User talk:GRBerry/Archive 10

At this point I became an admin. Subsequent archives are by bots, so in the order conversations became stale rather than the order they were created.

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

SELF NOTE

At AN/I, I promised to investigate the indefinite block of EliasAlucard (talk · contribs). The blocking admin had said that he would reverse if one admin disagreed. 22:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is watching this thread after this time, I find the user's article space edits to be fine. His talk page edits do at times (and not at other times) demonstrate the problem that led to blocking. I can't see this editor being able to successfully resume editing under the old user name. Were he to return under a new username, he could probably be a more productive user than if he returns under the old, where he will be a drama magnet. I won't act at this time. GRBerry 20:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal

Hi GRBerry,

Could you please take a look at my proposal here [1].

I think this is important given the current waves of secular attacks on all religions. Thanks in advance.--Be happy!! (talk) 10:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sock vs. meat

You are right that socks and meat can get confusing. Enjoy researching my Iantresman days. It'll make for enjoyable reading if nothing else. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ill Considered Accusations

Regarding your speedy closure of this notice, I must protest that even on the Arbitration Enforcement page, SA personally attacks me as a "known provocateur" and no one says anything about it. Note: I am not "offended" by this remark, since it is not true. But personal attacks are simply not allowed, whether or not the object takes offense, especially here where the editor is under a specific ArbCom restriction against personal attacks. SA has accused me of "stalking" him before; of course, the accusations went nowhere, since they are false. Dlabtot (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I closed it fast because I had already examined the discussion with Childhoodsend even before you posted to WP:AE, and it was quite clear that 1) no sanctions on SA would be forthcoming for that thread, especially today and 2) the AE thread was going to degenerate into a flame-fest/snake-pit if not shut down. You may not have been aware of the extra stress SA is under today, but I was and am. I may have been too subtle with the messaging, but the second sentence in the closing summary is intended as a rebuke to SA and Filll. Similrly, the closing message on SA's talk page ends with a conditional sentence for a reason. GRBerry 17:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I misread your closing message and took it as a rebuke against me, and I haven't seen the one at SA's talk page. I think your rebuke may have been too circumspect. Dlabtot (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC 8 revisited

You were involved in this discussion, so I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Criterion 8 objection. howcheng {chat} 21:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

This is one of those things that means nothing, but yet is fun : )

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-01-02/Features_and_admins

You and I were "granted admin status" the same week. (I'm not sure if I know the other two...)

Anyway, Hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 01:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thanks

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 17:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasis Michael

Okay, WOAH. I thought restoring the last one restored the history behind it. What would be the user of restoring selected revisions without restoring the entire article history?? - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there are bad attacks (or copyright violations) in the history, one may wish to delete everything prior to them, then move the page and delete the move target, then undelete the history at the original page, then revert to the last version of the article. This way you eliminate the attacks/copyvios from the history. Or if an article has been deleted more than once, we may only need/want the latest incarnation around. The default action if you click no boxes is to select everything; when you use the checkboxes you restore only the versions checked. GRBerry 13:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's useful information. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you're good

Wow. You said almost the same stuff I said. People disagree with me but not you. You have a way with words :) Friday (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read that as them replying to both of us, because our posts are immediately adjacent. Of course, I did reiterate some of the disadvantages of the medium, because I don't consider them well known. Few people even consider such issues. And we have an unending stream of new users, and new admins, most of whom are young enough that they will have grown up with the media and not even suspect the way that it affects their behavior. Is there any way that we could make your essay on the matter more prominent? GRBerry 14:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh, you may be right. There may be an important difference between "well known in general" and "well known to people who have thought about the issue". This seems bizarre to me- I used IRC 15 years ago or so- I always considered it an "old school" kind of tool, not something the kids are into these days. I found some old essay and put it into the category for user essays on IRC. The basic problem as I see it is this: Wikipedia has matured in the past few years. IRC is just like it was 10 years ago. If things happen on the wiki that even hint of some group of high school kids in a chat room being "in charge", this risks bringing the project into disrepute. We don't need more of this stuff, we need less of it. Friday (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I hit college when Zephyr was new, and learned the disadvantages of online chat media at the beginning. (I also knew personally most of the members of the development team.) I also learned then that I could either be productive and thoughtful or use chatting programs, pick only one. Administrators should be thoughtful and use judgment... GRBerry 16:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted cabals

I shied way from closing that one, not least because I didn't find the right words for expressing as convincingly as you what I read in the discussions as well.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Deletion Review Barnstar
		A Deletion Review Barnstar, for your long history of thoughtful and sound DRV closures -- but more specifically for the deleted cabals closure, which was one of the best, and for a very tough discussion. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second the Barnstar : ) - jc37 18:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE

Sorry to mess up the formatting at WP:AE, and thanks for fixing it. I don't tend to habituate such pages these days, my time on Wikipedia is more limited nowadays. All the best, Hiding T 19:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closure

Dear GRBerry, you recently closed this discussion. Per this diff, it seems as if the behavioral issue is still unresolved, but has just shifted from Scrubs episodes to Firefly characters. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to be surprised. I see another ArbComm in the future. GRBerry 18:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I almost think the previous case should be reopened in some manner as the past discussion was marred by the participation of a confirmed resurrected sock account (User:Jack Merridew, whose previous incarnations include in chronological order: User:Davenbelle, User:Thomas Jerome Newton, User:Moby Dick, User:D73733C8-CC80-11D0-B225-00C04FB6C2F5, User:Note to Cool Cat, User:Diyarbakir, and User:Senang Hati) and another (User:AnteaterZot, whose socks include User:Aipzith, User:PatrickStar LaserPants, User:Noble Sponge, User:Lord Uniscorn, and User:Only Zuul) who was also confirmed by checkuser as part of a different sock farm. Both accounts contributed considerably in the disucssions and on other similar discussions in which they used their alternates to harass other editors. I wonder if the case would have turned out any differently minus their participation? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for cleaning up the vandalism on my talk page. Nothing makes a vandal-fighter prouder than when a vandal does them the honor of vandalizing their talk page! ;^) --Sanfranman59 (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

page deletion

hi. sorry, could I please suggest that we not delete the wikilobby page at AN/I? it appears likely there will be an ArbCom case, in which cae that entire discussion may be of great significance. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page, which is all that I deleted, won't be significant; one editor posted one comment then blanked 6 minutes later while simultaneously moving his comment to the main page. [2] GRBerry 16:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

kyra

been around [[kyra phillips]] (1) lately? and of cource, by bracketing that I mean the wikipedia article, not the natural person. you cited the goal of creating an encyclopedia there as criteria for removal of content from a talk page. some may have a goal of getting at issues relevant to character as it relates to journalistic integrity. personally, i'm neutral when these interests arise in competition. thought you might like a sense of what may be pushing forward back. if you could let anyone else know...? just a a heads up. Phil E. Transplant '08 15:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby campaign

Who was the lone editor? This is heading for RFAR and the information there may be relevant. I thought there was more than one contributor. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See reply in next section. GRBerry 17:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ming Dynasty

Hello. The contentious issue in the article was once again the map, but Wiki administrator User:Nick has recently deleted User:LaGrandefr's image, so the issue is pretty much squashed right now. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking the edit protection off of the article now, so that I can finally edit the Tibet section and fix some terrible grammatical mistakes by LaGrandefr (I don't fault him too much, English is obviously not his first language).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Characters

Didn't feel like muddling up the clarifications page, so I decided to comment here. I agree that there are problems on both sides, and that it will probably wind up at Arbcom again. That's why I have basically ceased editing fiction articles ... it seems that any action I take will simply be reverted, and, if I try to preserve my changes, I'll get whacked with a block, if not now, in the future. My main concern is that there doesn't seem to be anything done about disruptive behaviour from the side opposing TTN/Eusebus/etc. TTN has been blocked essentially because they complained, and no one turns around and notices the behaviour of the other editors at Final Fight: Streetwise, or other articles with similar editing histories. Allowing the restrictions against TTN to be interpreted so broadly that they essentially prevent him from editing is unreasonable.Kww (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AE thread

I have closed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Martinphi. Please note my closing comments. I am informing you because you posted in the discussion. Vassyana (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lists

You said "I know of multiple editors in each faction who have effectively developed enemy lists of other editors they want banned". I agree that sort of thing needs to stop, but did you read Nealparr's comments? "After years of this madness, Wikipedia has collected some ban-happy admins with grudges and axes to grind." - I know you wouldn't act like this, but are you so sure that these ban-happy admins don't exist? How would you deal with admins who (under the pretext of cleaning up the editing environment around a contentious article) include people on their 'hit list'? It is incredibly difficult for people to stay neutral, dispassionate and uninvolved. Is that possible for admins? I'm asking you because you get involved with this sort of thing much more than I do. Carcharoth (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that admins such as Nealparr describes do exist. The Arbcomm needs a good definition of uninvolved admin here, that is close to the WP:ARBPIA definition - has never been involved in a content dispute on a related article.

