User talk:Physchim62/Archive 2007

TfD nomination of Template:Standard test

Template:Standard test 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. --Oden 21:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks

With regards to your comments on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 12: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Oden 14:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio

Hi, I found that this stub: Models of atoms is a copyvio of this article by Michael Fowler: Models of the Atom. Please delete. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 18:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Blatant copyvio, and blatantly incorrect as well! Physchim62 (talk) 10:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

A copyvio page

Hi, I need an admin again! I have been in minor conflict with a newbie User:Mikeguth, who was trying to write a bio of his father Eugene Guth, one of the founders of polymer physics and polymer PChem. It got a copyvio tag on it. The stuff in the article was essentially the late Eugene Guth's home page which his son has the copyright for. He just did not do it properly and got cross. I have written a decent little stubb in the temp page referred to on the copyvio notice. Could you please fix it and install the stubb? Many thanks. Maybe I'll try for admin soon. --Bduke 01:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Anglicisation

Hello - I'm contacting you because of your involvement with many French articles. A few have undertaken the task of "Anglicising" French terms in Wiki articles (eg/: "Région => Region"; "Département => Departement") - there doesn't seem to have been any discussion about this, so your point of view would be welcome. I think a good place for this discussion would be the WP:FR page. Thank you. THEPROMENADER 14:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks

Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If you feel you cannot comply with it, you may well become unwelcome on the English wikipedia. You should take the trouble to read the policies before you threaten others with them, as you cannot conceivably make a case that I commented on any contributor. Chicheley 20:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I note that you were last referred to Wikipedia:No personal attacks just 5 days ago. Please keep cool and do not expect higher standards of others than you observe yourself. Chicheley 20:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you did worse, you attacked a whole group of contributers, those of whom English is not the mother tongue. I certainly do not expect higher standards of conduct than I have myself, but neither do I accept blatent bullying, in either of the cases you refer to. Physchim62 (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

template:chembox new

Hi, I have been tampering with the chembox new. There were problems with the images in the NFPA diamond, which I have now resolved by copying the {{NFPA 704}} into the {{NFPA-chembox}} and adapting the code of all templates. The {{chembox new}} now has a new parameter 'NFPA-O'. Now there is a problem, if NFPA-O is there, but has no value, it shows up as the name of the variable. I hope this does not bite your ideas with this template too much, if so, feel free to revert my actions (should be 5 templates and ~4 pages). Otherwise, would you mind having a look at that variable-problem, my template knowledge seems to be insufficient here? Cheers. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This was one of the hardest parts of coding {{chembox new}}: if your changes didn't work, I think you'd know about it by now! :) all improvements on my "patch" solution are welcome: I think the criterion should be the ease of recoding old templates and the correction of bad information. Physchim62 (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, cheers! I will have a second look in that case, there are some things that seem superfluous now, and some things seem missing, but I'll see. I may try some things on an offline wiki to get things to run properly. See you around! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term

Thank you for your recent interest in m:American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term. However, I just wonder whether simply writing "section 104A" in "When section 104A started automatic copyright restoration" is clear enough. That section of the USA Copyright Act is where I consider a major obstacle to the development of Wiki sites. This is why I wish to eventually gather various Wiki users to request American acceptance of the rule of the shorter term.--Jusjih 18:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

S## templates in List_of_S-phrases

Hi! I see you started this nice little article, but I'm wondering whether any of these templates are seeing use elsewhere. Thanks! // FrankB 05:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• These templates are widely used in articles about chemicals, see Ammonia for just one example, or WP:CHEMS for a wider picture. Physchim62 (talk) 10:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Montserrat virgin.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Montserrat virgin.jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 02:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

S-phrases in brackets

Hi. Your have created the templates for R- and S-phrases a long time ago. The are no templates for S-phrases in brackets yet. Please have a look here (at the end). Maybe, you can give a good imput on this topic. Thanks. --Lucido 13:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Replied on Edgar's talk page. Physchim62 (talk) 14:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks for creating the template {{(S2)}}. --Ed (Edgar181) 15:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Spelling of Macau/o

Re [1] [2] - Macao isn't actually a wrong spelling, and is in fact the spelling the Macau Government uses in its publications in the English language. I don't quite agree that the spelling of Macau/o has to be consistent throughout Wikipedia, just like we accept different spelling traditions like colour and color, centre and center, and so on. — Instantnood 17:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Disrespect

Hi,

I'd like you to warn about what I regard as a very unpolite action by the user Maurice27 at the WikiProject Catalan-speaking Countries talk page.

I don't mind about his political ideas, but it's very uncivil from him to write such things, ain't? He claims to fight against nationalisms, but he is acting as a very aggressive nationalist when he laughs at whoever doesn't agree him or defends minorized languages and cultures.

Thx for your attention, --Casaforra (parlem-ne) 21:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Page move

Hi, Psyschim62. Can you do a page move. I've cited the reasons here. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 22:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have redirected your article of "Ripoll (river)" to the one I created: Riu Ripoll

I created the article "Riu Ripoll" without having knowledge that it already existed another article named "Ripoll (river)". When I saw it, as it was just an stub, I redirected it to the one I had created.

By the way, are you catalan?

Onofre Bouvila 16:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Caistor

It's funny. I see Caistor from my bedroom window every morning. I live in Hibaldstow. --Asterion^talk 07:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Posting from WP Council thread

Thanks for bringing over the WP Council threads to the WP Spain page, but I didn't see where those threads came from. Could you add a link to where they came from? Thanks! EspanaViva 18:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation

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 21:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

Capitalization

Hello there! Haven't seen you for a while. I'm just wondering...do you know what are the guidelines for capitalization of article titles when the subject begins with a number? For example, take 18-Electron rule: I'm tempted not to capitalize the "e" in electron, but it seems to be a convention to capitalize the first non-number character. --HappyCamper 02:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Barcelona

Well, the GA/R started all the way back in January, and it looks like the article has been edited quite a bit since then, some of the objections may not apply anymore. I know all about the systematic bias thing, but the thing of it is, this is the English encyclopedia, and I think its fair to expect the majority of readers to be primarily english readers, while we can fix bias problems on our end, we can't fix bias among Wikipedia's readership. I didn't start that GA/R because I think having references in other languages is a terrible thing, but when almost every single one of them is in a non-English language, I think that's a bit too much. Homestarmy 13:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Customs Regulation 3295/94

Hi. You have created this article. I have renamed it (a shorter title seemed better), and it actually seems it was repealed by Coucil Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights, Article 24. The box needs to be updated. Please could you check whether this is alright, thanks. --Edcolins 16:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe you're correct (my EU regulations are on my other computer, so I can't check immediately). I will see what I can do to update the relevant pages, when I get a moment.... :) Physchim62 (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

titration

"I will dig out the reference" <-- sounds useful. The data file I got from User:Atropos235 also includes an attempt to calculate the second derivative, but it is not easy to pick out the signal from the noise in the data. --JWSchmidt 18:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

bot

Hi Physchim.

Luckily seems like the infamous Land of Valencia is at low ebb, hopefully extinguishing in its former stronghold. Now, I think we should ask for a bot to remove LOV from all the articles (is spread everywhere like a virus) and replace it with Valencian Community.

You are more knowledgeable than me with these things, so...do you think you could do that for me? or, alternatively, you could just let me know the procedure required for that. This, of course, in case you agree with this measure, which I wholeheartedly support. Thanks Mountolive | Talk 03:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No, at least for the moment, and for several reasons:

1. technically, it is not as simple as you think. By past experience, WP has found that bot article changes can get some very strange results: this is why we usually keep them to defined areas of the 'article' text, such as infoboxes or interwiki links.
2. the debate is not yet closed on Talk:Valencia (autonomous community), even if most editors agree that LoV is a bad translation. It is bad politics to make a wide-ranging step while other discussions are still in course. IMHO, the priority should be to get a general agreement on how the Valencia (autonomous community) article should look like.
3. the title of Valencia (autonomous community) is still in dispute, even if we have managed to move our debates onto areas where improvement is easier. My own preference for the article title is fairly clear, but I do not want a "move war" to be added onto the other disputes. I think that once we have improved the article to GA-status, the problem of the title will resolve itself (even if the decision goes against my current opinion, but that is a question for further debate).
4. there is an ongoing process of renewing articles about Valencian municipalities, which may well result in much of the same change being brought about without the need to use the "hammer" of a bot run.

Patience is not always a virtue, but I feel that it is the best course it this situation at the moment. Thank you for your many contributions, and best wishes Physchim62 (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

On the technical aspect, this bot could, per your comments, then be restricted to infoboxes and interwiki links: any help is needed and, if automated, that's even most welcome ;)

Now, on the substance of your reply, I was fearing a similar reply. I concede that the matter is not clear but, lately, it has cool down and resistance to removing LoV is at low ebb.

As you know, sometimes it is a human behaviour thing to refuse to say "ok, I give in" and we might never hear such words from certain people we know. That is why I am thinking that applying euthanasia to LoV is a legitimate option: for, yes, they may implicitly give in, but they won't tell us, nor, of course, do anything to mend this gaffe themselves.

Anyway, I guess I can request this bot by myself, but I will refrain of doing so just to give some more time to cool off if you think is needed.

I'm just fearing that, like some wild fires, if you leave it glowing, it may come back as bad as ever. Mountolive | Talk 17:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

p.s. in any case, I'd appreciated it if you replaced LoV anywhere you find it. I am doing that myself already, but, as I said, it is fairly spread and I don't have any interest in restraining myself to sniff this term here and there to erase it. I still want to continue enjoying wikipedia in its many aspects, not become any zealot whatsoever, probably like those guys I mentioned above. Mountolive | Talk 17:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have stub articles (including infoboxes) for the 542 Valencian municipalities just waiting to be uploaded (where needed), so I am likely to be looking at a lot of Valencian Community pages over the next couple of days! Unfortunately, I have spent all day travelling to reach Catalonia, and I must get some sleep! I will try to respond to your other points (later) in the morning, as well as taking a look at Names of the Valencian Community. Best wishes, Physchim62 (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I checked Valencia (autonomous community) (one day someone should change it to Valencian Community, I guess) and I have to say that I do like the new solution proposed. I have even checked the page again in my watchlist, because if this gets stable, we could resume work on more interesting and rewarding aspects of the matter. It looks like an incipient and still fragile equilibrium, but hopefully it will work out.

Then I also took a look at the new "Names of the game". It also looked to me like a good effort and mostly ok. I edited what I thought was reasonable, let's see if you all agree.

Have a good time in Catalonia: it is supposed to keep rainy for the next few days...but that's ok. I will be looking forward to your comments on the above. Mountolive | Talk 05:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

ps. by the way, if you ever hit anything in Valencian Community related articles which you don't have a clue of, don't hesitate to let me know, I might be of help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mountolive (talk • contribs) 05:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Yep, it's certainly raining in Capellades! I've just taken a break from uploading stubs and infoboxes for municipalities (and doing the associated cleanup work) to take another look at Valencia (autonomous community). Apart from the naming issue, we are going to have to do some serious work on the history section... I would like to see a short politics section as well, if only to provide a correspondance list of Valencian and national parties (where they go by different names). As for the title of the article, it may well end up being moved to Valencian Community but I don't see this as the most urgent issue. There are some editors who have commented quite strongly that "Valencia" is the 'correct' English name for the AC: I don't agree, and I have seen no evidence in favour of this position, but this is one of the "disputes" I referred to above which will need to be resolved at some point.

For some time now, when I come across references to LoV in other editing, I have been changing them: I was going to say that the sky hasn't fallen in yet, but given the current weather that might not be the best analogy! This Google search gives the current state of play on the issue (don't forget that it also includes talk pages and transcluded templates in the number of hits). I really don't think that a bot run is going to be much help at all: too many of the references are either in the article text or scattered around in category references. By the time you have persuaded a bot-operator to do the run and defined the scope, you might as well have changed them by hand!

I'm not at the point where I am on a systematic blitz against LoV references, although in practice I expect to have changed all references in articles about public administration quite soon... Although I am fairly convinced that "Valencian Community" is the correct term to use when referring to the AC as an AC or in other administrative circumstances, I do wonder whether "Valencian Country" as a translation of País Valencià might be more appropriate for some of the cultural articles... But then I rarely edit cultural articles! I'll weigh in on 'Names of the Game' in the next day or two, I hope there aren't too many fights brewing there ;) Physchim62 (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Being myself a technology dummy, I 'oscillate wildly' between both unfounded skepticism and unfounded optimism as to what automated agents may do for us. I was not aware that a bot will not operate (or, at least, it is not so easy) with un-linked text. Nor I was aware that getting a bot may require the same negotiation skills as lobbying in Washington ;)

So, yes, that is fine to do some good ol' manually work here and there. I am not myself in a systematic blitz against that either (that would be kind of depressing), but I indeed remove them whenever I hit them. It is good to know that I am not the only one ;)

If you see the google search, all the damned LoV seems to come from wikipedia...sigh!

Names of the game, despite some skirmish between myself and Pmmollet seems fairly stable now...dunno, though, whether is like the drought going on for weeks in Catalonia before you arrived or what :P

As for opening a Politics section...mhh...my advice is: be careful man, that may well be opening Pandora's box! I'd say that opening a table simply listing the parties would be much more appropiate in order to avoid new World Wars...damn, Valencia and politics is a potentially hazardous mix, you know? What I think is certainly needed is (I wrote that in the talk page) to create the own articles for Gastronomy and Sports, because the way these are displayed there give the article -in my opinion- some unencyclopedic "tourist info" touch.

I wouldn't say that Valencian Country is more appropiate for cultural articles, but that is another story...

Have a good time....by the way: do you know how to swim? hope you do! :D Mountolive | Talk 16:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

On second thought...what a stupid question whether you can swim...I am sure the large wet haddock has obviously taught you how to do that! :D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mountolive (talk • contribs) 16:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

ELAC

Did your "Extra-Long Article Committee" ever get off the ground? I have just blown my top on Talk:List of registered political parties in Spain, which is so long as to be functionally useless! Physchim62 (talk) 02:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, we almost did. In short, we were gaining joiners at a rate of about one new person per day. We trimmed down a few articles and developed some new organizational techniques for long articles. Over two weeks we got up to about 12 participants. But then I posted a note to the featured article talk page stating that because certain featured articles are way over the limit that in the future there would likely be conflict between the two projects. From here the whole thing blew up. A heated argument erupted between a large number of people and the entire project ended up getting scraped. You can read an old version of it here. The talk page to that project turned out to be a nighmare. Since then, I have been actively avoiding anything having to do with long articles. Later: --Sadi Carnot 03:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding the featured article cabal is a pretty good move on WP as well! I only ever get involved with FA's as a favour to other editors, the whole thing just get my back (and my blood pressure) up too much! Never mind, if you're not doing long articles any more, that will mean that you've got more time for thermodynamics, no? ;) Physchim62 (talk) 03:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

For whatever reason, some people like odd and long lists? Go figure. I did break up the List of states in the Holy Roman Empire, which used to be the longest article in WP; the best way to break up a list, aside from vfd, is to add a side template or top bar box, and then paste each category into it. Also, in WP, I’ve learned, you have to know when to cut your losses and to try to stick to only those contributions which don’t become too involved. This week I'm researching the development of chemical thermodynamics in the time of Helmholtz, with his famous 1882 paper. I hope this helps? Talk later. --Sadi Carnot 06:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Valencia

Thanks for the friendly warning. You didn't have to, since Maurice27 edits were not based on arguments but on an ad hominem accusation of purported xenophobia, they were considered vandalism. Per policy in WP:3RR, which I assume you read thoroughly before bringing your friendly warning (or spurious accusation, depending on the crystal through which you see it) 3RR does not apply when treating vandalism. Nonetheless, thank you for your concern. If you are truly a neutral user in this matter, you should have noticed his accusations in the first place, instead of condoning his edits which were based on an direct attack. --the Dúnadan 02:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Translation

Hi Physchim. I've been thinking for a time on translation the Spanish article "Sistéma Ibérico" [3] on the mountain range. That's one of the important Spanish ranges and it is a shame that this article keeps a red link. One of the motives (besides pure lazyness) that keep me procrastinating it is that I am not sure about what translation would be best in English.

Would that be "Iberian Range"...I think "Iberian System" sounds weird in English, but I am not sure. I made a quick google search, but nothing is very conclusive there, since many of those pages are Spanish based and...well, I just did not bother too much in digging there, I confess.

Apparently, the option taken with a similar case ("Sistema Central") has been simply not translating it [4], but I doubt that the geographical nerds don't have a good English translation for it anyway.

Do you have an opinion or could you refer me to some English native speaker interested in geography who may be of help?

Thanks. Mountolive | Talk 18:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Valencia

Before you restore the Spanish name, let's reach a consensus. Please do not edit unilaterally. If every time a user writes his/her opinion he/she edits the page we will have an edit war. I will answer your concerns, and hopefully we will reach a consensus soon. --the Dúnadan 23:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not editing unilaterally: there are three other editors placing the Spanish name on the infobox, just as there are three editors apart from you who are removing it (often without discussion and/or with uncivil edit summaries). Still, I shall not revert if someone else takes it off (I see that you are up against your 3RR limit again, although I didn't know that when I made the edit). I too hope that we shall reach a consensus soon, as there are plenty of other things which need improving in the article (the one thing that everybody agrees on!). Physchim62 (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know you were answering comments on your talk page. I know this is probably not the best place to complain, but if I have to say which is the thing that I dislike the most about Wikipedia, and the same thing that has driven away many outstanding editors, is the leniency towards anonymous vandals and users whose attitude is detrimental to the project. (And the small ratio of admins vis-a-vis editors compared to other wikis). I can keep on ignoring Maurice27's newest insults [5] (after you had warned him), but then, dealing with editors like him will end up wearing me down, and like other users, simply give up, or give in to their demands. Thank you for mediating though.

--the Dúnadan 02:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Invisible-pink-unicorn.jpg

Hello, I've got a question about Image:Invisible-pink-unicorn.jpg. You wrote rm speedy, the invisible pink unicorn is THERE! Is this a joke I'm not getting? --Strangerer (Talk) 19:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I can see the invisible pink unicorn, but then I believe in invisible pink unicorns :P It is only invisible to non-believers. To be serious, no admin is required to delete a page: maybe this one should be categorized under Category:Wikipedia humor, but there is no more reason to delete it than there is to delete Flying Spaghetti Monster. In it's own way, it serves a purpose.

Misunderstanding?

