User talk:Jdforrester/Personal Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive of my talk page, the current version of which is located here.

Note that I am likely to reformat, delete, or otherwise alter what appears here...


Other matters[edit]

Repost of Propellerhead Software[edit]

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Propellerhead Software, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Propellerhead Software was previously deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD)

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Propellerhead Software, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 22:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Task Force Baum[edit]

Please be advised that under U.S. Army doctrine, an organized Task Force is not an "ad hoc" unit. In fact, during WWII Task Forces were routinely formed and dissolved at all levels from Army down to battalion. There were not "ad hoc" units, but were purposely and intentionally formed from those units deemed best suited to complete a certain mission. Please consider altering your robot accordingly. Thank you. 14thArmored 19:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. Please ignore my previous remarks. I do not know what I was thinking when I wrote them. Brain cramp, I guess. 14thArmored 04:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. :-)
James F. (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

en banc[edit]

Actually, I think you do sit en banc, meaning that each case is decided by the committee as a whole, rather than by panels or individual members. But that apart, I do understand the points you were making. My biggest concern really is that there was a period last year (and from what I've read, in prior years) when decisions were delayed for a terribly long time. In the past couple of months they have been much more timely and I wouldn't want anything to happen that would jeopardize that pattern. Newyorkbrad 20:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahem, yes, there was a failure of negation ("some idiot forgot to type 'not'" ;-)) there.
James F. (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


elements cross-posted

Sorry if I'm being an idiot, but isn't Template:ArbitrationCommitteeChartRecent meant to cover the current, former, and coming year, which would be from 01-01-2006 to 31-12-2008 - but you've just changed it to be 01-01-2007 to 31-12-2009, and I'm confused. :-)

James F. (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I'm five days early :) I've reverted until the 1st. Ral315 (talk) 05:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I meant that for 2007 shouldn't the years covered be 2006, '7, and '8, as you yourself wrote originally when making the template? Or have you changed your mind? :-)
James F. (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I originally wrote that 2006 would be 2006, '7, and '8, with the intent that in 2007, it would cover 2007, '8, and '9. I suppose it makes little difference; the way you mentioned would show arbitrators who just left the Committee, while the way I mentioned would show the end of all terms. Each has its advantages, and I suppose it really doesn't matter. Ral315 (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I just imagined that something about tenures in two years isn't that interesting, whereas "who is this fool who seems to know a lot about Arbitration? Oh!" is. :-)
Still, it seems silly to care one way or t'other. Will just leave it as-is.
James F. (talk) 09:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Mythological Objects[edit]

Category:Mythological Objects is incorrectly capitalized per Wikipedia's standard sentence case for titles comprised of non-proper nouns. (To quote the second sentence of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories): "Standard article naming conventions also apply; in particular, do not capitalise regular nouns.") Please stop your bot, JdforresterBot, from moving articles into this malformed category and replace it with Category:Mythological objects instead. Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Someone screwed up. Thanks for spotting (and fixing) this.
James F. (talk) 09:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Edits to talk page archive[edit]

Sorry about this, but I accidentally edited an archive of your talk page. It was late at night and for some reason I thought I was on your talk page and I hit "edit", instead of coming out of the archive and going back to the 'front' talk page. See the edits here and here. Again, sorry about that. Let me know if there is anything I can do to fix things, and I'll be more careful in future. Carcharoth 16:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


Got the book for christmas, finally got to read it. <GRIN>

I've sometimes used some terms from the Culture as analogies for wikipedia, but I never thought the fit would be so close!

The Interesting Times Gang is so familiar, I almost felt right at home, despite not being a super-sentient Mind, of course ;-)

Kim Bruning 19:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, several current nicks even resemble ship names! ;-) Kim Bruning 01:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. :-)
OhWhatALovelyWar! (ta... James F. (talk) 09:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


Heya James, is there a meetup in London somewhere on Jan 2nd? I'm in London at the moment! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Dealt with. Was nice to meet up. :-)
James F. (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Bad moves of categories[edit]

See this edit as an example of where the bot apparently moved categories that were in substed code. This should not be done since they would be missed by bots or users cleaning up the template that is left. Vegaswikian 02:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. How odd. The category should not have been simultaneously up for merger and rename, with the latter proceeding whilst the former was still in discussion; this would not normally happen. However, thank you for highlighting this issue.
James F. (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Enculturation[edit]

Hello! Have you written any essays on this subject? Kim Bruning 17:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't write essays; others are a great deal better at it than I. Have you considered doing so?
James F. (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

West Hampstead railway station[edit]

Just thought i'd let you know i've put it up for a move a second time. Simply south 21:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Thanks.
James F. (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Next meetup Tue 9th (that's tomorrow)[edit]