I'm not sure this will go over well. First, there is a well organized, active group of editors who are badly confused about what WP:NPOV requires; they think that the scientific point of view is the neutral point of view - they want the discretionary sanctions only applied to others. Second, There is a group of people who push their favorite pseudo-science view. Those two camps are problems. Third, there are editors who want well framed articles that neutrally discuss the topics - these are the editors we have to identify and leave free to edit. The third group can be distinguished from the second by breadth of editing interest, they don't have a narrow focus and the second group does. The first group is harder to distinguish from the third, because they also edit across broad ranges of topics, but have no interest in articles that adhere to the neutral point of view. The tests here are whether they want to work with others, whether they change their mind when shown new evidence, and whether they want articles on pseudo-scientific topic X that focus on why it is junk rather than on what it is. Doing anything about the first group will be contentious, even when accurately identified. GRBerry 16:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I agree with that, and it's nice to have the thoughts confirmed by someone more active at arbitration enforcement. I think the "know yourself" arbitration principles are relevant here. There are some people who should know that they hold strong views on something and hence should not be getting as involved as they are. The standard excuse is "bit no-one else will do it", but they don't realise that they are part of the reason why others don't get involved. Carcharoth (talk) 07:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AA restrictions

You gave a decent overview of how the AA 2 restrictions could/should be applied; perhaps you have some additional thoughts on how we put that into practise: WP:AN/AE#Eupator. Cheers, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GR

Oh well, all seems to have worked out in the end. Had 4 months off Wikipedia to do some proper work like a big project on Duns Scotus. Best Peter Damian (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review

If you have the time or inclination, I'd like to request that you review a DRV closure. There is also an associated discussion at User talk:Neil. In addition, Neil has started a thread at WT:DRV.

I would be gratefully interested in your thoughts/opinion. Thanks in advance. - jc37 21:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I opined at WT:DRV. GRBerry 13:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments.

(I think you misunderstood the tenor of my request, but whichever.)

As you note, I've seen other closers suggest relisting at AfD.

And I personally think it's odd that you consider there to be is a difference between the closer listing and the closer suggesting that others list.

(And while I have a guess, I'm still not certain why others were so afraid of further discussion.)

Anyway, my intention when asking your opinion was in the hopes for your insight (ie. learning), and if it turned out that your opinion (which I've respected in the past) would be that there was something awry, that I would defer to you.

So that's what I'm going to do.

I've reverted my closure. Feel free to close as you wish.

Thanks again for your insight. - jc37 16:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with suggesting a relist by an editor who wants it deleted. Your saying that any admin can speedy delete if no relist occurs was the problem with the close. GRBerry

Perhaps it's because I'm more active in CFD/UCFD (both of which have changed the "D" to discussion), but I felt that sending it to AfD was to send it to "further discussion", not to nominate it for deletion. Which was the whole point of the closure. I felt more XfD discussion was probably necessary to find consensus. As those commenting each had their own separate opinion. - jc37 18:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have been fine and gotten no significant feedback if you took it to AFD as part of the close, even as a "technical nomination" without opinion on your part. It has been a while since I've done a technical nomination myself, but ending the nomination with a statement like "Opinions mentioned at DRV included keeping as a separate article, merging, and deleting. What is your opinion?" might have worked well.

I think a significant difference between CFD/UCFD and AFD is the number of editors who attend to the area generally. Many more editors are active in article space issues than in thinking through categorization. Thus there are different standards. (A second difference is that to merge or rename a category, you technically have to delete the old, while for an article a merge should not include a deletion.) GRBerry 18:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but (in my experience at least), it's more the technical aspects and intent of usage that's different (such as WP:OC). While an afd may devolve into keep/delete, it's not the only option, and probably shouldn't be the only option. (As was noted even by those commenting in this particular DRV.)

And yes, I've done technical/neutral noms myself. I just thought it made more sense to defer to those more interested, and allow them to nom. Especially since they obviously knew more about the subject of the article than I : )

I already explained on Neil's talk page why I added the last clause, and, in general, I've found it's usually best to add an "in case of..." clause when relying on the actions of others.

And thank you for your thoughts and comments. In the past, I've asked other DRV regulars, but I noticed you active on that page (and as I said, I respect your opinion), and so asked you. In my opinion everything about Wikipedia can be an ongoing, daily learning process, and asking questions, even if you feel you may be assured of the answer, is often a "good thing" : )

Thanks again. - jc37 19:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Zorpia.com's deletion closure

The request was closed because no one has done a userspace draft. But I wonder what userspace draft means? I asked the other guy and there was not response. Web 2.0 Junkie (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users can use Subpages in their userspace to write drafts of articles that may or may not merit existence, or to work on one before it is ready for the encyclopedia. An example would be you writing this one at User:Web20junkie/Zorpia. GRBerry 16:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPA

For crying out loud, would it kill you to say "I disagree" rather than call that with which you disagree "lies" and even "malicious", which is personal attacks of the worst order? You know better, why are you being so very nasty? KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Malicious" means that something was done with intent to harm. The material removed as malicious was clearly presented with the intent of harming Moulton's reputation and stockpiling false evidence against a future discussion. When an uninvolved party, such as myself, considers it, no other conclusion is reasonable. That it was very problematic is evidenced by the fact that even a corrected version was odious enough to be courtesy blanked.

I don't believe I've used "lying" recently though I have used closely related words. One of the things that angers me most about Wikipedia is the way many purportedly trustworthy editors here actively, and as far as I can tell intentionally, make false statements in order to win political points. It poisons the atmosphere for everybody; and I think Wikipedia would be better off if we treated lying during dispute resolution much more seriously than we do. For the consensus editing model to work, we need to be able to trust that when somebody says something, there is evidence to support them. Unfortunately, we can't make that assumption and don't sufficiently sanction those who intentionally mislead other editors. GRBerry 15:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could be wrong about the intent - the intent may not be to harm. You could be wrong about false - it could be a perception, or disagreement. You are still defending accusing people of being malicious and telling falsehoods with no evidence other than your opinion - which can be, and indeed in at least one case I know of today, flawed. Please AGF and stop poisoning discussions with such attacks. They are divisive to no purpose. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

question

I know this is nit-picking, but was your edit to WP:DELREV#Adil Najam a vote, or a comment? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was an opinion. GRBerry 17:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English translations of the Creed for possible future liturgical use

