User talk:Jdforrester/Personal Archive 1

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

---

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

elements cross-posted

Hallo Jdforrester,
perhaps you still know me. I am this stupid guy that named the heirs of peers the wrong way (in your 6th archive). Now I have an idea of a new article (or a new group of article) and I am not sure if this is okay and follows the wikipedia rules. So I would like to get your opinion about this idea: Would it not be funny and interesting to see who was a peer in a special period in time, let me say from 1410 to 1445 or so? I have asked this already on my own User_talk. So it would be nice if you would answer there, too.
Yours,
--VM (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. The problem, of course, becomes the definition of the "special periods". Each century (or even decade) is an easy-enough definition, though arbitrary and not necessarily helpful; random periods such as 1410-1445 (or 15th January 1934 to 22nd October 2003, or whatever) would probably be less useful in generis, and, certainly, would likely be matters of dispute as to which timeframes to use for such periods. But, sure, go for it! I look forward to seeing "Peers in the 20th Century", "Peers in the 1900s", et al..

James F. (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution within the form is up for deletion. I ask for a vote for transwiki. Thanks. WHEELER 00:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I was told on IRC that you're very good with the <timeline> markup. I'd like to ask you for some small help with mine. I've set one up

]

It's a problem with EasyTimeline; see the TimeLine on my user page, which used to be fine until EasyTimeLine was broken somehow. And no, I don't know when/if it will be fixed, sorry. :-(

James F. (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gee, the code was broken somehow? Has it been submitted to bugzilla? I guess I'll have to start bugging those devs over at #mediawiki now. ;) --Michiel Sikma 06:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I see that bug 4046 is about this. --Michiel Sikma 06:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Thanks. :-)

James F. (talk) 07:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

elements cross-posted

Please don't violate WP:OFFICE actions and re-post/re-word a so-deleted article. It's a significant violation of common sense, beyond anything else. :-)

Everything you added back can be put in the article, but

it is sourced from a real source (no, the old version of the article does not count).

James F. (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody has explained what content is not allowed in the Justin Berry article, perhaps you can be the first to step to the plate. Which verifiable facts are allowed, and which are not? The material you removed was not in violation of any wikipedia policy. Corax 01:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where were the 3 inline cites per fact in the text I removed, then?

James F. (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Do you want things cited in Wikipedia articles, or don't you? I do not understand what you're trying to get at here. Are you suggesting that the SOURCES that were reintroduced are the cause for the article being wiped by Jimbo? Since I originally figured this was the case, I was very careful not to include any information that might need to be sourced to those archived pages. Somebody else may have added those sources, however. Corax 01:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles under the scope of WP:OFFICE have to be extremely carefully looked at before each and every change is made. Nothing, not one thing, should be added unless it not only "can be verified", but actually is verified inline in the article.

You just dumped in the information from before. Not one since cite was in the re-added text, despite policy (and, for gods' sakes, common sense).

James F. (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the problem here is that the wiping of the article was never said to be related to the accuracy of the information contained therein. As far as I was able to tell, all the information was pretty accurately and carefully cited. The problem as far as I was able to tell was that the archived citations linked to sites whose legality is in question. If your problem is that the reintroduced information was not cited, I assumed that, since the reintroduced text was little more than a summary of the New York Times article, adding the same citation every other sentence would be pointless and unnecessary.

Perhaps you can just clear up any questions about what can and cannot be added into the article by being unequivocal about what was wrong with the article in the first place. Corax 01:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I can read exactly what the article was like before it was deleted - it was not "accurately and carefully cited" - it wasn't cited at all. There were a handful of links to sites, most of them personal advocacy pages and archives of such things. Either you're using a wholly new and unusual meaning of the word "cite", or...

You seem to think that this is personal - "your problem", etc.. It's not. The problem is that this is a biography of a living person, and as such should be very carefully thought about anyway; further to this, it seems to have been very highly slanted and POV in a libellous manner. If you can't understand that that is a Bad Thing, I'm not sure that there's much that I can explain further.

James F. (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but do you mind telling me which citations you are characterizing as "advocacy pages"? I am looking at the archived page right now, and I don't see any "personal advocacy" pages used as a citation. Corax 01:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would, err, rather pervert the point of all this, wouldn't it?