I picked a probably-wrong venue and Jimbo got the date wrong. But somehow I've worked out how to blame you if it all goes wrong! I'm sure you're pleased. Signup sheet at Wikipedia:Meetup/London#Informal_socials - David Gerard 17:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes yes, you knew I wouldn't be able to make it and you arranged it regardless. Bastards! ;-)
James F. (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Virus mail[edit]

An e-mail sent from jdforrester at gmail dot com to info at wikimedia dot org was a virus transmission (i.e., there was no mail message but a PIF file was attached.) This may or may not even be you, but this is just to notify you. —Centrxtalk • 14:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Very odd. Not from me, no; I have lots of issues with spoofing of my addresses for some reason. Were I to forward something to OTRS, I would send it from my address anyway. Thanks for flagging it, though.
James F. (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


One of the bastard children of something we once wrote is up for a bit of a battle. Can you come help? Wikipedia_talk:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion :-) --Kim Bruning 22:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

And now WP:TRI too... --Kim Bruning 22:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Argh. Too many policies to police (ha ha), so little time. :-(
James F. (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

On the positive side of things, Wikipedia:Consensus is getting a facelift at the moment. :-) --Kim Bruning 22:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sir John Soane[edit]

needs you!

--Amandajm 02:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Will try some work on that. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
James F. (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 02:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Replied; sorry for the delay.
James F. (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Energy: world resources and consumption[edit]

Could you please look at Energy: world resources and consumption and comment if it is ready to be a featured article? Thank you for your help.
Frank van Mierlo 13:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is the Willow?[edit]


Where is this willow? I would like to put it on my blog. (I asked you the same on Commons.) --millosh (talk (sr:)) 13:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It is in St. James's Park, in London. Sorry for the delay in answering.
James F. (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Everywhere Girl / deletion debate[edit]

Hello, I wonder if you'd be interested in adding a comment to this ongoing debate. Specifically ReyBrujo's statement (copied below) about your recent discussion with The Inquirer. Is his claim that the Inquirer reporter reworded his questions correct? This is important because it has some bearing on the question of whether the Inquirer is making a 'legal threat' to WP in the reporter's statement quoted below.

Apparently the reporter reworded his questions for the article. I do not really think he would say "However is seems some little revisionist book-burning Nazis take pleasure in continually libelling us in your pages, a situation we can no longer tolerate". and get an "Absolutely". as reply. In case you did not notice, the legal threat is there (of course, unless you have been in contact with our litigious world, you would not recognize the subtle sentence that implies either a legal threat, or disruption attempt). -- ReyBrujo 19:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC) 14:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Have replied there; thanks for bringing this to my attention.
James F. (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Cyberanth / Hall of shame[edit]

FWIW I actually don't him 'quoting' me on his user page (I use the term quoting lightly), as it's a clear sign for anyone who cares to look into it that he's deeply unhinged.

Perhaps that opinion in itself is against wikilove, and actually gives more reason to remove it, who knows?

Ones thing for sure - after a couple of days worth of disputes with random nutjobs my love for working on wikipedia is definitely gone. Artw 22:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, I think you've highlighted my point.
James F. (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

spam message under your organization's name[edit]

Dear Sir,

I received the following spam message purporting to come from your organization - the header claimed to be

Wikimedia nonprofit []
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC).
(I removed the content of the spam, for obvious reasons :-) ). Wikipedia does not control . You have been deceived. --Kim Bruning 14:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Fun. Thanks, Kim - a better policer of my talk page than I. :-)
James F. (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[edit]

Hello , my site ( is now black list. [1]

 \.iyisozluk\.com               # Jdforrester # pan-wiki spam

Do you ban my site ? What's the mean "pan-wiki spam" ?

My site is online multi language dictionary service for Turkish and other 12 language therefore I'm adding my site link to 3 article (dictionary,turkish,turkey) in all wiki country sites.I thing this very much links for wikimedia. Please include my site spam-whitelist.

Sory my bad english , And Thanks ...