I noticed you closed English translations of the Creed for possible future liturgical use as speedy delete, copyvio. The entire text of that article is also located here. I was wondering, if you had the time, if you'd consider the text there, the arguments made at the talk page, and see if that content needs to be blanked there for the same reason as the AfD you closed as delete, copyvio (and if you believe the same identical text there is a copyvio and needs to be removed, you may want to leave a note with User:Invocante, who has been leading the push to include this text). Thanks for your time and consideration.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware that it was being discussed in the context of use in a larger article. There is a difference in what we can use as a stand alone article and in a larger article. It certainly isn't of the clear cut urgent removal type in that larger article. Upon initial review of the larger article, I can't see why the large texts of other versions are any more appropriate than that one is, but it definitely doesn't meet all the conditions for G4 speedy deletion. GRBerry 01:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I think you are confused...I am not under any civility restriction. I have seen you mention this matter several times, and though you may feel I deserve one, I am not under one. Anyway...I just wanted to clarify this. Best.--MONGO 02:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you are wrong. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions. The restriction Tango put you under remains in force even though he is no longer an admin. GRBerry 02:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was not addressed by arbcom (the Tango restriction) and was not agreed to by any consensus...[3]. His unilateral restriction was surely one of the considerations of misuse arbcom was thinking about when they desysopped him. I guess I'll ask arbcom for a clarification about this matter. My request in the meantime, in light of the desysopping of Tango, is to not misconstrue his unilateral ruling as anything more than evidence of his abuse of tools, his position and his attitude, as determined by arbcom.--MONGO 03:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Hi, GRBerry. I agree with your comment on the JzG arbitration page that it's hard to see what useful remedies the case might produce. Then I got an idea: maybe use simple behavior modification to reward positive behaviors and punish negative behaviors. ArbCom could appoint a couple Admins whose judgment is widely respected to keep an eye on JzG for a period of six months. Using principles of operant conditioning they could react swiftly any time he crosses the line and apply a short block -- say, 2-10 hours. And if he responds well to a situation, they could praise him. These blocks would be applied without discussion on ANI or AE so that, per principles of behavior modification, they could be immediate. For someone who's addicted to Wikipedia, as many of us are, a 2-hour block would definitely be punishment, and an opportunity to take a sort break and cool off and have more balance in one's life. And given that these blocks would be short, they would be less controversial and could have a lower threshold for application than is currently the case on AE. This system would have the additional advantage of making sock puppets evident -- if during each short break someone new appeared in the discussion upholding the view of the blocked individual, it would be an obvious sock. We could call this remedy Discretionary Admin Supervision, or something like that. Maybe something like this could finally achieve the goal of encouraging JzG's extraordinary contribution while extinguishing behaviors that are antithetical to a cooperative working environment. TimidGuy (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Novel idea. Widely respected is less important than 1) respected by JzG and 2) actually care about his behavior. But this is something that you should suggest to the ArbComm, not to me. I won't be the one deciding what to do. GRBerry 15:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Good point. Where should I post the suggestion? On the ArbCom page? As a comment? TimidGuy (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the committee intends to hear the issue as part of another open case. You could suggest it on the workshop page of that case or email one of the arbitrators. GRBerry 15:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JzG RFAR merged with Cla68-FM-SV case

Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Epp assessment

Greetings GRBerry, I see you assessed this article as Stub this afternoon. Since the assessment, I've added some additional reliable sources. Cheers, JGHowes ^talk - 23:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs additional content, not just additional sourcing. It is weak in describing his personal life, his ministry before B2tB, his ministry as a ministry, and his theology. Most of these areas could be expanded just from the existing sources, without even attempting a google search. GRBerry 13:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Living Stream Ministry

Dear GRBerry,

I wanted to inform you regarding user:Angrygirl who is maliciously inserting her/his hostility into the article Living Stream Ministry. This is the 5th time I have reverted her/his edits. Please look into it (history) and also I have left the notes on his/her talk page. There is no communication and response from the other side.

Also, please help me in letting this known to those wiki admins, who are responsible for saving an article in such circumstances. Yours faithfully, HopeChrist (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference of a #

Thanks for your observation that WP:NOTNEWS != WP:NOT#NEWS. The oversight is extremely embarrassing but you brought it up in a way that didn't make me feel any stupider than the oversight itself. I think I'd have felt even worse had it gone unnoticed until later. Shereth 19:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemann in Postmodern Christianiy

Why do you think Rosemann doesn't belong here? One of his books at least is a dialogue between Foucault and medieval Christian thought. He has also contributed to volumes of the Radical Orthodoxy group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.7.108.186 (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to express uncertainty on whether he belongs. What I'm certain of, is that if he belongs it would be as an internal link to a Wikipedia article on him, not an external link to a web page at the university he is employed at. The external link would belong on his article. Also, you were putting him in the section for "Leading thinkers" of Postmodern Christianity, so the relevant evidence would be that other postmodern Christians consider him highly influential in that outlook/worldview/philosophy. So find the respected reviewers who have so labeled him and be prepared to cite their reviews. GRBerry 19:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reading

Reading is not writing. Writing is not writing about things that are being adressed on Wikipedia. Tihs is not a badsites issue - that red herring is getting quite old at this point. It's about evaluating if the actions you are taking help or hurt or don't effect the encyclopedia. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll go further. Posting to Wikipedia review is more valuable than posting to the official mailing list. I read both and post to neither, incidentally. You are beating a dead horse with your attempt to get people to stop posting at Wikipedia Review. GRBerry 20:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Bentley

Thank you for reviewing the article. It is one of the first I've overhauled, and though I still don't really have much familiarity with its topic person - keeping this site clean in the face of the controversy has become an annoying, if active, part-time job. As long as I'm there, I would really, really appreciate any advice you have on making it better. Content, template, style... anything at all is VERY welcome. I was classed as a "Start" quality before I started - and that was a nightmare of glop. I'm curious... how do I make it "good"? EBY3221 (talk) 05:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. Not a lot is available in verifiable sources about this beyond his autobiography, but I will see what I can do. I'm using Billy Graham for a template. Thanks again, EBY3221 (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to recall you as an administrator

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the administrative recall. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No reason ever given. Failed to reach threshold.[[4]

Would you please tell me your criteria for recall? Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to tell me which of my administrative actions are the basis for this desire, and why you consider that use to be abuse of the tools? Actions in this sense are limited to actual use of the administrative tools. GRBerry 18:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that one of the requirements of your recall? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is; because recalling me as an administrator is about taking away my ability to make use of the tools, and thus needs to be on the basis of misuse of them. Disliking me or my opinions is not relevant. GRBerry 19:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not, at this point, support the recall of GRBerry (per his previous statement). However, I believe a full and fair response to SA's request for criteria is warranted. That the first step of "discuss your concerns over my use of the tools," is emminently fair. However, the zeroith step of "convince me to tell you the criteria," is not. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If an editor researches hard enough, they will find them. They are hidden quite intentionally, to limit unconsidered requests. I'm not certain if SA is capable of meeting the criteria no matter what his concern, but for now I'm open to the possibility that he may have a reasonable concern, because even if he doesn't meet the criteria I may be able to learn from whatever the concern is. GRBerry 19:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC) (expanded 19:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you, I guess. I have found your criteria. You should consider making it more obvious, as it did take me quite some time. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you quantify "multiple?" PouponOnToast (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets use the number from the default process, given that I never picked another number, subject to the constraints I mentioned (which may make it unnecessary to determine if SA meets the criteria himself). GRBerry 19:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Consider reviewing what has SA all hot and bothered. You are obviously well aware there are a large number of editors with substantial tenure who consider some of what SA does invaluable. Try to find ways to save their percieved baby (from the bathwater). Review if other bathwaters also have babys hiding in them. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Global sysops

It has only existed since the 7th, hardly time to gain consensus for an entirely new policy. And it was marked as policy after only existing for 4 days. You can not create, and gain consensus for an entirely new policy in 4 days. Prodego ^talk 20:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is reasonable. How much longer should it get? And where else, if anywhere, should notice of it be posted. (In this case, I'm among the consensus by aware silence camp.) GRBerry 20:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nutrition

It might be a good idea to revive WikiProject Nutrition. Appropriate advertising at certain other WikiProjects will attract the right members (especially WP:FOOD). ScienceApologist (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Angrygirl same again - Living Stream Ministry article

Hi,

Today the user:Angrygirl changed the page, "Living Stream Ministry" to the same old version, which has been the root cause of several reverts and which might be saved on his/her PC. It's definitely not a pain for this user to edit without changing a single word. Also there was no response or any comment from this user on the article's talk page, his/her talk page, and my talk page. I have reported the event to one of the coordinator on the "wikiproject Christianity". I haven't reverted the edit this time as this is making me think a pointless thing to do.

