85, Rock09 and Sigma995 all voted oppose when well noted administrators and others voted support. I suspect Mcfly has vandalized my user page 9 times. You can see conflicts there at my talk page, my RFA. I posted these accusations at the Administrators' noticeboard and nothing was done because of lack of evidence. Well, today Banes noticed something interesting. He posted:

You may want to look at the history of Frank Beard. And, less interestingly, the history of Wayne Newton. I just thought this might interest you.

It was where Mcfly85 and Rock09 edited the same articles simultaneously. Rock09 vandalized the articles and Mcfly85 does clean-up. Suspicious that an article like Frank Beard, an article with 11 edits has edits by Rock09 and Mcfly85 simultaneously. Can you please run a CheckUser on him? SWD316 18:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification from HK

Regarding Nobs01 et al: I am asking for clarification regarding the proposed penalty of indefinite probation to be imposed on myself. Given that there is no finding of fact against me, and that even the allegations against me in Cberlet's complaint boil down to nothing more than a few edits that he disapproved of in the article Chip Berlet, one and one half years ago, I hope that you can understand how I might have a lack of insight into any role my behavior played in the creation and aggravation of the problems which gave rise to this case -- it appears to me that my behavior is not an issue in this case. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me much more likely that the proposed penalty is purely in response to "the dissatisfaction expressed ...with the decisions reached in this case." This would seem to be an offense akin to Lese majesty. --HK 18:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedy

Hi. I have a question regarding the proposed remedy since it seems to apply to a conflict which no longer exists and participants who have not had any contact with one another for months now. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine/Proposed decision "Consensus version". Ultramarine 20:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wildfire-ISS007 Mosaic2.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Wildfire-ISS007 Mosaic2.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.

RfA: ScienceApologist (previously Joshuaschroeder)

RfA

  • Thank you for you consideration over this issue, but while this does indeed stem from a content issue, I am not asking the Arbitration committee to adjudicate over the meaning of "redshift". I am asking (a) whether the suggested dispute resolution process has been followed (b) Whether there is equality in substantiated various claims.
  • I made a Request for Comments, but I feel that contributions were ignored. I asked for "expert" evidence, and that was also ignored. I acquired peer-reviewed citations, that were also ignored. In other words, I feel that I have done my due diligences, but the other party has merely disagreed.
  • If I were to take the opposing stance on any other article (regardless of the content), and were to ignore other contributors, ignore peer-reviewed citations, and ignore other "experts" in the field, I am sure I would be accused of more than just content disagreement?
  • I can substantiate all of my comments above.

--Iantresman 15:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

your block of David Gerardo

I noticed that you blocked David Gerardo (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for vandalism. That account was actually a sock-puppet of a known vandal. It was also designed to impersonate the legit contributor David Gerard (talk · contribs). If you see another account like this, please feel free to block indefinitely. --Ixfd64 18:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DrBat arbitration request

I wasn't sure if you were aware of the following when you wrote on the above ArbCom request, hence this note, "in case". You commented on this request: "Reject — there's no doubt that he's in violation of our previous ban, so use the remedies specified: block him for rapidly lengthening periods"

Unfortunately the above is factually incorrect. That's been the problem, and the reason for returning the matter to ArbCom. The prior ruling contained no provision at all for lengthening blocks of any period, nor did they contain any provision for edits on this and related subjects (on other articles) but only a ban on editing "closely related articles".

It said that DrBat would not be heavily handled "this time". I myself have "let him off the hook" already, in order to give him a chance, yet less than 2 weeks later he vandalized yet another unrelated article outside the original scope, in a similar way.

Hence the request, for the scope and enforcement to be summarily extended in order that his edits may be addressed. The extensions sought are specific: an extension to also cover edits on related subjects to those he has sought out (whatever article they may be in), and, as you say, blocking for "rapidly lengthening periods" in the event of violation as an enforcement measure. At present we have neither of these.

Please in view of the limited scope of the previous ruling, which is now being circumvented, would you re-read the statement and reconsider your vote on the item?