Related Link 2 Related Link 1 15:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Durova/Community enforced mediation[edit]

I've based a proposal on the mediation from the Piotrus-Ghirla case. Would appreciate your comments on its talk page. Respectfully, DurovaCharge! 20:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

We can run this immediately, if the enforcer is not the community, but instead some cabal. O:-) --Kim Bruning 21:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, indeed. ;-)
James F. (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


Hi there James,

There's a discussion going on about what to call the MI5 page, and was wondering if you'd like to take a look and add a comment, since you edited a past discussion on it a while back, but didn't add an opinion. If there's anyone you think might be interested in adding their thoughts, so much the better! ConDemTalk 09:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Jamie.
James F. (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a automated to all bot operators[edit]

Please take a few moments and fill in the data for your bot on Wikipedia:Bots/Status Thank you Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 19:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Done, a bit. Don't have the time right now to dig out authorisation from so very long ago. No idea what wiki it would be on, even (didn't we use to do such things on meta? I forget).
James F. (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Lists of postal codes[edit]

Hi James,

I nominated a list of Postal Codes for deletion I commented on the deletion of (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of postal codes in Nepal), and a comment was made about starting a debate on whether lists of postal codes were suitable material. I thought I'd follow up on my nomination by nominating List of ZIP Codes in the United States for deletion, and starting a debate that way about lists of postal codes in general. Unfortunately, when I tried to add the reason, I was redirected to Wikipedia talk:Do lists of postal codes belong on Wikipedia?, and also noticed a later discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ZIP Codes in the United States. In both of these debates, I really think more could have been said about the fact that useful information (eg, the Phone Book) doesn't necessarily have a place. I think more argument would be useful. I'm really telling you this, as a very experienced user, to ask for your thoughts on whether a new debate was worthwhile, given that the last one was nearly two years ago, and how to go about it if I wanted to open one. ConDemTalk 01:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ho-hum. Too late for that. Need to pay more attention to my talk page. :-(
James F. (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Automated message to bot owners[edit]

As a result of discussion on the village pump and mailing list, bots are now allowed to edit up to 15 times per minute. The following is the new text regarding bot edit rates from Wikipedia:Bot Policy:

Until new bots are accepted they should wait 30-60 seconds between edits, so as to not clog the recent changes list and user watchlists. After being accepted and a bureaucrat has marked them as a bot, they can edit at a much faster pace. Bots doing non-urgent tasks should edit approximately once every ten seconds, while bots who would benefit from faster editing may edit approximately once every every four seconds.

Also, to eliminate the need to spam the bot talk pages, please add Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard to your watchlist. Future messages which affect bot owners will be posted there. Thank you. --Mets501 03:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Useful. Because we all know that watchlists are sufficient. *rolls eyes*
James F. (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


I offer both my congratulations and commiserations :) Cheers, and good luck, Daniel.Bryant 04:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I offer my deepest condolences . . . :) --Michael Billington (talkcontribs) 06:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, well, it was getting irritating having to ask someone else to do it at times of urgency.
James F. (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia OTRS confirmation[edit]

Hi, could you please check the Wikimedia OTRS for permissions for Image:Vijaytamil.jpg and Image:Rajini in spain.jpg. They are both tagged with {{wrong-license}} and seem to link to the same permission (I would think each image gets it's own permission). --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Seemingly now actioned.
James F. (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation[edit]

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 21:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)talk to me

Thanks. Good luck with your research.
James F. (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


[[2]] - Privacy 19:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's somewhat been and gone since I've been away. Sorry.
James F. (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


"... Eventually I managed to get most of these biographies reinstated by waiting several months and then trying again, when Louis Blair was not looking. ..." - Sam Sloan (Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:12 pm)

(This is posted here by Louis Blair (March 13, 2007))

Richard Walter - Fraudulent Article[edit]


Richard Walter seems to have been created with a large amount of false information, perhaps gathered from a phony/ anonymous press release posted at "". Walters's false testimony was actually confirmed in NY v. Robie Drake. In 2003 and again in 2006 his testimony was determined to be false, misleading and could be presumed perjurious on at least one point (perjury being a very specific type of false testimony) by a fedeal judge.

This is all confirmed in the judge's ruling at: "NY v. Robie Drake" (2006). The acrobat file here was obtained from United States District Court, Western District of New York. Just select judge John Elfvin's rulings for March 2006 re: the Drake case. You'll need to select more than 100 documents per page to see it. Get the drake file.

I editted the many factual inaccurancies in the page with references to the court record online and articles regarding Mr. Walter's false testimony. However an anonymous editor immediately swooped in and removed those edits. I have reverted the page and posted a warning to the anonymous editor. Now Buzzle45 (talk · contribs), an original anonymous creator of this false information page designed to rescue Walters flailing credibility, has stepped in to replace anonymous editor (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I am not certain these are two separate individuals.

At any rate, I expected that whoever created the page would change the edits and that this issue would become something that needed an official look - as there are quite a few dedicated and obsessed people determined to keep the actual substance of this court ruling from being public. It hurts Walter, and it hurts more than a few because of their association with him.

Anonymous editor has removed the Richard Walter page at least six times aleady and has also removed this section from the Talk: Richard Walter page at least six times, since 3/18/07 to prevent me from even having a civil discussion about it with others. Buzzle45 (talk · contribs) has done the same. Not exactly actions that are conducive to resolution, let alone communication. They just don't want the ruling public because of their hero worship (that's assuming that one of the individuals is not actually Richard Walter -this a very distinct possibility).