Well, but I have a far deeper question this time, if there are lots of registered users like user:Angrygirl or "unregistered IPs" doing this kind of work on Wikipedia, how come the Wikipedia be reliable and monitored as anyone can change any content at any point of time? Even a rated article can be damaged by such actions! And some article's might not be going ahead with their ratings because of such a time waste on such silly things. Please, think over this matter too! Anyways, this time I have left the decisions and actions to be taken on you and the other project coordinator. Thanks, HopeChrist (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bogleheads wiki

We have a page 401-k that you might want to contribute to, especially in regards to the administrative issues involving these plans.

regards, Blbarnitz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.62.8 (talk) 06:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll see what I have to hand. GRBerry 18:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tennessee Eastman Hiking and Canoeing Club

Could you please e-mail me the deleted article? I think it's worth trying to create a valid article about that organization (about which I have no direct knowledge). I don't have time to deal with it right now, but maybe I could create a stub. --Orlady (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tennessee Eastman Hiking and Canoeing Club (2nd nomination), you indicated that you would consider providing the sources from the article. I spent some time working on this article in an attempt to recover something of value. (I rewrote the lead section, removed several chunks of trivial content, inserted some internal links, added references, and reworded/rearranged a few passages.) I can easily find the sources I used, and the article version that existed before I touched the article is still in internet caches, but I would like to be able to avoid recreating my own work from scratch (i.e., the sentences, citation descriptions, and wikilink piping that I wrote). May I please have a copy of the deleted article by e-mail? --Orlady (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed this request the first time. The sources are at User:Orlady/TEHCC. If you really want an email copy; please ask another admin; I don't use anonymous email so am very reluctant to email myself. And I'm a bit concerned about copyright law here; if your work is derivative of the earlier copyright violations, then ... GRBerry 20:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ColorZilla

Thanks for untangling the history of the talk and AfD for these pages. How the AfD ended up on the talk page I've no idea, but it was causing problems with Mathbot creating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old so the simplest short term solution was to move the talk page. Some time I must learn how to do history merges properly. — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 08:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD nom was done by an IP, who can't create the new page needed in step #2, so it is somewhat logical for them to grab the discussion page. GRBerry 13:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Jones (missionary)

Thanks for your feedback. While I'm interested in Ontario history, Methodism I do not so much know, so I expected some errors would creep in. Only one other editor has been active on that page, so any outside eyes are much appreciated. Cheers, Wily D 15:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Boey Deletion Review

Hi I am the writer of the article. I see that you have endorsed the status of the article to be deleted. What are the issues with the article? No one will give me any concrete details that explains why the article is not valid for Wiki. I would really appreciate any assistance to rectify this. Thank you. Succisa75 (talk) 05:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Succisa75[reply]

The editors at the deletion review did not believe that the article merited inclusion due to a lack of independent and reliable sources that contains significant coverage primarily about this individual from which a neutral biography can be written. When struggling with this sort of issue, I consider the Wikipedia:Amnesia test guidance highly apt. GRBerry 19:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just revised the article based on the links you gave me plus additional resources I have acquired. Could you review it and let me know if this is sufficient? Thanks. Succisa75 (talk) 04:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Succisa75[reply]

Question on copyright violation

Hello! Sorry to bother, but you cited a copyright violation against the editor who helped in the expansion of the St. Gerasimus article. However, the web page you cited as evidence of copyright violation is not copyright protected. In fact, the page appears to be a presentation of a condensed version of "Russian Lives of the Saints," which is a classic book in the public domain. I genuinely don't understand where the copyright violation took place, so can I please ask you to point it out for me? Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the very bottom of the page, it says "Translated and condensed by Vera Pronenko from ..." Translation can, but does not always, create copyright. Both translating and condensing have creative elements. Translation in the choice of wording, condensing in the choice of what to keep. In combination, it is better to assume copyright was created than to assume it was not. GRBerry 14:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to contradict you, but I work in intellectual property and the article in question is public domain. Unless a copyright notice is filed on a translation (and this appears to be have been solely created for this web site), the work is not protected by U.S. copyright laws. Ms. Pronenko and/or the Russian Orthodox Church do not hold any copyright on this translated article. And if I can be a bit bold, I might say that your warning to the editor was a bit harsh and strayed from WP:AGF. In fairness, he did try to assist (he originally put a speedy delete on the page). I would respectfully ask that you withdraw that very strong warning and assume that his intentions were in the right place on this matter. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Sorry to contradict you, again, but you must never "assume" anything when it comes to copyright laws. Either it is there or it is not. In this case, it was not. Thanks and be well! Ecoleetage (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfAr/RfC

You're right about this, of course. I naively failed to anticipate the dissent over that decision, and the form of my post at the RfC was ill-advised. Gnixon (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that was naive. Not that a certain amount of naivete in failing to foresee disagreement isn't to be expected. GRBerry 20:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Torah-submissive Christian deletion

Hello, GRBerry. Please see my comments on wikiproject Christianity page regarding an article I believe you deleted due to assumed copyright issues, but contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. Since you're an admin, will you take a look at it and correct it once you've verified it? Thanks. MagnusX1 (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've been active and yet haven't addressed my concern at all, either with a simple response or correction. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you haven't time to explore and correct your mistake. Again, GRBerry, please take the five minutes necessary to review and correct the error you've made in deleting a perfectly valid article. MagnusX1 (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cut and paste copy of existing text is not a copyright violation unless it has copyrights retained. All Wikipedia content in licensed under the GFDL and freely editable (unless the original page was also a copyright violation, but that does not seem to be the case).

Cut and paste of existing Wikipedia content could be plagiarism if the prior contributors weren't credited correctly-- but note well that "prior contributors being credited correctly" is generally quite complicated and not an area of copyright law at all. Plagiarism is also not a Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. --Carlaude (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP Catholicism

I have seen some cat to NA changes - my apologies if I had put the wrong class= - its so rare I see any non bots doing this work - keep the good work up! Satu Suro 13:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement, I need it right now. A few weeks ago, I had Category:Unassessed-Class Christianity articles empty and had been maintaining it there while starting work on some of the sub-categories. The past few days, the project coordinator has quite reasonably been updating the related sub-project templates to also flag and categorize for the Christianity project. So the category is back up to 1,328 pages at the moment, which feels like a mountain of work ahead. I know it can be done, but it is a pile of work.

The obvious non-article pages are the easiest to do and I can do them in brief respites at work, so I'm starting with them. Maybe in 3 months I'll have the category empty again, depending on how many more templates John has to update and whether or not any bot tagging runs occur. I have no idea if "cat" class was wrong when you put it in; but in the revised template, it just leaves the page as unassessed. GRBerry 13:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is an immediate and current issue at Australia project (see my recent contribs for my intemperate vogon allusions at our current template fix) it would suggest that the use of either NA or cat and the variance at various projects suggests some importance in the specific allocating of NA is if the template has been constructed in a certain way or not - as to how assessments or not assessed size up when projects are checkng their stock so to speak - I have never spent long enough in conversation with the few template fixers I know to judge for myself whether using cat or NA is the better way to go - but conistency within a project seems to be the most important - Indonesian project I use NA, Australian i use cat - and Mining i use NA, and New Zealand I use NA - one day I must venture in and have a closer look at template issues and assesment issues - any ways if you need further encouragement - please dont hesitate to ask for help ! Satu Suro 14:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A disputed category of "Terror" was added against waht was disscusted on talk page of PM Shamir's Organization

Hi, GRBerry

how are you ?

I'm turning to you, since you have seen what happened on Prime Minister's Yitzhak Shamir's Article, you are an Admin, and you seem to be available on line right now:

I've found out that in addition to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir being categorized as "Terrorist", the article referring to his organization (Lehi (group))has been categorized under "Category: Jewish terrorism" and "Category:Defunct organizations designated as terrorist", as well as the Disambiguation page of Lehi says:

Lehi (group), a Jewish/Zionist terrorist group that operated in the British Mandate of Palestine (Also known as the Stern Gang)

I had edited both pages, including other issues, that meanwhile were resolved (on the talk page), but Meanwhile the disputed categories have also been reverted (in both pages by the same person, who categories such disputations on other articles as well) without further explanations.

I moved the discussion to the article's talk page as needed, and just by looking at the talk page of this article, you can see at list 2 discussions (prior to mine), that discussed the issue of categorizing the article under some form of "Terror" – all ending with no one getting to agree on this matter – it remained a disputed issue.

Further, I have opened another disscution on the matter, so I could find out why somebody placed a disputed category of "Terror" despite the fact that no one agrees upon it and no consensus was reached !? (See talk page of the article)

I couldn't get a reasonable explanation and No consensus was reached yet again.

This unilateral step was done (Initially) on:

12:35, 20 May 2008 MeteorMaker ("Organizations designated as terrorist" and "Jewish terrorism" added.)