James F. (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wouldn't. It would inform me and other people as to what the Wiki "Office" considers to be a legitimate source so that we can move forward with creating an article that jumps through the unbelievably high standards you've set for this article. As it is, I have revised the article to include full citations -- or is the New York Times not a reliable enough source? Corax 01:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The information added was from the NYT article. Isn't that enough of a cite? What entitles some unimportant little camwhore to WP:OFFICE protection anyway, where every letter in his article receives minute scrutiny, and requires three forms of verification? This certainly isn't being done with other Internet celebrities who are experiencing their 15 minutes of fame.

63.219.98.138 01:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Thanks for your robot's renaming of the top category Category:Doping cases in sport from Category:Drugs cheats in sport per the CFD vote nominated on March 3 2006 and carried out today. But the vote covered renaming of all like-worded subcategories also, which didn't get done. They are: Category:Drugs cheats in athletics, Category:Drugs cheats in cricket, Category:Drugs cheats in cycling, Category:Drugs cheats in weightlifting, and Category:Drugs cheats in winter sports.

Could you please make your robot rename and move the articles in those subcategories also? Thank you. -- Mareklug ^talk 21:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. They should have been listed on the CfD speedy page, which I was working off, but never mind. :-)

James F. (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user in question got quite annoyed with me by email for removing references to his firms ~250,000 user CAS system from lists of "common systems" that have 10M+ users ;). I've attacked the article as best I can but I bet it still reads like a marketing brochure. --Kiand 21:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well. Not my field, I have to say. Not sure whose it is, actually. :-)

James F. (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can I get access to #wikipedia-en-admins please? Thanks! Johntex\^talk 23:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't send you an email explaining what to do, because you do not have an email set.

Sorry.

James F. (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is peculiar. Someone sent me an e-mail through Wikipedia just yesterday, I will investigate. Johntex\^talk 07:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A box had gotten unchecked somehow - should work now hopefully. Johntex\^talk 07:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, emailed.

James F. (talk) 12:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An easier way is just to drop James or I a message on IRC. Talrias (t | e | c) 13:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks - do I do that at #wikipedia-en, or where? Sorry if that is a basic question, I am not a regular on IRC. I've never found it necessary before now. An incident that happened yesterday has led me to believe that this IRC channel will be a useful tool for my work on Wikipedia. Johntex\^talk 07:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right-o; in future, "/msg James_F" will let you send me a message (and similarly for other others).

James F. (talk) 12:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure your bot doesn't delete references to a stub' assigned "stub category". The rubbish categories you were supposed to deleted are located further down! According to WP:WSS rules, all stubs must sort into one category (e.g. Category:Danish politician stubs to allow users to check for similar stubs, and for WP:WSS members to check if the stub is still needed. Regards Valentinian ^(talk) 13:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm more relieved now (I just saw it flashing on my "recent changes"). It's ok that you're re'arranging things, but **** you scared me there. I just feared I'd have to spend the next hour checking all the politician stub categories again. Valentinian ^(talk) 13:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for any confusion. I just had my bot do as CfD commanded...

James F. (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I see that you are making changes (via your bot) to stub templates to get rid of some hidden categories, as per CFD. Unfortunately, you are leaving behind empty <noinclude></noinclude> block, such as this one. Could you please remove them as well please. Thanks. --TheParanoidOne 14:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ho-hum. I don't know if there's a way for the PyWikipediaBot framework to automagically detect null no-include blocks and remove them. Will ask.

James F. (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

would you please delete the rest of the categories per thie cfd

]

I am the wife of User:Danny B. (usurped), as he advised the Wikipedia Welcomer User:Wiki alf and we log in from the same office computer. We don’t contribute all that often and so it came as quite a surprise to Danny to find himself blocked by you and this message on his user page:

This user is a sock puppet of Ted Wilkes, as established by Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser/Archive/March 2006#Ted Wilkes (talk • contribs) and related accounts,

Because you provided no explantion for your actions on his talk page, it took me some time to track it down. At the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard [1] you wrote:

"See this request for CheckUser: Ted Wilkes, Danny B. (usurped) and Karl Schalike are the same person." Mushroom (Talk) 06:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I note that this statement by you was posted immediately after Danny complained on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents [2] about vandalism by Onefortyone which you did nothing about.