This informaion is not libelous. It is corrective. It is the posting of a court's ruling using the court's own document. The Wikipedia entry currently states that Walters was exonnerated by the judge in the Drake case. This is not just false, it is beligerantly deceptive at this point.

Note please that I am the only person in this dispute who must testify in court on a regular basis, under oath - and that I am also the only one willing to be identified.

As it stands, the article is full of false and bloated information about Walters that is designed to prop him up despite the court ruling - so that those who use Wikipedia as their primary nfo source (and there are many too many) will be misled. It is a disgrace to the professional community, and it is the furtherance of a weakly crafted fraud.

Do not hesitate to contact me for further assistance.

Brent E. Turvey, MS - Forensic Scientist

Why is Mr. Turvey so relentless in trying to slander Richard Walter?
To accuse someone of perjury is a serious charge. Mr. Turvey makes that claim on his own websites, but that is a matter between Mr. Walter and Mr. Turvey to settle in civil court.
I hold Wikipedia to a higher standard.
In reading the court document, in the final ruling in the Drake case, the judge overturns the appeal.
In his opinion, the judge states that Mr. Walter "may" have committed perjury (which he did not), but he rules that such an issue is a moot point because Mr. Drake does not have the basis for appeal.
Thus, Drake's appeal, and all of its allegations are ruled false.
I welcome you to read the decision on Lexis-Nexis and not Mr. Turvey's version on his websites.
While on Lexis-Nexis, I would also encourage you to read about Mr. Turvey's false statements under oath in Mississippi last year and his previous false statements under oath regarding his employment by the Sitka, Alaska Police Department as a detective. (Mr. Turvey lost in court in his bid to claim that he was employed as a detective in Sitka).
Because Mr. Turvey was not allowed into the AAFS, he has spent his short career creating his own organizations and schools. His organizations are nothing more than him and a few of his former "students" posing as a substitute for the AAFS.
Still, the bitterness of rejection has never been exorcised from his soul. He maintains a website that lists several well-respected forensic pathologists as "frauds" (Mr. Walter is not his only victim).
With all due respect, his situation reminds me of a jealous child in the playground who wants to "take his toys and play on his own".
I suggest that the Richard Walter page remain permanently locked in its pre-March 17th state.
Please disregard Bturvey's threat to "show why wikipedia can't be trusted as a source in my class". He has many more enemies than friends; no one will stand in his defense.
02:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Buzzle45 (talk · contribs)
I'm afraid that I'm not sure what you wish me do.
James F. (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


Since you have participated decision making about anthroposophy, I have to ask you to read through my comments in Talk:Anthroposophy#About anthroposophical sources, please. I'm sorry that I was at first unaware what an arbitration is. Erdanion 14:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

My edit was made as part of a robotic disambiguation; I have no especial interest nor opinion on the topic, I'm afraid.
James F. (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Happy birthday![edit]

Happy birthday

Feliz cumpleaños a ti! Gratulerer med dagen! Herzlichen Glückwunsch zum Geburtstag! สุขสันต์วันเกิด! Penblwydd hapus! 誕生日おめでとう! Face-smile.svg Jon Harald Søby 06:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

For he's a jolly good fellow! Happy birthday, enjoy the day, back to work tomorrow! --Skenmy(tcn) 18:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Happy Birthday, Finding Forrester! Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 18:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, all of you. I spent it skiing, which was very nice.
James F. (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Photograph Dispute on the B-36 Article Page[edit]

This particular issue goes awhile back. I've done the suggested advice and let the situation cool down before I attempt to resolve this situation.

This is the problem, the user Rogerd has been trying to put his personal photograph on the B-36 article. He does not hide the fact that he took it since it is featured on his personal photograph gallery

I feel very strongly that he is bias towards his photograph versus the official U.S. Air Force photograph taken of the same aircraft, which in my opinion, is of better quality and is not crooked. In addition, this photograph does not show any museum spectators and does not obsecure the aircraft from view and shows more of the aircraft

I feel that I was unfairly overwhelmed by his inner circle of users on Wiki and the dispute is still unresolved in my opinion.