Thank you. FT2 20:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet checkuser request

I've been trying to get someone with CheckUser powers to do some sockpuppet checks, but apparently my making such requests makes people fall off the face of the earth. Beware! Nevertheless, here is the request I have been making:


To make a long story short, a couple of us were suspecting that some users that suddenly appeared out of nowhere making trouble and backing each other up were sockpuppets, and, it turns out, they more or less incriminated themselves. Read all about the festivities at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses#Dispute tags for Positive and Critical Links Sections, something one of them started in support of the other (sorry that there's a lot of unrelated stuff there), and the initial suspicions at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses#"Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files". But now that these first two basically incriminated themselves, we need to check on a few other users that also aroused suspicion before going around slapping sockpuppet tags on pages. I simply request a yes or no answer to a simple question: are these people from Denver (or the surrounding area in Colorado) too? Of course, if you do find some kind of smoking gun, that would be of utmost interest. Following is the list:

Retcon
Missionary
Netministrator
Cairoi
bUcKaRoO
Duffer1
Kool8
DannyMuse
IP law girl
Cobaltbluetony
Elgoodo
Steven Wingerter
Lucille S

I would personally doubt that every single one of those is actually a sockpuppet, but I only seek the yes or no answer to that one question (barring a smoking gun(s) of some kind), nothing that is especially useful to anybody for anything other than confirming or quelling suspicions of sockpuppetry. Thanks.Tommstein 11:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Answer: there is no reasonable doubt that some but not all of these users are the same person. I will say no more in public, but if you bring a RfArb, we will have a Finding of Fact of sockpuppetry. ➥the Epopt 15:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate it. A quick question about bringing this up at RfArb though: having never gone through the dispute resolution process, I have just seen that that is supposed to be the last step, after mediation, requests for comments, etc. In this case, I'm not sure how those earlier steps would apply (mediation on whether they're actually sockpuppets or not?). Can you advise someone that has never been through this on what steps should be followed?Tommstein 17:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xed arbitration case

Hello Epopt,

since you proposed to ban Xed for a year as a remedy, I would be interested to hear your response to some questions raised over there. Thank you very much. — mark ✎ 12:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Final statement

I have revised my final statement in regards to Nobs01 and others, please have a look if you have the interest. Cheers, Sam Spade 07:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Several comments from AndriyK concerning the arbitration

  1. The Arbitration Committee is going to punish me for something what was (and stil is!) not forbidden by any rules (creating artificial histories of redirect pages). I did it to prevent disrupting Wikipedia and violating the Policies. Why not simply to say "do not do it anymore" instead of punish me for something which is not forbidden? How could I know that I was not allowed to do it if none of the policies forbids it?
  2. In view of the Arbitration Committee, the existing policy about Ukrainian geografic names do not address the question of names associated with the Kievan Rus. How could I know it? There is no any restrictions to particular historical period in the policy about Ukrainian names. How could I know that spelling of Ukrainian names in Wikipedia should be different from Britannica and other English language encyclopedias? Which policy says it? It seem the policy states the opposite.
  3. It's very funny that for a single revert of copivio article made by mistake I will get the same punishment ("Warning") as Ghirlandago will get for multiple insultigs and personal attack made on purpose!
  4. It's very surprising if I will be forbidden to correct Ukrainian names and those who were distorting them and ignoring the naming convention are allowed to do it further.
  5. It's very strange that multiple edist of my opponents that disrupted Wikipedia: broken links, sneaky vandalism, POV-pushing etc. were completely ignored by the Arbitration Committee.
  6. The group of users that has been squeezing Ukrainian editors out of the Community by persisting and scoffing trolling, insulting and personal attacks now is about to succseed to use the Arbitration Committee for this purpose. I called this group "Russian Mafia". It was not a personal attack. It was merely a stating of the fact. Is there a more appropriate name? I do not think so.
  7. The Arbitration Committee voted for decissions that were not discussed in the Worshop. And if any of them were discussed, the discussion has been ignored. As the result, the decissions contradict each other. The proposed enforcement #1 refers to Russian names, while #2 refers to Ukrainian names. What have I to do with Russian names? I did not change a single Russian name since I am here. What is the reason for this strange decision about Russian names? Can somebody explain me?
  8. Nearly all my statements, comments, evidence, proposal were ignored. It would be OK if the Arbitration Committee would discuss them and then reject. At least I would see a fair procedure. But I did not see anything but silent voting.

Even a serial killer has a right to be heard in the court. You deprive me of this right just for the attempt to protect Wikipedia against pushing of Russian POV and distorting Ukrainian names!--AndriyK 21:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Information: New Help Group

This message is to inform you about a new group whose aim is to try and answer Wikipedians' questions. The group is based here, and is so far nameless. If you can offer any help by improving the pages or by answering any questions, then you are very welcome to do so. You are also welcome to raise any questions.

