User talk:WJBscribe

User:WJBscribe	User talk:WJBscribe	User:WJBscribe/Gallery	User:WJBscribe/Barnstars	User:WJBscribe/Drafts
Userpage (commons · meta)	Talk (Archives)	Gallery	Barnstars	Drafts

Hi! Please leave a message and I'll get back to you... Don't hesitate to get in touch if you have a question or need help. I'll do my best and can probably point you in the right direction if it isn't something I can sort out myself. Will

Deletion Question

I'm confused by this was it a redirect to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and deleted or what? Ctjf83 22:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It was a redirect to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). There is a general consensus that we should not have redirects from the mainspace to the wikipedia namespace. Such redirects are felt to blur the line between encyclopedic content for readers, and the meta-content designed for its editors. WjBscribe 00:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

is there anything i can do to redirect it again? when i searched "In-universe" to read up on it, it came up with no results even close to it, so i had to look for a page with the template Ctjf83 03:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Where were you thinking of redirecting it to? Recreating a redirect to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) would go against the consensus of the discussion. But if there is another article you think "in-universe" should redirect to, you can create a redirect to that page. WjBscribe 08:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

can i reopen a discussion on redirecting it to what it use to have...like i said, i had a hard time finding the article to read up on in-universe Ctjf83 06:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

?? Ctjf83 01:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your reply. No you can't really reopen the discussion - I can't see any new arguments and the result was pretty clear. You could appeal it at deletion review but I doubt you'd have much luck. As I said (and as the discussion demonstrates) editors are generally of the opinion that she should avoid cross-namespace redirects. If you're looking for a shortcut to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) - WP:WAF seems to be the one most used. WjBscribe 02:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection Request

Following up an earlier protection request I made ([1]), I am happy to report the glimmer of compromise and so would ask for the following pages to be unprotected per emerging compromise:

1. Crackers Don't Matter
2. The Way We Weren't (Farscape episode)
3. Won't Get Fooled Again (Farscape episode)
4. Die Me, Dichotomy

Thanks. Eusebeus (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you point me towards discussions about this. I'd like to gain a feel for how likely the pages are to remain stable if unprotected. WjBscribe 08:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind if I step in to reply. Please see Talk:List of Farscape episodes#Possible means of resolution.

Acegikmo1 (talk) 23:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. OK, that seems worth giving a go. So is it just those 4 pages above that should be unprotected at this stage? WjBscribe 00:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That's right. Those are the only four protected pages that I think can be edited up to standard that meets notability guidelines at this time. Thanks. Acegikmo1 (talk) 05:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. WjBscribe 11:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Henry Ford unprotection

I think it may need to be reprotected. Since your unprotect, it's already had:1, 2*, 3, 4, 5* incidences of vandalism, two of which were clearly anti-semetism agenda edits. Is another round of semi-protection needed?ThuranX (talk) 02:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly there have also been 2 good IP edits [2] and a vandal reversion. I'd rather not reprotect it just yet though might be willing in a couple days. Feel free to list it at WP:RFPP if you would like a second opinion. WjBscribe 10:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There have been a few more ,but I'll give it through tomorrow to see if it cools off, otherwise, i'll re-request at least a week to avoid turkey-time bored vandals. ThuranX (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Reprotected - no expiry. Seems unlikely things would be different in a week. Can always be reviewed again in a few months. WjBscribe 22:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Small favor?

If it's not a big deal, would you do a checkuser for me? I actually have no clue if it is or not, since I've never been involved in anything to do with it. But if it isn't, could you see if Gherek (talk · contribs), Lgbpsychology (talk · contribs), and/or ClydeOnline (talk · contribs) come from the same IP? Mucho Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this among the other threads. Checkuser requests aren't something any admin can do, it requires someone with special access - for example I requested a check on ICarriere at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ICarriere. Checkusers are only supposed to be run where multiple accounts are being abused as IP info is regarded as private information. It doesn't look like those three being the same people would be a problem so I doubt a check could be run. Let me know if I've missed anything. WjBscribe 23:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Okie dokie - not a problem :) Thanks for letting me know! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with the duck!