-Signaleer 18:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for unlisting and undoing of brand damage[edit]

I request and be unlisted from blanklist I have given details on another page and in summation. This blacklist cases brand damage haven paid money for trademarking. The blacklisting took place do to NPOSS and A and B harassment. Links added were suitable to the sections added to. The site is a ten language education site suitable for 13/14 - 18/19 in the british. Some sections on this site are too detailed some are not detailed enough etc. Anyway the constant stalking of nposs and A and B led to them malicious and false arguments which they admitted to in action. I have noticed that this is a strain of behaviour of many on this site not realising wiki world has real word effects. You have associated the site with terms such as vandalous spam etc even though spam is only spam if it is not relavent. And vandalous suggests inappropriate malicious edits which is not and was not the case. I have noticed some filthy links being allowed and countless youtube and myspace links. So arguments that were given were invalid they would accept that it was unvalid and would continue to a new argument. etc. Now there are real world consequences to what you do and they have duped you into making committing brand damage I want these sites removed from your blacklist. This is an education site. People spent 10mins plus on the pages linked to on average so they were useful this is fact! Wiki is for everyone not this clicky community it has become.They have been communicating with others to rope them into the harassment of these links. You have blacklisted even though the site has not been listed do not put wikipedia in this situation. These sites do not sell there are no advertising if there was advertising there would be nothing wrong with that either you link to countless sites that eventually sell something. Specific pages of education were linked to also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 03:57, 26 April 2007

Some relevant information. I got a note, which can be seen on my talk page here on english wiki and on meta wiki. Following my request for brevity, I got this legal threat. He admits that he uses multiple IPs,Template:EVERYONE USES MULTIPLE IPS IN EUROPE NO ONE CAN HELP THAT U ARE BEING ARGUMENTATIVE which he said is something as a result of his ISP, (accounts for why the IPs are not the same). In any case the discussions where the blacklisting was done is at:
As I did the original blacklisting I'm going to leave this up to a second meta admin. Regards. —— Eagle101 Need help? 04:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes these guys are thorough in there harassment. It is only a matter of before wiki gets in trouble by this kind of behaviour. You guys are public I will want all mention of these sites to be taken from these pages. was not even linked to on wikipedia as that is my front page and would serve absolutely no purpose what so ever he simply did that one out of plain harassment I wouldnt be surprised if he added it himself. You shouldnt allow people like that on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 05:01, 26 April 2007

See en:User talk:Rickie rich#Summary: accounts and behaviour on Wikipedia for a summary of this user's multiple accounts, domains, blocks and discussions.--A. B. (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Template:EVERYONE USES MULTIPLE IPS IN EUROPE NO ONE CAN HELP THAT U ARE BEING ARGUMENTATIVE Template:STOP STALKING ME

Goto rickie rich user talk for proof of stalking by A B he has catalogued the extent of his stalking and admitts to brand damaging of {help me} Stalkin AB has now tracked down my address and encouraged viewing. EAGLE WHY are you not address my concerns this is not acceptable. eagle Everybody uses multiple IPs no one has a static IP anymore in Europe I have explained this over and over again. There is a real world out there you cannot do things by wiki world rules now make the changes I have requested stop fanning the flames. How can you adhere to brand damage and fight for the continuing support of brand damage. Fix this problem please.

Image:Society for German Soviet Friendship.PNG[edit]

Hello Jdforrester, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Society for German Soviet Friendship.PNG) was found at the following location: User:Jdforrester/Images. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 19:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi James, what is "FWICT" ? Tnx, Zeq 05:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It means "From What I Can Tell".
James F. (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
TNX Zeq 19:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

prescriptive, not descriptive!?[edit]


So at the end of this section, DES is arguing that descriptive guidelines could not possibly ever work.

Since you've basically written guidelines from early on, perhaps you could set him straight? :-) --Kim Bruning 20:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Still an unresolved problem[edit]

As you were an arbcom member in the former cases concerning Onefortyone and Ted Wilkes, may I ask you to have a look at [3]. To my mind, there can be no doubt that User:Northmeister is identical with Ted Wilkes alias multiple-hardbanned User:DW, as he constantly removes the same content from Elvis-related article pages that Wilkes removed in the past. There may also be some further sockpuppets at work as in the recent case of Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo, because there are too many editors now removing well-sourced material I have contributed to article pages. See, for instance, this edit that deleted well-sourced information and even removed a discussion of important sources concerning Elvis Presley, another edit that also removed blocks of well-sourced material and put relatively unimportant information about Bush's and Koizumi's visit to Graceland in first place of the article, and this one which again removed blocks of well-sourced information I have contributed. Furthermore, if Northmeister is actually identical with Wilkes, then this sockpuppet has clearly violated Wilkes's probation. Some administrators were also of the opinion that there is something fishy about the matter and they suggested that this material be removed to WP:SSP for thorough investigation. However, I am at a loss what to do. Perhaps you can help. 18:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Paul Dacre[edit]

elements cross-posted

The article was deleted for being an attack piece. Managing to cite others' opinions does not make it neutral; I now have significant NPOV concerns in what is, essentially, your creation. Note that your extensive efforts have sourced 10 of 12 cites from El Grauniad/The Indie - very balanced. How about we work more productively to make a proper article?