I'd like to ask you to remove those categories in dispute, until a broader discussion that can produce a consensus will be held.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another relevant diff

Not related to this, but thanks for the e-mail. The diff I cam here to point out was this one, which I thought would go well with your "stepped back from the brink" comment at the RfArb. Carcharoth (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Re [5]: ta William M. Connolley (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On your recent DRV closure concerning WR

Wikipedia's editorial guidelines are a mess of technicalities and arbitrarily chosen standards forged for the sake of maintaining a convenient status quo rather than inspiring scholarly consideration. WP:WEB might not be the worst offender, but it's up there. Outside of arguing the merits of each and every source used in the article ad nauseam, I find it refreshing to cut through the farce of debating minutiae and just state what should be obvious to a large portion of observers. I don't mean to contest your closing, and I thank you for your restraint in dismissing my comment (among others) rather than chastising me for making it. In the real world, however, what was said in those supposedly weightless comments is of far greater relevance to Wikipedia's core ideals than feinting impartiality over such a controversial and divisive subject. Had this been an article about any other minor forum specializing in the criticism and sensationalization of the functions of a large organization, it would not have attracted such a level of interest and would likely fail at AfD. IMHO, many Wikipedians have a penchant for confusing impartiality with the conceit of tolerating dissent, no matter how petty or vile. Cheers, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DRV history

What you said here - there should probably be a more prominent link to that discussion you mentioned, or at least an essay or rewrite of the introduction and explanation at WP:DRV. Would you or someone have time to do that? Carcharoth (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I've tried.~~ This attempt is probably better. I don't know if it will work; I've never understood where the meme I replied to is coming from. GRBerry 16:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:FasterMaster

Thanks for the block and cleaning up after this guy. I was about to block him myself till I saw you had done it. Shereth 20:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist

Erm, I was on my way to log the block at the ArbCom case, and saw that you'd already done it. Shouldn't those be done by the admin who actually does the block? --El on ka 16:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to replace my log entry! Twould be better if it was your entry than mine, you can word it more precisely than I can. (And I think your real reason is the behavior pattern of coming off blocks and going right to edit warring, which I didn't mention.) I'd started investigating, checked your contributions, and thought you had moved on without logging - perhaps because my pattern is to get all the tabs open, draft everything, and then act on the block, talk page message, and log in very quick order. As I said in the message I temporarily posted to your talk page, I have some concerns about this. Is 12 hours too long? I can't make up my mind, though seeing all the things you mentioned in the talk page message, I'm now also wondering about too short. GRBerry 16:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps too short. We have been discussing this here, and I have been discussing this off-wiki through private e-mail for a while. seicer | talk | contribs 17:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm lacking good ideas for this situation. What I really want to see is the editor in question compromising and not going back to renegotiate the compromise later. If he would do that, he'd be a lot better editor, get in a lot less trouble, and the whole topical problem area would be a lot easier to sort through. But I've got zero ideas about how to get him to realize that is a good idea, and a strong belief that if he doesn't do it he will end up banned from the site completely, combined with a belief that the wider community is not yet ready for the ultimate consequence. And he obviously isn't going to listen to anything I suggest, even if I had an idea that I thought would work. GRBerry 17:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teamwork. :) I have lots of good ideas, some of which actually work, heh. I have set up some new Talk:Quackwatch#Conditions for editing, and requested that Seicer lift page protection. My recommendation is to follow these steps: If an editor violates the restrictions (such as by reverting), they get at least one good faith reminder to their talkpage that conditions are in effect. Maybe a second one. Then if they keep violating, I upgrade to a ban, like a one-week ban from editing the article and/or talkpage. If they violate the ban, then upgrade to a block, but in my experience, bans usually get the point across, and I have never needed to use a block to enforce a ban. I've got your name listed in the "uninvolved admins" section, let me know if you have any questions! :) --El on ka 18:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly haven't been monitoring that article or its talk, though I had a look at it a few months ago, I had SA's talk on my watchlist due to past WP:AE activity. It will take me a while before I'm up to speed on the article's editing history. But as an univolved admin, I only need to monitor for violating or skirting the conditions, I'm not being asked to figure out how the page should read. Multiple roles are needed. GRBerry 19:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking, do you use IMs? Or do you prefer to keep communications on-wiki? --El on ka 18:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to keep communications on-wiki for transparency reasons. I don't use IM/IRC/AIM or any of the like. (Technically, I have an account for one of them as an employer imposed requirement, but I scrambled my password to it.) I used Zephyr a long time ago, sufficently extensively to learn that instant messaging was unsuitable for conversations where thought or judgment is important. See more extensively User:Friday/OOB and User:Geogre/IRC considered. GRBerry 22:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't say as I agree with you on the "thought or judgment" part, since I use IMs extensively for both wiki- and non-wiki purposes. But if you choose to keep conversations on-wiki, I can adapt. Wiki it is! :) --El on ka 03:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sourced text

What text is unsourced? QuackGuru 18:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tood Bentley

Thanks for that - I skimmed it and couldn't see it, which is why I removed it and suggested that the IP point it out on the talkpage. I always take this tactic with BLP because I'd rather we left something right out of an article for a short period and check it, rather than leave in something wrong - even *for* a short period. --Allemandtando (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

right I see it - I'm not actually sure we can act it to a BLP article because the comment is so vague that it's unclear what it means - there could be an issue with WP:UNDUE. If he means that he wants them to remove all of *his* articles, then maybe - but if it's to remove articles written by many people in the organisation, then it's material that really belongs in an article about the organisation - which we don't currently have. --Allemandtando (talk) 20:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction modified to add conditional suspension

Thanks- how long is a "significant" length of time? And what counts as an edit? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed a minimum of two weeks in suggesting the suspension. The community didn't exactly engage in an act of precision. So I documented it on the sanction page as "weeks, not hours or days". The intent of the modified sanction remains to keep the two of you apart, and the suspension is to remove the sword of damocles if one of you is voluntarily inactive for longer than a reasonable vacation or short break, without it being a permanent measure if one truly leaves the project. So if one of you is blocked, I recommend against counting the period blocked as inactive. Checking wannabekate; you've never had a calendar month without posting; SA did have 3 months (July-September 2007) without any edits under this account - but he was using sockpuppets during that period. So I'd say that it would be significant evidence of a real break of a calendar month goes by without edits on the part of either of you.

When I first proposed it, you had recently only been discussing your retirement. I didn't think of those edits as being currently active. But frankly, it is just simpler for you and SA to play it safe and assume any edit or log entry by the other counts as being active. If admins want to be more generous and not count certain things, leave that to administrative judgment. GRBerry 23:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no specific measuring stick here, but my own feeling is that 3 months would be a reasonable amount of time to judge an editor "gone". Two weeks is too brief, because that might just mean that someone is traveling or on vacation. But 3 months would be a good indicator that someone has moved on to other activities than Wikipedia. --El on ka 23:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeland revival

I've already used one of your sources and hopefully I can get the rest of the problem areas verified. My approach is to verify the information that is already there and then we can began to expand the article. Thanks for all your work.Ltwin (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist's user page

I expect SA will be fully capable of removing the message himself when he returns from his break, and I don't intend to re-redact his talk page in the meantime. Editing his talk page is probably close to the most inflammatory strategy we could adopt in dealing with his conduct.

The individual who seems most bothered by the break message last edited ScienceApologist's talk page to invite SA to leave Wikipedia and find another project: [6]. While SA is under editing restrictions, I don't want that to be taken as permission for editors with past differences to poke him with sticks.

As you already know, Sumoeagle's response was to post his own incivil wikibreak message on his own talk page ([7]). In lieu of redacting intemperate comments on anyone's userpage, I think it's best to let sleeping dogs lie. There's no benefit to responding to goading from ScienceApologist or from Sumoeagle. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The background to that is, as far as I can tell, that Sumoeagle is a real life personal friend of an admin that SA attacked back in January and again with the recent break message. I've never dug into the January mess to see the diffs what SA did then, but I know enough to be concerned. The meatball:defend each other principle encourages the folks who are attacked to keep quiet while others who aren't involved come to their defense. I believe that is what Sumoeagle is doing here, and thus his edit to SA's page was reasonable. His break message on his own page is a bit pointy, but absolutely is not disruptive. GRBerry 03:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that Sumoeagle doesn't seem to represent a neutral or impartial arbiter, based on his own history with SA. He isn't an uninvolved individual coming to the defense of a friend—he's someone who's had a previous conflict with ScienceApologist, and whose last contact with SA was an invitation to SA to leave this project.

