User talk:John Vandenberg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at

This user prefers to be notified by Notifications. Please use {{ping}} or {{reply to}} when you reply to this user. No talkback messages are needed.


Thanks for the thanks[edit]

Although I can see your message on the edit history of my talk page for some reason I can't see it on the talk page itself. Thanks for the thanks, and thanks for all your hard work too. It's my birthday today and although I always work I am not that self-centred I might have a little bit of fun. I do take Wikipedia very seriously but occasionally I take a light tone or throw in an odd anecdote just to stop people getting far too grumpy for what should be an enjoyable hobby. The articles should be serious but the talk should be friendly: that's my general approach. I see your hard work too and thank you for it: of course we will not always agree but that is why there is a discussion. Si Trew (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


Congratulations on the birth of your son. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 01:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks mate. He is nearly two months old and all is well. What a ride! John Vandenberg (chat)
My congratulations as well. No wonder you are on Wikipedia so much, must be keeping you up at nights! Si Trew (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit filter manager?[edit]

Yo, John Vandenberg, I saw that you gave SimonTrew edit filter manager. Isn't that a bit bigger a deal as far as permissions go? Reading Wikipedia:Edit filter makes it seem like it's a pretty sensitive right; certainly a lot bigger a deal than rollback; it says that there has to be a period of discussion before it can be granted, that it needs to be granted only for explicit needs, etc etc. Anyway, I'm not really the type to make a big fuss over this or whatever, but maybe it's not a good right to be giving out when people haven't even asked for it? Writ Keeper  05:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Yea, I've removed it. I must have clicked the wrong thing when giving out rollback. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah, okay, thanks! Not that I think he would abuse it or anything, but the forms must be obeyed. Writ Keeper  01:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
@Writ Keeper: Oh, on my talk page I suggested to JV it should be removed, I have no idea what it even is. I don't know if you or JV are admins, but I do not want to be an admin. I am a gnome. I just created the stub Black & Decker Workmate and will add a pic when it gets light (the birdies are awake and the cat is in so can't be long yet) I am using mine as my garden table in the absence of anything better also rather handy for working in the house and is a bit dirty with paint and my hole saw and stuff so it probably will make an apt piccy, you don't want one looking too new. Si Trew (talk) 03:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
(@Writ Keeper: I assume JvB don't need a ping) I only just noticed the date on the original post. Perhaps it was a birthday present. How did you know?! Did the right ever get taken away? I've never used it – no idea what it is or what it's for. Si Trew (talk) 09:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
The 'edit filter manager' right was removed, but you still have 'rollback' rights. I am sure you can use it wisely, if and when required, or when you are bored enough to read WP:ROLLBACK. You may have mentioned that it was your birthday, but I dont recall. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Uc-logo.png[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Uc-logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Australian Renewable Energy Agency[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Australian Renewable Energy Agency at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough case clarified[edit]

The arbitration clarification request, either involving you, or in which you participated (Rich Farmbrough) has resulted in a clarification motion by the Arbitration Committee

The Clarification can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough#Clarifications_by_motion and the complete discussion can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough#Clarification_request:_Rich_Farmbrough_.28April_2014.29 For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Theodore Katsanevas[edit]

Hello John, the time this nomination is taking is truly ridiculous, any idea on how to unstuck it? It seems any editor is allowed to boycott a nomination by replacing a sourced hook proposal with a piece of original research which will then be rejected. --Nemo 08:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Adding: the next thing going to happen is that the review will be questioned because the reviewer is "defined a disgrace". Remember, ALT7 is approved, someone could simply confirm that, - I could be construed as involved (I wasn't), otherwise I would do it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

On mobile & travelling atm so I cant do much. I suggest a new hook something like: that greek judge ... has ordered that a phrase in the Greek Wikipedia biography of Theodore K... be removed. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. Source? (I really was not involved.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
the judge may have ordered the article deleted. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
thank you, done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

OER inquiry[edit]

Hi John Vandenberg, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Has this been approved by the meta:Research Committee ? John Vandenberg (chat) 08:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Some advice[edit]

Don't you know that philately will get you nowhere? [1] EEng (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Australian Renewable Energy Agency[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