I'll try to wield the Mop-and-Bucket with grace and humility. --Orange Mike 04:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Block Request

Wow, I never expected to find a reasonable admin. In any case, I don't object to the warnings on my talk page because they relate to previous users. I am, also, those previous users. I just don't like all the clutter on my talk page. 70.173.50.153 (talk) 10:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Info

Re your warning to an ip who just placed a link, Open Proxy & blocked :) Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Knew it was worth making you an admin for a reason - even if you did shun my offer in favour of Lar ;) .... WjBscribe 10:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting - dumping links on here, en wq & commons at a minimum using open proxies - I guess a bot at work. And seriously - you comment may have made me think but I hadn't planned to do it (still trying to keep a nice low profile):) Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 47	19 November 2007	About the Signpost

An interview with Florence Devouard	Author borrows from Wikipedia article without attribution
WikiWorld comic: "Raining animals"	News and notes: Page patrolling, ArbCom age requirement, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: History
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Please unblock my IP

Then unblock me so I can go do other things. Jehochman and Durova's bad blocks are the only source of disruption here. If the rules say I'm blocked forever because Durova says I'm MyWikiBiz, then the rules are bullshit so why should I follow them? Durova made it so that saying anything at all about my block, even on my talk page, was a violation of the rules. A classic Catch 22 - if I complain about my block, and question her secret evidence which we all know by now gives wrong answers all the time, that proves that I should be blocked. But if I didn't complain, no one would even know there was a problem and I'd still be blocked. The one thing Durova and Jehochamn haven't tried was unblocking me and letting me edit, because it would beome pretty obvious that I'm not MyWikiBiz and they botched everything from the get-go. You call my conversation "disruption" only because I'm editing from TOR nodes, but who forced me to do that? If I wanted to vandalize things or cause trouble, that's what I'd be doing. I'm just talking about my block. Unblock me, and I'll move on. 24.19.33.82 12:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want your block reviewed there are proper channels - as you well know given your assertion that you are a longtime editor. The block on your IP is anon-only so you may contribute with your account at any time. I recommend either emailing the unblock list or the arbitration committee. But this constant block evasion is getting tedious and I confess you have eroded any support I may originally have had for your position. WjBscribe 12:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

But Durova said she would ban my regular account whoever I am. So either I'm Kohs and banned, or I'm not Kohs and will be banned. Anyway you're not supposed to have to fax your identity papers to ArbCom or anyone else to edit. I'm not MyWikiBiz, even Durova knows that or what are they investigating? So the block should be reversed. I don't want to be talking about this anymore than you do and I won't be once I'm unblocked. They're creating their own drama here. 24.19.33.82 12:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say you needed to fax them ID, I said it was the proper channel to ask for your block to be reviewed. I think it would be inappropriate for Durova or Jehochman to block your account given their involvement. And anyone who did would need to show evidence. Of course, they may cite disruptive editing using Tor nodes - but then you've rather opened yourself up to that accusation by taking that route rather than taking advice and opting for the unblock list/ArbCom. WjBscribe 13:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't have to ask anyone to edit as an anonymous IP. That's a betrayal of the foundational principles. 24.19.33.82 13:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.96.75.87 (talk)

You were blocked - if you think the block was unfair, I've suggested two routes for you to appeal. Instead you have chosen to edit war across Wikipedia using proxies. I'm sorry but I don't find your approach condusive to having much sympathy for your cause. WjBscribe 13:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks for correcting erection (page)

Now that I've got your attention... regarding the erection page, thanks for reverting to the 'correct' version, I must have only seen the two photos instead of 4 and so I guess I reverted to a 'slightly' censored page. Epthorn (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Creating an Account

Based on your kind note, I was about to explain my reasoning for continuing to edit from an "anonymous" IP. Namely, I don't wish to become embroiled in the political aspects of Wikipedia. I'm not interested in people "smiling" at me, giving me virtual awards for my supposed "good work," or asking me to support them in their latest quixotic attempt to build "consensus."