Sumoeagle is welcome to make a (small) point on his talk page, and the rest of us can call it a day. I'm not going to be goaded into refighting his battles. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deltadom

Manually archived; I don't really know when this was from, but it is older than the 6 prior threads. GRBerry

I didnt mean to do a copyright violation but the problem is that whether you are quoting a verifiable source, I thought the actual incident from the UTube video would be evidence! As pages such as the Iphone bill have used sources such as this! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/300-page_iPhone_bill

There seems real bias towards this article towards Todd Bentley!

Accusation of bad faith

Please support the accusation of bad faith you made against me with evidence in the form of diffs or remove it. I deny this outright. _{1 != 2} 16:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you insist on the pointless exercis, all of these are baiting Giano by inviting a response you will later point out as a problem edit by him (definitely as a group, and most of them individually): [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. Those are just from today. There are others further back in your interaction with him. GRBerry 16:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In denial

OK, in that case, I'll make the effort myself. Thanks Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

proof by example

On my talk. Peter Damian (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Fixed. Peter Damian (talk) 20:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is incidentally a universal version of PBA which is valid as follows. You wish to prove every A is B. You take some A as an example, and prove that it is B. You then show that this could have been any A whatsoever, i.e. it doesn't matter which A you took. If so, you may validly conclude 'every A is B'. This does have a name but can't remember right now. There was a discussion on the FOM forum years ago, I'll look it up. Best Peter Damian (talk) 06:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for your kindness and support on my talk page. I apologized to Elonka and Ten.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 02:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Pond

Hi GR -- I've put in the lake infobox and added info that I could glean from the topo maps. I don't have text resources at hand to expand on the article itself, though I might be able to get some from the Maine Mountain Guide later. Good to hear from you, --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for taking the time to look at my arb enforce request - I'm sorry that you felt that it borders on frivolous - (not the most civil thing the say) - all the best.

PS. There actually is a message by the user in question in the first diff. I included.

--Scott Free (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motion in MartinPhi/ScienceApologist and Pseudoscience

Just a heads up: the Arbitrators have been made aware of the inconsistency and confirm that it was unintended. They are currently examining the proper way to resolve the motion. For the time being, the strictly literal interpretation renders the enforcement restriction in M/SA moot as a side effect. — Coren ^(talk) 00:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edwards page

Hi - since you were kind enough to comment on the John Edwards protection thread at WP:AN/I, I was wondering if you'd be willing to look at the article with me when the protection expires tomorrow. I'm concerned by the ensuing discussion on the talk page that the same issues will recur, though I hope I'm wrong. The high profile of the issue has drawn a lot of new editors, which is a good thing in general but not always the most WP:BLP-friendly scenario. An established editor is arguing, in apparent seriousness, that the National Enquirer is a suitable source for a WP:BLP. And so forth. Anyhow, I don't want to be the sole source of administrative decisions there - it's too easy to lose perspective - and I know you don't particularly carry any water for me, so I'd value your input as a sanity check. I'll probably post on WP:AN to solicit additional eyes as well. MastCell ^Talk 17:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have watchlisted. I think we will see edit warring. I'm also strongly considering posting a cautionary note on the talk page even before unprotection occrs. We also should put {{current|section|date=July 2008}} into the section once it appears if it is being heavily listed. I am already considering the idea of semi-protecting the article, though the actual edits will have to determine whether or not that is a good idea.

I'll warn you though that I am generally slower on the trigger than you are. There have been multiple times I've still been watching a situation and deciding whether it is worth pulling the trigger when you act. GRBerry 17:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's one reason I asked you - I think our administrative philosophies may differ a bit on the implementation end, so your input would be valuable as a balance. I believe the article was already semiprotected when I upgraded it yesterday. I think a cautionary note is a good idea. I received a note from User:Therefore just now; s/he feels that things are moving toward consensus, but expresed some unease about the upcoming unprotection. So that's one perspective. Thanks for your help. MastCell ^Talk 18:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was indeed semi-protected due to this real world situation and resulting edits, but only temporarily. That semi-protection had been scheduled to expire only two hours after the full protection is now scheduled to expire.[24]. I'm not going to jump on and immediately semi; I do want to give it a chance. GRBerry 19:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sounds fine. MastCell ^Talk 19:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related but different. What do you think of the latest at [25] article? I'm not convinced a partisan blog is sufficiently reliable, given that the blog cites an internet archive page that is not now available as its source. I've undone. GRBerry 21:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree; it's WP:COATRACKy. In some select cases, I suppose a reasonably prominent if partisan blog like Huffington Post might be acceptable in a BLP context, but doesn't seem like one of them. MastCell ^Talk 00:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, maybe I've gotten too cynical about Wikipedia - it looks like people were able to reach a consensus version on the Edwards allegations and the page was unprotected early. Kudos to them and thanks for your input (though probably still worth keeping an eye on the page for a few days if you don't mind). MastCell ^Talk 16:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A question about behavioral restrictions

I was reading All the Crazy™ regarding ScienceApologist at "User:Levine2112 request", and I noted your recommendation that the behavioral mods would be "will lapse 6 months after the last violation by that editor for which a block or caution is issued and logged". Is that typical? I was wondering, after all the nuttiness with DreamGuy, who is also on a similar parole as BetaCommand, et. al. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't typical. Typical is a fixed duration, after which if the problems resume we have the drama of reimposing restrictions. The intent was to have an indefinite restriction with a self limiting provision - if the restriction doesn't need to be enforced anymore, it lapses. Six months isn't key to that intent, but I don't think it is useful to run the restriction for less than six months, so that was the number I picked. It could alternatively be worded as the longer of 6 months or 3 months after... (or equivalent form with other numbers). Part of the problem here is that there are multiple editors on both sides that have developed enemy lists (as per Richard Nixon) and actively run to the administrators whenever anyone on those lists does anything that can be spun as problematic, in the hopes of now or later getting them banned. This is a habit better broken off, but there are real problems that at times need to be addressed so we can't just say "a pox on all of you, live with your mess". Thus this is proposed as a way to eliminate one occasion of unproductive flaming, and even more importantly to make sure the restriction stays in force until the behavior pattern is broken and no longer the first response to something the editor does not like. GRBerry 21:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ding-dong

Sure, done. Left a note on his talk page. I didn't place him on the restrictions since Parishan is largely a constructive contributor, but I warned him that he could be placed on said restrictions if he continues to make similar comments. Khoi khoi 04:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apostolic Christian Church of America

I did look at the copyvio, I just forgot to remove the sections that were obviously a copyright violation. What's left should be alright. Sorry for not originally doing that, long day. Wizardman 14:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edwards allegations

Hi, GR - I noticed you posted a thoughtful comment at WP:ANI about the above article. Is it all right if I quote you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Edwards paternity allegations? Kelly ^hi! 16:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly can. Citing diffs for quotations is always highly recommended. Probably faster to find that diff through my contributions than through the ANI page history. GRBerry 17:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Hopefully I included the quote correctly. Kelly ^hi! 18:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Followup on DRV reply

I wanted to follow up on your reply in the DRV for 2009 in Music. I asked "If DRV is not AFD2, and consensus can change, and we all know where to find AFD2 (and AFD3,4,5,...,14) for kept and recreated pages, where exactly do we find AFD2 for deleted pages?" You responded "...if consensus changes, it will be due to the presence of new information or new arguments. So show us a relevant policy/guideline change (I dread the day the notability guidelines change materially - this page will be overwhelmed), or give us new relevant sources, or show us that sockpuppetry was a problem, or ... but don't repeat arguments that were made in the XfD - they are not new." So, I wanted to ask, do you think it is acceptable or appropriate in a second XfD to "repeat arguments that were made in the XfD" the first time? DHowell (talk) 03:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was probably a little too strong in "don't repeat arguments that were made in the XFD - they are not new." It is more accurately worded as "don't only repeat...." It seems our policy page guidance on changng consensus has gotten worse in recent months; this old version is much better at explaining how consensus can and should be shown to be changed, especially the "Asking the other parent" subsection.

“

Attempts to change consensus must be based on a clear engagement with the reasons behind the current consensus — so in the new discussion section, provide a summary and links to any previous discussions about the issue on the articles talk page, or talk page archives, to help editors new to the issue read the reasons behind the consensus so that they can make an informed decision about changing the consensus.