I see the discussion was closed as "no consensus". T:WPMHA would work for me; does that work better for you? - Dank (push to talk) 17:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

That would address the main issue I raised at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 22#T:WPMA. Thanks. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Done, with a note at the link you just gave. - Dank (push to talk) 22:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed wikis[edit]

Ampel by DraGoth.gif Thanks
Hello there. This is to say thank you for your support for NonFreeWiki; it is much appreciated. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Mera Tera Rishta Purana[edit]

Can you move this Mera Tera Rishta Purana article history in Ye Hai Mohabbatein? Actually this article's title has been changed. (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done John Vandenberg (chat) 15:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Phineas Gage". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 23 May 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 22:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning Phineas Gage, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 01:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

@John Vandenberg:

Vera Charles[edit]

Thanks for more correct information on her, including a great photo. MerielGJones (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

And thanks MerielGJones for cropping that photo and heavily revising the article. It is looking much better now. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:CAULmed.png[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:CAULmed.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Sharpville-massacre.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Sharpville-massacre.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Stefan2, this file had a FUR, but it was removed by user:Sfan00 IMG because at the time the PD-ZA tag was consider sufficient. Now that URAA is being tackled, it would make sense to check the history of images for similar FUR removals before templating images which were uploaded to English Wikipedia in 2007, which means they have been subject to many non-free reviews already. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:NFC#UUI §7, that FUR doesn't address WP:NFCC#2 correctly. Therefore, just reinstating the old FUR is no option, as that FUR is insufficient. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry but this situation is contrary to the policies you quote. The image I uploaded is an edition published long ago and of much lower quality - the commercial value of the photograph is not diminished by this low res, low quality edition of a image that is not replaceable for the massacre article - I see it is also on another article, and I have no opinion on its utility there. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:NFC#UUI §7, photos from press and photo agencies may not be used unless there is sourced critical discussion about the photo itself. This one is sourced to three different agencies. WP:NFC#UUI §7 does not say anything about the age of the photo. I am not sure why you are bringing WP:NFCC#1 in; WP:NFC#UUI §7 is only about WP:NFCC#2, and WP:NFCC#2 needs to be satisfied independently of WP:NFCC#1. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

So you are alive[edit]

In your absence I've been making friends and influencing people [2]. Hope all is well. EEng (talk) 06:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Sharpville-massacre.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Sharpville-massacre.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 11:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

IPC European Swimming Championships[edit]

Hi John, I may be wandering over to the wrong person but I'm going to try to focus on the article 2014 IPC Swimming European Championships this summer. Do you know if there are any attempts to grab some photos of this event. It would be great if we could have a Wikipedian from Eindhoven just to take a shot of the stadium with the logo, but it would be better to get some actual athlete shots. Any advice on this would be appreciated. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

G'day FruitMonkey. You're wandering in the roughly the right direction, but I can only try to refer you on, as Australia wont be going to that event. Probably the best people to ask are Wikimedia Netherlands, and I am guessing from wmnl:Contact/wmnl:Bestuur that user:Ronn is the best person to speak to. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Someone else to talk to is User:Effeietsanders, and/or try to email photographers in Category:Wikipedians in the Netherlands and c:Category:Wikipedians in the Netherlands. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I suggest you try nl:Wikipedia:Afbeelding_gewenst, the requests for images page. Poke User:FruitMonkey. effeietsanders 19:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


Are you going? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Not this time for me. Are you? John Vandenberg (chat) 12:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Yep. And catching up with relatives. Mostly the latter - but I'm hoping to meet up with a couple of Wikipedia critics, too. (I'm just deciding what to pack Face-smile.svg). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

About the Superprotects rights[edit]

Hi John, I hope you and your people are doing fine. I've just read what is going on about the Superprotects rights on WO and then in Meta, and I thought my idea might be of some interest. I don't know if there can be a solution fighting against this kind of abusive position (which is not uncommon unfortunately...) but well you know the Catalan page/petition created in Meta (] was probably helpful in the creation of thorgs (there were also tags showing users' support), and then the Catalan thorg. Therefore, creating a page of people opposed to the Superprotects rights could act as some kind of pressure on Wikimedia, having people there gradually showing their discontent in a similar fashion. If you should need some help in translating and reaching other wikipedias if you should ever decide to do it, just let me know, I'll be glad to help! Take care and I wish you and your family a wonderful summertime! Claudi/Capsot (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