I think you might have misunderstood my comments at Clarification of I8, as your reply seems to be discussing something entirely unrelated. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 07:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Question at my RfA

While I am admittedly not satisfied that I came up with the words I was looking for, I have answered your question =P --Moralis (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Global warming article

Thanks for your help just now, and your comment at Talk:Global warming. I posted a question for you just now at that page. Appreciate if you could please take a look at it, if you have a chance, and reply there, if you wish. thanks for your help. Feel free also to write to me at my talk page, if you prefer. Thanks.--Sm8900 03:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Watch help needed

Physchim62, can you help me keep an eye on the capture bonding article. Four people now, including myself, have requested that it be cleaned and wikified. I have been trying to do that and I keep getting reverted back to a terrible April 2006 version, with a 255 word copyvio, by two users, namely User:Hkhenson, i.e. Keith Henson, who claims he coined the term and wants the term presented in his point of view, and User:Maureen D. It’s also very likely that Maureen D is a sock-puppet for Hkhenson based on the edit history of Maureen D and the timing of the following page revert and following talk page comment:

• 03:36, 15 April 2007 Maureen D (Talk | contribs) (rv; see discussion page)
• 03:43, 15 April 2007 Hkhenson (Talk | contribs) (talk page comment)

Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 07:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the eye. I really don’t know what the deal is with this page. I did, however, recently begin looking at the Talk:Keith Henson page, although it’s not my usual route to pry into a person’s business, but possibly it could have something to do with the fact that Yale psychologist John Money writes books on all sorts of abnormal psychology relationships, such as pedophilia, and Keith Henson who is one of the references in the capture bonding article has a lot of discussion about child molestation charges and arrests at Talk:Keith Henson? Also, the article itself has ties to Scientology, which some say is a form of capture bonding, and Henson has connections to this. The whole issue is basically strange? Whatever the case, I’m just sick of seeing the article look like a big paste from someone’s reference, such as did in its initial form. Thanks again for the help. --Sadi Carnot 23:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do with this page, but I am minded to send it to AfD as a PoV-fork. Physchim62 (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

By the time you get this in your time zone I expect that you will have read my warning to Mr Henson at Talk:Capture-bonding. I think the crux of the matter is whether we can find evidence of significant acceptance of his ideas (not necessarily majority, by any means) by other psychologists. Evolutionary psychology has come a long way in terms of mainstream acceptance since I studied zoology at Cambridge more than 15 years ago, when it was not considered a fit topic to be discussed sober! However Hensen's hypothesis, as he describes it, is pseudoscience—it is unfalsifiable and unnecessarily complex—and we only carry articles on pseudoscience which has had some external influence. Otherwise, the correct solution is a merge into Stockholm syndrome and/or Keith Hensen, or possibly even a deletion (the article at present would not survive an AfD discussion). We should not present capture-bonding as generally accepted when we have no evidence to that effect, which is the situation at present. What is your opinion on the matter? You seem to know the relevant evolutionary psychology sources better than I (my own interests are more towards the evolution of sexuality, which is a far more complex (and interesting) problem than either Money or Hensen give it credit for). Physchim62 (talk) 10:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is a very obscure topic. That Henson’s paper is significant outside of his own mind, I have not been able to determine. That Money’s 1986 book on capture bonding has significance I have. In the 2006 book From Princess to Prisoner by Linda McJunckins, on page 211, we find Capture bond – a term used to define the bonding that in some instances develops between the captor and captive, or terrorist and hostage. The book is about a parent's account of a daughter who relinquished her freedoms as a college student to an arduous life as a slave among strangers. Pages 211-212 come right out of Money’s 1986 book. The fact that the term has use in culture, justifies it’s inclusion in Wikipedia. A merge to Stockholm syndrome, however, is not the best option. For one, the concept of capture bonding is used significantly in animal psychology to explain how a female attaches to and reproduces with the take-over male who previously killed her offspring. Most writers don’t say, for example, that “the female Gorilla suffers from Stockholm syndrome.” This is one example why a merge would be a wrong move. --Sadi Carnot 16:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, that convinces me. Henson's work might not have had much of a professional or scientific impact (often the fate of work in evolutionary psychology) but his well-publicised opposition to cults in general and to the Scientologists in particular is part based on the concept of capture bonding, and so is relevant material to show the general impact of the concept. Do you have references for the use of capture bonding as a concept in ethology? (sorry, I detest the term "animal psychology"!) This rather goes against the normal description of capture bonding as an adaptive human trait. Personally, I don't believe it is a uniquely human trait, although humans would be expected to show it more strongly than other animals: my ideas would probably fall under the heading of original research though, as I have not published (and have no intention to publish) in this field. Physchim62 (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No references off the top of my head in ethology, I’m spread pretty thin presently with other projects to search for this. I have, however, grown rather fond of the term animal psychology. Heini Hediger’s 1955 book on The Psychology and Behavior of Animals, for example, led to the well-known idiom of personal space, and others. Alfred Binet’s 1888 book on the Psychological Life of Micro-Organisms is kind of interesting as well. P.S. I’ve posted notice on the said issue here. Talk later: --Sadi Carnot 09:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn’t seem like I’m getting much help at the admin notice board nor at the admin 3RR? Being that I have now posted six RfCs, three of which were at different project pages, and your page and at User:Happy Camper, and that I have expended large amounts of energy trying to find reference after reference to support my clean up efforts, I would now support an AfD nomination by you. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 11:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Given the current confused mess the article is in, I also support deletion. It isn't like someone who is interested can't find information outside of Wikipedia. Keith Henson 17:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Crown of Aragon and Kingdom of Aragon

They are not the same. You can check it in their very pages. Toniher 17:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Very true, but that wasn't the edit that you made. From a reader's point of view, you simply changed "Aragon" (correct throughout the period discussed in English usage, even though more precision could be given) to "Principality of Catalonia" (not always correct throughout the period discussed, although more precise for some periods). 18:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Aragon was linking to Kingdom of Aragon, which was untrue. So, I changed it to Principality of Catalonia, which was the jurisdiction of most of the territories just before the Treaty of the Pyreenees, I assume you know. After your reaction (which I lament from being disproportionate and harsh, especially being you an admin), I added a clarification for those people who may not know the distinction between the Kingdom of Aragon and the Crown of Aragon. Best regards Toniher 19:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Valencia (autonomous community)

If you wish to call for mediation, that is fine with me, and I will participate in whatever way I can. However, I fail to see the need for such an action, on any of the issues being discussed. My request for semi-protection pertains exclusively to the reiterated deletion of a phrase regarding the synonymity of Catalan and Valencian. No other registered user, not even Maurice27, disagrees with that (and if he does, or did in the past, it is not him who has been constantly deleting the phrase). Only one [or two] anonymous user disagrees, and based on his actions and language, his edits can be described as nothing else but vandalism. Why do we need to request for mediation on that particular issue if we all agree, and we are dealing with vandalism?

What other issue is irresolvable to the point of requesting external mediation? The issue of the dimensions of the flag? I invited all users to express their opinions and bring their sources and arguments, and I did a little research myself. Arguably, mediation works when there is willingness to talk, but no consensus is reached. Yet, no other single user, neither those involved in the edit war, nor those external to it but willing to help out, participated in the debate, but [fortunately?] edit wars on that particular issue stopped. Oh, by the way, I might be mistaken, but even in that edit war, only Maurce27 contended the use of the 1:2 flag, two registered and one anonymous user continuously reverted his edits. --the Dúnadan 14:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. I think we have a problem here. I don't understand neither your position as an editor nor your position as an administrator, given the ambiguity of your own actions and comments, unless you want to push the issue yourself to justify a request for mediation:

• First, the anon 86.139.190.117 edits were identical to 86.129.90.106. I assumed they were two editors, you, said they were not. "Yes, it is the same editor (as far as anyone can be sure)", you said. Given the history of 86.129.90.106 and his violent response, you know he/she is a vandal. His actions are detrimental to the project, and he does not wish to debate but to insult. You already know that, unless you want to recant and now assume that we are dealing with two different anon editors.
• Secondly, even if that wasn't the case, the issue of Catalan vis-à-vis Valencian has been thoroughly discussed here, and most importantly, by Academic circles who have agreed, based on rigorous research they are both one and the same language. Per both WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiable, this is a claim that Wikipedia should state (the facts) while at the same time having a section to speak of the political and social issues of both names. You even told Mountolive: "Tomorrow morning I shall be lecturing all the inhabitants of Capellades as to how they speak a dialect of Valencian, with the AVL to back me up.", to justify the inclusion of the phrase "as Valencian is known in this territory" (i.e. Catalonia). So, that speaks that you do believe in the unity of the language... at least in Catalonia (but not in Valencia??). Yet, you revert me (in an implicit support) of the anons [vandal] edits.

If you truly wish to reopen this debate, fine, but I think is unnecessary: it is not up to us to decide whether the two languages are the same (nor up to PP politicians) but to linguists, who have already agreed on that. But do me a favor: tell me exactly what is your position on this matter, as an editor, and as administrator. None of us is a neutral editor, that I know. But at least my position and actions are not ambiguous.

--the Dúnadan 18:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

My position as an administrator is quite simple: I am in it up to my neck and my efforts to resolve (even partially) the disputes have not been effective. For many weeks I have been asking other admins to take a look at the situation: most have refused, saying that there is already an admin in there (i.e., me) and that my decisions will be respected. I have finally managed to get some experienced admins to look at what is happening, and they have advised me to go for mediation if I feel that I can no longer correctly administrate the article (which has been my feeling for a long time, I have taken the choice of editing rather than administrating).

As for my positions as an editor, they should be fairly clear: I am for the inclusion of Comunidad Valenciana in the header of the infobox, and against the the contentious phrase in the lead section. I refuse to descend as far as insulting the editors who do not agree with me on these points, whatever they themselves do. I have a certain number of suspicions, but the discussion can only advance if everyone assumes good faith. This is not a war, it is an honest difference of opinions. Other editors (not yourself) would be wise to remember that. Physchim62 (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Psychim, I have to say, as an administrator of another wiky myself, that I disagree with your approach to solve this issue. Not with requesting mediation per se, but with how you are mixing three unrelated issues in one. I am more than willing to have a civil debate, and in fact I have asked you and all other users to debate. But besides reverting the "contentious phrase", you have not answered my questions at all. You haven't told me why it is that you consider this phrase to be contentious, when you yourself supported its inclusion in Catalonia? Moreover who are the current contending parties regrading this particular issue (i.e. the "contentious phrase")?Maurce27 and Montoulive and Casaforra abandoned the debate long ago (and only Maurice27 opposed the phrase). The only contending parties remaining are an anon vandal an me (an you, who now seem to support the anon user). Well, if it is only you and me, why don't you, at least, put some effort into trying to explain or justify your actions, ambiguous as they are, after I have asked you three times, in three different articles to do so? Mediation makes sense, to me, when two parties have exhausted all other means, and when both parties have a clear of understanding of the other parties point of view, even if they fully disagree with him/her. But I don't even know what you think! In some of your edits and comments you seem to agree with the unity of the language, while in others you seem to disagree. How are we supposed to conduct a civil debate like that? Should we just be willing to have an external editor figure it out, who will then issue an irrevocable opinion to which we have to adhere? I am not an uncivil editor unwilling to debate, and my history of contributions are a proof to that. I wish you had put that "effort" into answering my questions and concerns.--the Dúnadan 15:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to criticize my administration of the article—I do so myself. However I cannot see that continued discussion on the talk page is a viable solution. These issues have been discussed at length, both in terms of time and in terms of number of kilobytes. Arguments have been put forward by both sides but we have not been able to find a compromise. The recent edits by anonymous users are a result of the disputes (which leave the article in a pitiful state), not the cause of them! In so far as mediation would allow editors to calmly present their full arguments, I think it would be helpful. I certainly can't see that it would do any harm! Physchim62 (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, if all editors calmly present their arguments, it would be helpful and will do no harm. But that includes you. The issue that triggered your request for mediation was that of the inclusion of the phrase of Catalan/Valencian, and the only editors involved in that "edit-war" were an anonymous user, me, and then you,, when you reverted me, with no explanation whatsoever. I have already presented my arguments, and I do expect you to do so. --the Dúnadan 15:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If you don't think you arguments will stand up to indepenant scrunity, then you should reject mediation, that is obvious. Physchim62 (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying. I do believe my arguments will stand up to independent scrutiny. I am simply asking you to present your arguments. I have told you this before, mediation makes sense when all other means have failed. The first step is to have the parties discuss the issue amongst themselves. The parties on this particular issue ("as Catalan is known") is you, an anonymous user an me. That is why I first objected when you mixed up three different issues when you requested mediation. I am tired of asking you to discuss the issue and to present your arguments. --the Dúnadan 16:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Physchim, do you still want me to sign up in the RfM or, given the lack of enthusiasm -to put it mildly- shown there so far, you'd rather drop the whole thing? If you want to revive this, I'll have no problem to sign up. I indeed think that some external POV could be of help in the mentioned matters, given the fact that the discussion page seems to go in circles. However, if, as it seems now, no one else is going to sign and you think it would be in vain, then I'll skip it.

I am rather slow these days, and I may continue to, so don't take this as an invitation to re-start the whole thing, but more as a support to your initiative, which I think is good willed, as usual.

Mountolive (can't see the 'signing tilde' in this keyboard)

BTW, as far as I'm concerned -quite a lot- I'm slightly upset because you wrote somewhere that you don't think that the anon vandals are Maurice or Mountolive...WTF should I? I didn't think that I had a good reputation out there, but I never thought it would be as bad as to be taken as a suspected vandal...., well,I'm not a woman, but, as you see, I can get sensitive :P

TfD nomination of Template:BaixSegura

Template:BaixSegura 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. — SueHay 14:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

CSD I8

I was hoping that you might clarify your position vis-a-vis the creation of image description pages for Commons media not on WP, per the recent development at our previous discussion. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 02:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I will intervene on that page, and probably not in the way that you want me to ;) If people really want to fight for the small number of en:wp description pages, we will not eliminate them. Do they do any harm? They make work, but otherwise probably not. Do they serve a purpose? I don't think so, but do they do any harm? Let's work on trying to find a consensus which somehow accomodates these rare cases (which should never be subject to speedy deletion anyway, IMHO, as "important" images, in many cases featured). This question WILL be resolved, one way or the other, but not today it seems. Physchim62 (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

thallium triiodide

I have details of the structure reference and will put together an article, as this a strange animal with some good chemistry principles even if it will never become a best seller. What I am sure will come from this is a nice discussion on redox potentials of Thallium and Iodine. I only hope I can remember it all. Thanks for reading the stuff by the way. cheersAxiosaurus 16:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

In my mind it is a beautiful compound which tells you that you can never be sure of everything! That in itself it a very good thing to teach inorganic chemists. Obviously, I will have a look at the article that you write, and I thank you for taking on the challenge! Physchim62 (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Done- well at least first stab. I would really appreciate if you could check the redox stuff- I last used this a lifetime away. I would like to see some more meat on the reduction potential article that showed how half cell potentials can be used- what do you think? Axiosaurus 16:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Just in case...

Hi, Physchim62

I read your sentence in the Talk:Valencia (autonomous community):

I would be willing to block the user who habitually uses the term "blaverist". Physchim62 (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And I'm afraid you were pointing at me.  :-/

I don't understand why you would block me. Specially if you compare my editions and my comments on the talk pages with another user you previously blocked, Maurice27: I don't use to insult or laugh at others, my edits are explained in the talk pages and when they are regarding debatable subjects I try to reach a consensus.

I guess you are meaning I use to revert anon users (only two) who repeatedly erase the famous sentence about Valencian (as Catalan is known...). In order to say the reason for that reversion I use to write rev Blaverist vandalism.

And now I'll repeat my use of the word Blaverist:

15:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC):

I am who is reverting anon users whose only purpose is erasing the word Catalan or removing any mention that Valencian is a part of the Catalan language.

I'd encourage those anons to log in to the wp and explain the reasons to do so. Otherwise, and since their only edits are deletions, I revert them.

As far as I remember there was a debate in this talk page about that sentence (as Catalan is known...), and we looked to agree. I guess it's a duty of every user to maintain the consensued edition unless a proper debate is re-opened and a new agreement is reached. That's what I am doing.

Btw, if there's any POV attack (which Mountolive seems to intend that's what I'm doing) I'd say the blaverist editions ARE a POV attack. With one main difference:

The fact that Valencian and Catalan are the same language is a scientifical truth. No matter if blaverists believe otherwise or pro-Spaniards-Frenchies feel uncomfortable.

Do you want a POV attack proof? Here you have it:

The previous attempts of removing any mention to País Valencià and its proper translation into English. This has one word: Censorship.

It doesn't matter if we like, prefear or hate terms such as PV, Regne de València, Comunitat Valenciana or Levante feliz. We are here to explain them.

So, in one word, I'll keep reverting editions that remove that sentence until a new debate about it happens to reach a consensus. In the meanwhile, or until a new agreement happens, I'll keep regarding that kind of editions as vandalism.

08:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC):

PD: By the way, just in case, when I add the adjective Blaverist I intend no offence. It's not an insult, it's just a political point of view as good as any other. In my opinion its only problem is that they claim ascientifical reasons to differ as much as possible from Catalans. I could remind many examples of communities sharing a language but differing in politics: Belgium and Switzerland in regard with France, for instance.

In my opinion, Blaverist POV users are welcome to the wp as far as they debate and work to explain their POVs so that the articles they feel concerned are more complete. But they can't (they shouldn't) log in as anonyms, insult, and remove whatever they don't like or disagree.

We all have political ideas in our real lifes, but we (me, at least) are not in the wp to convince everybody else we are right and all the others are wrong. The more we can do is explain there are different political sides and explain their own reasons.

So, Blaverists parties, ideologies and claims should ALSO appear in the wp. They want to believe Valencian is a different language than Catalan? Ok, so a explanation about that claim should appear in the wp. And actually it is, in the Valencian article.

But they have no right, nobody has (even less me), to erase the consensued work, the fair explanations and, more important, the scientifical truths!

Are they disturbed by that sentence (as Catalan is known...)? It's their problem. That sentence is a truth. Are Catalan independentists or nationalists disturbed by a sentence such as the Catalan autonomous community is in Spain? Ok, it's their problem. But they can't remove that sentence, because it's true.

(Btw, if you want to check it, please, do it, but you won't find any such edit by me)

So, my claims are:

• the adjective Blaverist is not derogatory. Actually, they use it.
• the fact that Valencian is Catalan should be in the lead. (The Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua recognizes it, and all Valencian universities say their language is Catalan in their own Statutes)
• Reversing those two anon users is not censorship because their claims are already properly explained. Actually, I'd tag their edits are vandalism because they lie, give non-scientifical sources, and erase whatever they don't like.

That's all, I gave you my reasons.

Instead of making subtle threats I'd prefear you warned me on my talk page. I regard you as a fair admin, no matter our POVs about not so relevant but different subjects.

Yours, --Casaforra (parlem-ne) 14:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Smithsonian

Template:Smithsonian 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. — Abu badali ^(talk) 18:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Valencia (autonomous community). For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 16:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

I assume you have had much more experience with this topics than I have. I can't speak for the rest, but I didn't sign the petition because I was waiting for you to give your opinions, both as a party and as an administrator, who, arguably, would've worked toward reaching a consensus. Maurice27 came up with sources, and even though I do not fully agree with its use (I've read it all), at least it is a source, and in the absence of any other, in my opinion, it was a valid source.