I just want to clean up muddled entries and remove long stagnant policy templates to make the encyclopedia palatable to the casual user. While Wikipedia likes to advance the notion that everyone is an editor, it still makes sense to treat the articles as if they had readers.

However, based on the actions of Fogeltje (most specifically, of course, the rude comments in the change log of my talk page, but also his previous knee-jerk reversion of reasonable edits as vandalism), I've decided to just give the whole thing up.

I suppose it's possible that a single anonymous IP user such as myself could wreak havoc on the integrity of the encyclopedia. However, the proliferation of automated unthinking "vandalbots," registered users with watch lists to "protect" their self-proclaimed fiefdoms, and administrators steeped in the political culture of Wikipedia decidedly are doing so.

So, that's it for me. I wish you well as the sole administrator I have found who hasn't lost sight of the stated end goal of this project.

70.173.50.153 (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfair Censorship of the Centertaint

Dear Sir,

I feel that you have unfairly speedily deleted the entry for centertaint. If I may refer you to criteria for speedy deletion section:

"Non-criteria

The following are not sufficient, by themselves, to justify speedy deletion.

Neologisms. If not obviously ridiculous, new specialized terms should have a wider hearing."

You may or may not agree with the terminology used to describe the concept, but the argument that it is nonsense is simply unfounded. The sentence clearly indicates the part of the body indicated by the term and is easily understandable. The existence of the centertaint may be due to either plastic surgery or genetic abnormalities. If you insist on further establishing the existence of the centertaint, I would refer you to writings on hermaphrodites. The existence of humans with both external and internal sexual organs from both sexes is acknowledged on wikipedia itself. The article needs further clarification, I admit, such as making the term inclusive of both sexes, but these refinements come with further editing. Please reinstate centertaint, or at least allow for a deletion discussion.

Hikarugenji (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The article I deleted was nonsense. You may create an article about "centertaint" that is not nonsense if you wish. I would advise you to include reliable thid party sources about the term. If you think my speedy deletion was incorrect, you may appeal it at deletion review. WjBscribe 22:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. "...please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following:... 2. Original inventions. If you or a friend invented the word frindle, a drinking game, or a new type of dance move, it is not notable enough to be Wikipedia article material until multiple, independent, and reliable secondary sources report on it." --Orange Mike | Talk 22:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Accuse of racism

I did not accuse of racism. I just implied that it was a possibility... Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 01:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

	HAPPY FIRST EDIT DAY!	from the BIRTHDAYCOMMITTEE
	Wishing WJBscribe a very Happy First Edit Day! Have a fantastic day! From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee

Marlith ^T/C 01:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

RfB?

Hi WJBscribe. I recall you said from User talk:WJBscribe/Archive 10#Bureaucratship? that we could revisit the possibility of a bureaucrat nomination. It is pretty far in the year (almost December). Would you be ready to accept now or in December? No rush, I'm just asking.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 03:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I fully agree with you that WJBscribe would make a fine bureaucrat, and I believe he would pass if he went for it now, I think the best thing to do would be for WJB to nominate himself as I recall an RfB a few months back being opposed because someone else nominated the user. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