G'day Claudi, I am hoping this ends with WMF backing down, which they eventually did for meta:Community Logo/Reclaim the Logo. I hope the meta RFC provides a forum for discussions that allow the WMF to see how this will lead to losses of their volunteer workforce, and probably credible forks arising. I'll give the WMF board a few months to rectify this, as we did last time; if they don't, we'll need to get a bunch of the community together to design and build a better mouse trap. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Man, you're really optimistic, I hope you'll prove right! I tend to think that time usually plays against the ones who don't have the power: they get more divided, discuss a lot, some get tired, don't care anymore or get busy with new problems... but well let's hope some people in the Foundation will realize they will have more losses than gains if this thing goes on... Good luck! Wish you all the best! Claudi/Capsot (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) Media Viewer RfC[edit]

You are being notified because you have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. Alsee (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


Is there any chance you could add a translation to Template:Contrib-id1 in the style of Template:Contrib-ta1, pretty please? Bazj (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

No worries, I'll take it to WT:WikiProject Indonesia. Bazj (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Precious again[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Australia and the world
Thank you for years of service, adding countless quality articles on literature and journals, in Australia and the world, creating disambiguations pages, caring about people, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 288th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer![edit]

Your Eastern Europe alert[edit]

Hi, I am somewhat concerned about your decision to issue me with an Eastern Europe alert template and to log this as a notification on the case page. As an administrator, you know that this alert was superfluous because I am active as an admin in this topic area and have issued many discretionary sanctions myself, which is apparent from how often my name appears as sanctioning admin in the log you edited. Because of this, I was already plainly aware of the existence of discretionary sanctions in this topic area, and your alert served no useful purpose that I can discern. Moreover, it is not clear why you chose to log this as a "notification" even though, as you must know, the procedure documented at WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts has replaced logged notifications with non-logged alerts. Could you explain why I should not consider this a disruptive issuing of alerts, which is subject to sanctions also per WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts? Thanks in advance,  Sandstein  12:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

While it is not strictly necessary to alert you, given that you have issued warnings to other people before, I felt it was necessary in these strange circumstances to make sure it is quite official-like to ensure you know that you are now subject to sanctions, which I thought was pretty clear from the section title and message that follows. I dont believe you have been issued with an alert in the last 12 months, so I believe it is not against procedure to issue with an alert. I'd be delighted if you could point me to the precise passage which is your basis for threatening to sanction me for alerting you. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:AC#Awareness and alerts, "any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned". I believe that your issuing (and unneeded logging) of the alert was disruptive because, as you write above, you knew that it was not necessary to inform me about the existence of discretionary sanctions. It therefore appears that you used the alert procedure and the log entry not to actually inform me about discretionary sanctions, but that you misused the procedure to mark your disapproval of the speedy deletion I made, which you also commented on. That is not the purpose of alerts, and it is not how admins are expected to communicate with each other about disagreements concerning each other's actions. I'd like to ask you to acknowledge that you will not again use the alerts procedure in this manner, and to remove the out-of-process log entry. Regards,  Sandstein  13:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
May I ask how you're able to ask John to remove the discretionary sanctions, above, but elsewhere on Wikipedia, where you're the administrator issuing discretionary sanctions, you've said they cannot be revoked. Which is it ? Nick (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
This isn't about discretionary sanctions themselves (which by the way can be revoked, by way of an appeal), but about an alert that was logged contrary to a procedure adopted by the Committee specifically to, among other things, omit the need to log alerts on a page. The previous discussions you may remember were about notifications that used to be logged prior to the adoption of the procedure now in force.  Sandstein  13:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
What part of "... I felt it was necessary ...", in my previous message above, didnt you understand? I believe it is necessary to ensure you're officially notified that it now applies to you and your administrative actions in this area. I do feel in these circumstances it is necessary to also log it on the case page log, but I am checking whether that is now forbidden; if it is, I will remove it. If you would prefer, I am happy to take this to ANI or A/R/A for review. Up to you. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Why don't you come spend your time somewhere where everyone's friendly and calm, like Talk:Phineas Gage? EEng (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
"friendly and calm" hmm .. I go to Wikisource or Wikidata when I need a bit of that. :-) John Vandenberg (chat)
Loner-geek. How's the kid? And are we ever gonna get to you project we discussed 10 months ago? EEng (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I've checked quite a few of the arbcase log pages, and see that admins are now logging these as 'warnings', which typically include the standard alert and a more specific comment; I can give many examples if you like. So, please consider yourself officially warned; I've updated the terminology in the arbcase log. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
As you suggested, I have asked the Committee to review this matter at WP:ARCA#Clarification request and appeal: Discretionary sanctions alerts.  Sandstein  16:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