However, at Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser/Archive/March 2006 User:Sam Korn who did the checking said only:

"Ted Wilkes, Danny B. (usurped) and Karl Schalike appear likely to be the same."

Your action appears to have been based on a message left on your talk page by User:Onefortyone [3], someone on probation who I see has been banned by User:Stifle from editing certain articles for a time as result of his repeated violations of his probation and someone that numerous others have complained about. (User:MrDarcy, User:Arniep, User:Lochdale, User:Func, User:DropDeadGorgias and if I looked a little further, I'm swure I would find plenty more).

Mushroom, I think it is right to assume that a

who did the checking said. Your rush to judgment has forced me to do a lot of searching all over Wikipedia for no reason. I will unblock my husband and place copies of this message on the talk page of each member of the Arbitration Committee.

Just for the record, because my husband has an interest, I am the one who pointed him to the non-encyclopedic material being pushed by User:Onefortyone after I came across a nonsensical contradiction in on of the articles he edited. I also come from a small city with one of the highest number of writers per capita in Canada and where Wikipedia has a high profile and where I know from the local newspaper(s) and business/social associations that there are a number of Wikipedia editors. - Cynthia B. 19:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, Cynthia B. is identical with User:Ted Wilkes alias User:DW alias User:JillandJack. Both Cynthia B. and DW/JillandJack or Ted Wilkes contributed to the following articles: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10],etc. This suggests that DW alias Ted Wilkes has created many more sockpuppets, as DW did in the past. Onefortyone 23:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may be interested in doing checkuser work. Would you please let me know how I could go about getting such privlege? Thanks.Gator (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requests are to the Committee. However, I don't think we're looking to expand the number of CheckUser users right now, as we have more than enough such users for our current needs.

James F. (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a user on RFCU is suspected to be a sock of a banned user, and you remove the material from the RFCU page, how is the issue to be rectified? MSJapan 22:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser request guidelines are at the top of RfCU.

James F. (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the policy, the case in question here relates to a user banned by ArbCom creating sockpuppets to engage in pattern vandalism on the articles he was banned from, so I still don't quite see why the request was removed. MSJapan 02:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James, could I ask you please not to threaten to block people involved in the date delinking content dispute? If anyone is being truly disruptive, an involved uninvolved admin can adminster blocks as appropriate, but so far it seems to me that Quadell was acting in good faith when he edited in accordance with the MoS, Ambi was acting in good faith when she reverted his edits because the MoS is not policy and she felt the issue hadn't been discussed enough, and VSmith was acting in good faith because he feels the MoS should be adhered to. It's a shame that it's come to this because these are all good editors, so please help us to find compromise wording for the MoS that everyone can agree to. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, I know you think that "acting in good faith" is such a fantastic thing, but all three of them, Ambi included, knew full well that they were doing something that was contentious and many other people would significantly disagree with. Just because someone is acting in good faith does not give them the right to do contentious things. Discussion is always the better path to take. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, though Ambi to her credit did stop when she was asked to. I just think that anything that fans the flames is to be avoided at the moment. After all, we're only talking about linking to dates; it doesn't have to become the

Arab-Israeli conflict. And I prefer Wikipedia:Enjoy yourself to the MoS any day. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, erm, I would disagree with you on the suggestion that "an involved admin can adminster blocks as appropriate"; surely that runs contrary to the entire point of AN/I and so on, asking other, non-involved sysops to carry out sysop actions? :-)

I wasn't threatening to block people for a content dispute, but for massively inappropriate behaviour on the part of people who really, really should know better. I mean, these people wrote the rules, for heavens's sake.

I completely agree about compromise wording being the best outcome, and the one to work towards; that it why I am, ahem, disappointed to see people prejudicing said work, and "jumping the gun". Sadly, I'm now off on holiday, and no doubt this will all be decided, one way or another (and probably the "wrong" way ;-)) before I return.

James F. (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the "involved admin" was a typo. Have a good holiday. I bet you're devastated that you'll miss all the fun. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, absolutely, makes more sense. And thank you, I will try to do so. Take care. :-)

James F. (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading

, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by

]

Now apparently fixed.