”

To engage with the prior reasons it is necessary to discuss them. This will almost inevitably lead to some folks believing that the reasons are still good, and explaining them again. GRBerry 13:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 6 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Spednic Lake, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 07:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My own analysis

I have added my own analysis, which includes analysis of material (not "quality", just content and length). In it, I conclude that the major change post-0RR was the addition of an infobox. [26] If you feel that I should reword point #2, I won't have a problem doing so. It will change my analysis from "fewer people are working on these articles" to "more people are expending more effort while achieving less on these articles". Antelan 19:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since my own analysis already on the page listed the infobox first, I can't dispute that conclusion. I do think integrating the postive and negative reviews into a single section was in accordance with best practice (the manual of style says to do it that way).

I think the 0RR restriction is designed (not by me, I got asked to help on this page because I've been working on one of the disputants rather than because of the topic, and have only seen the restrictions as posted) to make people keep trying new things until they realize they can't achieve anything better. Edit warring won't let people come to that realization; edit warring achieves frustration without the potential for learning that there really isn't a better alternative. GRBerry 14:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch

While certainly someone would have eventually done it, good catch with the ABC news story. Seems like that is what it will take to get the snowball rolling, to mince two phrases. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who had been very firmly on the fence for the AFD, this changed the fence from a nice flat topped stone wall to the rather less tenable temporary fencing of barbed wire that was being dismantled. I knew it needed mention after it popped up repeatedly in my watchlist. GRBerry 20:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a followup, just curious, are you talking about WP page watchlist, or an outside news watchlist, like an RSS feed? (Or something else?) Because I don't see how a WP page watch could alert you to that ABC story. Very nice fence imagery, BTW. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP watchlist. I've been an admin monitoring the related articles for problems since the mess came to wide attention (and had been the last to protect the main article on J.E. before today), so when they heat up on my watchlist, I start reading every edit... The source got mentioned in two articles and a talk page, so obviously needed to be read. GRBerry 20:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I had his main one and the controversy (and AfD) watched but your mention was the first I saw. Regardless, well done; the wiki works. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring?

GR, I got your big old 3RR warning template on my talk page...can you please tell me where I "engaged in an edit war"? So far as I can recall, I only did one reversion in the spirit of WP:BRD - the other editor boldly removed the information, I reverted once, and discussed the situation at WP:BLPN, where the conversation was taking place. I suppose I could be mistaken, I'd appreciate it if you could point that out. Kelly ^hi! 17:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your page; I prefer to keep a given conversation in one place. GRBerry 17:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also received the edit-warring template. In your conversation with Kelly you consistently referred to me as an IP; please note that i have been consistently signing my posts with my real name. As a "notable Wikipedian" i have found over the years that it is less enticing to trolls for me to work from an IP address. In the past, when i posted from my user name, there was a tendency for certain people with issues over editial disagreements on other pages or who recognized my name from other contexts to act out by "tagging" my BLP page. Once i started editing from an IP, i found that my BLP page remained more stable. I am not into editing for ego gratification, but i do prefer my real name to be known, so whenever i settle into a protracted discussion on any given talk page (as opposed to simply copy-editing random pages as i roam the net), i soon announce my real name. Each of us "notable wikipedians" has our own way of editing for fun while trying to forestall personality-attacks; editing from an IP as well as from my username Catherineyronwode has worked well for me, and i intend to continue. As to the edit war, i apologize for giving that impression. It was late at night and i just wanted to see the thing straightened up for the morning. The real problem is that Redddogg (who is deleting the child's name) is not discussing anything on the talk page, nor is ALJDJDD (who is deleting information about a family scandal that made the national news years ago). The latter may be excused on the grounds of emotional involvement; the former should be acting more responsibly, i believe. I will try to be slower in my responses if this comes up again. cat yronwode catherine yronwode, User:catherineyronwode etc. a.k.a. "64" (for the record "64" is a block of 9 IP addresses given to 9 interconnected Macintosh computers in my home and office 64.142.90.33 (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The advantages to editing as an IP you've seen already. The disadvantage of editing as an IP is that at times an editor (including an admin) in a hurry may not notice the long standing contribution history - especially when looking at watchlists and page histories, where you can't sign. That is what happened here. Because I didn't recognize you as a longstand editor, I used a templated message for everyone. The goal was to end the edit war without using the administrative tools - too much is moving to fast for me to want to protect the pages or block editors. Unfortunately, the templated message also appears to have angered Kelly.

Kelly has pointed out that there is a discussion at WP:BPLN; I looked earlier Redddogg has posted once there since his last related revert. I see from subsequent talk discussion that you are already aware of it. Probably best if there was a link from the article talk page(s) to that discussion. GRBerry 20:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Thanks for your comments. There is a link to the BLPN page on the article talk page, which Kelly inserted a couple of days ago, and discussion is now proceeding bth there and on the talk pages themselves. No edit war is in progress. Also, thanks for understanding why i post from an IP address. That is kind of you.

Now, as a further act of kindness, i would like to reiterate to you that Kelly asked you to personally remove the edit war template from his/her discussion page. It is upsetting to Kelly, who apparently strives to maintain an unblemsihed social record here, to have been "warned" for something he/she did not do. You didn't take down the warning, but told Kelly to do it, rather casually, and the result has been that Kelly has not taken down the template, but has instead declared an intention to not work on the three articles associated with the issue. This is a loss to us all, because Kelly created one of the pages and materially improved all three.

I am asking you, not as an admin, but as a person of good will and good faith, to please go to Kelly's page and remove the edit war template yourself. I have already apologized to Kelly for my use of an IP address inadvertently resulting in the template being spread to everyone. An apology from you is not necessary, but i am sure that your removal of the template would be gladly accepted and warm friendship would result. It's a small gesture, but it would mean a lot to Kelly and to the rest of us who want to see Kelly remain as an editor on these three pages.

Thanks. Ole "64", the veritable group-hugging om-chanting feel-good-hippie catherine yronwode of yore. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Kelly is now on a wikibreak, and, again, i am asking you to please, in the best interests of all concerned, delete the template from Kelly's discussion page. The posting of the template was hurtful to a completely innocent Wikipedian, and your refusal to take it away, even when asked to do so, has compounded the hurt. There is no reason on Earth to keep it there, since it was sent by you in haste, and you have admitted that you understand that Kelly was not involved in any edit-warring at the time it was sent. Please do the right thing and remove it. If you can also do the courteous thing and apologize to Kelly for the trouble you unexpctedly caused, that would be even more healing to the situation. I think everyone here is working in good faith -- so let's take time to show it, okay? Updated 64.142.90.33 (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peace process: pseudoscience

See my message on FT2's talk page and suggesting of mediation process. I think there are some important lessons to be learned from recent incidents, and would value your input. Let me know on my talk page. See also the points I discussed with Guy. Peter Damian (talk) 06:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helping Kelly

Cla, I saw your post on Kelly's page. I'd say that problems with the articles continue so your getting involved now would be good. Especially since I angered Kelly enough that she has gone on wikibreak - s/he was the editor in the mess that was doing the best. There is another editor that is skating far too close to the BLP lines for my comfort - and I'm slow to act on BLP issues.

John Edwards has mostly settled down, except for the current multi-article reverting over inclusion/exclusion of the baby's name. John Edwards extramarital affair is still being frequently and actively edited, but except for that multi-article reverting currently appears non-contentious. Rielle Hunter is being actively edited, has been part of the multi-article reverting, has in my view other problems, and has the added twist of being edited by an editor believed to be a member of the subject's family. (I have not tracked down the diffs to confirm that such a claim has been made by the editor.) Story of My Life (novel) is being semi-actively edited, was not part of the multi-article reverting, and has in my view problems. GRBerry 16:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll try to help out with them. Cla68 (talk) 04:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I finally found the time to look at the articles you mentioned. I reviewed the talk page discussions to see if any heated disputes were occurring, but they all look to be ok. The Horse Murders article isn't written very well, but that appears to be the only big problem with it, and simply puts it at the same level as about a million other current articles in Wikipedia. I'll keep checking the articles periodically but please let me know if any notable trouble erupts with any of them. Cla68 (talk) 08:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abject apology

GR, I'm really sorry for blowing up at you. The template really wasn't that big of a deal, I don't know why that was the thing that set me off. No excuse, but I had been getting more and more frustrated with those Edwards articles, especially with having to run around to multiple forums where they were being discussed. I should have just shrugged off what people were saying, but I guess I let it get to me. I had some bad experiences with admins in the past that I thought was water under the bridge, but I guess I must still be pissed off about that deep down somewhere...but you've done nothing to deserve being lumped in with them. Anyway, I feel really stupid about the whole thing. You've been doing a good job with keeping an eye on things in that collection of related articles.