John Vandenberg: your "alert" and subsequent "warning" were not only both out of process (Sandstein has said everything necessary about the "alert" thing, and as for logged "warnings", the fact is we really don't do these any longer; the whole thing about the "alert" reform was to make problems about contentious or misapplied logged warnings go away). Your warning was also wrong and unjustified on its merits. Your entire objection to Sandstein's action was apparently based on the notion that there had been a prior AfD, which you thought barred later application of a CSD. However, Sandstein is obviously right in saying that the facts relevant to the CSD in question (authorship of a banned sock) weren't brought up in the AfD at all. It is common policy that an AfD keep cannot preclude later speedies on the basis of facts that the AfD didn't address and/or that weren't known at the time of the AfD, and about which the AfD therefore couldn't possibly create a consensus.

I strongly recommend you simply remove your warning from the log yourself. If you insist on letting it stand, you will have to make a case how Sandstein's administrative action constitutes a serious breach of expected standards of editorial behaviour – which, if I may add, will quite likely backfire against you (as would, obviously, any attempts by you to follow up on the warning by actually imposing a sanction in any further comparable case). Alternatively, I will add another note to the log myself, as a third and uninvolved administrator, marking your "warning" explicitly as out-of-process and as lacking consensus. Fut.Perf. 18:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I trust you have made yourself aware of the extensive history involving Sandstein and Russavia, which stretches back more than four years, and has included five blocks placed against Russavia's account by Sandstein, one of which involved talk page access being withdrawn, and the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys case, where Sandstein was the filing party. I'm assuming the utmost good faith here, releasing that Sandstein has taken DS enforcement action many users, but his claim I remember Russavia only as an editor with whom I interacted in an admin capacity because of misconduct in the Eastern Europe topic area before they were apparently site-banned. I think I issued blocks or other sanctions against them a few years ago. is not an accurate reflection of his involvement with Russavia.
The deletion of Polandball probably should have raised, at the time, some concerns of involvement which could have been dealt with in 2012. Sandstein, who deleted Polandball, had previously blocked Russavia (under Arb Enforcement) and filed an Arbitration Case against Russavia. The closure itself isn't bad and it was a very finely balanced argument; it could easily have been closed as a Keep or No Consensus, but given the past history and simple human nature which could lead to unconscious decision making, it should have been closed either by another administrator, or another administrator confirming Sandstein's decision.
The deletion was possibly a little problematic, but the involvement of Sandstein in the deletion review is really well into being far too involved to consider their behaviour and comments as impartial and neutral. The comments today genuinely raise concerns of involvement, of battleground mentality and abuse of administrative tools to further some sort of dispute or vendetta. I've said previously but will repeat it again, I would never consider it appropriate to warn someone (or notify them, as it's being put) that they're open to being sanctioned when they open a Deletion Review to contest a deletion decision I took. It looks absolutely terrible, like administrators are running their own private little fiefdom, where editors, the serfs, dare not speak out when they think something is wrong.
We're here to service editors and provide content for readers, not fight with each other. The behaviour I've seen from some of my fellow administrators today makes me really sick and very worried for the future of a project that's already looking like it's at death's door. Nick (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, I suggest that you put forward your opinions at WP:ARCA, which Sandstein has chosen as the venue to discuss it. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Request re the Arbcom clarification request[edit]

I've been under the weather for a few days, so haven't kept up with the goings on at this clarification request. An arb has requested that it be archived.I am preparing to do so, but I note the statement from @AGK: indicating that John Vandenberg needs to decide whether he wanted to caution and sanction Sandstein (it appears he did) or alert him. If it is the former, he should issue Sandstein with a hand-written caution (and delete the alert template, which he may not use for that purpose). If it is the latter, Sandstein is already aware per point II of the relevant procedure and he must not attempt to 're-alert' him.