I freely admit that the article is 'work in progress', the Independent and Guardian pieces dominate because Google lists them among their 'hits' near the start of the results. I filled out reference to the Lawrence case and the poll result in the introducttion to 'humanize' Paul Dacre. In due course I will doubtless come across others and add them too. Philip Cross 18:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
JDF, I'm curious as to why you have reformatted my page references on the Paul Dacre article with the use of stops. My recent Oxford Manual of Style describes the practice as "anachronistic", which is why I do not use them. Certainly it still seems to be the practice in the USA (although page references are usually given without a [prefix] at all now), witness the need to use them on Amazon for T.S Eliot, etc, but the WP house style is for American usage to be used on pages revelevant to those countries. Philip Cross 13:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. The OMS is rather reknowned for being, well, "radical", seeing itself as "fighting the good fight" against anything that might derive from a Classical education; their anti-Latinate stance is why they oppose "pp.". I would consel against its use as an authoratative text when writing items for "real" useage. As to the use of dots, well, that's again a stylistic point, because apparently using a dot to denote brevity uses too much time.
James F. (talk) 12:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki links[edit]

Hi James. Your browser seems to be having trouble with interwiki links; see this and this edit. Until you get that fixed, alt + shift + v will help you catch if they are being changed by your edit. Picaroon (Talk) 20:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Argh, how bizzare. Maybe it's a bug with the new version of Firefox? Will check in future, yes. :-)
James F. (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Countries mk. II[edit]

Template:Infobox Countries mk. II has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, have speedied.
James F. (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

US Map images[edit]

Hi there, you were involved back in 2003 in the creation of 1000+ images of county locations in US States in PNG format. Of all these have since been uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons in SVG format and so with the help of User:The Anome I have listed all of the Wikipedia versions and and put them up as images for deletion. As all the images are now superseded orphans this seemed like the sensible thing to do. If you disagree please make a comment on the deletion discussion page at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 June 9. Best wishes. Madmedea 17:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, will go.
James F. (talk) 11:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


What is this? :) -- Cat chi? 09:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a relic of the 2006 Board elections. I suppose I should have it removed.
James F. (talk) 12:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi James. I was just coming here to notify you that I was proposing the removal of those board vote admin flags over at Meta, so I decided to drop the message in the relevant section. See the discussion on Meta:Babel. Picaroon (Talk) 04:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; have thrown in my comment there.
James F. (talk) 10:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Email for you[edit]

Email for you. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


I would like to hear your advice as to how to proceed on a current deadlock on the article on Food Irradiation. After an edit war the article was blocked and heavily discussed on its talk page each fraction accusing the other of NPOV violations. Personal attacks were common and the Mediation Cabal was brought in for mediation. The mediation page was created and the only user User:MonstretM who presented a differing viewpoint to the rest of the group abandoned mediation citing lack of experience and bias of the mediator. The underlying issue as I see it is that either party feels that the other would like to guve undue weight to a minority position. There are also issues with out of context citations etc. on the article. My question to you is if you feel if formal mediation might be a helpful step prior to asking for abribitration or if there is additional steps that we might pursue. My gut feeling is that there is a lack of good faith assumption on either side of the debate. Thanks for your advice. RayosMcQueen 19:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Recreation of category US federal securities legislation[edit]

I have taken the liberty of recreating this category as I think it is useful to put the specific statutes relating to federal securities law into a single category. I note you deleted this category about 15 months ago, but don't quite see why. --Conant Webb 17:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It was a CfD, by the looks of things. I merely was the executing sysop, I don't think I had any input into the question.
James F. (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit to the main page[edit]

I'm confused by this edit. You first say that the image is in fact PD, but then remove it because it is FU? JoshuaZ 16:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm more confused by the comment "per discussion". Do you mean the various posts I started about this image? I thought it was public domain, and was trying to get people to agree this before it went on the main page. I'm uncertain if Deskana knew about these discussions before removing the image (I'm asking on Deskana's talk page), but wondered if you could point me to any further discussion that took place? Carcharoth 01:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Deskana has indicated that discussion took place on IRC. I've left this comment on her talk page: "Right, so the people on IRC didn't bother to look on-wiki to find the discussions there? There were at least three places: Talk:Main Page#Main page image; Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/August 25, 2007 and Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Free or not?. I get the impression that the same discussion on IRC concluded that the picture was public domain. It would be nice to know if these discussions were independent of the on-wiki discussions, or whether they were a response to the on-wiki discussions. If the latter, it would be courteous at least to update the on-wiki discussions for the benefit of those who do not use IRC." I'd appreciate your input as to whether the IRC discussions should have been summarised better on-wiki. Carcharoth 16:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
More discussion ensued at User talk:Deskana#Main page image. Carcharoth 17:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Replied there.
James F. (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Non-free media at Intelligent design[edit]

You said at the request for arbitration that ARBCOM was not the right place for this discussion. Can you please tall me where would be the right place? -Thanks Nv8200p talk 14:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser Access Log[edit]

Hello - thank you for the reply. I was unsure whether I should reply here, or to the crosspost on my user page or to the page.