Everybody else has responded by now, but edit wars have restarted. I would have appreciated your contributions and insights within the discussion, but I assume you had a valid reason not to do it. I am open to discuss with you the possibility of working together, as admins (even if it is from different wikipedias) towards reaching a consensus, even if we both need to compromise on some areas. If both of us work together, especially given that we have different (and even opposing) points of view, and eventually reach a consensus, we might be able to bring others to accept it, and even set a precedent of good-will and hard work towards NPOV. If it fails, then I am more than willing to back you up in your request for mediation.

--the Dúnadan 17:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm considering what should be done next on each of the three points I raised, and I'm sure we can work together on these and other ameliorations. I am a little short of wikitime at the moment (I may have to urgently return to Catalonia for family reasons, among other time-shortages), but I am going to take a look at what has happened on the affected articles now and I shall be on wiki on Monday (CEST) with a few more proposals (and, I hope, a referenced article on Blaverism, fascinating subject that it is!) Best wishes, Physchim62 (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

wikimisery

Hi Physchim.

As the administrator you are, I thought of you regarding Mr. Bouvila. He is one of the worst editors I have ever seen (only second to another which I won't even mention for fear of taking him out of his self imposed retirement, you don't know him anyway...lucky you!).

I can -hardly- deal with selfrighteous nationalists who come to wikipedia to mimick the same story they are told at the local ERC, CUP, whatever club. Well, actually each time I have more and more trouble in dealing with these -to put it mildly- "editors in a rather weak reasoning", and that is why I am retreating from wikipedia, slowly but surely. However, insulting such as in [6] is probably a bit too much and I should always have some spare time to enter wikipedia and denounce it.

You have more examples of his finesse here [7]

Since you are an administrator, please tell me: why wikipedia has to deal and compromise with this kind of intellectual misery? isn't it self evident that 3.14 hours blocks won't work nor are the right answer?

Damn, they are stubbornly confiming the odd reflections made from the Nietzschean cliffs [8], aren't they?...

Mountolive

---

Hey! That's me.

Actually, my attitude towards Mountolive has a reason. Well, more than one. But here you can see few examples of how he keeps an aggressive attitude against me all the time. This, is why I acted so:

1. Here he insulted me when I was just trying to discuss an issue about the Crown of Aragon article.
2. Here, here he insulted me, and my family.
3. Here he changed "Catalan" to "Catalonian". I would like to comment three things about this: first of all, I did not write Catalonian there, it was someone else. And anyway, as you can see here, Catalonian is correct too. And finally, in addition he was not right with his revert, he stated "I think you would like to know that the adjective for Catalonia is Catalan...Jesus, gives us patience...", which is clearly sarcastic.

So all in all, I guess it is understandable that I called him "fucktard". I'm so sorry and stuff, but anyway, I still think the same of him.

By the way, as proved above, if "Catalonian" is also correct, I don't understand why do you revert my edit, Physchim.

And about the other edit this guy mentions here, it was just a joke, since the other user kept reverting the edits I did to the article, so I kept adding them. Onofre Bouvila 18:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

---

I refer you both (myself, I'm an atheist) to the wise words at the top of my talk page. Physchim62 (talk) 09:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Physchim, as you can see in my talk page, there is more people ready to engage in official action agains the oversensitive guy (apparently he thinks he can say "you fucktard" to me but I can't say that he -and myself- we are not with the smartest wikipedians....and insulting his family?? I'd laugh if the accusation wasn't that grave...)

If you are not willing to promote this official scrutiny of his edits (your answer above is too cryptic for someone not that smart as myself :P), I would appreciate, for the sake of the community, that you let me know how to proceed and whom to address: it is high time for someone to come to terms with his own actions.

Thank you in advance,

Mountolive.

PS. I read somewhere that you had to come to Catalonia for urgent family reasons: I hope everything is ok. Warm regards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mountolive (talk • contribs) 09:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes, I've seen the comment on your talk page. This was the combination of mine and his responses to your previous question. Physchim62 (talk) 09:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

24 hour block issued. Physchim62 (talk) 09:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Why the hell do you block me? So the reason to block me is because I removed your "civility warning" from my talk page? Well, I use to remove or archive the old topics from my talk page, but that has nothing to do with you.
If I had been "uncivil" after you had written that in my talkpage, I could understand that you had blocked me for having broken your request of being civil. But this wasn't the case; I kept a civil attitude (I didn't even do any comment anywhere).
In addition to that, I came here and I replied this topic, so I did not ignore your warning.
So I not only fulfilled your request, but I also came here and posted here to make you sure that I had heard you.
Therefore, what's the point of blocking me? You could have blocked me for ignoring your "civility warning" and being "uncivil", but as I said I not only kept a "civil" attitude but I also came here to reply you. So then what's the point with what you did? Since when it's punished to remove a "civility warning" from one's talk page? And if it's so, why didn't you warn me that I could not remove your post from my talk page? As far as I know, one can manage one's talk page talk page however one wants. Onofre Bouvila 14:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello? Could you justify your block, please? Onofre Bouvila 14:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Main page images from the Commons

Hello! For {{c-uploaded}} images, there's no need to change the filename (provided that the image file itself is the same). This only breaks the link to the Commons description page. Thanks! —David Levy 19:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint: the last time I tried to do this, there seemed to be a problem of priority between the two versions, so I went for a "safe" solution this time! Physchim62 (talk) 09:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Capellades_(location_Anoia).png

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Capellades_(location_Anoia).png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. MER-C 10:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Colloque Wikipédia 2007

Hi PC, there is a short conference in Paris in October on Wikipedia and academia. Do you fancy going? It's a lot closer for you than Taipei! I'm planning on going, mainly to talk about the Wikipedia 1.0 stuff and also fact-checking/assessment (the French WP is now using the WP:CHEMS assessment scheme!). A lot of the 1.0 people will be there, since the CD was produced by a French publisher with French help - a veritable Entente Cordiale! It'd be great to meet up with you if you're available. Walkerma 17:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In principle, yes, but I am trying to sort our Turin as well (if that is going to be useful, don't know yet). I am not sure which country I will be living in October either, but hell, life's too short to worry about such details! Physchim62 (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If my "professional commitments" (Ha!) allow me, count me in. Physchim62 (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

NOCl is an anhydride?

Re your comment "NOCl is in no way an anhydride of any nature, and certainly not an acid anhydride)"

HCl + HONO --> ClNO + H2O

--Smokefoot 22:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but under that definition sodium chloride is an anhydride too! So I'm with you, PC! Walkerma 02:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This is just one example of why the concept of "acid anhydride" in inorganic chemistry is not particularly useful. Acidic oxide is a more useful (and more rigorously defined) concept. One day (maybe) students will stop being worried when I explain that sulfurous acid does not exist... Physchim62 (talk) 08:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Benzotriazole

Hi Physchim62. After having created this (short) article, I have remarked that it is linked on one of your userpages. As I am not a native speaker and this is not my “home Wikipedia”, there might be some stylistic or other flaws in the article. It would be great, if you could quickly proofread it. Thanks. --Leyo 16:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Catalonia

Given the extremely low ratio of administrators vis-à-vis users, and in lack of any other administrator involved in the ongoing discussion, I ask you to please take the time to exercise your prerogatives as an administrator despite agreeing with Maurice27's POV (perhaps being neutral is another of my "weird ideas" of adminship). The reiterated insults, swearing and improper behavior of Maurice27 continue to go unnoticed and unpunished. --the Dúnadan 22:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm fed up with the lot of you. The editors on these pages are not interested in writing an encyclopedia, merely on scoring political points. Take the matter to ArbCom (or would you prefer that I do so?). Physchim62 (talk) 08:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I resent your comment. I am not Catalan, and I have no political interest whatsoever in "scoring points". And a quick review to my history and quality of contributions which include a vast array of topics will prove you otherwise. My interest in having articles substantiated in statutory and constitutional definitions is as "political" as yours in opposing them. If you with to take it to ArbCom, that would be fine with me. --the Dúnadan 15:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

A one week block for Maurice27 was perhaps a strict decision. Yet, I have to say that I disagree with you in suggesting that all users involved in the "edit war" be blocked. You have to admit that no other user of the five who oppose him has resorted to abusive language, personal attacks, and no one has ever violated 3RR. Even if he is "quite a character", he is driving out otherwise good-intention editors with his attitude and the leniency he has received from administrators. --the Dúnadan 15:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

All editors in this conflict have received a large degree of discretion from me in my administrative role, yourself (and myself) included. Maurice has received multiple warnings, mostly from me (if he didn't blank his talk page so often, this would be more visible). As an editor, he should know what he is/was risking. However, controlling him seems to have gone beyond what can be reasonably imposed by admins, especially if we wish to promote (I would say institute) reasonable discussion on articles concerning the Paisos catalans. Rendez-vous at WP:RFAr? Physchim62 (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand. If you wish to request for arbitration you have my full support. --the Dúnadan 15:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support and understanding: I don't see that I have much choice! I will attempt to phrase the request in such a manner as not to aggrevate the situation: I think that there are real (i.e., non-content) issues which ArbCom could usefully take a look at. Physchim62 (talk) 09:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Maurice27's block

While there is edit warring going on by several editors on that article, he was the only one I saw engaging in heavy personal attacks, etc. If you can provide diffs of other's doing the same, I'll deal out similar blocks. As far as DR goes, I have to say that as a member of MedCom, I see little hope for this in mediation. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Why did you block me??

Hello? Why did you block me? Since when removing a civility warning from one's talk page is something that deserves a block? You did not even communicate my block to my talk page. I am stil waiting for a justification of your abusive attitude as admin. You not only block for no reason but you also ignore people's requests of justification! Onofre Bouvila 20:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You were blocked for repeated civility violations: if you carry on in the line you are takng, you will be blocked again. If you do not wish to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, then we shall make sure that you do not prevent others from contributing. Physchim62 (talk) 09:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That is absolutely false.

You posted a "civility warning" in my talk page.

That was the only time that you posted there, ever, for this issue.

My reaction to that, was to come here to ask what happened.

We discussed it here, and when the discussion ended, without any result, I removed the civility warning from my talk page, because I use to archive / remove old conversations in my talk page.

Automatically, wen you saw I had removed the civility warning, you blocked me for a 24 hour period.

Your block was absolutely illegitimate, for various reasons:

The way you did it:

1. The reason you gave to block me was: "Yes, I've seen the comment on your talk page. This was the combination of mine and his responses to your previous question.". And few minutes later, you posted "24 hour block issued".
2. All this information was posted in your own talk page, and talking to another user.
3. You did not communicate to me that you had blocked me. I did not see that you had blocked me until, few days later the block had expired, I came to your talk page, and saw that you had said that you had blocked me.
4. In addition, by not communicating me that I was blocked, you did not allow me to ask other admins to review my block.

The reasons why you did it:

1. It is not stated anywhere in this Wikipedia that an user cannot remove stuff from his talk page.
2. You neither told me not to remove that stuff.
3. I accepted and fulfilled your request of having a civil attitude. Ignoring what I had done before (which was not much), since the moment you told me that, I kept a civil attitude.
4. I also lost my time coming here to reply you, so there is no possible way to say that I ignored your request.

In all, your block was just full of irregularities. It was not a normal admin block, but rather a thoughtless decission that you took without following any kind of procedure. You just decided that I had to be blocked because you might think that removing the civility warning that you had posted in my talk page was some kind of lack of respect towards you. But it is frankly stupid to think that way, because of the reasons I've explained above.

And since you realized that you had comitted an enormous mistake, that you had used your admin powers despotically, you just repeatedly ignored the requests that I did to you in your own talk page, where I asked you why had you blocked me (this one, and this one), adding to your unjustified attitude towards me, a high grade of arrogance.

In addition, you are threatening me. Read well what I wrote:

"Hello? Why did you block me? Since when removing a civility warning from one's talk page is something that deserves a block? You did not even communicate my block to my talk page. I am stil waiting for a justification of your abusive attitude as admin. You not only block for no reason but you also ignore people's requests of justification!".

Where do you see a lack of respect here? Where do you see that I "keep" an uncivil attitude? Honestly, you are the one being uncivil: "if you carry on in the line you are takng, you will be blocked again" ... which line I am takng? And why do you threaten me? "If you do not wish to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, then we shall make sure that you do not prevent others from contributing" ... oh, "we". This sounds to me more like a street gang threatening a poor pedestrian, than an admin giving wise advices to a poor Wikipedian. Go to my user page and see the articles I've created. Isn't that a positive contribution?

Look: I am not being uncivil; it is you, the one being disrespectful with me. And I am not ignoring your requests of being civil; I am fulfilling them. And it is rather you, who are not only ignoring my requests of justification for the actions you carried out against me, but also threatening me with new repressive measures. Onofre Bouvila 16:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, hello, hello, my friend "Phys, chim, 62"... I see you are back from your lethargy, but you have dared to reply newer issues in your talk page, instead of giving me an explanation when, in fact, I am asking for it since much before these people to whom you are replying.

So, could you, please, counter-argument the issues that I exposed above?

Because otherwise, I will be morally forced to ask it again and again in your talk page, until you give me a good explanation for what I consider and have sufficiently proved that represents this abuse of power that you comitted against me. . 18:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to leave as many messages as you like. You're in a hole, and I don't see why I should stop you from digging! Physchim62 (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Definitely, with comments like this, you show that you are unable to counter my argumentation. You did not follow any kind of procedure at time to block me, and you adopted an arrogant and fascist attitude. And now, you just have no arguments to justify what you did.

If I did not have better things to do than editing Wikipedia, I would report you so you would lose your adminship and you would probably be blocked in response to your abuse of power.

But, luckily for you, I have no time to waste with this discussion.

So, in all, you are in evidence: you comitted an abuse of power and you just cannot justify what you did. Ridiculous. Simply ridiculous.

But it's not strange from you. Reading your talk page, and having seen how you have been previously enganged in personal attacks and other civility issues, what you did to me is just another step in your despotic adminship. Just another step in your evil and malignant path.

Pathetic. . 20:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Away

Hi PC, I just wanted to let you know that I'll be away from home till Friday, though I hope to be able to help again with gold book work before Friday. I've been putting together a three hour workshop on wikis, a lot of work! I thought I should mention it, so you don't think you're just talking to yourself! All the best, Walkerma 13:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have seen your abstracts, very worthy work! You're not willing to release a GFDL poster version which we could plagiarize (or translate for Paris)? ;) Physchim62 (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: RfM for Valencia (autonomous community)

Is this what you're looking for? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, thank-you very much! :) Physchim62 (talk) 09:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Energy (chemistry)

I notice that you have some how deleted the Energy (chemistry) article and redirected all links to it to Energy. In essence you have deleted my article. May I know, why you did so. If you wanted to add chemical energy to the energy article, you could have done so even without deleting the Energy (Chemistry article, which included much more information than that you have provided in Chemical energy. The Energy (chemistry still remains in the Energy (diambiguation) page. I think your edits are totally irrational and unfair.Hallenrm 07:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I certainly haven't deleted Energy (chemistry): it is still there, along with all your edits (see page history. You decided to remove the proposed deletion tag, as is your right, I decided that the page would be better as a redirect, as is my right. There is nothing "irrational or unfair" about it. You may feel that my edits are irrational, but then I feel that yours are! In physics, chemistry, earth sciences, cosmology, scientists are talking about the same thing when they speak of energy: to attempt to split the page like that is to deny an important scientific reality. Physchim62 (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I read the post at the help desk and would like to try to offer an observation. The Prod stated "You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason." Hallenrm removed the prod, apparently objecting to the deletion of the article. The page then was "merged to energy" (as stated in the edit summary) 12 hours later. Per Help:Merging and moving pages, mergers typically require consensus or silence typically after five days of posting a merge notice. I think it would be appropriate to restore the Energy (chemistry) page and either list it for AfD as mentioned in the prod, propose a merge per Help:Merging and moving pages, come to an agreement between yourselves on how to proceed, or post the matter at Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy to see what that WikiProject suggests. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 04:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help, Jreferee, but the article is not deleted. Any user can revert my edit, that is the nature of a wiki (although I will take it to AfD if an article is placed at this name). As you mention, the prod tag says "You may remove this message if you improve the article": Hallernrm did nothing to improve the article when he/she removed the tag. As I am not allowed to re-prod an article, I took one other the other options open to me, which was to merge. Physchim62 (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Physchim62, you say "I certainly haven't deleted Energy (chemistry): it is still there, along with all your edits (see page history.". But that is a totally false statement, what is there is your edit to the Energy page under the subtitle Chemical Energy. It appears you are bent upon mischief, just to settle scores with me. By the way, Energy (disambiguation) page still has a link to Energy (Chemistry) which noew mysteriously leads to Energy page, which is grossly misleading. I do hope that you will follow the wikietiquette, if you are an admin or aspiring to become one.Hallenrm 07:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Physchim,

You say "Any user can revert my edit, that is the nature of a wiki (although I will take it to AfD if an article is placed at this name)." But I could not do it. So please revert your edit. And Then Do what You want, and in future be careful of the rules on wiki and don't try to jump in haste. I would also like to take the matter for arbitrationHallenrm 17:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to modify your above comments in the light of this edit (made just four minutes after you left the message above). If you wish to take the matter to arbitration, you will find all the necessary details at WP:RFAr. Physchim62 (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

boron trioxide

Please move this back to boron oxide. There is no BO₃ compound, other than the cell. -lysdexia 08:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:PD-Old regime Iraq

Template:PD-Old regime Iraq 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.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Opium

Thanks for acting so quickly to resolve the status of the Opium article. I'm glad to hear that it has a chance to be A-class, so if there's anything I can do to help please let me know. Mike Serfas 15:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Matero escut.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Matero escut.gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Piera (escut).gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Piera (escut).gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Bandera Sant Feliu de Codines.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bandera Sant Feliu de Codines.gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Capellades (escut).gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Capellades (escut).gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

people is ready for new rounds

Hi Physchim. I know you must be busy with your "evil and malignant path" (hahaha, that guy is, I think I told you...err... should I say funny, to put it mildly?). The thing is that looks like some people in Valencian Community are tired already of calmed waters and ready for some "shake it, shake it!!" renewed episodes...I would like to hear your opinion on the "Castilian affair" before engaging in further blablabla, if I ever do at all, since these guys are well capable of tiring me to death with boredom....

Mountolive.-

Yes, well, I have been on a self-imposed holiday from participating in such debates, but the pages are still on my watchlist so I have seen that there has been some activity ;) Casa seems to thinks that two PoVs make an NPoV, but I shall hold off for the moment before diving in again (having just moved house and whatever!). Best wishes, Physchim62 (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, yes, I am very busy with my "evil and malignant path", which takes me from my flat round a selection of the 28 bars in Capellades (pop. 5302). I shall be back after the Festa Major! Physchim62 (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, between Festa Major and Major Mess in Valencian articles, I think the choice is clear! I would do the same...Anyway, if after the holidays, the post-coitum depression is so deep that you want to intervene there (if anything has happened at all, that is to say, because I am not myself delighted at the prospect of round # xxxx) then your views will be most welcome.