James F. (talk) 08:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I won't be able to get to you tomorrow, I would like to wish you a Happy Birthday on behalf of the Wikipedia:Birthday Committee today! JaredW! 12:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

James F. (talk) 08:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

Maybe I'm a bit biased being an avid NBA fan, but I honestly feel that the NBA seasons articles should have the logos in order to put that season into historical context. For example, the 60s are WAY different tha the 90s, and you just can't get that sense just by reading it. In that sense, I think the use of the logos on these pages are not "decoration" in terms of the Fair Use Policy. I left ed a note about this on his talk page detailing my arguements, but he hasn't written me back on that yet. Anyway, that's why I feel the logos belong. Moreover, and this is just my philosophy on life, I feel that we shouldn't constrain ourselves just because of the rules. That discourages creativity, and without creativity, all we are left with is the same bland, monotonous material all over Wikipedia. But that's just me, and I'm apparantly in the minority on this. Oh well.

I'll talk to ed about this too, but I still honestly feel, copyrights issues included, that logos can be used on those pages.Dknights411 15:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion has taken place elsewhere.

James F. (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My username is Cyde. Here ya go. --Cyde Weys 21:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

James F. (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm interested in your feedback on

]

Thanks; will comment there.

James F. (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought since you are interested in this project you might be interested to see a CD version of en now exists see

]

Thanks for the link.

James F. (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

elements cross-posted

Hi James, though you might want to take a look at Ashburnham House, since it needs a lot of work to distinguish the House and the building... ConDem^Talk 14:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I've moved the page and fixed it to just talk about the house, not the House. Perfectly clear, I'm sure. :-) Needs some more work, though, certainly.

BTW, are you a fellow OW?

James F. (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect... ConDem^Talk 14:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm Jamie from the year below you... ConDem^Talk 20:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right. Heya!

James F. (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my reply at the hip hop category merge you voted on. I highly suggest you reconsider this vote.--Urthogie 16:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note.

James F. (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

don't unprotect a page (Ron Dellums) for your own edits but leave it protected for everyone else. we've got stuff we want to do to but are totally locked out.

Justforasecond 18:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not unprotect the page, I used my sysop rights to edit it whilst protected to accomplish the project-wide housekeeping task. I have no interest in, nor specialist knowledge about, the subject in question.

James F. (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

elements cross-posted

Hi James

Recently I speedily kept an AfD that I had nominated, since I realised that I didn't want it deleted, and that since no delete votes had been made, it was eligible for speedy keep. Was I actually allowed to do this, since I'm not a sysop? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swearing... ConDem^Talk 03:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamie,

Yes, that's fine. Sysop action is only requrired to close an AfD or similar when actual sysop privs are required (that is, when it needs to be deleted). OTOH, it's generally a good idea not to close discussions where there's a lot of dispute over the result, or where one is closely involved with the page.

Take care,

James F. (talk) 09:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're interested in programming and physics, and already have a book of Feynman on your list - I'd recommend more! "Lectures on Computation" (which was darn hard to get hold of) is an incredible journey of theory from the roots of computing, and really good for a higher understanding of computers and algorithms. The more personal books (e.g. "Surely you're joking, Mr Feynman!" and "What do you care what other people think?") are very entertaining reads, and a good example of the attitudes that make a good scientist. Finally if you really want hardcore stuff, read "QED: The strange theory of light and matter" - it's very deep and pretty hard stuff (in my opinion anyway) but I doubt anyone could explain it better. Happy reading! ZoFreX 11:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have read (and own!) the Lectures on Computation, and they are very good, yes. They're not in my list because I must have read them before I started the list; I especially like the quantum computation bits, perfectly Feynman-esque explanation.

I will look at the others; thank you very much for the suggestions.

James F. (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

elements cross-posted

Aww, thanks. And to you.

James F. (talk) 13:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In return, here's a pretty solid-gold one for you. :-)

James F. (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I would add my wishes here - so I hope you and everyone else has a happy easter. :D Ian13/talk 19:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

James F. (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

elements cross-posted

I'm mad at you because you removed the category "American Television Stations with Logo Galleries", why did you done it??? WTH is that??? I'm a shame of you for removing it. You SHOULDN'T remove the category in the first place.

Spencer Karter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shkarter1985 (talk • contribs) 02:48, April 16, 2006

The category was nominated for, and accepted for, deletion on

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion

; I had no input into the discussion, and merely carried out the community's will as expressed there.

Also, please use four tildes in a row ("~~~~") to sign your comments.