No, I have no complaint about the actions of any individual regarding their access to the CheckUser tool, although as such usage is not publicly visible, how would I even know?

I was just surprised to see that knowledge available only through checkuser was given to an administrator with no record of the checkuser occurring.

The English Wikipedia [[4]] gives the appearance that an on-wiki log of checkuser access (by who, why, and what data is revealed) is standard, when in fact off wiki checkuser access may be more common (it is impossible to tell) and there is no record of who the data is distributed to.

Also, I was quite surprised to see that while checkuser access is restricted to a few (with proof of age and existence required) that there is no check on who they distribute data from the checkuser to and a checkuser rightholder may routinely give the checkuser data to admins who do not themselves have checkuser access.

At the minumum there should be a log visible to all of who did a checkuser access and what IP or username they did the access on (though of course not the corresponding data).

If the reason field would be "too revealing" I would have no problem with not including it. Possibly the checkuser access log could be used to say "He's had CheckUser requests run against his user name, so he must be evil" but that would be a reasonable price to pay for the increased transparency about who is viewing Wikipedians personal information and when (if not why). Uncle uncle uncle 04:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

replied on meta.
James F. (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

A question[edit]

In a comment yesterday on TfD, you opined that someone was proceeding from the faulty premise that (non-)notability is a deletion criterion. But in my experience, a topic's notability or lack of notability is frequently the basis for AfD nominations and comments, and the deletion policy does indeed seem to list failure to meet the applicable notability guideline as a basis for deletion. What subtlety am I apparently missing here? Regards, Newyorkbrad 11:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Replied at the time via IRC.
James F. (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

IP block due to suspected COI[edit]

Jdforrester, on October 12 2007 Yamla blocked an IP range because of suspected COI at the Fellowship of Friends article. A discussion was started at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard but Yamla hasn't participated for almost 2 weeks. Meanwhile, the IP block is affecting 3 editors of the page. Could you help decide if the IP block is appropriate? I am one of the editor affected by the IP block and strongly feel that Yamla's action was too harsh. Thank you in advance. Mfantoni 07:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Succession box/temp[edit]

Hi, I just noticed that a template you created, Template:Succession box/temp, is unused and appears to be abandoned. I've marked it as deprecated, meaning it'll be deleted in two weeks' time if nobody objects. If there's a reason to keep it please leave a note at Wikipedia talk:Deprecated and orphaned templates and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. Thanks. Bryan Derksen 05:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

James F. (talk) 09:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Q&A Page[edit]

Editors recognize that the Arbitrators do not have time to follow, in real time, all of the diffs on all of the pages of all of the arbitration cases. Editors recognize that questions that they would like to ask the Arbitrators would usually get no response, or a much delayed response, if asked in one of the several talk pages of the arbitration. In response to this, many editors will message Arbitrators directly on their talk pages, which garners a much faster response.

The problem with doing so is that, consequently, discussion relevant to the Arbitration is split from the remainder of the discussion. Those who haven't watchlisted Arbitrators' talk pages might not even be aware of the communication. I think that this is problematic, but I would like to suggest a solution.

I believe that a Question and Answer Page (by whatever title is appropriate) would be a useful addition to Arbitration. There, users could ask questions, and arbitrators could reply as needed. This resolves the current problems: it provides a clean space that arbitrators can readily keep track without getting lost in tens or hundreds of daily diffs, it allows users a place to ask a question and reasonably expect that an Arbitrator will see it, and it keeps all of the discussion within the Arbitration, instead of allowing it to get scattered across Userspace where some participants might not see it.