But not all successful RfBs were self-noms. Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Francs2000. And I think I've written a nomination that explains why WJBscribe would make a great canadate. But I'll leave up for him to decide. Sorry, WJBscribe, if this is still way too soon.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 03:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right. You've been here for a year now aswell.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 03:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It's traditional for an RfB candidate to do a self nom because they have to put there views across about consensus and the way they'd judge how RfA's turn out, something which only the candidate can show. Bureaucrats should also truly want to the job, and if someone else nominates, it suggests that they have been forced into it. Sorry U.S.A.... It's just a bad idea for you to write a nom. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright. I'll let WJBscribe nominate himself if/when he's ready.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 11:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I expect that you'll still offer your strong support which I am sure will be appreciated as much as a nom! :-) Thanks for understanding. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank your for taking the time to think of me U.S.A. - it is much appreciated. I think Ryan is right that there is an expectation that candidates for bureaucratship will nominate themselves so they can explain to the community why they would make a good crat and what they bring to the job. I'm sure your nom would be fantastic but its probably not a tradition that should be departed from :-). As to the larger question, a part of me does still wonder if its too soon but I think it only right now to let the community make that determination. A couple of factors - Deskana's checkuser responsibilities and potential ArbCom ones and Secretlondon again being rather stressed through having to shoulder the majority of the rename work herself (she's now renamed nearly 800 users) - have persuaded me that an extra crat would be useful to the community. And so yes - I am willing to run at RfB in the near future. WjBscribe 08:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Best of luck on it Will :) Pedro :  Chat  14:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for answer! It looks like everything is going smoothly so far (37 supports with no neutrals and no opposes). I hope it passes.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 22:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw Majorly's comment, and clarified that question was basned on that RfA.(with regards to under 70% promotion) If you're not sure what you would have done on that RfA, that's fine.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 22:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I was just asking based on the RfA, not the canadate. Sorry if it seemed otherwise.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 22:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll explain further. I was never judging the canadate, just the RfA.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 23:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Its OK. I knew you weren't asking for that but I still thinks its a good caveat for me to have on my opinion. I am uncomfortable with commenting on the consensus of the RfAs of serving administrators because I don't want to undermine them or make them feel that they lack my support of them now they are an admin. WjBscribe 23:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Editing of others' talk page comments

Please don't edit or delete my legitimate talk page comments, as you did here, thanks. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I wish you wouldn't interfere with this - you must see how close it is to agreement, why are you risking derailing that? WjBscribe 18:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that simply asking the permanent record (the block log) be set straight causes any risk for derailment - any reasonable admin will admit they made an error. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It just seems a rather minor point - Durova has just agreed to unblock them - the block log is now fairly irrelevant and I see no reason to add further accusations of wrongdoing to it. WjBscribe 18:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate where you're coming from. I'm glad Durova has unblocked the IP, though I'm very disappointed that she didn't face up to her own wrongdoing in the affair. The reason I care about this is that I myself have been the victim of one of these idiotic "sockpuppet" blocks; you have no idea how frustrating and infuriating it is unless you have been through it. What made it worse is that I was treated like the worst kind of scum in my attempt to get unblocked; my initial unblock request on my talk page was simply denied by a supporter of the original blocker without justification, when I went to IRC I was treated rudely and told I had to give up my privacy to prove my innocence. If I hadn't been persistent I simply would have been forced to leave the project when I hadn't done a single thing wrong.

In my case, the blocker was Ryulong; I've had no previous interaction with Durova, to my knowledge, until the whole User:!! fiasco drew her conduct to my attention. I saw the issue with this IP when I noticed your attempts to silence their complaints at WP:ANI. I tried to help because I really don't think this person would have gotten any justice without an experienced user speaking on their behalf and calling the involved admins on their abysmal conduct in this case. The bottom line, from my perspective, is that it's absolutely wrong to treat new and anonymous users like this - making unwarranted accusations and invading their privacy. Maybe you catch some disruptive users earlier than you might have otherwise...who really knows? The price paid in lost good users and in unnecessary drama is simply not worth it. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I confess I know little of you and your history under this username. My recollection of you is from your previous username (where I must say I had a high opinion of you) and the circumstances that resulted in you no longer editing under that name. I was in fact with Ryan in Manchester shortly after that incident. Perhaps I allowed that to overly cloud my view of you - that incident is now many months ago I recognise. But perhaps reflecting on that you will understand why I find you a troubling advocate of anonymous editing (in the sense of not using one's main account).