James F. (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my opinions are my own, neither you nor anyone else can stifle them. What I wrote was not a personal attack in the slightest, please do not vandalize my userpage again. TruthCrusader 15:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-ups to user's talk page, resulting in a block.

James F. (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template has survived TFD

, however I do understand that this is not the only consideration when reviewing userboxes. Whilst I think that this userbox should exist, although with the mildest form of wording possible, my primary concern is for consistency. The following userboxes exist, and to my knowledge no one has an issue with them:

• {{user en-au-0}}
• {{user en-gb-0}}
• {{
  user CalE-0
  }}
• {{user CaE-0}}
• {{user SoE-0}}

All I ask is that this situation be made consistent. Surely either all 6 boxes should exist, or all 6 should be deleated and protected. Ian3055 22:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the others are quite as incivil to foreigners (i.e. xenophobic) as the one deleted. --

^ask? 22:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I dont see any need for anything other than the text from the standard Babel boxes, surely editing the box would then be more appropriate than deleting it? Ian3055 22:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the incivility was tried, but the

^ask? 22:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

If that is the conclusion then all 6 should go, being able to say that I dont understand British English but not able to say the same about American English could be seen as a view in need of globalisation. Ian3055 22:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. They're all now also T1'ed. Thanks for bringing them to my attention.

James F. (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi james. If you have time, please review my edits at my editor review! Be honest now... ConDem^Talk 23:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; I've said a bit.

James F. (talk) 00:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

elements cross-posted

That bot destroyed my userpage. I reverted it. --GeorgeMoney^{Talk  Contribs} 04:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It did not "destroy" anything; it substituted the templates, which were subsequently deleted. You are the one who has now left the userpage broken, with two attempted includes of templates that no longer exist.

Please, consider your actions more carefully next time, and be aware that claiming that a helpful and not entirely necessary function that I take the bother of doing is "vandalism" is a very strong violation of several core policies, notably of maintaining civility and assuming good faith.

James F. (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, sorry about that, but I just didn't want any substs on that page. It should have left a message on my talk page about the deletion of those userboxes. --GeorgeMoney^{Talk  Contribs} 02:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - I notice you deleted this template on the 16th April - please could you undo this, as I would very much like to use it.--

]

I do not consider it a resource to the benefit of the project. If you really want, you can copy it wholesale from one of its former users, who all now have subst:'ed versions.

James F. (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, could you please describe the specific details of the reasoning and the evidence of cause for ban of user Sgrayban?

]

One does not have to be one of Wikipedia's original arbitrators like Jdforrester to answer that question-- see Wikipedia:No legal threats. 172 | Talk 18:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am just asking for specific details. At present, I only know interpretations of what happened based on second or third hand descriptions. I am hoping to learn truly what happened from the source.

BruceHallman 19:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

As 172 says, people engaged in legal threats against other parties contributing to the wiki are prohibited from contributing further to the wiki (for two reasons - firstly, to avoid legal complications for the Wikimedia Foundation, and secondly, to avoid off-wiki matters affecting the quality of the project and the community spirit). This is not to say that people are prohibited from persuing legal action - there is both no way in which the Foundation could mandate this, and it would also be undesirable in it's effects. Given the evidence shown to me, it seemed a more than reasonable course of action to take to follow policy.

James F. (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you James F.. But I wasn't really questioning or asking about the policy. I am instead interested in learning of the 'evidence shown to you', the source and the timing. I have only seen second hand accounts of the evidence. What I have seen is that Sgrayban opened a RFC about Adam Carr, and then Adam Carr appears to have petitioned for the banning of Sgrayban. The proximity of this timing raises a question of whether the banning was retaliation for the RFC and I was hoping to learn the specifics of the evidence so that I do not need to make assumptions.

BruceHallman 21:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I was completely unaware of the RfC (or, indeed, that Sgrayban and Adam were editing in relation to one another) until after I had imposed the block; let me assure you that my actions had nothing to do with the RfC at all.

James F. (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James F., Sorry, I certainly didn't mean to question your integrity! Rather, I am just interested to learn of the evidence you received that you acted upon, its timing, and its source. I don't want to rely upon second hand information.