In my archival, I include a brief summary of the disposition. Can you let me know whether you ended up with a caution and sanction or an alert? Or something else?--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

G'day Sphilbrick, it was a caution. While it did contain the alert template, which apparently is now strictly forbidden for warnings, it did include a hand-written note explaining the problem at hand. I couldnt delete the alert template from Sandstein's talk page as AGK requested and many arbs agreed with ... because Sandstein had already removed it .. I dont think anyone picked up on the fact I dont have a time machine and dont have any intention of getting into a fight with Sandstein on his WP:OWNTALK to re-add the text to his talk page and then remove some of the re-added text in order to comply with a bunch of arbs who are very fond of their new rules. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks --S Philbrick(Talk) 14:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Clarification request closed and archived[edit]

The clarification request, initiated by Sandstein, and involving John Vandenberg, has been closed and archived here, For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hiya again Sphilbrick, I can't find the brief summary of the disposition..? John Vandenberg (chat) 15:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Because there are some templates on that page. the summary, which would normally be in the upper right, floated down to mid-section. However, I was just informed that I archived it tot he wrong location, so hold that thought while I update the location.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Location updated, the brief summary will be easier to locate now)--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Nicely done. Much appreciated. John Vandenberg (chat) 18:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. The clarification request resulted in the arbitrators agreeing with the following advice by AGK:

"John Vandenberg needs to decide whether he wanted to caution and sanction Sandstein (it appears he did) or alert him. If it is the former, he should issue Sandstein with a hand-written caution (and delete the alert template, which he may not use for that purpose). If it is the latter, Sandstein is already aware per point II of the relevant procedure and he must not attempt to 're-alert' him. (...) I would remind him and all administrators generally that, before engaging in this process, you must take five minutes to update yourself on these changes. If you do not, you can be sanctioned by the committee, and given that this process is hardly in its infancy you are likely to find the committee exercises this right."

In the light of this, I'd like to ask you to either decide that you meant to issue an alert, and as a consequence that you undo all your messages and log entries regarding my admin actions concerning this matter. This would end the matter as far as I'm concerned. I advise you to do this because I consider these messages and log entries both procedurally mistaken and materially unfounded.
If on the other hand you decide that you meant to issue a sanction, please tell me (by way of the "hand-written caution" AGK refers to) which specific edits by me you consider to violate which Wikipedia rule of conduct, and on the basis of which arbitration remedy you mean to enact which sanction. This will allow me to appeal the sanction in a reasonably focused manner, and to consider whether I should ask for you to be sanctioned for the frivolous use of the discretionary sanctions procedure.
Thanks in advance for your prompt reply. I am also sending this to you per Wikipedia e-mail.  Sandstein  20:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the discussion above? John Vandenberg (chat) 20:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes. And?  Sandstein  21:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Well there is your answer. If you cant see it, let me know and I'll give a more detailed response tomorrow - its 4:30am here. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I see that the closing clerk wrote: "Vandenberg confirmed that a caution was intended and the alert template was removed." However, this is not very helpful: I can't see where you did confirm anything or where you issued the "hand-written caution" that AGK asked you to write. I therefore ask you again, one last time, to expressly confirm whether you intended or intend to issue an alert or a sanction, and, if a sanction, to state expressly which edits by me violated which conduct rule and on the basis of which remedy you intend to impose which sanction. Thanks,  Sandstein  21:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Because you have not responded to my request above, I have again seized the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Eastern Europe, where you may make a statement.  Sandstein  19:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


Weihnachten10.gif Happy Holiday Cheer
Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys! Paine
Wikipe-tan holding sign Season's Greetings.png Season's Greetings and Good Wishes
Best wishes for the season and the new year to you and your wonderful family. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Divbegin[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Divbegin has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.  Gadget850 talk 10:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request[edit]