One advice which you must have learnt the hard way already: just say "yes" to everything Catalan nationalists say (there must be more than a few in Capellades, the CUP even got a councilor!) and then you will be a nice guy. If not, then you will incurr in an evil, malignant path, arrogant and fascist...

Have fun, mate.

Mountolive

Yes, well, the ERC lost the alcaldia in Capellades, basically because they didn't do anything for three-and-a-half years and it was a little bit too obvious when they started doing things six months before the elections! I don't expect the CiU to be any better, mind you! There is a large catalanist group here, who give great parties and so I shall heartily recommend them! All the best, Physchim62 (talk) 12:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't confuse CUP (Candidatures d'Unitat Popular) with CiU (Convergència i Unió). The former is some sort of "more popist than the Pope" (as we say in Spanish) latter day appearance of ERC. If ERC did little during these years, it makes sense that they suceeded in getting their -I believe single- city councilor....anyway: enjoy it!

Mountolive.

Hi Physchim. I know you are not up to discussion in Valencia now (neither am I, actually) but things are getting worse and worse with an emboldened anon user who is destroying the basic cornerstone of the consensus reached back in the day (amongst others, he is now editing "Valencian" into "Catalan", for example) based on bizarre reasons like "making it more understandable to English readers" which can't hide his obvious POV.

I would really like that you use your admin magic to check the identity of this anon (I have my suspicions...you know, months of being heavily exposed to that article can make you a bit paranoid). Whether he is a "usual suspect" who just "forgets" to register or a genuine new one, I am demanding that you block him until he shows some respect for the consensus reached and engages in serious talk page debate if he think is needed.

Please keep me posted.

Thanks! Mountolive

I'm looking into it, and you can be fairly sure that my recent edit to Valencian Community (thank God we finally got the name changed!) won't be my last for today. Physchim62 (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Mountolive, you can play to policeman dectective if you wish, but I'm not bizarre about making this topic better explained to English-speaker persons, to whom this WP is intented to be oriented. You can read a intervention of an anon who self-claims to be a British living in Valencia here and here. Of course, you have not responded to him, because only when it isn't on your interest you claim "consensus" when in fact you don't want to discuss. Benimerin. --84.120.254.73 10:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That user as explained his POV on talk page, but hasn't reverted 12 times like you. There is a little diference. --Maurice27 10:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm more boldest than this user, it's true, but I'm not a liar and angry person as you. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 12:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You have that rare gift of trying to make your way in the world by pushing against the doors marked 'Pull'. --Maurice27 12:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The valencian flag... again...

Hey buddy, between beer and beer, would you mind taking a look at this [[9]]. This anon is becoming more and more arrogant even if proven wrong... (reminds me of some people hehehehe...). Cheers and have fun in the festa! --Maurice27 17:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Physchim, I've been also reverted:

• On article: here [10], here [11], here [12], here [13], and here [14]...
• On talk page: here [15] and here [16]. --> (because I added a template!!!!)
• Mountolive has been reverted: here [17], here [18], here [19], here [20] and here [21]

As soon as you sober back, take a look please ;)

--Maurice27 10:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I've seen and, as I said to Mountolive above, I'm looking in to it. The Valencian flag issue is complicated—although you have done a lot to simplify it with your research—but I think it can be solved by well-intended discussion. When I get a moment, I will put forward my arguments, but for the moment I've got a more serious problem to worry about! Physchim62 (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Blockage of Benimerin

I've been following the debate on both the Spanish flag and the use of Castilian as a synonym of Spanish, and offered my opinion exclusively on the latter (which happen to agree this time with Maurice27). However, I disagree with the outcome whereby you indefinitely blocked Benimerin from Wikipedia, on two grounds: (1) no case was opened at WP:SSP (or at least I couldn't found it; if there was, please direct me to it), and therefore, no opportunity for the purported sock puppet (or innocent user) to defend himself; the drastic decision of permanent blockage is, to my eyes, based on mere speculation, and (2) his contributions (exclusive to Benimerin, not to the purported puppeteer) were controversial but far from destructive. I hope you had followed the argument closely instead of basing your decision on the version of the facts that you were getting from Maurice27 and Mountoulive, or on your sympathy for their POV. --the Dúnadan 22:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Physchim? sympathy for my POV? hehehehehe you gotta be kidding! Do I have to remind you how many times I've been blocked by him? But heck! Guess I deserved it... --Maurice27 23:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sympathy for you, sympathy for your POV. You might have been blocked for your own actions, but he seems to agree with many of your POVs. In this case Benimerin seems to have been blocked not for his actions, but for his strong opposition, though never destructive, to his/your POV. I wish a WP:SSP had been opened to really prove that which he was accused for, or that his permanent blockage be reconsidered. --the Dúnadan 15:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to discover that you find his attitude with multiple reverts described here above "never destructive". --Maurice27 16:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

No need to be sorry, don't worry. Multiple reverts within a 24 hour period are a violation of WP:3RR which would merit (if that had been the case, but no case was opened there either) a temporary blockage. Since the multiple reverts were fully justified in the talk page (though you/we might not agree with the logic of the arguments or with the proof provided), they cannot be described as WP:Vandalism, but simply as part of the debate. The page should have been blocked until the debate had reached its conclusion. Even if his actions could be defined as vandalism (by stretching out the definition), vandalism merits temporary blockage unless it is reiterated, and this is not the case, unless the sock puppetry accusation is confirmed by proof and not speculation. That would bring me to my final concern, that no such case was opened at WP:SSP, and therefore, the decision was hasty. --the Dúnadan 17:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that Benimerin (talk · contribs) was blocked for being a sockpuppet of an indef-blocked user. The sockpuppetry was absolutely blatant. You are quite correct that his edits on their own and as Benimerin would not justify such a harsh measure, although they would merit several rounds with the Large Wet Haddock as a minimum measure: however there was every indication that his actions would become just as disruptive as they were when he edited as Onofre Bouvila (talk · contribs). He was already well on the way. WP:SSP exists to allow any wikipedian to report suspected sockpuppet activity: it is not a prerequisite for blocking, as is obvious by the ten day discussion period. You might also like to check WP:RFCU: the recommended action for an "obvious, disruptive sockpuppet" is "Block. No checkuser is needed". Benimerin can appeal the block on his talk page: however, I wouldn't like to count on his chances of success. As Onofre Bouvila, he has already been refused twice. Physchim62 (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I disagree with you: (1) the sockpuppetry of Benimerin was not blatant and not obvious, otherwise I would have seen it myself, and (2) his actions were not disruptive: He reverted, but provided proof of his POV. That cannot be qualified as vandalism. I have to ask you again, did you follow the argument thoroughly? --the Dúnadan 17:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Characteristics of sock puppets

Not surprisingly, sock puppet accounts usually show much greater familiarity with Wikipedia and its editing process than most newcomers. They are more likely to use edit summaries, immediately join in edit wars, or participate vocally in procedures like Articles for deletion or Requests for adminship as part of their first few edits. They are also more likely to be brand new or a single purpose account when looking at their contributions summary.

Retrieved from Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Identification and handling of suspected sock puppets

Sorry Dunadan, but I think it's you who is allowing your judgment to be clouded by the fact that this user was arguing on the same side as you in certain debates. If you wish to open a case at WP:SSP, go ahead, but frankly you will only be wasting people's time. Not only is it obvious that this account was a sock puppet account, it is also obvious who it belonged to. As the puppeteer had been indefinitely blocked for serious and repeated breaches of WP:NPA, a block which was confirmed by two other admins, the sock puppet account is also blocked indefinitely. Standard practice, as you well know. Physchim62 (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Then be so kind as to illuminate me and remove the clouds. I have reviewed Onofre's contributions (I never met him) and as far as I have been able to see, he did not participate at all on the discussion of the Valencian Flag. His edits were political/ethical and related to other issues, whereas the issue of the Flag of Valencia is a matter of sources. It is not as blatant or as obvious as you want me to believe. The above quote, as you know, is a rule of thumb; many an anon participate extensively at Wikipedia before registering.

If you had followed the debate you would have noticed that he contended the consensus on two grounds (1) the legal document provided by Maurice27 explicitly states that it pertains to municipal flags; he questioned whether this legal source could be interpreted in such a way as to include the community's flag and (2) he provided pictures of hoisted flags of 2:1 proportion, thus questioning the interpretation of the legal source. Maurice27 has not provided any flags of 2:3 proportions (except folded flags whose proportion is blurred). Please forgive me but those arguments cannot be classified as disruptive. Other than your speculation of him being Onafre, the blockage is not justified.

By the way, being a new user (and since I cannot say he is the same as Onafre), why do you say that I am on the same side as him on certain debates? I might agree with his proposal, only because I have yet to see the 2:3 flag in real life. Don't you think that maybe your judgment was clouded by the fact that you disagreed with him? Don't tell me how bad Onafre was. Please illuminate me and show me how obvious it is that Onafre and Benimerin are the same user. Benimerim was not blocked for being a sockpuppet of Onafre: Benerim was blocked for being a purported and not confirmed, sockpuppet of Onafre.

--the Dúnadan 18:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Benimerin started editing as an anon shortly after Onofre Bouvila had been blocked. This (fixed) IP address had never previously been used to edit Wikipedia.
2. Benimerin immediately started to edit articles related to the Valencian Community, and from a "Catalanist" PoV; these were two characteristics of Onofre Bouvila's editing.
3. Benimerin immediately got himself into edit wars with other editors, something which is rare for a true newbie user. He was however, careful not to breach 3RR. His general editing approach shows that he had not simply been editing for two days, but rather that he had substantial experience of Wikipedia practices.
4. When editors complained on my talk page, Benimerin knew exactly where to find the complaints. How would anyone know that there could be complaints on my talk page, unless they had recently been involved in disputes with me? Don't forget that it is several weeks since I had edited articles related to the Valencian Community, there is no reason for an uninvolved editor to associate me with the current disputes.

If you do not believe that this user is Onofre Bouvila (talk · contribs), then please tell me which of the established users who contribute to Valencian topics was using this sock-puppet. All of them (with the obvious exception of Toniher (talk · contribs), who seems to be on a wikibreak) have edited since the block was imposed. In any case, and even if none of the contributors to these topics are angels, most have a little more sense and tact than Onofre Bouvila. Physchim62 (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Benimerin has now requested to be unblocked, in a certain unimitable style "Have good memory if you lie"), so the reasons behind the block will be reviewed by another admin. Dúnadan could have got a review himself, of course, at WP:SSP or WP:AN/I, although he chose not to. I consider the matter closed pending the outcome of the block review. Physchim62 (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've not requested specially to be unblocked, because I have no interest to continue editing in this Wikipedia while articles related to Valencian topics are hijacked by Maurice27 and Mountolive because political reasons. I've expressed only my disappointment to your action and I've advised you to have better behaviour. --84.120.254.73 23:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Following Wikipedia's rules, when someone disagrees with an administrator's action the first thing that a user should do is to talk directly to the administrator. That is what I did. After that, I would have gone either to WP:SSP or to WP:AN/I; not that I didn't chose to do it; I simply followed the procedure of contacting you first, and I was waiting for your explanation, which you just recently gave. You presuppose that he is a sock-puppet (not an active anon user with a dynamic non-repeating IP address), and then it is just a matter of finding a puppeteer (Onofre, Toniher... whoever). If he is indeed shown to be a sock puppet, then I apologize to you for giving you an unnecessary headache. However, I must tell you that your decision was also based on somebody else's POV (or your own POV) and assume that his edits have a "Catalanist" point of view. I fail to see how it is that a discussion over the proportions of a flag relate to a Catalanist (or anti-Catalanist) POV. Or is it simply a matter of legal sources vs. visible flags displayed in government buildings? We are not talking about two different flags, but simply proportions of visible flags vs. "legal sources" of how flags should be. Please, tell me, do Catalanist actively support the use of one proportion of a flag over the other? --the Dúnadan 20:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Dúnadan, thanks a lot to your words about me, WP:ca is too lucky because having an user good-minded as you. --84.120.254.73 23:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Dúnadan, the problem when you stop assuming good faith in other editors—as when you accuse me of blocking for political of PoV reasons—is that those editors tend to stop assuming good faith in you. Your actions seems designed to waste my time and to try to persuade me not to persue sock puppets of Onofre Bouvila. You don't seem to wish there to be a serious investigation—I believe that it is because you are afraid of what that would prove. Physchim62 (talk) 10:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I repeat: I'm not this user called "Onofre Bouvila". You're going to a very deep mistake, because the reasons you're arguing are simply casual facts. Instead to be paranoid, you should to stop the hijacking of articles related to Valencian Community by users Maurice27 and Mountolive. --84.120.254.73 10:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC) PD:"If you tell the truth, you don’t have to have a good memory", Mark Twain.

Mark Twain was quite true; however, you are twisting his quote to suggest that other userts are lying. As I said above to Dúnadan, if you are not willing to assume good faith in other users, I do not see why other users should assume good faith on your part. Physchim62 (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you please stop adding Mountolive in your accusations? He hasn't done anything but to express his ideas, just like you expressed yours... Who is then hijacking the article? The difference is that he didn't revert 12 times. --Maurice27 13:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Physchim62, either I am a terrible communicator, or you constantly misinterpret what I write. Let me be clearer for the last time:

• I do wish to have a serious investigation. That is what I asked of you from the very beginning: to open a case instead of blocking out of speculation. Didn't I say that from the very beginning, in my first comment (point number 1)? Let me cite myself, just to be clear: "no case was opened at WP:SSP (or at least I couldn't found it; if there was, please direct me to it)"
• I am not dissuading you from pursuing sock puppets, I am asking that you do so through the proper channels. Moreover, I am citing, verbatim, your reasons for blocking him: you stated that he has a "Catalanist" PoV, and that his edits were destructive. I never stopped assuming good faith from you, but when you say that a silly argument over the proportions of a flag has political motivations, then it is you who is not assuming good faith. You blocked him not by the merit of his own actions (you eventually admitted this yourself), but by the merit of the actions of Onofre: until he is confirmed to be Onofre, the blockage is unjustified; therefore it is imperative to use all means to prove that he is indeed Onofre.
• I have no problem at all if you are proven right, and if the investigation confirms your wise instincts as an administrator. In fact, I will be the first to congratulate you! I am not afraid of being shown proofs! I am not defending Benimerim hismelf as a user, but his right to defend himself within a system that presupposes innocence of all editors. If by the end of the process of investigation he is proven to be a malicious sock puppet, then by all means, I will agree with his permanent blockage, and the blockage -or at least a constant verification- of the IP address(es) he might be using, no matter how polite his most recent edit might be. However, I do have a problem when you assign political motivations to debates where there are none, and then use those as a reason to block a user withouth opening an investigation in the first place. I am terribly sorry to have wasted your time. I am also terribly sorry that you misinterpreted my petition.

--the Dúnadan 13:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, Dúnadan, it's none of your buisness. You are not an admin on English Wikipedia. If you wish to question my admin actions, you may do so, but I will ask myself why you are questioning them (just as I do, incidentally, with Mountolive and Maurice27). If you wish to open an investigation, there are lots of ways that you can do it. However, I shall continue to act in a way which I think has the support of other en: admins and of the en: Arbitration Committee, for so long as I believe that such actions still retain their support, whatever you yourself feel. Are you seriously suggesting I should act otherwise? Physchim62 (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop putting words/suggestions in my mouth, and please read what I write. As a concerned user, it is my business and my right to question the actions of any administrator, as it is the business and right of any user in this community called Wikipedia. Instead of opening a case for what I considered an inappropriate administrative action, and assuming good faith of you (but you failed to see it), I opted for the first option therein suggested: talk to the administrator so that s/he could explain her/his actions. Of course you could ask why I was questioning, and I have responded to all your questions, though you misinterpreted my answers, until I was clear enough.

Quite frankly I am frustrated and disappointed at the lack of success in using this friendly venue and with the implicit/explicit direct unconstructive criticism from your part (e.g. you are afraid of what it may prove) and phrases than instead of assuaging the debate, kindle the animosity. I am sorry to see that you cannot handle constructive criticism, neither coming from a normal user nor coming from a fellow administrator [of whatever Wikipedia] (I resent your comments on this and other debates concerning my "weird ideas" about adminship). I have never, in anyway, being aggressive, neither have I resorted to sarcasm nor to direct ad hominem attacks in addressing this issue. Whether it was out of sarcasm or out of a real concern when you asked: "are you seriously suggesting that I act otherwise?", I will offer my suggestion: be open to constructive criticism even in what you think has the support of your fellow administrators in this Wikipedia. They might give you their full support, but you might have learned, even if little, from the opinions of others who might disagree with your actions.

--the Dúnadan 00:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"Man has such a predilection for abstract deductions that he is ready to distort the truth intentionally, he is ready to deny the evidence of his senses only to justify his logic" - Fyodor Dostoyevsky --Maurice27 01:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Why mediation? What happened? Who's shirt is this? Why am I naked?