BruceHallman 21:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Re: What I have seen is that Sgrayban opened a RFC about Adam Carr, and then Adam Carr appears to have petitioned for the banning of Sgrayban. For the record I was requesting the banning of Sgrayban, not Adam Carr. Now let's take this discussion elsewhere so that we don't waste James' time. 172 | Talk 04:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accept 172's statement, and regret if I have suggested that it was Adam Carr that petitioned for the banning of Sgrayban. I certainly don't want to waste anybody's time, but could somebody please publicly show the evidence, including the timing and the source, that formed the basis of the banning?

BruceHallman 14:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Don't worry about it. As to the complaint, it is on-wiki; I don't understand the problem. Were Sgrayban to dispute it's occurrence, I would demand a greater burden of proof, but, as for now, what I have seen seems sufficient.

James F. (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, maybe I'm out of touch, but what are you doing to stop the spammers getting you? --

]

When I said "that ship has sailed", what I meant is that I get about 600 - 700 items of spam a day; the minor problems caused by even another hundred or so items is insignificant with relation to the annoyance factor (remember that as an Arbitrator I must be contact-able even by blocked users, so the built-in emailing function is insufficient).

James F. (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template has been recreated after your T1, so I take it it still stands that it ought to go. Might it be better to protect them as per AmE-0? Ian3055 10:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Done.

James F. (talk) 10:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove this userbox? The Coldwood 11:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a banned form of content (it serves no purpose other than divisiveness), and (easily) qualifies as a speedy-deletion under rule "T1". I did exactly the same with all the other en-*-0 templates.

James F. (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:London Eye Twilight April 2006.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.

Raven4x4x 07:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

James F. (talk) 11:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

elements cross-posted

Erm... Are you all right? This makes no sense, unless you magically failed to see all of my edits. :-) Given that I completely re-wrote the article to source every fact, accusing me of using the word "widespread" (presumably in relation to the alleged affair) when, well, I didn't seems... odd.

Have reverted back to the well-sourced version. Please take more care in future.

James F. (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I screwed up. I was trying to revert the Prescott affair thing, that I hit by vandal tracking. I somehow missed the fact you'd done the samething 12 hours earlier. Sorry. -- GWO

No problem. Happy editing!

James F. (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the constructive criticism on my RFA. I look forward to seeing your support on my next try some time in the (relatively distant) future. Thanks again,

]

Of course.

James F. (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey James,

I won't get into too many details at this time, for too many people are involved, etc. From the title, you are probably guessing that this has to do with Scott Grayban, who ironically was at the end of a ban.

I recently checked my email, and I received a letter from Scott regarding your block of him. Now, seeing the urgency of the matter, I responded to him, and we went over some details. It appears that his "legal threats" happened off-wiki, and were only ever brought up by the User:Adam Carr. "I did not ask for Scott Grayban to be banned. I posted the text of his threatening email to me at this page, and others then decided to ban him. Adam13:51 , 25 April 2006 (UTC)" [11] Scott only defended his block ex post facto, which any user would do if they were banned in such a manner. Only then was there mention of the private matters.

If Scott had made a statement on-wiki, and was then blocked, I wouldn't be leaving this message. However, he simply sent another user an email, privately, off-wikipedia, not even using the e-mail function; the contents of this private message were displayed for all, and then he was blocked. Adam Carr admittedly "posted the text of his threatening email", which should not have happened in the first place. How can users persue matters privately if their emails are displayed for all? Quoting from Wikipedia:No legal threats - if you really feel the need to take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, we ask that if you do so, then you do not edit Wikipedia until the matter of law is settled - one way or the other - to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels. If you do decide to proceed with legal action, you should deal with it privately with the user by e-mail.

I have taken the intermediary step of unblocking Scott Grayban - the contents of his private email were wrongfully displayed, stripping him of dealing with private matters. The subsequent block has also silenced his ability to defend himself.

I felt that it was right to alert you of this matter and my actions. Thanks --Jay(Reply) 02:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there's a thread discussing this over at WP:AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Recent_block_of_User:Sgrayban. Your comment would be much appreciated. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ho-hum. It appears that I'm too late, and that he was briefly unblocked, then banned on the advice of Brad. Ah well.

James F. (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sgrayban (talk · contribs) has just been ublocked, despite continuing to make threats. Please take a look. Thanks. 172 | Talk 09:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Sorry that I wasn't here.

James F. (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]