I pointed you to the original thread on this matter - I was not supportive of the reasons for the block but I do not think these matters are solved by admins waging war on each other and overturning each others blocks. Instead I pursued a longer term diplomatic appraoch, some behind the scenes with people on both sides of this particular solution. The ultimate outcome may be sub-optimal in some ways but in my view there was never realistically going to be a better one. My hope is that everyone will no move on for this. The wider concerns about Durova's recent blocks seems to be recieving a lot of scrutiny elsewhere so its not as if everything is being brushed under the carpet. Anyway, if you feel I was unfair in rejecting your involvement I apologise, but it did makes things more difficult for me. WjBscribe 19:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

For taking care of the Big Pig Jig move. I really appreciate it! Ariel♥Gold 19:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection of Life article

Hi WJBscribe,

Just to say I'm not sure the unprotection of the Life article is working! I appreciate why you decided to give it a go as a non-protected article again, however it has had 9 cases of vandalism in the two days since it has become editable by anonymous users. I was the one who made the original request for it to be semi-protected on a permanent basis. The problem is that it is a very high profile subject and it seems that many disgruntled people come to that page seeking the meaning of 'life', don't find it in the text and then trash the article!

Before the original protection it would get multiple vandalisms per day - consistently. My feeling is that it should be semi-protected again. I don't know if you can just do this, or whether a formal request has to be made again? Thanks. --CharlesC (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I am keeping an eye on the page. I was thinking of reprotecting at first but it has now gone for nearly 2 clear days without any vandalism at all so I'm not sure protection is warranted right now. If the previous vandalism levels resume it can be reprotected. You can either ask me or post a request at WP:RFPP. WjBscribe 23:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This is just what it was like before though. There might have been the odd day when it wasn't vandalised but it was pretty consistent. (It was only one day vandal-free, as there's just been another!) --CharlesC (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just not convinced that that sort of level of vandalism should lead to semi-protection, which should really be a last resort. It seems to me that the present vandalism can be managed just by reverting it. But I don't mind you asking for a second opinion - feel from to ask for reprotection at WP:RFPP and see what the admin who responds to the request thinks about it. If they decide to protect it again, I wouldn't have any problem with that... WjBscribe 21:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Brave/insane:)

I wish you well, cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Are those two things different? :-) WjBscribe 13:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer to think any lawyer I had consulted would know the difference... aah that explains it :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we usually judge that with the benefit of hindsight... WjBscribe 13:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Block summary

You might know/remember I have been ranting and raving a little about what I believe were obscure blocks with inproper supplied reasoning of people discussing the range of pedophile issues. I would just like to applaud your clear summary here. If all those blocks that I have protested in the past had such clear summaries, it would have saved me a lot of trouble and frustration. Thumbs up! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Its not a part of the job I enjoy I have to tell you. I am not a fan of witchhunts and if any legitimate editor is blocked in error we are all the poorer for it, but there comes a point where accounts/IPs here solely to strongly push a line on a particular topic need to be firmly shown the door. And yes, I remember a discussion you had with Charles Matthews - as I recall you were kind enough to notify me of it. That's a surprisingly rare courtesy. WjBscribe 14:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That was indeed a bit of an unfortunate episode. I still think it's a shame that I never managed to get clear responses out of that. I found that contact the ArbCom is in fact easier said then done. Getting a mail through to the mailinglist is harder than it sounds, and there is no confirmation it is actualy sent through. (Though I have been told it did). Though the ArbCom has no obligation to respond, I found it a shame that I never received any clarification. I more or less assumed that when you can contact the ArbCom with questions, that also implied getting an asnwer. Don't get me wrong though, I trust the ArbCom and its rulings and decissions, but I am a firm believer that everything on Wikipedia should leave a papertrail. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The advice ArbCom has given admins on handling these issues hasn't been much clearer. Let us see whether communication channels (both in and out of ArbCom) improve with the new members that will be joining it in January. WjBscribe 14:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Can I ask what's happening at my talk page. I'm a bit confused, I logged on and it said I had messages, but it was just you removing stuff? Thanks! Gentleness · Talk 19:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I reverted edits by an account that seemed to have been created to harass one of the site's administrators. They left rather a cryptic message on your talkpage - I don't know if it means any more to you than it did to me - but as the other edits by the account seemed to be attempts to cause trouble I assumed that too was not a welcome post. WjBscribe 21:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think he's talking about this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nadezhda_Durova&diff=prev&oldid=172954814 but I don't have a clue what the rest of it is about. THanks for tremoving the gibbiersh! Gentleness · Talk 23:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)