If you know of anyone who would either like to know about this or could help us, then please tell them. Thank you. The Neokid 17:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert I case

Re: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert I as Robert I has resumed editing I'd like to request an injunction. Homey 19:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Epopt,

I could use your assistance regarding Image:Kingcrown.jpg (talk) and its Crown Copyright status, which I gather from Wikipedia:Image copyright tags you know something about. An editor (User:Csernica) has been trying to tag it as a copyvio and receiving rather abusive responses. I'd really appreciate you weighing in. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Let's just stop supporting images at all; maybe then people could spend their time doing things like, I dunno, making an encyclopedia. OK, wouldn't work, we'd all find something else to argue about. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

For your comments on Gibraltarian. Yep. We're blocking IPs of his 2-3 times every single day and he's literally sending me 40 (yes 40) "UNBLOCK ME NOW!!" emails. Every single day. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check your email

Hello, please check your email. Sent information re: WebEX and Min Zhu case. --FloNight 18:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

are you running?

are you running for arbcom?--Urthogie 10:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm not up for election this year. ➥the Epopt 14:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I am looking for help for a project that I am doing and I noticed that you list yourself as a computer programmer with javascript and html skills. I have left a message with the Computer help desk but have yet to receive any replies or comments. Any help you can offer would be wonderful.

I am looking for an easier way to parse and separate red and blue links at the missing encyclopedic articles project so that valid blue links can be removed and article that need to be created can be grouped together. See this edit (before and after) for the kind of work that is being done currently by hand. If you can provide assistance by writing a script or referring me to another person who might be more helpful, I would greatly appreciate it. Ideally it would sort the html and return wikisyntax that could be entered back in, though I would be grateful with anything. Thanks in advance. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 15:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dangh, and how i wish it back

Could you undelete Template:Dangh please, as you deleted it? I use is as like a personal deletion tool, cos I find it easier to manage than the {afd} ones. I'll rename it if I must, to {afd3} or {danghs afd} or something if that's the problem. But it seems a waste of time to delete it. Thanks Mr/Mrs Epopt. :) --Dangherous 23:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xed arbitration case (2)

Hello Epopt. You did not (yet) respond to my earlier request so I am repeating it. Since you proposed to ban Xed for a year as a remedy, I would be interested to hear your response to some questions raised over there. Thank you very much. — mark ✎ 10:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gibraltarian

As per the request at Wikipedia:Bot requests, Uncle G's 'bot is ready to prepend this template to the talk pages for all IP addresses in 212.120.224.0/21. Just say the word. Uncle G 18:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you delete a user page ?

Is this the "that anyone can edit" stuff or only a pornopedia with obscene censorship habits and quick under-the-carpet moves to avoid legal procedures, trying to cover up libel?
01. You can't delete evidence
02. You must take legal responsibility for libel and censorship
03. You should understand the following sentence in English : if justice is a threat for you, then what is lack of justice ?

Image:Ca73.jpg

This image was tagged for speedy deletion for someone, stating the reason that they had replaced it with Image:StPaul (CA-73).jpg on the ship's article. The image isn't used anywhere now, but I thought it better to remove the speedy tag and let you know it had been orphaned, since you can delete it yourself if you so decide. --Durin 20:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly confused about your revert

Hiya, just noticed you reverted my copy-edit at USNS Glomar Explorer (T-AG-193), (diff). I appreciate that any user is within their right to do such a revert, but did I do anything wrong? Cheers, --Lox (t,c) 13:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Obviously I did revert you, but I have no idea why. Obviously my evil twin is trying to embarrass me again. There's nothing wrong with your edit except your misspelling of Howard's name, so I reverted my revert, and I apologize. ➥the Epopt 14:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, thanks for correcting my spelling! --Lox (t,c) 14:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zordrac

Hi there. You have listed User:Zordrac as a {{sockpuppetProven}}, which is undoubtedly true. But you havent listed a link to the evidence, only a generic link to the ArbCom. Could you correct this? Cheers! The Minister of War (Peace) 14:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paktahn heavy bomber

Hi, I saw you tagged this one for context. Hope it's better now. Ah yes, Wing Commander, the first article I created was on another Wing Commander ship. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalizing user pages

01. You can't delete evidence
02. You must take legal responsibility for libel and censorship
03. You should understand the following sentence in English : if justice is a threat for you, then what is lack of justice ?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Epopt&oldid=36817951"