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that the amendment request in which you were named as a party has been closed and archived. The Committee decided to remove the logged entry from the case page, but felt that there was no further action needed. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 08:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of International Journal of Hydrogen Energy[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article International Journal of Hydrogen Energy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No coverage in independent, reliable sources meeting WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. VQuakr (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of International Journal of Hydrogen Energy for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article International Journal of Hydrogen Energy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Journal of Hydrogen Energy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. VQuakr (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Userbox for former Arbs[edit]

Note the bananas. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Your administrator and bureaucrat status on the Latin Wikisource[edit]

Hello. A policy regarding the removal of "advanced rights" (administrator, bureaucrat, etc.) was adopted by community consensus in 2013. According to this policy, the stewards are reviewing activity on wikis with no inactivity policy.

You meet the inactivity criteria (no edits and no log actions for 2 years) on the wiki listed above. Since that wiki does not have its own rights review process, the global one applies.

If you want to keep your rights, you should inform the community of the wiki about the fact that the stewards have sent you this information about your inactivity. If the community has a discussion about it and then wants you to keep your rights, please contact the stewards at m:Stewards' noticeboard, and link to the discussion of the local community, where they express their wish to continue to maintain the rights.

If you wish to resign your rights, you can reply here or request removal of your rights on Meta.

If there is no response at all after approximately one month, stewards will proceed to remove your administrator and/or bureaucrat rights. In ambiguous cases, stewards will evaluate the responses and will refer a decision back to the local community for their comment and review. If you have any questions, please contact the stewards. Rschen7754 19:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Non-free use of File:American zoologist 41 6.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:American zoologist 41 6.jpg. However, there is a concern that the use of the image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. Details of this problem, and which specific criteria that the image may not meet, can be obtained by going to the image description page. If you feel that this image does meet those criteria, please place a note on the image description or talk page explaining why. Do not remove the {{di-fails NFCC}} tag itself.

An administrator will review this file within a few days, and having considered the opinions placed on the image page, may delete it in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion or remove the tag entirely. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hague justice portal logo.png[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Hague justice portal logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@Stefan2: this was caused by a good faith but very misguided edit by an anon removing the image from the article. Are you using a script? If so, which one, so it can be improved to identify the real problem for you.
Thx user:ChrisGualtieri for correcting the problem. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Adding search to {{pagelinks}}[edit]

Hi John,

Over at WT:RFD I suggested that it would be nice to have "Special:Search" as something we could add to {{Rfd2}} nominations, since continually when trying to search for alternatives etc.

My rationale specifically for RfD is that I get hooked through the redirect to the very thing I don't want to see, i.e. its current target, rather than searching for other things that may possibly be retargets. This is made harder that the various quick search tools on the toolbar etc tend to jump through the link rather than did what they used to which was bring up Special:Search, but perhaps that is just me and YMMV, I don't use a skin or anything like that just Plain Old Wikipedia.

Even so, when looking for example {{R from title without diacritics}}, putting it in the search bar finds the title with the diacritics (the clever lot they are, but too clever) so that I can't find easily if the title exists without the diacritics, to make the R for it. I don't tend to make the R since patently the search engine has got better and no need to do so, but you see my point: it's hard to hunt for exact titles because the search engine guesses. Which is great for readers, not so good for gnomes who want to go to EXACTLY WHAT THEY TYPED not something NEARLY LIKE IT. (Not shouting there, emphasising.)

So I made the addition and put it at Module:PageLinks2. I think this is good to go, obviously we then can add "s" as the link into Rfd2 to get "Search" on the page links to the EXACT TITLE of the page to bring up Special:Search. I'd like your opinion and maybe review the code, since I've not been able to test it really because the whole chain is page protected, if you have any suggestions how I could test it to make sure it works.

I think this would be useful as an option on XfDs beyound RfD, but baby steps...