If you think this is reasonable, would it be possible to add it to the current Science Apologist and Martinphi Arbitration that is currently ongoing? Thank you for your consideration. Note: I am canvassing all active arbitrators on this issue because I feel that this is a neutral suggestion. Antelan talk 06:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

We already have this - the case talk pages suffice. There is only ever some limited over-lap between the four different pages, and most of the direct questions to Arbitrators ends up on the "/Proposed decision" sub-page's talk.
James F. (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts. I've updated the proposal here after input from Kirill. Now the suggestion is to have one Q&A page total (not per Case), and the questions can be moved after an arbitration case is closed. I certainly understand that there is a desire not to add more complexity, however. Thanks - Antelan talk 07:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Make WP:VANDALISM less vague, define "deliberate" & "good-faith effort"[edit]

Would you comment on Wikipedia talk:Vandalism#Make it less vague, define "deliberate" & "good-faith effort", please? Sincerely, - 22:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Followed-up there. (To answer if anyone cases, I'm not in favour.)
James F. (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

irc cloaks[edit]

Hi James. Sorry to trouble you, but a while back you set me up with an irc cloak, but I've since had a username change [5] and I wondered if I could change my cloak. The only info I can find on Wikipedia directs me to here, [6], which doesn't seem to help. Can you help or do you have any ideas? Hiding T 19:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Your note[edit]

I'd appreciate a response. [7] SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Which I've given. I'm not glued to the wiki, you know. :-)
James F. (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

United Nations Parliamentary Assembly[edit]

Please vote at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United Nations Parliamentary Assembly. Thanks, Sarsaparilla (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for highlighting this to me, and keep up the good work.
James F. (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Nnimrodd ban[edit]


I saw that you blocked User:Nnimrodd a while ago, citing all project ban. I tried to look for that decision and couldn't find it. Can you help me please? Thanks. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Beep beep, did you miss this?
Can you please help me find that ban decision? I suspect that this user operates sock puppets now. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

To the opposers in my RfA[edit]

I would like to apologise for my intemperate comments during the Melsaran affair. I accept that I should have expressed myself more civilly, and should have waited for the ArbCom to explain themselves rather than jumping to conclusions and condemning them. I can honestly say that I regret my reaction.

In my defence, I would like to reiterate that I did not use the admin tools in any way in relation to the Melsaran affair. I am completely aware that it would be a very bad idea to wheel-war with ArbCom, and I can honestly say that I would never do so.

For what it's worth, I genuinely don't dislike the ArbCom. I respect the fact that they have to make tough decisions, and I understand that sometimes these decisions must be made in secret. It is true that I have a natural aversion to authority and secrecy; this is part of my character. But in future I will do my best to treat the arbitrators with more respect and to assume good faith on their part.

I served this community for seven months as an administrator, with very little criticism. I believe that I can continue to help Wikipedia by serving as an administrator. I ask you to look at the beneficial contributions I've made to the encyclopedia; I believe that the good I can do outweighs the problems with my somewhat combative nature.

Please give me a second chance. WaltonOne 13:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you're ignoring me intentionally. I made the above post civilly and in good faith, and I would appreciate a response of some kind - while you may believe that I am unsuitable to be an administrator, I am still a long-term contributor in good standing and I think I'm entitled to some basic courtesy. (Of course, if you just haven't got round to answering yet, then please ignore this message.) WaltonOne 16:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I apologise for this comment - looking closer at your contrib history I realise that you haven't edited much in the last couple of days and probably just haven't got around to answering. WaltonOne 16:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey. You're right that I've not been around much; sorry for not replying more quickly. As to the substance of your comment, I'm happy that you've passed your secondary RfA - had I had the opportunity, I would have changed my input.
James F. (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The Wessex Children[edit]

Dear Sir, you are cordially invited to join a discussion on this matter at WikiProject British Royalty. Yours in anticipation, DBD 16:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Fun. Only mildly annoyed that I missed it - it's a horrendous kludge on the part of the Palace, really.
James F. (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:University of Warwick logo.png[edit]

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:University of Warwick logo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Snowman (talk) 11:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. You could have just done this for yourself, you know. :-)
James F. (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

London meetup[edit]

Hi I posted the suggestion that we should have a London Wikipedia meetup next week here. Would be cool if we could get some people together. I was thinking either a social meet or maybe a collaboration meetup where we bring a selected London article up to GA or even FA status. Poeloq (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

July 2005[edit]

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article July 2005, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sent in error. See report.
James F. (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi! I've been back on and off, but not very much and mainly just making minor corrections I spot randomly, so I'm not surprised you haven't noticed me. Hopefully I'll be getting back into the swing of things, though. :-) It seems Lady Royall of Blaisdon is still Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms — she's listed as such on the PM's website, at any rate. I suppose they don't have any choice, really, as she needs some sort of official position in order to be paid (I assume whips are party officers rather than government officers). I'd assume that was also the case when it first came up (as it was, of course, with "First Lord of the Treasury" etc.). Proteus (Talk) 14:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Alison Wheeler[edit]

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Alison Wheeler, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 12:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Alison Wheeler[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

An editor has nominated Alison Wheeler, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Wheeler (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)