Hi Psych, what are we mediating at Catalonia and VC? I can't work it out from talk pages. Boynamedsue 15:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Errm, that's actually a great part of the problem! Thank-you for putting it so succinctly! My allegation (and for the moment it is only that, as it is before ArbCom) is that a certain group of editors are preventing others from editing these articles, unjustly and by means which might not really be described as WP-compatible. If ArbCom decides to take the case, it will have to try to decide whether or not I'm right (I don't envy them, but then that's why I've never put myself up for ArbCom). Why the problem has gone to ArbCom is a long story which I'm not really willing to discuss at the moment. (by the way, nice pecs...) Physchim62 (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Given his at times kinda reckless behaviour, it must be Maurice's shirt...what were you doing? why didn't you call me?? Mountolive

If it has a 2:3 Valencian flag in a promenant position, it is probably Maurice's shirt. I should wrap it around your waist to avoid getting arrested for indecent exposure. I'm sure Maurice won't mind, given the circumstances of your nakedness... Physchim62 (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The flag must at all times be treated with "dignity and respect". Regulations Regarding the Flying of the Valencian Flag, indicates the rules for the display of the flag. Official regulation states that the flag must never touch the ground or floor, be used as a table cloth or draped in front of a platform, cover a statue, plaque, cornerstone etc. at unveiling or similar ceremonies, start or finish any competition, race or similar event, be manufactured or used as underclothes, bath and floor mats or any similar demeaning application, or be used for any commercial advertising in a manner that will distort or show disrespect to the flag. This said, I won't mind too much, promise! --Maurice27 16:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Mallorca vs Majorca

(I posted this to Majorca talk, with no response.) Whether the "Requested move" being discussed is from Majorca to Mallorca or from Mallorca to Majorca isn't clear, but based on the remark under "Move done" that the move is fait accompli, the dispute seems to have been settled in favor of the -J form ("Majorca"). I strongly object to "Majorca" being used as the spelling of the primary listing. The assertion, below, that "In English the island's name is Majorca", isn't substantiated, and countervailing evidence such as an earlier observation based on Google hits isn't rebutted. Argument based on unqualified assertion, without evidence, is insulting, and presages a dim future for Wikipedia if accepted. The experience of Stemonitis suggests the J form [as most common in English]; mine suggests the LL form [as most common in English]. A few lines later, another user implicitly argues that Robert Graves preferred the "Majorca" spelling, which is relevant but not compelling by itself. Perhaps the J spelling is a British preference, rather than a widely Anglophone preponderance? Here's a short listing, somewhat random, of preferred spelling broken down by publishers and online sources: LL form: Rand McNally, Getty Thesaurus of Geographical Names, Alexandria Digital Library UCSB (University of California Santa Barbara), Google Maps, Mapquest, Lonely Planet, Rough Guide, Google hits (needs interpretation, but seems between 3:1 and 5:1 in favor of LL) J form: Meriam-Webster, Microsoft World Wide Media Exchange, Robert Graves Equivocal/unclear (depending on the meaning of the terms Standard and Conventional): United States Board on Geographic Names (BGN): Mallorca — "Standard (Spanish)"; Majorca — "Conventional (English)" Paulownia5 21:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Additionally, as mentioned by at least one other user, there's a question of phonetic representation ... if "Majorca" is used, but assuming a normal Spanish (approx. "Y") pronunciation, then German (!) phonetics/orthography are really being borrowed ... (unless one goes even farther afield to reach for an e.g. Argentine "DJ"/LL). If this is still in a state of acrimony, is there a precedent for posting both forms (Majorca and Mallorca), cross-linked so as not to imply a preference? Paulownia5 02:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's true, I only considered UK usage. There are plenty of uneducated soles in Great Britain who even pronounce it with a hard "j" sound! I think the route of the spelling come from the era of the Napoleonic Wars—the name is spelt with a "j" in French as well. I'll have another look at it in the light of suggestions that there might be different spellings in different forms of English. Physchim62 (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Interesting about the French «J», the full form being «Majorque» ... thankfully not an English J/dj but more of a zh and a similarly softened /que/ ... or is it spelled J and pronounced LL [i.e. y]?. Paulownia5 18:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Capellades (escut).gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Capellades (escut).gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to point this out...

I was reading all the requests and explanations from "the other side" in the Request for arbitration and I found these so cynical and hypocrite statements, apart all the shit they are throwing to both of us of course, from Dunadan here: ([22]), where he says:

• "that the administrator Physchim62 names as "culprits" three users who have never engaged in edit wars and who have never resorted to insults (unlike Maurice27); in fact, none of us have been blocked for disruptive behavior or for violating WP:3RR."
• Physchim62 claims that we act as a group

This was the point when I started rolling on the floor laughing!!! Take a look at this section from April in Casaforra's ca-wiki talk-page:([23])

• "El problema és que amb usuaris tan tossuts com ell, no assolirem res de productiu si no ens unim. A la viqui en anglès existeix una política que prohibeix que cap usuari reverteixi un article més de tres vegades (en:WP:3RR) o serà bloquejat. (De fet, Physchim62 ja m'ha amenaçat, però no va amenaçar Maurice27... que sí que ha violat la regla). Però, si dos o més usuaris reverteixen les edicions d'un sol usuari tossut que no justifica les seves edicions, llavors només aquest usuari seria bloquejat. Si estàs d'acord amb la meva proposta, et demano que escriguis la teva opinió a la pàgina de discussió i que també reverteixis els canvis que faci Maurice27. Així, si ell no comença a debatre d'una manera civilitzada, com nosaltres, ell podria ser bloquejat per violar la regla de 3RR. --Dúnadan 00:59, 9 abr 2007 (CEST)"

Man, I'm about to call my job to see if they can hire Dunadan as a teamwork benefactor!!! ROFL. How can he have the cold blood to still deny their work as a team?

And... About this:

• "és normal que Physchim62 no s'hi vulga ficar en tot aixo perquè ja ha mantingut a ratlla Maurice27 durant un temps, l'ha bloquejat, i ha debatut amb ell públicament a les pagines de discussió. Així que qualsevol acció que hi prenga en contra pot ser malentesa com a animadversió personal"

I would like to say this: "The sinning is the best part of repentance. - Arabian Proverb" --Maurice27 02:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Maurice, behave yourself! There are some comments which should not be replied to. They are the wiki equivalent of rhetorical questions, the answer is already in the comment. Personal attacks made on Catalan wikipedia are a subject for their admins (I am, of course a user on Catalan Wikipedia). Physchim62 (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Since I've been mentioned here I'd like to point out that previous Maurice27 post in Mountolive's talk page [24]:

"I have finally been uncensored by the "Mighty Force". Fortunetly, I had another trip this week, so it didn't bother much. After reading your present position in the Valencia (autonomous community) talk page, I would like you to send me your e-mail (if willing) to maurice27_wiki (at) hotmail (dot) com. I feel that sometimes it is hard to communicate ideas in the talk pages without disturbing other users and without filling with text these talk pages. I hope this will give us some privacy to use longer paragraphs in our future colaborations improving articles. I would also ask you to erase the mail as soon as possible from first sight to prevent "unwelcome visits" (even if it is obviously not my formal e-mail). Adeu Maurice27 18:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)"

Who's been working as a team?

--Casaforra (parlem-ne) 14:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to my reply above. Physchim62 (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversial matters for the Request for arbitration

I have created a page where we can all expose our controversial matters in each of the articles filled in the request for arbitration. You are invited to contribute in it in order to explain our POVs to the comittee in a clear way. --Maurice27 13:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Joanot's outing is quite some news!!! innit? This is getting interrrrrrrrrrrresting!!!

--Mountolive | Talk 15:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Outing and working hard... Do you know his last one? He modifies other users reports to admins!!! --Maurice27 13:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: Bandera de Valencia

OK, entiendo, y estoy entiero acuerdo con tu analisi, peró ¿por qué está utilizada (en algunas veces) una bandera de proporciones 1:2? Se feria una historia interesante para Wikipedia, ¿no? Physchim62 (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think when the senyera is used together with the other two flags, Spain and the EU, it's 2:3 because of reeference #3. If Valencian senyera can't be more bigger than the Spanish flag, so the height of senyera should be more little than the Spanish flag, and both should have the same width, respecting ratio 1:2. But as the Senyera neither can't be more little than "other" flags, such with the EU flag, the height should be extended at the same size of European flag, but the width is maintained. And the result it can't be 1:2 but 2:3, it means, a mimecking. But, when the Valencian senyera is hoisted alone, it's always 1:2. It's another reason why 1:2 is more representative. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 12:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Physchim, Joanot keeps reverting and reverting... You have read yourself that 5 other users (Ignaciogavira, Banderas, FayssallF, Valentinian and yourself), agree that 2:3 proportions are, at least, the ones with more chances to be the ones. I have made some changes following this user's advices to give more importance to the 1:2 flag; I've explained it is commonly used... Joanot keeps changing saying that it is a "Civil and state flag and civil ensign", which is flagrantly false, that "it's being used de facto" which I almost certain he doesn't even understand what it means, or that the 2:3 is used "because of mimetism with the ratio of the flags of Spain and the European Union", which is also false.

Isn't it proved enough, by the sources, by the users, by the false statements by Joanot that his edits aren't the good ones? Isn't it necessary that Joanot to be, at least, warned because of his behaviour? You told me to "leave things to ArbCom". I respected that, but meanwhile, the article is constantly reverted with false facts completely invented by Joanot.

I wait for your opinion. Cheers. --Maurice27 09:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Capellades (escut).gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Capellades (escut).gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Catalonia

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Catalonia. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Catalonia/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Catalonia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (Talk) 23:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Turnthewheel!

Hi there, was there some reason apart from the edit to the Evolution talk page for this block? It seems very harsh for what appears to be a single offense. Tim Vickers 22:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• The username hardly suggests an editor who is committed to the advancement of Wikipedia. All the same, I'll go and have a cigarette to reconsider. Physchim62 (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Block reduced to 24 hours for simple vandalism. Physchim62 (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, after all, they might become a productive editor - although I've always found that argument unconvincing myself! Tim Vickers 23:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Images again

Physchim, someone erased two record covers from Radio Futura on the grounds of the fair use bla bla. I thought that it was clear, with the tagging you helped me doing back in the day, that they are ok images. Actually, it doesn't make sense at all, since they have left in place one other record cover, which is tagged under the very same rationale.

What should I do to get them restored? --Mountolive | Talk 22:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Physchim, Physchim!! I'm sad :( another stupid, mindless and mean bot erased the covers from Radio Futura....why? ¿por qué no se calla? I saw somewhere that record covers are fair whatever!! I did see it!

Mountolive | Talk 11:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

July 2007

No. You get consensus before making major changes, not after adding them against considerable opposition and protecting the template in an attempt to keep them there.

The matter of the impact of the URAA on the US copyright of these images needs to be cleared up. We have multiple editors with conflicting interpretations of the sources that they've been able to get their hands on, and you've been far from willing to explain your interpretation in any depth or with much clarity. I've already suggested that we promptly contact either the foundation's legal counsel or the Australian Copyright Council to clarify this point, which would perhaps be a more useful means of resolution than your inflammatory conduct so far.

As to the template itself, your actions here were simply incompetent. You added a template claiming that thousands of images that were indisputably public domain were not because you were either too ignorant or lazy to create a seperate template for the images you actually wanted to apply it to. The fact that you continually reverted that back in after this was explained, and even protected the page to keep it on that version, boggles the mind. Rebecca 04:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Rebecca, either:

1. revert your edits to Template:PD-Australia and restore the protection so that a consensus can be reached; or
2. suggest another route for dispute resolution.

In either of these cases, you should stop your personal attacks, on me and on other editors who happen to have a different perspective from your own. I am certain that you are acting in good faith in believing that your edits are correct, but your conduct makes it impossible to convince you otherwise. My edits were not "incompetant", nor "a blatant abuse of admin powers", nor "ignorant", nor "lazy". It is you who feels that you have the right to change a copyright tag after two days "consultation", in which views contradictary to your own were expressed. The template is not, and never shall be, the property of WP:AWNB. Physchim62 (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(response copied to User talk:Rebecca)

Your gall is breathtaking. You changed the copyright tag, which has been in its current version for many months, after universal opposition from an array of editors, at least one of whom openly challenged your interpretation of the respective law after doing some research. You then, in a sheer abuse of admin powers, protected the page to keep it on that version - and broke every single Australian public domain image in the process. I reverted it so that we didn't lose every single such image due to your laziness or incompetence (why you have such a problem with creating a template for the images you actually want to tag, or even explaining your position, god only knows).

Can you realise that the one thing we want here is to work out exactly where we stand on this matter, without acting pre-emptively and losing a lot of good material potentially unnecessarily? You've created an amazing amount of bad blood due to your attitude here - had you a) created a template for the images you actually wanted to tag, rather than repeatedly breaking the existing one even after being warned of the consequences, and b) actually explained your position, I doubt you'd have been met with a hostile response at all. Rebecca 01:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I am unwilling to debate with a person who shows such breathtaking bad-faith and lack of simple manners. I suggest that you take a wikibreak before one is forced upon you. Physchim62 (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to explain to you why the addition of the current tag to that template would have widespread unwanted negative consequences even if you are correct on the 1946-1955 copyright matter. Moreover, I have suggested several times that we seek legal advice to settle that once and for all. All I've heard in response is insistent demands that I re-add the template, despite a solid lack of consensus for its inclusion and the stated issues with the current form of the template regardless of the fate of the 1946-1955 images, and repeated personal attacks on me. I would much rather we sort this out amicably, but if the only response you can manage is along the above lines, then we have little other alternative but to take it further. Rebecca 01:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that you've made some progress on the template talk page, so I've responded there. Hopefully we can indeed take this to an amicable solution. Rebecca 01:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I would have had a chance earlier to explain further, if only you had assumed good faith. Ho hum, at least we seem to be in a phase of dispute resolution, which is the most important thing! I have replied to you interesting suggestion on the template talk page. Physchim62 (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal

Hi Physchim62, I removed the warning template here. I hope that this was okay, undo it if not. Fred ☻ 11:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't quite understand your edit summary, but never mind. I've just logged on and seen the above message, so I shall calm down before taking further action. Although further action I shall take! Physchim62 (talk) 11:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries, even Australians do not understand me. I assume from this diff, that the message was received and that you had replied (with a link) for that user. Very droll, by the way. The 'warning' here became redundant and possibly disruptive, so I was bold. Your response would seem to indicate that it was unhelpful. Cheers, Fred ☻ 12:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, did you decide whether you were going to take action on this? I want to take you off my watchlist if it is going no further. Thanks, Fred ☻ 17:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've given User:Rebecca one more last chance to act reasonably and responsably before taking this further. Physchim62 (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Not who I meant, my action was this. I did not think it was helping discussion, but it was a bold action on part. Again, I hope this was okay. I happen to think Rebecca has behaved, er, with responsibility. Just my opinion and sorry for any confusion. Hope it works out. Fred ☻ 21:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection

• Note: Copied from User talk:Kylu

I'd have been grateful if you'd have contacted me on my talk page before unprotecting Template:PD-Australia: if you wish to take sides with Rebecca, that's your business, but it shouldn't prevent you from following normal admin etiquette. Physchim62 (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hiya Physchim62. We haven't chatted much, but I'd have thought you'd know me just well enough to know I wouldn't "take sides" like that against you. Rebecca mentioned that something in the template didn't transclude correctly and asked for it to be unprotected, so I obliged. Sadly, that's just me assuming that since she was the one asking, it'd have been uncontroversial. You have my apologies. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Your graceful apologies are willingly accepted! At least you had the sense to say that you were doing it on behalf of Beck, otherwise I'd have been really mad at you ;) (see above) Still, as Rebecca and I seem to be entering a dispute resolution phase, there's no harm done. Cheers for now, Physchim62 (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Chembox new

Hi, just a note to tell you I responded at my talk page. --Rifleman 82 15:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:PD-Australia/Image check

Physchim62, thank you very much for your diligent work related to Template talk:PD-Australia/Image check. I am not as active lately on Wikipedia, otherwise I would have helped out. But by the time I examined the page today, you had checked the copyright status of most of the images!

I notice, however, that you have not processed the incorrectly-tagged images. (Which is to be expected – it is a large number of images.) I would love to help out, where I can. Do you have a plan for speeding up processing? My thoughts of a (ideal) process are as follows: Tag the images as non-free, leave a note of justification, notify the uploader (with a custom message, probably), leave a list for the Australian noticeboard, then wait a week (or so) and start nominating images for deletion if it is necessary.

Also, we need to work out a compromise warning to Template:PD-Australia to try to curb any further inappropriate image uploads. Once all of the inappropriately-tagged are dealt with, we can perhaps leave a warning that says, "If the image meets any of the following criteria, please upload as a "non-free" image."

Another thing: it would be very nice if we could keep a bulleted list of which images, at the end of this examination, appear to be correctly tagged; then, we could compare the list to a list of images using Template:PD-Australia at a later date, and check the images not on the list.

Also, for further relevant discussions which you may or may not be aware of, see User talk:Lupo#Template:PD-Australia and commons:Template talk:PD-Australia.

Again, thank you very much for your efforts, Iamunknown 05:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No problems. The master plan is as follows:

1. Check all the "simple" images, those whose date appears on the ID page. Done
2. Check the more complicated cases, and update the ID pages as appropriate. In progress
3. Compile lists of copyright images and unsourced images (see User:Physchim62/German images for an example). In progress (best to leave this to me, otherwise we will be duplicating efforts)
4. Notify uploaders and post at WP:AWNB
5. After a reasonable period of time (I would suggest two weeks), tag images for deletion and renotify uploaders: the images go into the normal "mistagged" procedure (ie, there will be another seven-day delay before anything is actually deleted)
6. It would be useful if involved admins actually do any necessary deletions, to save passing the work on to other image-check admins who have enough to do as it is!

I think it's important to try and get the uploaders involved in writing fair-use rationales etc, where possible. I don't expect them to be head-over-heels-happy, but it's more polite to do it that way than to send a big batch of images straight on the road to deletion. As I mentioned on Template talk:PD-Australia, the decision to not change the tags for the moment is quite deliberate, and stems from my knowledge of the habits of certain of my admin colleagues! On the other hand, I am leaving a text note on the ID page of copyright images during stage 2: this also gives me a chance to second check them for copyright compliance. You can see examples in the section "1–9" of the list, the only one for which stage 2 has been completed so far.

Once we get to stage 4, I will move the bulleted list to an archive file where it can stay for future reference. The wording of {{PD-Australia}} would be changed as part of stage 5.

I'm aware of the discussion at commons, and there is a list of commons images at commons:Template talk:PD-Australia/Image check. The commons category is almost exactly the same size as the one here, and probably in a similar state with regards to mistagged images, but, for obvious reasons, I haven't done anything to it yet!

Best wishes, Physchim62 (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Move

Hi Physchim. Thanks for checking the transwiki article. I am still finding my way. Regards, Fred ☻ 13:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No problems. I did most of the formating on Title 17, United States Code, so I guessed I would be as good as person as any to do the last bits on your tidy up! Physchim62 (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice work too. Do you have any advice for an eighteenth century text I'm working on? I think I'm making it too complicated. There seems to be some latitude regarding format, but as little as possible seems best. I want to get it right before I start on two centuries of material. Fred ☻ 13:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are few strict guidelines for wikisource formatting, it's really pretty much a matter of common sense. My advice would be:

1. try to respect the original structure of the work, but
2. remember that you are creating a text to be used in the 21st century, not a facsimile edition; hence HTML headers and wikilinks are to be encouraged.

Physchim62 (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Decfill

A template you created, Template:Decfill, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 23:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Admin User:Chick Bowen afd close issues

How can an admin close an article at 14 keep / 11 delete at consensus: "delete"? In any event, please help us to restore this article at Deletion Review: Aug 13, 2007. I didn’t even know this happened, it was closed at 14 keeps and 11 deletes; with admins reopening and closing the article on an alternating basis, e.g. see the deletion log history. Thank: --Sadi Carnot 16:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

List of parties to international copyright treaties

Thanks for the TRIPS reference addition. Terry Carroll 00:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Catalonia closed

The above arbitration case has closed. Maurice27 is banned for 30 days, and the parties to the underlying content disputes are encouraged to continue with the normal consensus-building process to produce high-quality articles. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 02:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Response

...but equivalent exists [25], [26], [27]. M0RD00R 18:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

and BTW glad to see a new face coming out of blue (or maybe out of IRC?) into this debate. M0RD00R 19:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Mandraki Shuffle

I've redeleted this because none of the three references apply to the subject of the article. They refer to a racehorse, a pub and a confectionery item, not to the cocktail. Surely for references to assert notability they must apply to the subject of the article, or you might as well put references at random?