I should say also thanks for your hard work at Wikipedia. At least one editor notices it, but is terrible at saying thanks. That would be yours, sincerely Si Trew (talk) 09:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Sounds like a good idea. @Jackmcbarn: where did it disappear to? John Vandenberg (chat) 10:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

module rfd[edit]

Amy ideas on this one? It comes up second on my gsearch after WP:RFD. It doesn't work and doesn't look very good, but you're the expert with the modules, so I ask you first. I wouldn't even know how to get it deleted. but gsearch comes up with it as second.... a new one on me. Si Trew (talk) 04:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Si Trew, I dont understand the question/problem. Could you show me an example of the problem? John Vandenberg (chat) 03:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll try to explain more clearly. On my google search (I live in Hungary) WP:RFD comes up first but Module:RfD comes up second. That's a new one on me, and a surprise that it does. I am happy to sort oput the Lua or whatever at Module:RfD but I wondered if someone is trying to make it a replacement for WP:RFD without consensus- (I didn't mean you, I know you are always in good faith). I thought you may have some idea about it, that's all. (Deliberately have not cross linked so as not to confuse matters.) Si Trew (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
What is the search term you are using Si Trew? 'wikipedia rfd'? John Vandenberg (chat) 08:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
No. I try to find the exact link for you, but "Wikipedia Redirects for Discussion" comes up that way, I tend to use Mozilla. Hard for me to find you the exact link cos naturally it throws me through the redirect! Si Trew (talk) 09:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually it has changed overnight. I tried on Google and on Mozilla and now I get the DaB RFD about various organisations. This is trying to hit a moving target and perhaps we should forget it, unless I find a blunderbuss very quickly. Si Trew (talk) 09:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm a liar. from a Mozilla search which redirects through a Google search. What I am apparently doing in Greece, I don't know, can't even get out the house, front door lock broken. Si Trew (talk) 09:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
It looks like this is because RFD's now link to Module:RfD, as seen by the 85 links on , which means it is edging out other pages in the Google search ranking algorithm, but I doubt it will be able to replace WP:RFD any time soon, unless some truly nefarious search engine optimization is done. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

GSoC project -- OAuth in PyWikiBot[edit]

Hi John! I just talked to s1991 on IRC today. He's looking to get in contact with you and get started on T74065. Can I find you somewhere on IRC? I'm 'halfak' in #wikimedia-research. --EpochFail (talkcontribs) 16:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I am typically found in #pywikibot , but yesterday we had a network outage in my area. I've added some more microtasks to the task. Has s1991 completed a microtask? John Vandenberg (chat) 03:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hague justice portal logo.png[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Hague justice portal logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

File:American zoologist 41 6.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:American zoologist 41 6.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Dabbing Peter Allen[edit]

Hi I'm resolving dabs on Peter Allens and came across Wikipedia:GLAM/State Library of New South Wales/Paralympics Workshop/History of athletes and staff. Now, I can't tell which PA you intend, but in any case, this looks like a stale draft. Views? --Dweller (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I can see you're not so active at the moment. I have too much respect for you to do anything without your say-so. Drop me a line when you're next in. You might need to remind me of this though - my memory is so bad I often don't fini --Dweller (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey Dweller, that list was created from a Word doc posted by user:Tony.naar to the WP:HOPAU mailing list, containing 'Steelers' competitors in the tri-nation (Australia, USA, and Canada) match held in Sydney November 2013, so he is almost certainly not any of the people currently mentioned on the Peter Allen dab page and doesnt appear to have a bio yet, so I've updated that list so he is a redlink. I couldnt quickly see whether he is notable - I didnt see any Paralympic engagements in his careeer, so the tri-nation might have been his most prominent appearance, which might not be sufficient as wiki people tend to have higher notability requirements for disabled sports than the better funded and reported abled sports. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Smashing. Thank you! --Dweller (talk) 08:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


A gummi bear holding a sign that says "Thank you"
Thank you for using VisualEditor and sharing your ideas with the developers.

Hello, John Vandenberg,

The Editing team is asking for your help with VisualEditor. I am contacting you because you posted to a feedback page for VisualEditor. Please tell them what they need to change to make VisualEditor work well for you. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too. 

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Unsubscribe from this list Sign up for VisualEditor's multilingual newsletterTranslate the user guide

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


I have mentioned you on my talk page, please check the last section of my talk. Thank you. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 02:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks messy! But the immediate problem has been resolved...? (i.e. do I need to understand this, or can I run awake screaming...) John Vandenberg (chat) 03:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


Yeah—I thought I'd be true to what's in the doc. :-) Tony (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the criticisms of the mixed, confused genre in the "In focus" story. Tony (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)