I'm going to disengage from those articles for a while - not because of this situation, but because I'm frankly just sick of the whole scandal. Think I'm going to take Lar's advice and do some Commons work, maybe research and upload some needed photos for our biographical articles. I may come back after a while to write Media coverage of the John Edwards extramarital affair when things settle down - it was the whole journalism aspect that interested me, anyway, not the lurid details of the actual scandal. There are some interesting statements coming out from media ombudsmen and media analysts.

For some reason I have Cla68's talkpage on my watchlist, maybe because of some earlier work I had done at WP:FAC. Anyway, I saw from your post there that you noticed Horse murders as a related article. Please also add Andrew Young (political operative) and Frederick Baron to your list of related topics to keep an eye on. The Frederick Baron connection may spill over to Rocketboom, which is run by Baron's son Andrew and is currently embroiled in a father/son lawsuit. (By the way, Frederick Baron needs to be moved to Fred Baron - this is the name he goes by and the name the press refers to him as. I tried moving it and couldn't for some reason.) Also, there have been some press reports that have tied Eric Montross to this whole situation, and his article probably bears watching as well.

Not sure if you saw it, but this article was making the blog rounds yesterday. Something to be aware of.

Anyway, really sorry again, and thanks for being decent about the whole thing. Kelly ^hi! 14:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly, I accept your apology. My activity wasn't perfect, and if I had realized that 64... was catherine I'd have used a very different message for everyone I sent it to. And you and I sure managed to talk past each other for a while, which didn't help.

In the long run, probably better that you blow up at me than at someone who was also editing the articles; I can forgive and forget. (With two kids under 6, I get daily practice at dealing with blowups - bedtime almost guarantees one kid getting upset.) You were taking a lot of flack - between the partisans who wanted no mention and those wanting too much mention and the wiki-editors who didn't know the situation or sources as well as you do. Take the time you need to recharge your batteries, and work on what interests you. I used to be a a DRV specialist, but I've gotten bored with that lately, so have removed it from my watchlist.

I already had Mr. Baron's article on my watchlist, just forgot to mention it to Cla. I've added the rest of the articles you mention, and will let Cla know of those with currently related content also. I'm not actively looking for coverage and sources on this mess (a big difference between the roles we've had), so I hadn't seen that blog post. I wish that speculation hadn't been blogged about.

Enjoy your break. There are no hard feelings on my side; I did get frustrated by our lack of understanding but never got angry or thought that what you were doing was wrong. GRBerry 15:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, you ought to think about the effect your sniping has on hard-working writers

Due to the inappropriely premature creation of the horse murders article by an editor named Smith Jones, who understood nothing about the subject, i spent an entire night without sleep trying to write a good article from scratch, using reliable sources, and covering all aspects of the many criminal cases involved in the scandal. I then got up in the morning and put in four more hours on the project in order to include further footnotes and pull-quotes. And for this i rated your snide comment that my work was "unbalanced due to incompleteness and hasty creation" -- an assessment of my 12 hours of work that you didn't even have the courtesy to place on the article's own talk page, but preferred to post on [the talk page of Cla68]. I shall now review your work here: you are an admin who has no time to contribute, but plenty of time to post defamatory edit-war templates and to insult hard-working volunteer writers. You now join the admin JPGordon on my short list of "Wikipedians whose faces i would not mind seeing a horse step upon." This is not a death threat, by the way; it is an imaginatively aesthetic vision of an alternate future in which virtue is rewarded with love and respect, while arrogance and cruelty merit a horse-hoof to the kisser. catherine yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cat - I really wish you would refactor the above, I'm sure GR was acting in good faith and referring to the early version of the article. By the way, it wasn't GRBerry moving around and deleting talk page comments from Rielle Hunter - that's Blaxthos, I really wish he wouldn't do that, ~~I have said something about that to him before.~~ Oops, that wasn't Blaxthos, it was Gamaliel. By the way, I nominated the Horse murders article for DYK. With respect - Kelly ^hi! 22:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cat, Kelly isn't quite right. I wasn't yet reacting to any version of the article, my post to Cla was based on your description here of the article. You said it was hastily created, that you had worked hard on it to take it out of speedy deletion range, and that it still needed editing. I was echoing the concern that it still needed editing (albeit in different words), with the observation that hastily created articles likely are unbalanced due to incompleteness. That is my experience of hastily created articles longer than a barely defining stub. (E.g. XXX is a genus of YYY in family ZZZ.) It is also in my experience often true of any article short of FA standards, and we all know how few articles have been both tested against and meet those standards. GRBerry 00:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Does this make you as uncomfortable as it makes me, or am I being oversensitive? MastCell ^Talk 22:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That whole talk page makes me uncomfortable. That user's first edit summary does claim Mr. Druck as her father. See also the blog post Kelly refers to above. But that particular post is the worst, as the identification of which daughter of Mr. Druck is as far as I can tell sheer speculation. Kelly and Cat's posts there are reasonable.

The editor that made the post is also one that generally irritates me to observe, but I can't point to anything specific and flagrant enough to act on in any fashion. In 2006 they were an SPA that vanished in the midst of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon. Since they have come back, they have been an SPA again, but with the female figure in this scandal as the single purpose. GRBerry 03:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why I was blocked?

Ends When my block? It is not true that I abused multiple identities is the first time that I come subjunctive. I await your reply on this page. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.35.115 (talk)

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Francis89. GRBerry 21:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Hanna Winery

Hey, Why was Ben Hanna Winery page deleted? It has significance to start writing about wineries, among them Israel wineries such as Yatir Winery, Domain Du Castel. So why not to write about Ben Hanna Winery? Szadok (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article did not indicate any significance or importance for the company. See WP:CSD#A7. GRBerry 14:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So why is Yatir winery sagnificant? Or Domaine_du_Castel? what's the difference?Szadok (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yatir winery didn't indicate any significance. Since you brought it to my attention, I've deleted it. Domaine du Castel claims that some of the wines are award winning. That is a claim of significance or importance, enough to escape speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7. GRBerry 15:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oops, sorry I ruined it to yatir winery, by the way, I can edit both Ben Hanna Winery and Yatir winery as both of the wineries wines won awards. So both Yatir and Ben Hanna have significance of importance. Thanks for teaching me about significance or importance (I am a newbie). Can you please restore them so I'll edit them to add siginificance? :-) Szadok (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They have been moved to sub-pages in your userspace for improvement, specifically User:Szadok/Ben Hanna Winery and User:Szadok/Yatir Winery. Please improve them, including citing the relevant references, then move them back to article space after they have been improved. Independent sources are best for any article; there are plenty of wine magazines and the like that are likely to be useful sources on wineries. GRBerry 15:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UCSD Photos

I got your message on my talk page, and I was going to do something. But since I didn't actually track the image names, I don't know the names of the images to nominate them for deletion on Commons. I ddi see that Rand Steiger's image has been nominated, and I've added my comments about the muddiness of the copyright in the discussion there. Regards, -- Whpq (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NLP: Trying again

Articles for deletion: NLP Modeling

Deletion review for Grand Orient du Congo

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Grand Orient du Congo. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Deletion review

I saw your name at Deletion review. Template:Sectioninuse was deleted 6 June 2006 and recreated 19 July 2006. I listed it for speedy deletion[27], which was speedy declined.[28] Should I (i) post at TfD or (ii) post a request at deletion review since "Recreation of deleted material" seems to apply, the one article using the template has been doing so for more than fifteen days, and I can get deletion review to confirm that it does? Thanks. Suntag (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TFD would be better. 2 year old discussions don't carry that much weight for pages that have been recreated month ago, so DRV really wouldn't be appropriate. I did pull it from the one article where it was placed, as it was stale there. GRBerry 02:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I nominated a template for deletion at TfD Inuse-section. Suntag (talk) 05:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]