If you disagree with the above viewpoint and consider that the references given do assert notability of the namespace topic, why not restore and list at AfD, since there is a difference of opinion here, and the notability is in question even if the references are acceptable? Jimfbleak 14:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the deletion is hasty, at least as it is a cocktail of which I have heard ( and tasted). A PROD might have been better, but the end result will be the same anyway: ie, AfD if restored. I shall continue to see what I can find in the way of references — of course, not all of the world's knowledge is accessible by Internet! Physchim62 (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You are braver than me, it sounds revolting! Jimfbleak 14:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Escut Sant Feliu de Codines.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Escut Sant Feliu de Codines.jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

your comment on my talk page

"the food sample is dissolved in water and about a sample is added to the reagent" <-- I attempted to fix an obvious error in Wikipedia with a good faith edit. My edit was reverted as if it was vandalism, returning an obvious error to Wikipedia. I'm sorry that you do not like the fact that I suggested User:Rifleman 82 should revert a destructive edit. I can't understand the purpose of your edit. Are you defending the reversion of a good faith edit in order to return an obvious error to a Wikipedia page? --JWSchmidt 20:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

1,000 Places to See Before You Die

I see that you speedily deleted 1,000 Places to See Before You Die on September 15. This was a best-seller, with tons of newspaper/magazine reviews, so I don't think a speedy was the best course of action. It should have at least gone to AFD. Just my opinion, Zagalejo^^^ 04:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Moving RfAs

Please don't move RfAs that have failed. There's no reason to do so. If you're going to get involved in closing RfAs, please follow the instructions on doing so; I had to remove it from the main RfA page, which should have had it removed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I did try to follow the instructions at WP:CRAT, which state "For unsuccessful administrator nominations, move the listing...". As for remove the listing at the main RFA page, I thought I had done so, although my edit doesn't show up in the history so was obviously not processed properly. Thank you for your advice, might I suggest that you keep your eye out for such obvious trolling of RfA so that other admins don't have to do your job for you. Physchim62 (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see the confusion. The "move the listing" is talking about the transclusion line (the {{ }} bit), not the actual page. No harm, no foul. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, just gotta ask, since it's been bugging me since I initially ignored it yesterday: what exactly do you mean by the "so that other admins don't have to do your job for you" bit? I'm neither a bureaucrat nor omni-present (though I'm working on both of those), and can't/shouldn't/won't be held accountable for RfAs that are posted while I'm not at my computer. I'm curious as to what exactly you were hoping to say with that statement. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we were both hasty with our initial responses. I think that the removal of admin requests such as this one (I would qualify it as trolling, as it was so obviously doomed to failure and was so obviously taking the piss) is the responsability of any admin who sees it. I saw it, I asked on IRC how to go about the removal, and I misunderstood the instructions :P You didn't see it, you complained that I'd maid a mess of things when I removed it, amd then you saw why I could have misunderstood the instructions. I would say that the matter is closed. I hope there are no hard feelings on your part; dispite my frustrated outburst, I hold no hard feelings towards you. Physchim62 (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Completely lost track of this conversation, but just wanted to drop you a line that there are no hard feelings on my part as well. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Question regarding foreign language sources in WP:V

Thank you for your reply to this thread; could I ask you to look at it again, and perhaps join the main discussion? I am afraid that n this case, the quotation is being pushed to avoid NPOV/UNDUE/FRINGE.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sadi Carnot

Sadi hasn't edited since October 10, and hasn't even requested to be unblocked yet. I think your action to unblock him is impetuous. Could you possibly strike out the accusation of "witch hunt", unless you are able to present evidence that those involved have an axe to grind? It's very rude to allege bad faith without evidence. Please, let's not set a bad example for others who may be watching the discussion. Additionally, if you are willing to mentor Sadi Carnot and monitor his behavior, I will support your unblock, but I recommend that we secure his agreement first. Thanks. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Impetuous is such a benign word. It will take months of effort to undo the damage that Sadi Carnot has intentionally inflicted upon multiple wiki projects. Why risk more?Kww 16:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverting his edits would take minutes, not months. What needs to happen is that all 8562 of his edits need to be individually reviewed in light of the knowledge that he has perpetrated a massive hoax, and kept or deleted as appropriate. That is going to take a long, long, time, and an enormous amount of effort. Given that he is a fraud, there is no reason to allow him to continue to make suspect edits.Kww 17:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The only other editor who opposed the ban, User:Voltron has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user. You stand alone in opposing this ban against a consensus on uninvolved parties. I see that you are a wikifriend of Sadi Carnot. Dear Physchim62, I think you've been trolled. It happens to me too from time to time. For instance, I gave Voltron a barnstar because he had been doing such a good job. Would you consider restoring the block until such time as Sadi Carnot recognizes that he's been breaking the rules, and provides assurances that it won't happen again? I'm happy to have him back if he will provide assurances, but I think it's a big mistake to let him off the hook now. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest you revisit the ANI on Sadi Carnot? While I'm sure your reversal of the suggested ban is well intended, other editors who have more knowledge in the area where you presumed Sadi's contributions to have been useful have begun to chime in and the prognostic is not very positive. — Coren ^(talk) 01:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Physchim62, just letting you know that I restored the indefinite block. I think that it is clear on ANI that at this time the community has endorsed a community ban of Sadi Carnot. I welcome his explanation, but there would appear to be a near unanimous consensus about this issue. If you still have objections, please comment here rather than wheel-warring against consensus. Sarah 06:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sadi Carnot some more.

Hey there. I've responded to your comment on my talk page (I didn't know if you expected my response there or here). — Coren ^(talk) 20:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

You have been named in a request for arbitration titled Sadi Carnot. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and consider making a statement per the instructions there. Thank you. - Jehochman ^Talk 00:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope you won't resign over this matter, which I think is just honest confusion among well-meaning people. We have an opportunity here to clarify policy and make Wikipedia a better place. Let's take advantage of the situation and make the best of it. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well the current solution on the table is that I mentor SC, which is incompatible with me resigning my bit. I do, however, consider the matter a question of principle, as I'm about to make clear on the ArbCom page. Physchim62 (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I am happy for you to mentor SC, and wish that we would have arrived at that solution before this all started. Nonetheless, I would like to proceed with the arbitration, not because I feel anyone needs to be punished, but because our current banning policy is a mess, and it will be very helpful to all concerned if we can get that clarified, per Newyorkbrad's insightful comment. Can we consider this a friendly arbitration were we are merely trying to establish what the principles should be? - Jehochman ^Talk 17:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The arbitration is friendly is so far as I hold no personal grudge against you: as I have already mentioned, I consider you a victim rather than a perpetrator. I do have some concern about your blocking conduct in general—you appear to be too quick on the block button and too long on the block length, IMHO—but it is hardly anything I'd take you to ArbCom over. Please consider the criticism that you will get as a means to improve your future admin actions, rather than as a judgement in you as a person. You are not the only admin who would have acted it the way that you did, as Sarah's reblock proves: it is that the fact that I consider such actions not only as wrong but even as dangerous that explains that the case has got to ArbCom. Physchim62 (talk) 12:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we discuss how this case should have been handled? If we can come to an agreement about a correct process, we can present that to the community jointly. If you and I can come to an agreement, that could swiftly end this controversy.

My current thoughts, based on advice from SandyGeorgia, are that an administrator can place a 30 day block, and then start a discussion of community sanctions at WP:AN or other suitable venue. Community sanctions could potentially be a ban, topic ban, or mandatory mentorship. At the end of the discussion, if a consensus is achieved, the block would be refactored accordingly. If there is no consensus, the case goes to Arbcom. Additionally, anyone could appeal directly to Arbcom at any time if they felt that process was being abused to railroad somebody.

Would that process resolve your concerns? I think we should focus on strengthening the process and clarifying WP:BAN rather than casting blame. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I am perfectly willing to discuss an interim solution, and indeed I have had several such discussions with uninvolved admins. I was about to present a proposal, but it seems unlikely to get your support: I'll try anyway.

The interim solution should be the current situation, where Sadi Carnot has been given a final warning and in which I (or any other admin who wishes to volonteer) will mentor him should he resume editing. Let us not forget that the account is currently inactive and is being watch like a hawk by a substantial proportion of the admin community.

I am unable to accept a solution which involves a "discussion of a community ban": as I have mentioned on the ArbCom page, I believe this to be a gross frustration of the community's wishes as expressed at MfD delete on the defunct CSN. Nor can I accept a solution in which SC is "punished" grossly in excess of what is habitual for these sorts of actions. Blocks are meant to be preventative, there is simply no reason to block at this time. Perhaps that will change in the future, but for the moment no.

As have mentioned to you and elsewhere, the problem seems to lie (at least in part, maybe entirely) in the different interpretations of blocking policy. As Newyorkbrad has pointed out, this confusion extends as far as ArbCom appeal decisions. While we have this unfortunte fiasco over Sadi Carnot, I feel that we should seize the chance to clarify the acceptible interpretations of blockban policy, so that at least all our disputes actually have a lasting benefit for the community. Physchim62 (talk) 12:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I accept. You can mentor Sadi Carnot, if he returns. Let's not quibble over details. As for the horrible confusion that surrounds WP:BAN, I have opened a policy RFC. Arbcom cannot resolve that matter. The community needs to discuss the policy and decide what it should say, and make sure the policy is clear. It will be very helpful if all four of us acknowledge that this problem is due to an honest misunderstanding between administrators about how to apply an unclear policy. I am loath to waste Arbcom's time by going through this process. I think we can all see the ultimate result, so why waste the resources. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that Physchim62 is a suitable mentor for Sadi Carnot. I don't think that Physchim62 has come fully to grips with the concept of Sadi Carnot as a fraud. How about Coren or Tim Vickers, if we are looking for someone with hands that are universally accepted as clean?Kww 03:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The odds of Sadi returning overtly are small. I don't want to quibble about implementation details when the situation has not happened and is unlikely to happen. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

As I have mention above and in other discussions, I am not insisting that it is I who mentor Sadi Carnot. I merely think that mentorship is a perfectly reasonably interim solution, while the various policy and conduct issues are clarified. It avoids the imposition of a contraversial (and at this point unnecssary) block/ban. Physchim62 (talk) 11:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that mentorship is perfectly reasonable. When I blocked, my only intention was to prevent further editing until an arrangement could be made. Forgiveness is a good thing. If a banned user wants to return, under mentorship, we should usually agree if there is a willing mentor. I asked to withdraw the arbitration, but the arbitrators and several other parties still wish to discuss the case. My plan is to observe, and answer any questions people want to ask me. I am very glad, Physchim62, that we could resolve our differences. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Might I add that, in reality, the current situation is more like probation than mentorship. We haven't resolved all the details, but we don't really need to at this stage if everyone agrees that Sadi Carnot has been warned and that a large number of admins are aware of the potential (at this stage hypothetical) further problems that he might cause. Physchim62 (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Culpable bad faith?

Care to stop with vague accusations, and make a specific one?Kww 12:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No, not here thank you. There will be time for that yet, should ArbCom accept the case. I shall merely note that the right that you request for youself is not one that you ever granted the user in question, nor even those who were brave enough to oppose the mob. Physchim62 (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

I would appreciate it if you would respond to my request at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Comment_on_Statements_by_Physchim62_.28Keith_Henson.29

On that page, here, my talk page, or by email to hkhenson@rogers.com

Thanks

Keith Henson 19:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've seen your comments, and you obviously have the right to reply to my implied attacks on your actions. I shall not be responding on that page, nor in detail here, as the case is about to open and there will be a chance for everyone to place their evidence then. Once the evidence page opens, please remember only to edit your own section, as otherwise it becomes very difficult to follow. As for your contension that the "dozen editors" at ANI were the one's who had examined the evidence, this demonstrably incorrect: they hadm't examined the evidence at all, they were either calling for blood in a manner which I have described as culpable bad faith, or were drawn along in the witch hunt. Physchim62 (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't directly related to the ban case opening. The ban came about because a number of editors realized that Sadi had been up to no good, and worse, they were upset because it had taken so long for his behavior to be noticed. I don't know if there is or will be a place to discuss preventing the kind of thing Sadi did from happening in the future. If there is, please post a pointer to it.

It seems to me that there is a weakness for Wikipedians to support form over content, especially when the admins involved are not experts on the topic (and who can be on everything?).

The reason I wanted you to read and comment on these two versions of an article Sadi edited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capture-bonding&oldid=47854434

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capture-bonding&oldid=125688241

is because this was typical of what Sadi did to other articles, stuffing them with referenced but unrelated material, making the articles harder to understand and eventually putting in links in that led back to his pseudoscience web pages.

As I mentioned, John Tooby's evolutionary psychology concept of capture-bonding isn't abnormal psychology, indeed, nothing could be a more normal response in the human EEA (environment of evolutionary adaptiveness) to being captured than to socially reorient to your captors. John Money's concepts are about as remote from EP as you can get. It is, as I commented at the time, as unrelated as putting astrology in a planetary science article.

As for "calling for blood" and "witch hunt" both are descriptive but in the aftermath of looking at what Sadi was doing do you think they were justified? Do you see any factual evidence that he was not doing the things that caused him to be banned? Perhaps people should have been calmer about it, but they were understandably upset that he had gotten away with so much for so long.

Best wishes,

Keith Henson 19:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

PS If you would like to put capture bond up for deletion, I would appreciate it. Keith Henson 20:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration request

Regarding this edit, a big part of the Committee's role is to clarify ambiguities in site procedures and standards. I have no doubt you both acted in good faith. One of the questions we should all be asking is whether the communication among sysops was adequate. As someone who's done a lot of complex investigations myself, I realize how tough it can be to lay out a cogent report about long term subtle disruption - and I wasn't involved in this particular case and wish to remain neutral about whether the investigation was appropriate. On a practical level, I encourage the site's sleuths to create an investigation report in user space to connect all the dots. Perhaps the repeated blocks and unblocks that occurred in this instance could have been avoided if that had happened. On the other end, I'm also concerned when more than two sysops get involved in the indefinite block and/or unblock of an editor. I really think it's healthier for the site's overall functioning to consult the prior sysops who acted and ask them to reconsider their actions, or to wait for community discussion to play itself out and establish clear consensus, or to just bring the matter to an arbitration request. One of the reasons the Committee exists is to examine these matters carefully when the community fails to reach consensus. Although it's no secret that Jehochman and I have worked closely in the past - and I have the highest respect for his research skills and integrity - I want you to know that my actions in the arbitration request are in no way prejudiced against you. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 18:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Rest assured, I have never even dreamt that your comments or actions were directed against me! We fundamentally disagree over Community Bans, that much we both know, but ArbCom is not going to give either of us complete satisfaction, nor should it. Jehochman's actions have turned out to be controversial, mine as well, that is hardly a state secret. The point of my edit was to try and make things as simple as possible to ensure that this case is finally heard, something which I think is for the benefit of all admins and of the Community as a whole. Best wishes, Physchim62 (talk) 11:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, it would be possible for ArbCom to say that both I and Jehochman acted correctly, but that a ban on SC is still the correct course of action. They're crafty these lawyers! But if ArbCom says that anyone's actions are correct or wrong, they will have to say why, which is the imoprtant point in guiding future action. Physchim62 (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Then we agree on some fundamentals. I'm curious what you think a community ban is (or ought to be). It's been my opinion for a long time that the community's response has been too narrowly focused on outright sitebans, and where feasible we ought to work out lesser remedies such as topic or article bans. I'm also interested in finding a way for the community to implement topic paroles without prejudice toward either side of a contentious subject. Two of the longest and most contentious arbitraton cases where I've participated (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS) resulted in little else. The trick is to find a fair, equitable, and scalable way of implemeting that sort of thing. I'll be the first to agree that my solutions haven't been entirely successful thus far, but the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline works pretty well. And maybe we could reduce the number of sitebans and have the site running more smoothly if there were better ways of stepping in early and effectively. Durova^Charge! 15:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Banning policy RfC

I've left a notice at the community portal [28]. Please check it for neutrality and let me know if there is anything else we can do to help this process. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this really yours?

Hello.

Is PC62test really an alternate account of yours or someone trying to impersonate you? — Coren ^(talk) 16:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent question. That account could be somebody intending to stir up trouble. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Durova (talk · contribs) has indef blocked preemptively as an almost certain impersonation account as soon as I brought her attention to it. I think it's fair to presume someone's trying to throw feces in the fan's general direction. — Coren ^(talk) 17:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the bother it caused. It is really mine (a developer can confirm this, but it's not worth their hassle). It was created to test for a possible security error which I noticed in my comment at WT:BAN (the one where one of the IP addresses which I habitually use was displayed instead of my signature). I was attempting to recreate the same security flaw from the same computer: excuse me for not saying on wiki what the possible security flaw was, and for any undue effort this has caused other administrators. Physchim62 (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes a login times out while a user is preparing a comment. This happens very infrequently, and you'd have to wait many days or even weeks to recreate the scenario. I hope this information helps. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, that wasn't the situation I was trying to recreate (it's a well known problem, and not really a security flaw, at least as far as we know about it and have to accept it!). I'm going to discuss this one with the developers before I say anymore onwiki. Merely to reiterate that PC62test was a test account that should not have been editing outside of it's own userspace... Apologies also for not noticing that the account had posted at AN (dispite the fact that it was me who physically clicked the button), this is entirely my responsability. Physchim62 (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I presumed you wouldn't mind having to unblock the account if it was legit rather than let an impersonator speak in your name if it wasn't.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 17:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! Now I'm off back home to discuss with the developers what actually happened there... thanks again to all involved. Physchim62 (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicted) Yep, and I'd be curious what flaw you were trying to recreate. Anyway, I think this is a testament to both Coren's and Jehochman's integrity. Differences aside, they've both got your back. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 17:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I can't think of anything else at the moment to say but "Thank-you". (I can, but it might be misinterpreted, so I shall stick with thank-you). Physchim62 (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 19:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC) David Mestel^(Talk) 19:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry?

Two users have come to me suggesting that they may have found a Sadi Carnot sockpuppet. I've asked them to take their evidence to User:Carcharoth who is familiar with the case, yet not an involved party. I just wanted to keep you informed so you'd have a chance to comment if you wish to do so. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I completely support your action here. I will have a look myself when I finish work in a couple of hours. Physchim62 (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've checked a few diffs that looked suspicious: [29] [30] [31] While this could be somebody possibly inserting links to an affiliated website and own papers, the edits don't seem improper, and the site linked to, http://www.mdpi.org/, seems to be a reliable source. What do you think? - Jehochman ^Talk 15:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Clear COI, even if the COI hasn't caused damage. Take a look at http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=mdpi.org Kww 15:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If this is garden variety COI, you can file a report at the conflict of interest noticeboard and somebody will give the user a gentle warning. {{uw-coi}} is a useful tool that I created for this purpose. To me, Lin looks like a newbie who needs a clue; nothing more. I could be wrong, so you can request checkuser if you like. He's edited MDPI. While that is an apparent conflict of interest, COI alone is not a reason to delete an article. If there is notability, the article just needs to be reviewed for neutrality. Happy editing, - Jehochman ^Talk 15:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't look like SC sockpuppetry to me, but I agree that the account is suspicious in itself. The MDPI appears to be phoney, there are nine people in the Swiss telephone directory at that address (none of whom are Lin, but he could be ex-directory, and he could rent an office there). This is hard to reconcile with the MDPI's claim to store over 10000 samples of fragile organic material. I've no opinion on Gibbs paradox, I suggest we send it to [I [WP:PHYSICS]] for expert advice. Physchim62 (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, the MDPI journals certainly do exist, and appear to be legitimate (whther they're useful or not is a separate question, but they're not invented). Tricky one, I'm going to sleep on it before taking any action myself. Physchim62 (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There's often a tendency to assume that two different people making the same mistake are one, when in fact, it's just a common mistake. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but don't you think it's a strange coincidence that the MDPI happens to be the principal venue for papers and conferences by Georgi Gladyshev, and that our new friend started editing basically when Sadi Carnot stopped. "Things that make you go 'Hmmm'." — Coren ^(talk) 18:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's see what the user says. Keep in mind that I spent a lot of time speaking with Sadi Carnot last spring and kept an open mind for a long time. It was just dumb luck that I stumbled on the ANI thread and your evidence connected all the dots for me. The editing of this new user does not appear particularly destructive to my untrained eye. Your suspicions may be enough to request checkuser. Checkuser evidence would be very helpful. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What he said was "go ahead and delete anything you like" and then he blanked his talk page.Kww 20:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like it could be an admission (adding), but an admission of self-promotion, not an admission of sockpuppetry - Jehochman ^Talk 20:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

P62, notice that Linshukun (talk · contribs) created MDPI. I agree with your point about storing 10,000 samples at a residence. That seems odd, but maybe they contract out storage to a facility, and they don't have an office. I work at home too. This will keep. Let's talk about it in the morning when you return. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that Linshukun and Sadi Carnot are the same person. They both publish in the real world using different names and on different topics. Linshukun has only edited articles related with MDPI and the Gibbs paradox. Regarding the latter, he is just pushing the theories he has published in various journals--some of them even respectable--as Shu-Kun Lin, which makes sense (not that the theory makes sense, but that it makes sense that he wants to push it ;-). They are either two different people or: 1) Libb Thims aka Sadi Carnot is cleverly impersonating Shu-Kun Lin by pushing Shu-Kun Lin's own theories; 2) conversely, Libb Thims was being impersonated by Shu-Kun Lin; 3) at least one of the real-world names is fabricated, which might involve a very complex plot lasting many years and predating Wikipedia. I don't buy any of the three alternatives. Can anyone think of another? Note: I don't exclude the possibility that they know each other. --Itub 09:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this is run of the mill COI editing that should be reported to the conflict of interest noticeboard. - Jehochman ^Talk 11:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should assume good faith on this one, at least for the time being. I'm not too worried about the CoI issues myself: there is WP:AJ to deal with that (both Bduke and Carcharoth collaborate on this WikiProject). In the past, we have found that bona fide publishers of academic journals are acutally useful contributors, so long as course that their edits are checked from time to time by uninvolved editors. The fixation with a single article (Gibbs paradox) is rather more troubling as a warning sign for possible bad editing, but again I think we should let the relevant WikiProject take a look before a non-specialist admin takes any action. I agree that there are possible innocent explanations for the anomalies that I turned up last night with with regards to the MDPI. Physchim62 (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Scientists are trained to think objectively. They can have an easier time writing about their own work without creating a mess. I remember an oceanographer who wrote about his own organization, yet the article was fine. - Jehochman ^Talk 12:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree, which is why we tend to apply lighter CoI rules on science projects than on other parts of WP: the potentially CoI contributions are usually less troublesome, if troublesome at all. It still rings a small alarm bell when I look at a series of contributions (in science or in any other area) and I find such and obvious fixation on a given article over an extended period. As I say, I still think we should assume good faith with this editor: Gibbs paradox is a perfectly valid encyclopedic topic, and he has published papers about it in respectable scientific journals. Physchim62 (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

In that case, shall we notify the relevant wikiproject and ask and see if sombody would like to help User:Linshukun by reviewing Gibbs paradox? Of course a serious scientist will never object to peer review. Perhaps the article can be prepared for good article or featured article candidacy. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I've also started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Scientists_and_Experts to provide a mechanism for experts to legitimately write about and cite their own works. Perhaps with a process like this, we will have fewer repetitions of this unfortunate incident. - Jehochman ^Boo! 17:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I never said he was a sockpuppet - I just thought his activities were relevant given that he resumed editing shortly after User: Sadi Carnot stopped. This is especially significant as he claims on his userpage to be the owner, publisher and editorial director of many of the journals in which Gladyshev has apparently published his work (which references User: Sadi Carnot, his joke-laden websites, his unpublished books, the wikipedia articles he has created). Furthermore, at least one of these papers (like this one) was submitted to that journal (IJMS) only a few days after the wikipedia article it references was brought to AfD. When was it created?

The same individual alludes to his impending bankruptcy, due to these numerous journals, in a prominent discussion forum about Open Access Journals (link). It is the only post (of 4605) to which Jimbo Wales chooses to respond.

Ten days or so later, User:209.86.97.41 (Waves/Thims/Carnot) creates Human thermodynamics. Thims transcribes the entire AfD, with comments, to his website (www.humanthermodynamics.com/wiki-debate.html). Ominously, he highlights the phrase "peer-reviewed mainstream journals".

Shu-Kun Lin is a reputable figure as far as I can tell. He probably publishes some reputable journals. He claims the involvement of Nobel prizewinners in his editorial board (Link). Nevertheless, some of the work cited by Sadi in these journals is... interesting. I am not sure User:Linshukun is who he says he is, but he may be. If we have been hoaxed or used, maybe Shu-Kun Lin - and maybe even the wider open-access community - have been too.

Some of what I say is speculative. Some of it is not. Administrative actions are not my priority. I post here in the spirit of sharing my concerns, and in the hope that open discussion will eventually enlighten us. This is complicated, and I am out of my depth. Best regards to all --TreeKittens 02:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, some very interesting links there! I am not surprised that Lin is having financial problems: he appears to have no source of revenue (except donations) for MDPI, pays postage to get the samples to Basle and then lets the out again free of charge [32]. The MDPI has a scientific advisory board, none of whom I've heard of (but that means nothing!). The journals appear to have properly consitituted editorial boards, which include at least three Nobel prize winners (I didn't check all the boards). As such, the articles relating to MDPI and its journals appear to be bona fide, subject to review by WP:AJ. Lin has also published work in Gibbs paradox in peer reviewed journals [33]. I think we should really leave Sadi Carnot out of this one, by Ocham's razor. Physchim62 (talk) 12:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Slightly OT, but regarding the scientific advisory board, at least Michael B. Smith is very well known, as the author of the latest edition of March's Advanced Organic Chemistry (as well as other textbooks on organic synthesis). --Itub 12:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for responding. I am finding this so terribly confusing. Note that most - but admittedly not all - of Lin's publications are in journals affiliated with his own publishing house. Searching a bit shows that MDPI has published many many journals. Some of them (like this) seem to have flopped. Others, like Entropy seem to be quite successful, or at least have been. It has Kenneth Arrow - no less - on it's "virtual editorial centre". He is nearly ninety. This makes it all the more surprising that it also has Georgi Gladyshev on its editorial board [34] and even links to his unbelievable website - now blacklisted. If you are not at least intrigued by this I suggest you take a look around that website. Some of it looks perfectly normal. Some of it is merely unorthodox. Some of it is simply unbelievable. One page on that website has a picture of "Libb Thims" (which we do know is a pseudonym). (www.endeav.org/?id=47&lng=rus). Be sure to scroll right down. I also subscribe to Ocham's razor. Best regards --TreeKittens 00:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Further note: According to this report by Lin in Entropy, the entire editorial board has resigned, and Lin now has sole editorial control of the journal. He seems to be planning a special edition of this journal on Gibbs paradox. There is a call for papers here. It still claims to be peer reviewed, but I find that inconsistent with the resignation of the editorial board. Perhaps there is a new one. It is also interesting that this page offers to "exchange links". It also links to the wikipedia page User:Linshukun has recently been editing. This could be innocent, but it is definitely interesting. Note also that one of Thims' websites is a veritable parody of wikipedia (www.humanthermodynamics.com/About-IOHT.html). Thanks. --TreeKittens 01:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Cambridge?

In one of your comments you mentioned that you graduated Cambridge about 15 years ago. On our side of the pond we don't have anything comparable, but I did graduate Yale at about the same time with two degrees in computer science,(verify) and then attended Columbia Law School. I was reviewing your edits and saw that you've done an extremely good job here. It's a shame that we first met in the midst of a conflict. - Jehochman ^Talk 12:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I went to Yale too! PhD in chemistry, 2001-2006. --Itub 13:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What we have here is a big misunderstanding that could easily be resolved at the nearest pub with a couple of pints. I'm really glad you found this diff [35] because I hadn't remembered it. You see, I am also opposed to witch hunts and harassment. I spend a lot of time trying to stop trolls from attacking our good contributors. That's why the witch hunt comments hurt me so much.

Yes, some of Sadi's detractors have gotten over excited, but let's remember not to bite them. I tend to ignore shrill complaints. However, reasonable people like User:Coren, User:SandyGeorgia who strongly opposes witch hunts, and User:MER-C made a strong case for a block. That's the evidence I relied upon, plus what I knew from my prior investigations. Back in April I understood that there was something wrong with Sadi's editing, but I was loath to act since Keith Henson had his own COI problems. I didn't trust his evidence, and I wasn't aware of how widespread the problem was. I was also juggling another Arbcom case and a longterm troll who eventually got himself banned. This last report at ANI was the final straw. Suddenly, all the pieces of the puzzle fell into place and it was clear what was going on with Sadi.

As I've said all along, I am completely happy with Physchim62 mentoring Sadi. I regret that we didn't talk this over for ten minutes before getting upset with each other, but it's never too late to set things right. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Are biochemists allowed to join chemists at the pub? Or would the amount of organics you people can put away be dangerous to somebody without the proper training? Tim Vickers 21:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Biochemists are definitely allowed to join chemists in the pub, especially given their expert knowledge on fermentation! Physchim62 (talk) 12:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Trilogy to (film series)

Here is the list that was discussed in IRC. These links take you directly to the conversation on the various talk pages. TIA for looking. - LA @ 09:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Apocalypse Trilogy
• Apu trilogy
• Black Triad trilogy
• Blade Trilogy
• Blood and Ice Cream Trilogy
• Bourne Trilogy
• BRD Trilogy
• Calcutta trilogy
• Dollars Trilogy
• Europa trilogy
• The Grudge Trilogy
• The Human Condition (film trilogy)
• Koker trilogy
• The Lord of the Rings film trilogy
• Mediocre American Man Trilogy
• Mexico Trilogy
• Pusher trilogy
• Qatsi trilogy
• Road Movie Trilogy
• Samurai Trilogy
• Spy Kids trilogy
• Star Wars original trilogy
• Star Wars prequel trilogy
• The Sabata Trilogy

note

I left a note for you on WP:AN regarding Gene. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 14:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

As one of the administrators involved in the case and/or in its discussions, I think it would be useful if you could comment on the latest here and here. Thank you in advance, Mondegreen 17:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

zOMG AN discussion! I'll keep an eye on it, but it seems like the whole matter is in capable hands for the time being, so I don't really see what I could add. Physchim62 (talk) 11:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sadi Carnot arbitration case

Do you think you and Kww could cool it a little bit at the arbitration case? You should both concentrate on Sadi Carnot's behaviour and not so much on the behaviour of you two. Although the arbitrators will look at that if it is warranted, at the moment it is a bit unsightly to see you two throwing proposals at each other on the workshop page. Cross-posted to User talk:Kww, and clerk notified. Carcharoth 19:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have said all that I need to say against Kww. I note that he is not the only person making ridiculous statements (which sould be assimilated as personal attacks if I had a thinner skin) on the arbitration case. Otherwise, I intend finishing my Workshop proposals very soon. Physchim62 (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Request strikethrough

I respectfully repeat my request that you strikethrough this post. As you saw in Jehochman's prompt reaction when it appeared there may have been a spoofing attack against you, he's the sort of person who goes out of his way to do the right thing regardless of its potential effect on a dispute. He had no need to make that declaration regarding potential admin coaching, nor had I any need to confirm it. It simply happens to be true. No dispute is worth my credibility, certainly not this one. The response you chose probably reflects poorly on you to impartial eyes. Durova^Charge! 16:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Dearest Durova, you yourself did not take the time to read Jehochman's other actions related to this dispute. It is my belief that he should not have the power to use administrative tools, given his obvious lack of judgement (dare I say, common sense). You say that no dispute is "worth your credibility": perhaps you would care to abstain from further commenting on this one, especially given your current position as a candidate for ArbCom. If either yourself or Jehochman cannot stand the heat, then you shouldn't have lit the fire. Physchim62 (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

We are discussing the withdrawal of one uncivil and bad faith comment. WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF do not have clauses allowing for the exceptions you articulate. Durova^Charge! 17:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF does not require me to check my intelligence in at the door when I start editing Wikipedia, nor does WP:CIVIL require me to put up with the hypocritical attacks which Jehochman has been making on me, and for which you seem to have so little concern. Physchim62 (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I repeat my request: if you cannot be bothered to read the evidence, then please refrain from commenting on this case. Otherwise, it is only your own credibility which will suffer. Physchim62 (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicted) You criticize my lack of an active role in this case. Would you like me to take a more active one since, as you correctly state, I did involve myself by commenting? Durova^Charge! 17:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Every member of the Wikipedia community has the right to add evidence and comments to an Arbitration, you of all people should know that. I'm not asking you to get involved—I think you have more than enough on your hands as it is—but if you do get involved it should be after having read the evidence and not simply to protect one or other of the parties. There are complicated issues at stake in this case, which are in danger of being hidden (possibly deliberately): if you have your views, they are welcome: but if you only participate to add noise, I respectfully ask you to refrain. Physchim62 (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I never intervene simply to protect some party at arbitration. Far from it; I happened to have known the background on the sole diff provided as evidence for the proposed ban on Jehochman. So I considered myself compelled to comment. I was not at liberty to discuss the full background until he chose to. As you may or may not be aware, I've made a long term commitment to identifying promising editors and coaching them into administratorship. Several people got their mops this year with my help. The investigations work I do is sensitive, and due to that sensitivity I need to be sure the people I coach are trustworthy. That means I follow the editor's history including earliest contributions, and this account's earliest contributions were obviously not the editor's first. Jehochman's question would have been polite and appropriate even if that had not been the background. That's just what happened to have been the case here. I certainly don't think of this as central to the case, so I'm surprised you've pursued it so aggressively. Yet I would gladly take a look at the central issues, since they're right down my alley as a wikisleuth.

I've handled several cases of subtle and complex vandalism and am quite good at determining genuine accusations from smoke and mirrors. The main reason I've refrained from doing so is that I've worked quite closely with Jehochman for a number of months. So if my findings were to substantiate his, there's a significant chance that:

• The analytical techniques I use could be subtle enough that the evidence may need to be sent to the Committee privately, in order to avoid providing the site's more determined banned vandals any education about exploitive methods. My edits get watched rather closely because I'm known to be good at this.
• Some parties to the case might attempt to dismiss my participation as partisan support of Jehochman, particularly so if my evidence isn't made public.

Of course if my findings contridicted his own in whole or in part, the same circumstances might have the reverse effect. It's been my experience that Jehochman is thorough and meticulous about this sort of thing, and that he rarely needs correction or supplementation. Past performance is no guarantee of future returns, of course, and I'd give him the same hard scrutiny I'd give anyone. Yet if this conversation is any indication (where I happen to know he was right, yet you refuse to entertain the possibility that either of us has been telling the truth) the result of me taking a more active investigative role might be of use to the Committee, but would be unlikely to make the case more harmonious among the participants. Durova^Charge! 18:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Two respectful points, Durova:

1. I know WP:BEANS as well as you do.
2. Each time you produce "private evidence" your credibility goes down. The credibility of ArbCom goes down just for accepting it, although this may, in some very rare cases, be necsessary. If you have private evidence, submit it privately, don't crow about it to all concerned.

I also note that, dispite my reminder, you still haven't read the evidence page, or even my motion (now withdrawn). This does not bode well for your hoped-for future functions. Physchim62 (talk) 12:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

InChI class in Common.css

Hello. Would you please explain why this class was put in Common.css? It only appears to be used in one template, which means this class should be placed inline within the template... or you could use the .persondata class, which is 100% indentical. Either way, the code does not belong in Common.css. — Edokter • Talk • 17:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:InChI and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals. It is identical with class .persondata because it performs a similar function (metadata), but for chemical compounds not human beings. Physchim62 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

User I mentioned

Was Special:Contributions/Dala11a. Atropos 22:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a quick look. There seem to be more serious problems here, involving more users than simply the one that you mentioned. I will need a little more time to ensure that Wikipedia's neutral point of view policies are being applied in this contentious subject. Physchim62 (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Quassin_PC_ChemSketch_15pt.png

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Quassin_PC_ChemSketch_15pt.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Jusjih 03:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Physchim62 (talk) 13:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Cox, Alicante

A tag has been placed on Cox, Alicante, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Rknobbe 07:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Physchim62 (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

My question

Here. Might I ask what your response means? I (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Nevermind. I understand. I had already asked. My username is currently Soleil, but I sign as I for now because of some misunderstandings about this name. So nevermind. When scanning to see if I had already asked you, I didn't see I, so I assumed I had already asked you. Sorry about that. I'll make note on that page. I (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Message

Lead(II) nitrate has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Thanks!

Hi Physchim, thanks for your thoughts!

If you've a bit of time right now, how about joining us at irc. #wikichem. --Rifleman 82 15:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Archiving AN/I

Thanks, I don't know what happened there. Did four people use the template simultaneously? -- Relata refero (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I managed to mistype subst—and not once, but twice! I've fixed my errors now, and I can't see any more. Sorry to all concerned! Physchim62 (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Lesser Sanctions

Are you interested in putting together a proposal for how we can handle lesser sanctions than blocking or banning, such as: topic bans, civility patrol, revert patrol, limits on using alternate accounts, mentorship, and so on? I think the key idea would be that if a discussion at AN/I or similar venue generates a consensus that a user has a behavior problem, it may be possible to convince the user to accept editing restrictions instead of harsher measures. Editing restrictions should only last for a finite period of time, and then be removed if there are no repeated problems. To make this work, there should be a sorted list where restrictions can be recorded. As a practical matter, searching the AN/I archives isn't very much fun. What do you think of this idea? - Jehochman ^Talk 18:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As an addition to that, I'd like to point out that it is difficult to locate precise reasons why certain editors have been indef-blocked as well. There was a discussion about this somewhere just recently (the mailing list?). Now that CSN doesn't exist, we need some form of centralized clearing house to reference what the status of problem editors is. -- Relata refero (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there should be lists, with a brief summary and a link to the archived discussion. We do already have Wikipedia:List of banned users. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that includes the indefblocked, as opposed to banned. I suggest a thread at WP:VPR. -- Relata refero (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Archive

I think that maybe you archived the discussions on Deeceevoive and Dbachmann prematurely. I don't think that this was the intention, but I, feel as though I'm being "shut down" and left out in the cold with my questions and very real concerns unanswered. I'm really angry about the way that this whole thing has turned out because the double standard seems so blatant and clear. Deeceevoive and Dbachmann were both rude and both (almost) broke 3RR, but deeceevoice is banned for a YEAR and the concerns about Dbachmann are dismissed shortly after they are posted.

But, maybe I'm not seeing the entire picture. So, I'll start by asking you why you archived discussions that were still ongoing? I'll also ask you for some advice: What can I do to draw attention to this unfairness and have it addressed in some way? I feel that I need to do something because otherwise it's hard for me to maintain faith in this project and work with the other users here. I hope that made sense. -- futurebird (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I felt it would be better to dearchive the discussion on Deeceevoice. I think it would be better to permit discussion for a little bit longer -- a year's block is a relatively weighty penalty, and perhaps could merit at least a little more than 24 hours consideration. — Matt Crypto 22:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I archived the discussions because I thought they were becoming flamefests, and that there were better forums for each of the two questions. The fact that there were three open discussions on ANI covering two relatively simple cases was hardly a good sign. Still, all my admin actions are open to review, so if you wish to waste your time on these issues I shall step in to prevent you. Physchim62 (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, there is further discussion of the Dbachmann's behaviour on RfC here. I think this is a better forum than ANI, as it allows longer (and often clamer) discussion. Physchim62 (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you meant "shall not step in to prevent you". - Jehochman ^Talk 16:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

OOps! Sorry, In deed I did. Physchim62 (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot

This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Sadi Carnot is banned for one year, and the remaining parties are encouraged to "move forward from this unfortunate incident with a spirit of mutual understanding and forgiveness". For the arbitration committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 12:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Durova's desysoping

When is Durova's desysoping scheduled? The sooner the better. --Earthenwareboat (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Durova's desysopping isn't "scheduled" at all. Nor do I believe that you would have much of a voice in it if it were ever to happen... Physchim62 (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI: User:Earthboat[36], User:Earthenboat[37], Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jon Awbrey. Durova^Charge! 19:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I beg your pardon?

Durova blocked me as a "sock" of someone (Amorrow?) and I have no idea who that is. I feel sorry for her at this late stage, albeit, I am quite disturbed by her ability to simply make assumptions, block and move on. I am not asking for any special treatment, however, I do think my input in this issue was timely and accurate. She is not working for the project right now, she is working for Durova. I suspect there is more to her problems than "meets the eye." Thank you for your time and your courage in the firing line. Songgarden. Chicago time 11-19-07 12:28 p.m. 76.109.37.37 (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Songgarden (talk · contribs), per [38], a sock of Once_and_Forever (talk · contribs) who is indefinitely blocked. You seem to be hosting a sock hop. Socks are affectionate. They go where they sense love.  ;-D - Jehochman ^Talk 19:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• OMG! Durova, you are quite right to be searching for something, but it is not grasping at straws, here; looking for some enemy. I am hardly an enemy to the project. 100% wrong again; it is not seemly that you keep trying to find some connection to me because you simply cannot do it. Try checkuser or some other vehicle that has also failed many many times before. I am sorry for your untimely bad circumstances. Please unblock me and move on. Thank you, Songgarden. Chicago time: 1:46 p.m.

Please look at the evidence of this nonsense and stop chasing windmills. The system does not work. 68.204.125.221 (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Durova, Because I have offices all over the world, I suspect I could go to each of them and (there) write to you to make my points quite clear. You have blocked me several times under false and misleading circumstances. Each time, you have come up with another false "positive." I like the name Songgarden, so please let me go back there. I certainly could establish many more accounts, but as I said, I am not the enemy. Thank you, Songgarden. Deutschland. 11-19-07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.187.199.148 (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Fill the refrigerator

Hi. I've noticed you're in Election campaign (good luck!). Few days ago me and some friends were toasting to the good life with Maurice27. Now we are planning to visit you and... may be have a beer and remember the old days, no doubt, talking about your rightness and the rightness of the ArbCom in the Catalonia-Request resolution, in the porch... while the sunshine dies beyond the horizon. But you know us: we like the 'fiesta', so remember to buy some beer.

Best. --Owdki ^talk 22:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The refrigerator is full in Capellades, I can assure you! Feel free to ask me as many questions as you like, that is what the questions page is for. However, dispite the fact that I am flattered by the interest that my candidature has generated on the Catalan WP, it might be better if questions were in English, so that WP users can judge both the candidate and the questioner. Physchim62 (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom questions

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.

1. What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?

2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

4. In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?

5. Why do you think users should vote for you?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 » 04:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Durova recall:

Here is my comment on her talk page. It will likely get deleted or reverted.

"I admit to having very little knowledge about many things, however, I can read what you have said and what many experienced and well respected editors have said re: your actions of late. There is a very succinct conclusion that now awaits your actions. At least 6 editors have asked for your recall, Durova. The page and subpages are now hidden in the ANI somewhere. This issue will only end when you have completed what you have publicly stated you would, in fact, do, under these circumstances. You have stated publicly that you are open to recall. Said statement is widely distributed all over the internet. There is no chance for you to continue on as you did in the past, and the likely outcome of your running for any office successfully is dashed by any sort of dichotomy in your behavior, herein. ErgoEgo (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)"

Thank you for your time, ErgoEgo (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It's back!

Capture bonding has been restored to mainspace. I don't understand why; it looks like User:Xoloz moved it out of Henson's userspace today. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This is far from being the same article which was deleted. I know that Hkhenson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been asking around for help to recreate the article, perhaps this is the result. Physchim62 (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

To me, it looks pretty much the same--all of the sources were used in an old version, except that Henson has substituted his article in Mankind Quarterly for the article in The Human Nature Review. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 18:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom table with portfolio links

Hello! As we did for last year's election, we are again compiling a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. This table contains a column "Portfolio" for links that display candidates' pertinent skills. I will be going through each candidate's statements and gradually populate the column, but this may take some time. Please feel free to add some links in the form [link|c] if you feel it shows conflict resolution skills, or [link|o] otherwise. It would also be helpful if you can check if the information about you is correct.

My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well. I believe that conflict resolution skills are most pertinent to the position, but if you want to highlight other skills, please feel free to use a new letter and add it to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table#Columns of this table. — Sebastian 05:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)    (I stopped watching this page. If you would like to continue the talk, please do so here and ping me.)

Would you, please?

Senyor Physchim, sorry to bother, since I guess any remnants from Catabrawling may leave a bad taste in your mouth, however, there is this anon user bothering in Alicante (province), being doing so for a while already. S/he was out for a week or so, but just returned from her trip back to the Brussels International Court to inform of Carmen Starzonek, and now s/he is now even bothering in Kingdom of Valencia as well.

Would you please block her? (sorry, for some reason I think it's a woman, that has to be my patriarchal and, otherwise, systemic bias...I just assume that if he was a man, and the whining was based "on a true story", the fierce dogs would have been poisoned a long time ago and some random acts of arson would have been committed at Ms. Starzonek's instead of naive vandalising in wikipedia right?...)

The worse is that s/he still insists to spell it AlicantI, and that is what is really starting to sit on my nerves. I don't care how fierce those guarding dogs may be, I just had enuffffff....

Ah, I left a message in your archived talk page about the (sorry, once again) cover records fair usage issue...not sure if you will just ignore it (can't blame you for that) or whether archived talk pages are not in any watchlist.

Why that ugly goat of yours is allowed to be here and those covers for nice records can't?

¿por qué no se callan esos estúpidos bots?

Mountolive | Talk 18:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the blocking and the AIV thing tip. Mountolive | Talk 09:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Soviet space program conspiracy accusations

What shall we do about this mess: Soviet space program conspiracy accusations? - Jehochman ^Talk 02:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Very good question. I shall try to come up with an equally good answer, but it's beyond me for the moment ;) Physchim62 (talk) 12:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Misuse of administrative powers

I oppened an inofficial complaint about your actions with Casaforra's block. I think one week for a user who has never even directly warned is far too much, at least if you compare it with the 3 minutes of block that Maurice27 had for precisely the same reason, when he has been already warned and blocked in the past for this very reason.

I must honestly say that I was considering voting for you to the Arbitration Committee Elections. I thought that after the Request for Arbitration you learned not to be involved (with administrative powers) in aspects in which you have a strong POV. Sincerely, this block to Casaforra has disappointed me too much, and now I am considering to make an official complaint for your recent administrative action.

Anyway, at least I want to beg you one think: discuss, modify, add, remove, move and edit all Catalan related articles. But don't ever use your administrative powers again in this subject. There are lots of administrators who can do it, and it seems you can not be impartial. Thank you.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 22:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The difference between your action and that taken by LaraLove merits either explanation or some modification to make the two more consistent. Please chime in at the AN/I thread linked above. GRBerry 00:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

R-phrase

The result was Speedy keep. The reasons given for deletion do not fall into the normal criteria for template deletion listed at the top of this page. A simple review of the templates would have shown that any alleged accessibility problems would need to be dealt with by a change in the behaviour of class="abbr" in MediaWiki, and are therefore not a topic for discussion here. That the nominator did not conduct the most simple research before nominating these templates for deletion is shown here: the fact that the TfD notice was not included within <noinclude> tags led to the disruption of over 5000 articles, something which the nominator could have prevented had he thought to used simple discussion before even contemplating bringing the matter here. The disruption was completely predictable, given that the nominator chose to nominate more than 200 templates at once. The speedy keep does not imply any judgment on the accessibility questions raised in the discussion, which should be addressed in more appropriate fora. Physchim62 (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to this being closed as keep, as there was consensus in that direction; but that was a provocative and insulting closure notice.

Firstly, it seems you're yet another person who has never actually bothered to read Wikipedia:Speedy keep, as your reasons for speedy keeping are at odds with what is written there. Secondly, it is not at all clear why TFD is not the place to discuss a vast collection of templates whose only purpose is a gimmick that breaks web accessibility. Thirdly, the whole point of the {{tfd}} template is for it to be transcluded with the template, in order to advertise the discussion. If I had noincluded it, I might well have been accused of trying to hide the discussion. Therefore your suggestion that I "did not conduct the most simple research" is a great steaming load of crap.

It is pretty obvious from the hostile tone of your response, together with the fact that you're deeply involved in chemistry articles, that you didn't like the nomination, and decided to speedy close the discussion instead of just saying your piece and waiting for an unbiased closure. That is a misuse of your administrative privileges.

And before you discard this discussion as just another rant by a disgruntled troll, you might note that I've been here as long as you have, and I've been an administrator as long as you have. Hesperian 01:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hesperian's Block

I have commented on your block of User:Hesperian here. I am most interested as to your reply. Thanks. Twenty Years 14:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I have raised the issue at WP:AN/I#Block_of_Herperian please feel free to respond there. Gnangarra 14:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue has been renamed, so please look at this link:WP:AN/I#Block_of_Hesperian. Many thanks. Twenty Years 14:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion this was an absurd block and I have unblocked. The diff cited for the block [39] does not contain any personal attacks. Criticism, even strongly worded criticism, is not an attack. You're an intelligent bloke and I'm sure realised that this block would never stand and that you were far too involved to be issuing any block at all in this case. Could you please work out your differences with Hesperian without admin tools? WjBscribe 14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I have replied to your comments at WP:AN/I and eagerly await your reply. Many thanks. Twenty Years 18:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

ANI discussion

PS62, I am not sure if you are aware of this yet., and I don't see a notification here (sigh). (add) It has been pointed out to me that notification is above. link. Regards, - Jehochman ^Talk 15:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC) (Added at 16:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC))

Your comments on both this thread and the other thread concerning you would be appreciated. Many people, myself included, have been withholding their opinion until you comment, so a comment or explanation would be appreciated. If you have no intention of joining the discussion, please say so. Natalie 17:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've commented on both threads. For technical reasons, I'm unlikely to comment again before 12:00 (UTC) tomorrow. Physchim62 (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• smiles* You do realize this is wikipedia right? Calm discussion is asking for a miracle. But hang in there! Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, CAT:PROD

I am ready to start the next phase. Do you have any tips? - Jehochman ^Talk 02:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Memorandum of understanding

Hi, I invite you to read this and participate if willing. Cheers, --Maurice27 21:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Garrigues

I am currently proposing that the Garrigues page should be replaced by the content now found on the Garrigues (disambiguation) page and the the material presently on the Garrigues page should be moved to a new page to be titled Les Garrigues, Catalonia If you have the time I would appreciate your comments on the Discussion page at Garrigues. I hope you will agree. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Chemical safety templates. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 22:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

I have instead opened a Request for Arbitration; see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Physchim62. Hesperian 00:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Treading on thin ice

I realize there's some history between the two of us here, so please bear in mind that when this arbitration request was first made I also asked Hisperian to refactor something, and he did. Please have a second look at this post and consider modifying it. The end treads close to a legal threat. Please accept this comment in good faith, and blank it if you find it objectionable. I don't mean to give offense. Durova^Charge! 06:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken! Obviously I would not dream of wasting time and money taking legal action on the other side of the world—nor would any such action have much chance of success, given that I edit under a pseudonym, as does Hesperian. However, editors should be aware that Hesperian has repeatedly and very publically called me a liar, and this in itself is behaviour which we should not simply sit back and accept as members of this project. Physchim62 (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I should mention that Hesperian's section header "The persistent slander" in his statement could also be taken as a veiled legal threat (slander and libel are both forms of the tort of defamation), although I would never seriously consider it as such. Physchim62 (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I try to be completely evenhanded about these things, so do what you think is best. Thank you for taking this well, and best wishes. Durova^Charge! 23:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope this is agreeable to you?[40] Durova^Charge! 23:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem with that. I'm not sure it was necessary, but it won't do any harm anyone ;) Physchim62 (talk) 13:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, that comment comes nowhere close to a legal threat. WP:NLT is explicit that mentioning something as libel is not a legal threat; saying I'm going to sue you over this is. From that diff, it simply appears that it is a threat to continue to edit war, not to sue. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Roger that, thanks. Durova^Charge! 03:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it was a threat to continue edit warring either, as it was made

1. at WP:RFAR, where edit warring is obviously severely punished ;)
2. after it became clear that the Request for arbitration would be accepted
3. referring to comments made at a thread on WP:ANI, in which I'm not aware of any edit-warring

It was a strong reply to a troll, nothing more. Physchim62 (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Physchim62

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Physchim62/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Physchim62/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 20:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

template:Chembox new question

The "SolubleOther" field together with the "Solvent" field can document no more than one solvent. When you put in more than one, you only see the last one. Do you know what the method is for doing more than one solvent (e.g., documenting solubility in ethanol and in chloroform)? Karl Hahn (T) (C) 02:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This was a very difficult bug to fix, and it wasn't me who found the solution so I can't remember all the details. If I remember correctly, you should use Solubility1, Solubility2 etc. and Solvent1, Solvent2 etc. when you have more than one additional solvant. Physchim62 (talk) 13:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sysop flag

As a Steward for the Wikimedia Foundation Project, I've cleared the bit for your sysop status. First of all, thank you for your work as an administrator, and, if you've changed your mind, please just contact me. Ciao, M/ (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sysop tools are very weak compared to the power of a well-equipped brain. I hope you will stay PS62. There is much good you can do. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

:( --Prodego ^talk 02:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ditto :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

...yes they are

Hi Physchim. I only wanted to state now my respect for your contributions so far, specially for your GREAT handling of Valencian Community rotten issue. That used to be utter CRAP and, after you re-painted, refurbished it, I left (and the double-faced troll I had attached left subsequently), it remains more or less calm ever since (maybe because out of exhaustion of the contendants, I guess...BTW, maybe I should pay a look in there :D). I havent seen a case of such a major improvement in an article to date other than this one, and you have a great share of the credit there. Hope you are not quitting completely....but, hey, after all....no one does anyway ;) • Mountolive ^{J'espère que tu t'es lavé les mains avant de me toucher} 19:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Nearly all of us have said the tools are no big deal. Few of us who've had them have walked that walk. If you'd like to stroll with me I'm easy to find. Best wishes. Durova^Charge! 19:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Physchim62, grill that large wet haddock for Nadal. There's a lot of work here, and you have experience. Best.

BTW: Durova, Elmo is waiting for you. Please, put him a face! =D --Call me Elmo ^{Sesame Street} 21:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you know that all of us at WP:CHEMS have REALLY appreciated your work in chemistry for several years, and we hope that you can continue to make valuable contributions there. I deliberately avoided becoming an admin, because I think it's all too easy to spend a lot of time caught up with the politics, trolls, sockpuppets, etc. I think you can have far more impact on the world by improving and organising the chemistry content on Wikipedia, something which you are very good at and where your work is welcomed by all. That's the stuff that really matters. All the best, and Happy Christmas Walkerma (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Same here! Happy Christmas and I hope you will continue to contribute to chemistry V8rik (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

You got a Christmas card! → → →

♪ ♫ I wish you the merriest, ♫ the merriest, the merriest, ♪ the merriest to you... ♪♫ I wish you the happiest, the happiest... the happiest, yes the happiest. ♫♪... Bon Nadal i Bon Any ... ♪ I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Cheers. --Owdki talk 00:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

My own preference is for the caganer of Letizia Ortiz, but please don't tell that to the judges at the Audiencia Nacional! Physchim62 (talk) 14:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I Visc a Catalunya! Physchim62 (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

XD Hahahaha... Oh, shit! Letizia! XD Shitting!!! Beware of the prince! =D I use the classic: that's the way you spare yourself bedlams.

=P I hope to have enough time to live everywhere (the more places, the better) ;) P, best wishes for 2008!!!! --Owdki ^talk 23:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC) Hey: listen those people: KEEEEP OOOOOON!!!!

Feeling burned out?

Your comments on the RfAR talk page make it look like you're frustrated and about to explode. I know the situation is leaving you upset, but I urge you to take a walk and wikibreak and come back when you feel better. Regardless of the RfAR, you've been a big contributor to the project, I for one still want you here, and the situation really isn't so bad that you need to take off permanently.

I hope you'll take a break, reconsider, and come on back. Thanks... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Physchim62

The above Arbitration case has closed, and the final decision can be viewed there. As indicated here, your administrator access was given up under controversial circumstances, and may only be regained through normal channels.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Anthøny 17:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead(II) nitrate, back to FA?

Hi, PC, I've copy-edited the lead(II) nitrate article from the Chemicals wikiproject, after it was recentely demoted from its FA-status. Last time around, you contributed to the voting process. Would you please be so kind as to provide feedback in its now running FA re-candidacy? Wim van Dorst (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC).