This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
1 - 2004 — July 7, 2007 |
Thank you for your attention to my contribution FASEB Journal and advises on my talk page. Eboireau ( talk) 14:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Emailed you on June 25th. RSVP there. Thx! SoCoColl ( talk) 11:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
May I suggest {{ talkarchivenav}} instead? -- Avi ( talk) 12:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I added links to the two previous archives to the talk page, but I'm not sure if that was correct given the first entry on the second archive page. Flowanda | Talk 03:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi John, Head of Dept:I am the only Chairman in Immunology since about 1991 .I hope this will finish soon;burocracy has been shared among us lately.We have two parts in our Dept 1-Microbiology and 2-Immunology.Both parts function separately , so I am the Head of Immunology.If you are going to Edit something I would prefer to be named Chairman.The concept is different in all 3 countries: USA,UK and here.
Fundacion de Estudios Geneticos y Lingüísticos:I am the president.If I wanted to expel a member I could not ;perhaps after a long process.Dumu Eduba showed documents,that I was.
My last 2 books have been published by Fundacion de Estudios Geneticos y Linguisticos .FEGEL or Fegel is a private company:if I do not have time to proceed against the linguists who are after me ;I am not going to proceed to somebody who has worked with me.In addition,Justice in Spain is slow and very expensive.
I am going out and I will have access to Internet not everyday(or may be not even in some days).
In addition ,if you wish documents for your work ,just send me and E mail and I will send you by Fed Exp or any means.But I am not going to answer (with my name,directly) more private or personal questions except about what I have published and I must give an explanation, if requested,through my official E mail.
PS_Unfortunately I am now Head of Immunology and Microbiology also.I will get rid of Microbiology as soon as possible.--
Arnaiz1 (
talk) 17:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
When I have said Fegel ,it means Fegel Editions-- Arnaiz1 ( talk) 17:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC) We are getting too personal.Please E mail me-- Arnaiz1 ( talk) 17:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I wrote a note for your mediation yesterday in AAV page. Make this sense? Here is a copy. Sincerely-- Virginal6 ( talk) 14:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[edit] Other Wrong Statements (like "scientific fraud") Vandenberg mediation does not want web pages as references. There is a web page from Fegel Editions which has nothing to do with Arnaiz-Villena.”Scientific fraud” has been removed because it was taken from this page. In addition the following phrase should also be deleted:
“and advertises that Basque can even be used to translate the Indus script of Pakistan,[24] Rongorongo of Easter Island, and the Mayan glyphs of Mesoamerica,[25] showing that "Usko-Mediterannean technology and religion diffused across the planet."[26”
This should also be removed because: 1-Its only reference comes from the same page. 2-Arnaiz-Villena has never writteen anything about Indus script,Mayan Glyphs or Easter Island Rongorongo language.
This is an information which is wrong and misleads Wikipedia readers. THIS SHOULD ALSO BE REMOVED.
--Virginal6 (talk)
http://www.arguewitheveryone.com/race-issues/58836-100-facts-3-lie.html
(see end of third page)
I would rather change
:
1”-FRINGE” by “UNORTHODOX”,since editors are changing Basque and Dene Caucasian languages Wikipedia pages in the last times to a more balanced ones and closer to AAV hypotheses:Basque has been compared with many languages and AAV is basically repeating those approaches.Because of these repetitions he should not be insulted in Wikipedia .
2-All extended critics are unbased :LAHOZ on ly critics his first book.LAKARRA critics 32 words out of thousands. (and he comes to the conclussion that 85% of the AAV work is wrong) ,since in fact what he says that 85% of the 32 words are wrong.Pichler (from un unknown Bulletin,refers toan Erratum- The last critic:Jacobsen does not mention to Arnaiz-Villena is a general critic which has nothing to do wit Arnaiz-Villena
3-In view ,of the Wikipedia misuse by phanatics,I would stick to the text propossed by AAV,now and we have always have time to add further.
This is what he-AAV proposes (pasted) 7:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)-- Virginal6 ( talk) 14:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] REMARKS AND PROPOSAL I would not like to be crucified by months in this page “while we discuss calmly”(Dumu Eduba). Obvious mistakes could be removed as soon as possible.If we write in detail all other article paragraphs, we would fill all Wikipedia.I think that we should size this linguistic section on article.
1-I would like to remove soon languages which I have not even mentioned in my writings and “an invented accusation of scientific fraud stated by me”.The reference is a web page whith which I have nothing to do and my name is not in it. (EDITION A).Scripts names to be removed:Mayan,Rongorongo,Akkadian,Babylonian,Dravidian, Indus Valley, (Harappa,Mohenjo Darro),Proto-Indo-European,Greek,Latin,Semitic languages....If they still state that I have written a word on these languages,they should scan my false writing and show it here.
2-I have nothing to do with Fegel Company,I have contacted them and asked them to remove all quotations to Fundacion de Estudios Geneticos.I expect they remove it.
3-If Iruña-Veleia is to be mentioned, then mention supporters and non-supporters(EDITION B).
4-“Few scholars have found it worth their time to refute Arnaiz-Villena”:this a defamatory opinion.I think that they rather cannot refute (EDITION C).
5-DE HOZ CRITICISM: (1999)references only a small part of my work :the first of 7 books on linguistics .
a)Title of Javier de Hoz commentary “Travel to nowhere througout the Mediterranean:languages that Iberians,Etruscans,and Cretans did not speak”He does not write about Cretans a single word and refers to a single Iberian example to dismiss our whole work.
b)Statements written by Lahoz:
1-...sometimes this type (of books) are written by unscrupulous (“desaprensivo” in Spanish) people...,including people from the Academic World.He is stating I am unscroupolous I consider this a false unbased accusation which damages my reputation.
2- ...(authors) do not know at all gramatical structure of Iberian and Etruscan...(This is the one single time he mentions Etruscan except in title).Grammars do exist as such only after Middle Ages and although some Grammatical features ,not standardized and variable,must exist in the first times, but it lacks standardization.Our hypotheses on this topic are as good as Lahoz ones.
3-...(books authors) are a plain disaster (no further explanations).This is an un based defamation. 4-...(books) are an a aberration in methods and results.No further explanation.This is an unbased defamation. 5-...Public money has been missused to pay the issue of a book with a scientific interest similar to that of using wax puppets and exorcism to cure cancer. This is tasteless joke and a defamation.. 6-A crime has been perpetrated and there must be a responsable person to pay for it.(END) .(He referes to deviation ofpublic funds... or to the authors?).This book was unusually reprinted.This is a defamation;Hoz is not a Judge.. Thus ,Lahoz does not criticise the specific content of the ONE SINGLE book which was out,but attacks the authors ,without any base:he only does not agree with one example( 2 words in Iberian). I accept this.Although ,I believe we were right.He does not mention Etruscan or Cretan (only in title) : only to say that we do not know a word of Iberian or Etruscan grammars:our hypothesis on these are as valid as his.Grammars did not exist by then,and these languages are not firmly and finally translated.Historic linguistic reconstructoins for ancient languages are hypotheses only ,including ours.
I have already (last year, 2008!) complained to De Hoz himself:we had a nice chat and I asked him to phone me up if he had any problem with our writings.We are full professors at the same university.
We should only refer to his opposition he only dismiss work and authors without specific critics,just a general dismissal. .EDITION D.
-6-LAKARRA CRITICISMS: -LAKARRA(in Protovasco,munda...in Ohienart 21,2006,229-322) He has feuds with some others ..His references should not be included in Wikipedia regarding to Dene Caucasian or Basque or in this page.He reflect extreme views.; he states:
a-Page 242:Ruhlen and other seditious Greenberg underlings....Ruhlen is a linguist with different ideas,not a militar.Merritt Ruhlen is a linguistics professor at Stanford University and co-Director of a big project at the Santa Fe Institute of Languages. b-Page 243:He attacks senior linguist Theo Vennemann [29] just because Theo V. thinks that Europe is full of old Basque toponyms, i.e.:Basque or related languages were the ancient European languages. According to Lakarra,Theo V. put forward this hypothesis ,because “eager of success at any cost”.This is an extemist view c)-Page 245 (footnote):he says that from 32 Basque words used by us ,8 are Lating leanings (we hypothezise the contrary) and 5 are invented “ad hoc” by us[30]. Later,he acuses us of forgers.This is an extreme view and also he uses picaresque :he studies 32 out of thousands of words we have researched.Then,he transforms his “ 32 word study ” in percentages and ALL our work becomes 85% wrong.I do not think this is a serious critic.I would edit it(EDITION D).This reference should be removed. 7-WERNER PICHLER-He (?) writes in a Bulletin without adscription, editorship or peer-review “La Lettre D’AARS”.He dismisses “amateurs and specialists”:3 or 4 authors ,including us.We have studied Lybic –Berber Canarian Rock Inscriptions (from page 214 -243 ,about 200 Lybic Berber words) ,he does not critisize any of them and then comes to a clear secretariat Erratum ,which is corrected in any scientific magazine,issues later.There are several hypotheses.1)He has written the criticisms: he,who does not know neither Iberian nor Basque languages,did not notice about the Iberian Guanche inscriptions (he does not mention them).He might be upset abut that.This remark about us and about others would not have been admited in a regular magazine.2)He has not written the criticisms(he is quite old by now)I would remove this unknown Bulletin reference. (EDITION D)[]
8-JACOBSEN-He does not refer to me because its publication was before my first liguistics book was out. He specifically referers to a preliminar Alonso work (see his references),when I and my colleagues did not yet colaborate with Alonso.This paragraph is also very long and reflects only a point of view,about Basque language evolution which does not coincide with Alonso work (EDITION D)[]
-9-HIEROGLYPGHS-No universal claims of discovering were done or pretended by us. This is an editor opinion. Champoillon decipherment is not universal. Not a single Egyptologist translate the same hieroglyphic paragraph in the same way.There are no Egyptian Chairs at Universities:only Seminars. Many more Egyptian scripts has come out since Champoillon and a revision is needed . EDITION E
-10-OTHER SCHOLARS HAD DONE BEFORE THE SAME COMPARISONS THAN ARNAIZ-VILLENA,BETWEEN BASQUE AND OTHER LANGUAGES.
There is no cause for raging ,unless a lynching is going on.
1- All comparisons done between Basque and Mediterranean languages by Antonio Arnaiz-Villena had been done before by others.I do not see here the need of doing a thorough revision of the books written by me (at least in the article page).In addition, curious and spurious statements attributed to me are repeatedly being added:this is a mistake.
2-All European languages have a Basque base according to linguist Venemann.´ Iberian,Etruscan,Minoan,Sumerian,North and South Caucasian and Berber languages all Have been compared (see review in book “Towards a history of Basque language” edited by Hualde et al;John Benjanmins Publishing Co,1995,in chapter written by Larry Trask,pags 65-100),ISBN:9027236348.
3-Egyptian language is also related to to East African and Berber languages by Gardiner,accepted by almoust all scholars In “Egyptian Grammar”,Oxford University Press,1969, [31]
4-Uhlenbeck,Bouda,Lafon,Marr,Dumeznil,Schuchardt,Reinesch,Pokorny and Trombetti have found relationships between Basque and Hamitic languages (Middle East and North African languages ,including Phoenician,Berber etc);Hamitic languages concept might overlap with Usko-Mediterranean languages concept.
4-Bengston and Ruhlen have treated relationships of Basque and Hurrian, Hatti and many other World northern and southern Hemisphere languages,not only Usko-Mediterraneans (see book”On the origin of languages “ by Merritt Ruhlen,Stanford University Press,1994,chapter “Global Ethymology” by Bengston and Ruhlen,pags 277-336;(ISBN 0847-2321-4) [32]
5-Hittite has also been studied in relation to Basque (By Imanol Agirre es:Imanol_Agirre in “Vinculos de la lengua vasca con las lenguas de todo el mundo”.Edited La Gran Enciclopedia Vasca,1980,Bilbao,Spain (ISBN:842480501)
6-I have also removed references:1) to Iruña-Veleia from newspapers and recent web pages,following guidelines.2)to a web page on Egyptian-Bsque,following guidelines.
7-I have added “The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Linguistics” for contradicting our studies.
Please,read the text if see if it is suitable for a Wikipedia section of article.--Arnaiz1 (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Fringe linguistic theories Arnaiz-Villena and his collaborator Jorge Alonso-Garcia have used Basque to decipher many of the ancient languages of the Mediterranean and Middle East which are believed by scholars not related to Basque, including Egyptian, Hittite, Sumerian, Hurrian, Ugaritic, EDITION A Elamite, and Phoenician.EDITION A .Arnaiz-Villena's Egyptian translations, for example, include the cartouche of the bilingual Rosseta Stone in which Champollion identified the name of Ptolemy, which in his version does not include that name .EDITION E.The Code of Hammurabi contains "no hint of laws" but is a Basque funeral text;[4] They also have put forward to read poorly attested languages such as Etruscan, Iberian, Tartessian, Guanche, and Minoan, which nobody else has been able to decipher with any certainty. They posit that these are all part of a "Usko-Mediterranean" branch[5] of the speculative Dene-Caucasian language family, which they extend to include the Berber languages of North Africa,[6][7][8][9] EDITION A This thesis flatly contradicts basic Egyptological, Sumerian, EDITION A scholarship. Phoenician, EDITION A, Ugaritic, and Eblaite, for example, are clearly Semitic languagesEDITION A; Egyptian along with Berber and Semitic have been demonstrated to be Afro-Asiatic, and some linguists have been unable to find a connection with Basque,but not others :Federico Krutwig related Guanche and Basque and other authors related Basque with Iberian,Etruscan,Minoan,Sumerian,North and 8 South Caucasian ,Berber,Egyptian and Hittite ..EDITION A,EDITION F [39] ,[ Towards a history of Basque language” edited by Hualde et al;John Benjanmins Publishing Co,1995,in chapter written by Larry Trask,pags 65-100),ISBN:9027236348.],[ Vinculos de la lengua vasca con las lenguas de todo el mundo”.Edited La Gran Enciclopedia Vasca,1980,Bilbao,Spain (ISBN:842480501)]. EDITION C De Hoz,1999 ,Werner Pichler-EDITION D (2005) and Joseba Lakarra strongly oppose these linguistic comparisons .Arnaiz-Villena hypotheses also contradict other established theories .[40]---Arnaiz1 (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
-- Virginal6 ( talk) 15:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
John, it would seem that Red Pen is carrying out a personal vendetta against links to MyWikiBiz, even when they are linking to highly informative, instructive pages directly in tune with the Wikipedia article. See here, here, and here. Your opinion? Obviously, I can't get involved directly. -- Thekohser 03:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Rather than view this as a personal vendetta, it can be viewed as igniting discussion via WP:BRD. WP:EL is a guideline, and I dont think it is appropriate to remove links due to WP:ELNO #12 "Links to open wikis.." as that is guidance for the many crappy wikis around the Internet. There are many well administrated wikis. (A few days ago I noticed that Oracle Corp has one now) As a result we need to evaluate each link separately.
John Vandenberg ( chat) 03:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you know anyone at the Houghton Library, Harvard? There is a manuscript of Christopher Smart's Jubilate Agno there. Although I have some pieces, and a few others are also copied, it is hard to find a holograph or copy of the work in full. It would be a lovely edition for some eager individual at Wikisource to find. Could you pass on the word whenever you have a free moment? :) Ottava Rima ( talk) 20:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
This? I'm uncertain whether it requires oversight.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 06:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The problem seems to have partly solved itself with an admin speedily deleting the page (I'd query the appropriateness of the speedy, personally, but I'm not worried enough to bring it to DRV).— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 08:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
{{helpme}|}uploaded umages are owned by me and filed with the U.S. Library of Congress. This includes all photos and cover art. Knightflyte —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightflyte ( talk • contribs) 16:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know of a solution beyond simply using {{ multicol}}. {{ reflist}} has had this problem for a long time now; it uses the same method to create columns as both of our templates do, and it is a much more popular template; yet, there still has been no solution for it. Gary King ( talk) 22:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
You should be aware the Wikisource version is riddled with spelling errors. I comment on this here. Peter Damian ( talk) 07:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
You have some. Cheers. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Er, I received a polite note from one John Vandenberg thanking me for my "contributions".
It's true that from time to time I modify a wikipedia page if for one reason or another I have special knowledge on the subject, or my housebound personal library happens to contain a book of special relevance. It contains for example an original copy of the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica, leatherbound, printed on rice paper, still in its Louis Vuitton case, which I inherited from my grandfather.
In general though, I just don't have the energy to make a wikipedia account worthwhile. My IP address changes every so often; but I will try to sign with four tildes as recommended.
Best Regards, Terry Cole -- 60.234.132.128 ( talk) 10:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I was quite interested in your ideas on version control and flagging revisions. I may follow this up. Another idea: as you may know I work on medieval manuscripts. One thing a Wiki environment would be well-suited to is deciphering of these. They are famously illegible and a group of people working together could definitely make better progress than one. Here is an example of one I made public. The disadvantages are (1) there are probably only 5 people in the world who have the experience to do this, relative to any particular area or era (part of the skill is knowing which Latin technical term is being used, and a strong vocabulary is essential in any case). (2) Copyright again. The version I posted there is a digital version that is copyrighted. To get over this I reduced the grain of the image right down from 3M to a few hundred k. Perhaps this would be acceptable to copyright owners, but not sure. Also, when the grain is reduced it makes it somewhat less legible though personally I have no trouble reading the image there. Interested in your thoughts. Peter Damian ( talk) 11:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
John, you may have read my post quickly. Please see the link to ArbCom's second draft update of its policy. That is what I cite below the existing policy. It's nothing to do with what I would propose, although I support the change. Tony (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
http://www.arguewitheveryone.com/race-issues/58836-100-facts-3-lie.html
Look at the end of the 3rd page.
Page should be changed as suggested by AAV I have pasted his suggestion it in your talk page ,JVDB
-- Virginal6 ( talk) 15:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I will be these days out of work and will be able to answer rapidly.-- Virginal6 ( talk) 06:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
According to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jack_Merridew_ban_review_motion, you are listed as a mentor of the above described user. Following the long discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Jack Merridew-A Nobody, I thought he would leave me alone, but then the following happened over the past few days:
I don't know why the sudden resurgence against me, but trying to dismissingly disrupt multiple editors' efforts to improve the Home and Away character articles is not just some slight against me and the nomination of the Sally article is indicative of the indiscriminate and unknowing approach here. But given the past ANI threads between us and given his unblock conditions, I would think making some kind of flippant remark that I really am "a nobody" would be totally unacceptable. He has already been warned, sanctioned, etc. I don't much care to be insulted by someone who long-term harassed another user, nor do I care to have him see fit to target articles I try to improve. At this point, there should be no tolerance for such a thing and especially given the past ANI threads, the fact that he would make such a remark on my talk page alonside a slew of rapid-fire deletes for articles I tagged for rescue (if you check his contribs, the ONLY AfDs he commented in a ROW i.e. in consecuetive edits were either ones I tagged for rescue, tried to fix, or previously defended in an earlier AfD; given the dozens of active AfDs and given our history, well...). Please, please put a stop to this already. The talk page personal attack in itself should be blockable. I am not planning on starting any new ANI thread or anything else beyond this talk page request as I am here to build an encyclopedia and not play games, but I deeply implore you to do whatever possible to reign this ongoing fixation he has against me in, because I do not want to yet again become his new White Cat. Thank you for your time, help, and consideration. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 05:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Then there's Sarah's view of the soap opera mess: User talk:Jack Merridew#Thanks Jack and a shinny pointed thing. This edit is worth a look at. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 05:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I have looked at this quickly, and will discuss it with the other mentors within in the next few hours. John Vandenberg ( chat) 08:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A Nobody, I haven't been ignoring your posts here. To be honest, I'm still not sure what to do as a mentor here. But I need to do something now, as I fear this is going to end up with Jack Merridew becoming banned on technicalities and minor issues, or result in arbitration which will do neither of you any good. Both of you are working in the same area, and have diametrically opposing worldviews on a raft of issues. Since you work in the same area, you are going to bump heads occasionally. The most obvious problem you raise is the edit-summaries, and I have had a few ideas on how to address that, but not implemented any of them.
Feel free to both answer here. To begin with, talk to me rather than each other, and please both be considerate of the other when replying to my questions. John Vandenberg ( chat) 16:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
It looks like we nearly have an agreement on a voluntary withdrawal from AFD for a month, however A Nobody wants to still edit articles at AFD, without participating in the AFD discussion. I would really like to see you both volunteer to avoid articles at AFD; a month away from that venue will do you both the world of good.
I know you both are pretty keen on building this encyclopedia - you are both here for the right reasons. For a while I've been trying to convince Jack Merridew to be an inclusionist (I am a masochist), and I think that A Nobody can help me with that. Taking my original idea of working together on some content, and including A Nobody's desire to work on articles that are at AFD, I propose:
John Vandenberg ( chat) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
This edit: [13] shows bad faith, A Nobody characterized a good faith warning by me as "trolling" in the edit summary of his deletion of the comment (rather than replying) . This is typical behavior by A Nobody in response to criticism and shows that Jack is not the sole source of the problem here. It's entirely possible that A Nobody was just following Doctorfluffy around, a review of his contributions suggests he visited a large number of AfDs where Doctorfluffy commented, just to disparage Doctorfluffy's comments. One example would be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Ridden, an AfD he was not participating in until he arrived to trash another editor's input. In summary, this sort of ignoring warnings and disparaging the input of others (whether it be via warnings, contributions to discussions or what have you) is not something the community, or I, should have to put up with. - Josette ( talk) 19:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
The following from today are obvious reactions to my comments and all made right in a row: [17], [18], [19], etc. You would think with all of the above discussion. He would at least not be so obvioius. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 15:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Waa! John, he's stalking me. Also note that I was commenting on a group of AfD's all listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements. I'll make an effort to review everything listed there and comment on them all.
@AN; grow up. You've failed to agree to any of the proposals John has put forward. You also made lame comments in those "discussions" — you troll AfD discussions and this is why you need to be removed from the AfD realm (including the editing of articles at AfD). Sincerely, Jack Merridew ;) 02:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I've been watching this AN-JM feud for about 10 months now as both editors have blazed a trail across the wiki. Among other points, A Nobody has violated sourcing, COI, and sock/rtv policies with some borderline civility comments. Jack Merridew has violated edit warring, civility, hounding policies. However, given that neither of them is associated with a powerful group of friends, no one really has cared enough to take it any further in the dispute resolution process, since there isn't a strategic goal and it would probably end up being a very boring and tedious arbcom case like PHG or Prem Rawat 2. One of the failings of our DR system is that RFC doesn't work when two users are both at fault. I'm not sure it is at the point where Arbcom would take such a case, but given the intransigence of both sides to admit fault and accept meaningful restrictions, I suspect that is where it will end up. And it is probably worth noting that generally Arbcom restrictions tend to be more severe than voluntary restrictions. MBisanz talk 04:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
John, I think it is apparent that his trolling of AfDs and ongoing badgering of myself and others needs to stop and be deescalated. Thus, I urge a revisiting of his unblock agreement, either through arbitration enforcement or request for comment, becasue enough is enough. He was given a second chance after long term abuse and harassment, and continues to mock others and edit unconstructively. We should not have to put up with this any longer. It is clear he and I will not get along and so the best way forward is to as Casliber earlier warned him, to extend the arbitration ban of him to avoid me as well and again, to also initiate an Rfc or editor review on his unconstructive edits regarding fiction. We should be here to edit as mature adults, not play games mocking opponents. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 04:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I thought these were constructive edits: [20] [21]; note how much inappropriate content the second one removed ;) Best, Jack Merridew 04:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
AfD | A Nobody | Jack Merridew |
---|---|---|
Alien Shaplay | 20:23, 12 August 2009 | 05:37, 13 August 2009 |
Hapes Consortium | 17:11, 10 August 2009 | 05:32, 13 August 2009 |
Todd Williams | 15:39, 12 August 2009 | 05:26, 13 August 2009 |
<placeholder />
Ping. rootology ( C)( T) 18:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - I need all the help I can get seeming halfway intelligent. Steve Smith ( talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
From another talkpage, thanks for the welcome. Toolsother ( talk) 15:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
(Short version: You did fix it, Wikipedia just took a while to notice.) — Paul A ( talk) 16:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for signing up for the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! -- Jayron32. talk. say no to drama 22:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi John, I engaged with you on Jimbo's page, remember, and I see you are a checkuser. I honestly believe that MusicInTheHouse is not the same user called Wikipeire [23], the reason being that both deny that it, I AGF; and MITH with 3,000 edits is a pretty well established editor by now, so no need for him/her to be somebody else, and it seems bizarre to contemplate. What I'm asking of you is this, "is it germane to recheck the CheckUser results on MITH, as the CU involved only said "likely", and likely appears weakish to indef block a 3,000 edit user, imo. MusicInTheHouse cannot edit outside his talkpage at the moment, and is relying to a certain extent on "the kindness of strangers". Hope you can help move this forward. Thanks! Tfz 01:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I sent you some email @ your gmail address. Could you take a look? I'm getting nervous about this subject. Please respond via email, if that's OK with you. EEng ( talk) 04:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello. The 1st section (history) of the article Xinjiang is redundant since there is also another article History of Xinjiang. Most of the sentences are identical in both pages. I think the first section should be moved to the history article, including new additions, refs. etc. Xinjiang article better be just related to current Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, as Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region is redirected to Xinjiang. Maybe a new name "Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region" fits better to page, afterwards. Otherwise, Xinjiang article becomes lengthy, and subjected to vandalism by people who do not want to see names of earlier states of a region belongs to their country (PRC). Obuli ( talk) 22:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
For this photo not to be in the public domain would require a child photographer (unlikely) of a Gage near his own death in 1860 (unlikely), who then went on to live to be at least 95 to die in 1939 (unlikely). Making likely assumptions about these ages results in a photographer who had to live longer than 100 to die in 1939, 70 years ago. I think this is strong evidence, that, absent more info, this is a public domain photo under U.S. law. See the Gage talk page. S B H arris 02:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:
Again, thank you for making this event a success! -- Jayron32. talk. say no to drama 02:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Apologies if you felt I was too keen to assist here - thought you might have gone off-line. Best wishes.-- VS talk 09:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe you should help in this untenable situation. Arnaiz-Villena has said he has not written a word about Rongorongo,Mayan and other languages. You have said that this information source is not valid. Why don't you delete it? This is not a matter of voting about opinions ;this is preserving Wikipedia quality.-- Virginal6 ( talk) 16:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The article Kangarli Khanate has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
Proposed Deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Alborz Fallah (
talk) 09:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You addressed this image and link destruction for a 6 month period and have probably researched this the most. Please stop by to add your presumably well-informed view and/or act on this. Incorrigible, perhaps? -- Elvey ( talk) 20:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I have had a long look through his contribs, and much of the work is good, and he does engage people who complain in order to help them resolve the image problems. I will talk to him about some of the occasional mistakes he has been making, so he does less of them and more of the good work. Thanks for letting me know. John Vandenberg ( chat) 15:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I saw your comment here and have responded here. I can see how you got the impression that you did and want to apologize for personalizing things as much as I did there. I know you're a good guy doing good work here, I just think you got it wrong on that occasion. I was annoyed and I'm afraid I let it show. Anyway, just to say, there are no lingering bad feelings towards you or your work here on my part. I just hope I can get back to editing and put all this behind me if possible, even though I've quite enjoyed my wiki-break. All the best to you. -- John ( talk) 16:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi John. This category also has only one article (the same river) which makes removing under such ground that the category does not exist weak. You could not have ignored the borders since you created this article and on external links you added No. 6497 agreement. The word Abbasabad is used only twice, second time to highline Aras being the border. Your adding of that No. 6497 agreement is irrelevant to the article as it says nothing about the fortress itself, the only message it conveys is the dispute of certain groups on the borders of Iran. Your creation here further pushes that claim, we in fact see here Malikbek who had a similar intrusion on Khachen adding the same unreliable source you added on that article. You also added the weasel words which will leave people to think it was not in Iran, which it was. BTW, do you plan on fixing the copyvio here. Neither did you find relevant to add the word Iran somewhere because the original from where you copied it had the word Iran in it but you removed those sentences. Besides, the Khanate of Maku was a Kurdish Khanate not Turkic, it was falsely associated with a Kangarli Khanate given that this wording is practically hard to find anywhere in published works... will you be kind enough to tell me what prompted this reaction of yours to create such an article with such a wording? Thanks. - Fedayee ( talk) 20:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Can you see the last two SPA fellows who just popped onto Talk:australia-India relations please? Thanks YellowMonkey ( cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I sent you an e-mail. Please read it and respond, it explains everything. Afterwards, I'll send another for I came up with a solution.Thanks Schnitzel MannGreek. 22:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I know that I wasn't exactly helpful at the later points in the "Search soon to begin" discussion. And how else will further issues be solved without my own input when people only get one part of the issue.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 05:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, question for you here in case you miss it. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 07:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
(and egads! t'would seem I'm following Slim around - just serendipity, promise!) - I asked FT about the sockpuppet thing here. He previously mentioned that folk should ask you - perhaps because he feels he's unable to talk about it? Anywhoo - there seem to be some questions remaining to me (having had a look at TBP diff.s and stuff)... so I thought I'd swing by here and ask you if there's anything I should know, or where's a good spot to ask them. Hope you're good anyways - are you GLAMing at the weekend? Privatemusings ( talk) 06:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
< coolio... I guess it'll take a little while, so I'll pop back in sometime next week - I'd like to ask a few small questions at that point, if that's ok.. :-) Privatemusings ( talk) 04:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
< looks like I might have to call the wiki-word police on you, john :-) - to define maybe 3 or 4 posts concerning a question about admin / arb socking over the period of several months (looks like your investigations just tipped over the 2 month mark) as 'harassment' is a bit of a stretch in my view - and seems to me to actually make it much harder to resolve than just a really simple bit of communication. I reckon it should be easy to either state clearly that you've had a look at the situation and do not believe there is any question of dodgy wiki-behaviour, or say 'I've taken 2 months on this one, and it looks like I can't really get to the bottom of this at the mo' - whaddya reckon? Privatemusings ( talk) 12:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
< heh... 'ready to roll'? - nah - not quite! Just wondering what the good folk of the signpost might think (tabloid, or not!) - what would be ideal from my perspective (from you) would be to hear your conclusions on the matter - would another couple of months help? Privatemusings ( talk) 10:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman, if you are in the practice of indef blocking declared socks on the spot, you need to hand in your tools :-) because you would not be respecting the current WP:SOCK policy. Also, times have changed. What was acceptable in 2005/6 is not always acceptable now. p.s. I got a smile out of the irony of your claim that you will block accounts like Privatemusings, and pursuing the same agenda as him here.
Your use of words like "denial" and "counter-factual" indicate that you have made up your mind that FT2 is guilty of using TBP as a sock, and that his recent statement is a lie. And yet you know that there is private information that you haven't seen. If you are going to persist with this sort of language, make your own assertions about what you consider to be credible evidence to support the sock allegation, and state where you see that the two accounts were abusing the sock policy at the time, assuming that they were operated by the same person.
I am investigating it quite thoroughly, and I don't appreciate suggestions that I am not. I hope I havent said anything which would given that impression. Time is always a problem, and both real world and BASC/AUSC tasks have taken a priority. A definite answer will come from me when I have finished reviewing the private evidence. Ideally this would be an Arbcom task, however I took it on because I suspected that they would be extremely uninterested in revisiting something this old.
Fwiw, FT2's current use of the tools is subject to monitoring and audits where there are reasonable grounds for concern. That doesn't completely address the trust aspect you raise, which is why this does need to be reviewed. John Vandenberg ( chat) 14:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, John! I dont know if you remember me, you had helped me get into the Latin work on Wikisource. I would like to report a moderator by the name of Zaxby, who, after I made multiple correct edits on a page and then made one mistake edit, slapped a warning about vandalism on my discussion page, which is still there. Then, after questioning the warning, I was derided and ignored, also to be seen on my discussion page. Yes, I then made the error of returning some fire, at which point, after insulting me, he slapped me with a warning for attacking editors, ie, him. Can you straighten things out here? Im a huge contributor to the Latin Wiki and I hate to get banned because of this guys misunderstandings about my edits to a page and his bad attitude. I certainly dont think he represents the spirit of the Wiki. Thank you very much. Please let me know what you think of the situation. CeleritasSoni ( talk) 00:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
You've got mail. AdjustShift ( talk) 16:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I would like to voice my opinion on your unblock. CoM, for an hour, threw personal attacks at every user, admin and ArbCom person within arms reach. This wasn't a little fit throwing, this was blantant violation of WP:NPA. The block should have been either changed from a ArbCom violation to violation of personal attacks or lessened to 12 hours for those personal attacks. CoM wasn't going to attack once he was unblocked, he got what he wanted and you handed it to him. I would ask that the personal attacks from tonight be addressed and something be done cause this isn't the first and certainly won't be the last time he will hurl a personal attack at someone. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi John. This diff [38] seems to be a continuation of the personal attacks that CoM was placing on his talk page prior to your unblock. It's very hard to make any sense of it. ChildofMidnight has edited two articles created by me, Chateau of Vauvenargues and Butcher group, in their very early stages. Neither of the topics - French culture/Art history and mathematics - are within his normal interests, so although I wouldn't go so far, this editing - both unhelpful and uninformed - could possibly be described as wikistalking. On the other hand, as an academic I happen to know a lot of academic economists, including the late James Meade (an honorary fellow of my college whom I met at high table), Willem Buiter and Robin Wells, the wife of Paul Krugman. I have spent a little time trying to ensure that the BLP of Paul Krugman is as neutral as that of the other winners of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics. I have also tried to improve the articles of Meade and Wells. I also created Robert Hall, Baron Roberthall some time back. Mathsci ( talk) 09:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Would you consider undeleting the above? I believe that I created it as a redirect to something (not sure what). The target may need adjustment at this point. I am linking to it from my sidebar and think it a valid search term. I'm open to ideas as to the target and will go looking; Catharism#Massacre seems likely. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, Okay. But can you please let me know when things are being done? I keep ending up in situations where I'm told after the fact that things are happening. Usually after continued problems cause the situation to become much worse. For instance, the Homeopathy statement. Had it been dealt with within a day, a sentence or minor edit would be ample. But now quite some time has passed, and any edit is going to be to an obscure archived page - which means that the possibility of relief is reduced to miniscule proportions unless there's a public statement, which is far more than the problem actually deserved. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 187 FCs served 03:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to import the decision from Northeast Bancorp, Inc. v. Governors, FRS to Wikisource to complement my Bank of New England article. The text is PD and I would remove any headnotes/footnotes, but wanted to make sure it was ok. MBisanz talk 04:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | ||
For being such a great user who works hard to counter vandalism, removes abuse, contributes to articles and being a greatly appreciated user;) Schnitzel MannGreek. 16:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC) |
P.s.You got email;) Schnitzel MannGreek. 17:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello/---Are you even getting my messages?Once you respond to my last email---I have something important to discuss so please don't ignore me. Schnitzel MannGreek. 14:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I have something important to say once you do get the chance;) Schnitzel MannGreek. 14:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm probably missing something obvious, but I can't get the tool to work for me. I'm on Safari 4.0.2 and latest Mac OS X.
Here's what happens when I try to use the tool:
Nominated article name: Hungary–Mexico relations: Status Check the article "Hungary–Mexico relations" exists ...: Status done: Progress OK : Status Grabbing edit form for Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Hungary: Status Error: TypeError: Result of expression 'query.toSource' [undefined] is not a function.: Error
Here's my monobook.js
:
importScript('User:Quarl/util.js'); importScript('User:Quarl/wikipage.js'); importScript('Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Add LI menu'); importStylesheet('Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Add LI menu/css'); importScript('User:AzaToth/twinkle.js'); importScript('Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/delsort.js');
Twinkle is enabled in my Gadget Preferences.
Any idea what I'm doing wrong?
Thanks. -- Cybercobra ( talk) 06:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I recently made this edit on the Erich Feigl page, which essentially restored blanked text, and had it reverted by another editor with what I consider insufficient rationale. I saw you were working on the page at precisely the same time, and you did not seem to take any stance on the matter. I just wanted to ask, am I out of line? It looks to me like a nationalist editor is pursuing a political agenda there that constitutes a fringe view; am I mistaken?
Did you not notice this was going on as you worked on the page, or do you perceive me to be in error? I am loathe to get involved in these things beyond a single edit, but in this case I am interested in your opinion. Cheers, DBaba ( talk) 03:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Would you be willing to reconsider the indefinite semi-protection you placed on Daniel Choi to something more like a week or two? My understanding is that such an indefinite semi-protection should only be placed if there is persistent and recurring vandalism over many different time periods. Victor Victoria ( talk) 15:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I have a hard time believing that there are people out there who have nothing better to do than to mark their calendar when they can start vandalizing an article, but since you've been here almost 5 years, you must have seen a lot more things than I have. Victor Victoria ( talk) 02:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You about? I'm being hassled about my latest user page by User:Prodego; he's even edit warring with me and threatening me ;) See: User talk:Jack Merridew#Your userpage. nb: I'll be off in about an hour for some hours. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
This message is being sent to inform the Arbitration Committee of a sanction proposal forbidding me from editing Arbitration Committee pages and talk pages. Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mythdon and Arbitration Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 05:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikiproject: Did you know? 23:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
You've got mail. AdjustShift ( talk) 07:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to drag you back into the drama, but you previously warned this user about sockpuppetry and a further case has occurred: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jw2035. Cheers. Sillyfolkboy ( talk) ( edits) Join WikiProject Athletics! 13:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks for your assistance settling out the matter of SlimVirgin's concerns. Durova 306 00:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of ZooBank at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Smartse ( talk) 19:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
NW ( Talk) 17:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikiproject: Did you know? 05:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Thankyou for your message.
I used to log in and edit pages, but that caused me grief. There are people out there (probably IN there) who have the ignorance and arrogance that comes with a little power. One such deleted the last article I created. When I pointed out that I had meticulously written within the rules, the article was re-instated. No apology, no explanation.
So now I don't log in, just occasionally fix spelling and English.
Wikipedia should have better use for my 5 university degrees, but I've found that it doesn't. 121.44.1.84 ( talk) 07:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I'm doing a study about Wikipedia (particularly about sysops) for my Masters in Communications and Media Studies at Monash Uni, and was wondering if you would be so kind as to take some time to talk to me, assuming you are in Melbourne. I'm mostly interested in what your day-to-day activities are and your relationship with other sysops and editors. It shouldn't take more than 30 minutes.
Please let me know if you're interested/willing. It would be immensely appreciated :) Cheers, -- In continente ( talk) 08:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
You mentioned a merge of one of these articles into another. Perhaps a merge into an article called <redacted>, seeing as how that is the real name of the persona as admitted by himself in an official promotional notice about his radio show as DJ Pusspuss? Ottava Rima ( talk) 15:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
The BLP Barnstar | ||
Your hard work on BLPs in general, and at User:Lar/Liberal Semi specifically, is much appreciated. That page has now been sunsetted (and I hope never to need to bring it back) but the work you did there (whether by bringing articles forward, reviewing them, or protecting them... or even by questioning or criticizing the process!) was of great help to the project. See you in the trenches! ++ Lar: t/ c 01:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC) |
This message is being sent to all non-recused arbitrators.
I have sent a message to the Arbitration Committee at the amendment page, that mentions what I feel that I need to say to ArbCom before the ban takes effect.
The message is here.
Thank you. Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 22:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
FYI. This RFC is based on, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses which you participated in. If you already have commented at the RFC, my apologies for contacting you. Ikip ( talk) 00:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear John, you know where I'm from. What chances are that I'm pro-German? You know that I'm not a German, and I can't ever speak a word of German language. Please read this comment of Jacurek. Do you think there is ever a zero percent chance that I'll be aganist Polish, and support Germans on the basis of their nationality? :-) Please don't say where I'm from, but can you conform that I'm not a German here? AdjustShift ( talk) 15:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I appeal to your good name to look at Ching Hai wiki page. There is malicious updates by an anonymous and assisted by Yellow Monkey that makes many dubious updates that is clearly in violation of Living Bio policy.
This issue has persisted for a long time and they even undermine Gusi Peace Prize which you updated just so that it is removed from the Ching Hai wiki page. It is one thing to have a contentious update and totally another when it is a systematic continuous undermining for the person and totally dominating the wiki page.
Sorry but I don't know where else to turn to.
user:Truthexplorer (—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.43.12 ( talk • contribs) 2009-09-18T17:25:03)
Howdy. I note you reverted some edits to the talk page for this article following a change in title for the lead article and redirects. This resulted in the talk page being associated with one of the redirects rather than the main article. I have corrected this. 59.167.42.2 ( talk) 01:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Is this really yet another sock of Ararat Arev? If so, what on earth is he doing being unbanned? Curious. -- Folantin ( talk) 16:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, after some time, (and major computer-problems..), I finally got around to trying your solution for the Template:Palestinian_Arab_villages_depopulated_during_the_1948_Palestine_War ...and it works! It is a bit different from before, but I have tried it for a few hours, and I can sort of find my way around again.. So a big thank you for your help!
I hope you will enjoy a nice cup of tea? Thanks again, cheers, Huldra ( talk) 04:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Eh, help! --again. When I logged out 2-3 days ago; everything was fine. When I logged in today; the whole 1948-template has turned completely blue -again! And no; the template itself has not been changed (I have checked the history), nor is User:Huldra/monobook.css changed. What is going on? Do you have any idea? Cheers, Huldra ( talk) 12:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
per your suggestion ;) Sincerely, Jack Merridew 09:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. :) Kandyan Treaty of 1638 is copied from a book originally published in 1929. Are you able to help determine if this is PD? I know you are very, very gifted at that. (picture ingratiating grin here) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
While I'm here, I've started to wonder something this morning based on a recent copyright question, pertaining to Wikipedia:Public domain and Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights. The latter says, without disclaimer, "Any work published before 1923 is in the public domain in the United States, regardless of its source country...." The former says, with footnote, "In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world is in the public domain." That footnote further adds:
Strictly speaking, only U.S. works published before January 1 1923 and foreign works published in compliance with U.S. formalities (registration, © notice) before that date are in the public domain in the U.S. For non-U.S. works published without compliance with U.S. formalities (i.e., without © notice), the situation is a bit more complicated:
- If published before 1909, such works are in the public domain in the U.S.
- If published between 1909 and 1922 (inclusive) in a language other than English, the Ninth Circuit has considered them as "unpublished works" according to Peter Hirtle and following the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case Twin Books v. Disney in 1996. The case was about the book Bambi, A Life in the Woods; the decision is heavily criticized in Nimmer on Copyright ( ISBN 0-820-51465-9), the standard commentary on U.S. copyright law.
- If published between 1909 and 1922 (inclusive) in English, they are highly likely to be PD, given that the aforementioned controversial case was only about a work published in a foreign language.
- Additionally, any work first published outside of the United States without copyright notice prior to 1989, when the U.S. joined the Berne Convention, is in the public domain in the U.S. if it was in the public domain in its country of origin on the URAA date (in most cases January 1, 1996). See the section on country-specific rules for more information.
Also, the 1923 cut-off date applies only to the U.S. This means foreign works first published before 1923 are in the public domain in the U.S., but may still be copyrighted outside the U.S.
Given the footnote at the former, the statement at the latter seems misleading. My work never really dealt with the early stuff, so as you know I have no strong base in this gray area. Is 1909 effectively a cut-off date that we might consider that any work from anywhere is safe? If so, what do we do with stuff published in 1910? -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
You promised to keep me up to date on the problems with patently false statements about the case (The claim that pointing out a filing under a user's previous nick, still in the user's talk page archive to this day, and prominently linked to the user's new nick throughout the site on my part was supposedly in revenge, and exactly equivalent to users edit warring to out me after I left Wikipedia due to real name issues.) being presented as fact. I have trusted you to get this sorted. What's going on? Shoemaker's Holiday Over 208 FCs served 23:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello there. I noticed that you indefinitely fully protected this page on 23 June 2009. I was wondering if you think it would be safe to unprotect it now. Regards, NW ( Talk) 22:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Of course the vandal might be right, but anyway you have restored my image and your actions are noted. ;~) LessHeard vanU ( talk) 12:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Before you blindly revert my edits next time, I ask you to look at what you are reverting. In particular, can you find cited evidence of use of those "azeri" names in any encyclopedic or significant context. or, are they random words that have no factual accuracy or are simply wrong.
but at the same time, you have no qualms reverting, or ruining similiar articles with citations and armenian spellings. at least pretend to be impartial as an administrator instead of the raging azerophile impression you give. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.33.90 ( talk • contribs) 2009-09-29T00:52:51
You have it :) MBisanz talk 18:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Question for you here, John. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 12:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
John, if you want to preserve the anonymity of the functionary who contacted you - as seems appropriate - might I suggest you stop dropping hints that only encourage amateur sleuthing? Respecting her or his desire to stay publicly away from this ever-growing mess is the right thing to do, unless some really important factor later dictates a need for you to provide an identification. Unless that happens, please go with your instinct, it is the right one. EdChem ( talk) 14:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. There is an AfD discussion going on regarding this journalist from Saudi Arabia. I noticed your work other Asian media articles, and wondered if you might have any input. Cheers! -- Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 06:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I'm a Wikipedia user and I want to talk with users of this wiki. If you can, please add me: mateuzinhow_@hotmail.com. Thank you :) Tosão ( talk) 00:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
[41] (transcluding nobots won't have any effect, it needs to be hardcoded onto the desired page). Also, since mostly established users edit the FAQs, SineBot wouldn't try anyway (it ignores users with over 800 edits) – xeno talk 14:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
What is the current policy of wikipedia on fair-use of copyright protected images of dead persons. -- 122.161.41.130 ( talk) 15:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
[42] - Risker has been removed, could you please adjust accordingly? Ottava Rima ( talk) 21:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
You've had mail. RSVP! SergeWoodzing ( talk) 23:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
[44] User:Jack Merridew has been disrupting an legitimate attempt to handle personal attacks at a page he is involved in. The page is also an MfD of a page that Moreschi, his other mentor, has previously deleted and has made threatening comments over.
ArbCom has stated: "5. User:Jack Merridew agrees to avoid all disruptive editing." This is a serious matter and I would request you, as Mentor, to ensure that it does not continue. Ottava Rima ( talk) 15:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Ottava, this weekend you have been creating chaos in the community faster than you normally create content. It has been hard to keep up. Some people respond to that by ignoring the rules and shutting down the chaos generator. While I do not agree with the RFC being deleted the first time, your recent block, or the use of MFD, I don't doubt that the people involved meant well. Accusations that everyone is "involved" are inane when the majority of the highly active community has been either dragged into the disruption, or seen it spilling out onto talk pages everywhere. People wanted it to stop yesterday.
The recent RFC is the first time that I have ever felt it necessary to submit a view to an RFC. I was preparing to write another one before the rest of the RFC was deleted. I don't even know what sparked this mess. If you want to talk about that, I'll be happy to do so in a few days. If there is something meaningful underneath all this, it can be presented much more calmly, after proper (read: meaningful) attempts at dispute resolution. If you don't have time to engage in dispute resolution properly, avoid disputes. It is possible. This is a very large project, and there are sister projects.
As for Jack, he has a mind of his own, and expressing it is not disruptive editing. I haven't looked at everything Jack has said and done this weekend, but he voted keep on the RFC MfD. [45] As you know, Jack has had nothing but time for you, and I am sure he will continue to assist with any worthwhile endeavor where you have common interests, and there are many. I am also sure that his project-space edits in this recent scuffle have been trying to do the right thing, as he saw it. And I have to admit, I think he did the right thing in the circumstances. WP:WQA is supposed to be an early stage of dispute resolution; when a matter has already been given its own AN subpage and an RFC, it doesn't need a WQA subpage as well. The next logical step would be RFAR, or a scorched earth approach. If Jack didn't close the WQA thread, someone else would have, and they may not have been so kind. If you want to frame his edits on WP:WQA as edit warring, then you will be measured by the same yardstick. John Vandenberg ( chat) 15:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC) p.s. I am going back to bed now, and have engagements in the morning, so don't rush to reply to me.
Hello. Thank you for the welcome message. Actually, I am a very active user in Spanish Wikipedia (+12000 edits) so English is not my first language, but I'll try to contribute here as well. Thanks again and regards :) Mel 23 ( talk) 02:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Care to opine at:
His prior comment that he finds finds me 'despicable' is rather telling.
Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll drop this for now, but perhaps you could check why he choose to comment at User talk:Serendipity81 three times [46] [47] [48] plus one time on a subpage [49], when that user had the week before been adopted by A Nobody [50]. It doesn't give the best impression, and I can't find a good reason why Jack Merridew would have stumbled on that user except by following A Nobody around. These are edits from te end of last month and the beginning of this month, so quite recent. Fram ( talk) 07:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
So anyone still believes that he is not following A Nobody around, when the only AfD he comments in is one A Nobody is heavily editing [51], the only RfA he edits is one A Nobody opposes [52], and one of the five last articles he edited [53] is one where A Nobody had commented on the talk page only 3 hours before [54]? That's three out of Jack Merridew's last eight visited pages where he commented very shortly after A Nobody had edited them... Fram ( talk) 15:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
To everyone commenting here now: this discussion is extremely unlikely to a) improve the encyclopedia, b) improve relations with each other, or c) be something that I want to follow.
Jack, your last few comments and edit summaries on this page are not helpful; you should avoid commenting on other users, especially people who you don't like. Please ... John Vandenberg ( chat) 10:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Note the timestamps ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I hope that you've considered this carefully, and not been led up the garden path by a prankster. Wikipedia is not in need of more patent plagiarism (taken word for word from Mariner's mirror), that is then flat out denied. Similarly, this can be traced to books such as Björn Landström's The Ship, even if the references to book figures scattered throughout aren't dead giveaways. Are you yourself willing to clean up the mess if more plagiarism ensues?
Special:EmailUser/Uncle G works and should be usable by that account if necessary. For obvious reasons I don't hand out mailbox addresses. Uncle G ( talk) 14:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I have not been able to put my hands on a copy of Björn Landström's The Ship, so could you please provide a specific example of plagiarism in this diff. Thanks, John Vandenberg ( chat) 11:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Could you please oversight this edit. It makes no sense in German, looks like a machine translation of another language, but nevertheless contains abusive words in its attack edit summary. Regards Skäpperöd ( talk) 12:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
When will the Asmahan arbitration continue? -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 08:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello John, thank you for your kind words. The resolution only contained two pages. Yes, an English translation would be nice. To tell you the truth, I don't mind if the article about me is deleted, it happens. What I do mind is the personal vendetta/witch-hunt which User: YellowMonkey, who voted against the article, has taken against my person as evidenced by his dedication to making sure that every photo or mention of me in Wikipedia is eliminated [ evidence]. These are not random acts of editing, he has taken it to a personal stage and no one has done anything nor told him to put an end to it. Tony the Marine ( talk) 18:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello John, In regard to Somos Primos, I found the following statement here: [56]
HISTORY OF SOMOS PRIMOS
"Somos Primos was first published as a quarterly in 1990. January 2000, Somos Primos went online. Somos Primos will continue to publish current events and articles that reveal the reality of all those historically connected by their Spanish ancestry. Somos Primos currently is being received by major libraries and archival collections across the country, such as the Library of Congress, Smithsonian Institute, National Archives in D.C., Bancroft Library, Sutro Library, and many universities and colleges."
I don't know if this helps. Tony the Marine ( talk) 01:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello John Vandenberg, Rjanag has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the
WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I'm not sure if this was just a Friendly error, but in any case it gave me a good laugh, since User:ZhBot is a bot. "especially what you did for Tibet", hehe... rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 21:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
John, first of all I would like to thank you for all the work that went through in posting the references in my father's, Tony Santiago, article, however I am requesting that you notify the user who does not seem to understand who did this [58] of your actions and how the removal of the references could affect the out come of the AFD, please. Thank you. Antonio Martin ( talk) 19:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you tagged and rated this for WikiProject Academic Journals, but the article seems to be about a book, not a journal? Cheers, -- Crusio ( talk) 09:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
[please insert message placed at Risker's page about tallies on Rfarb page]; except compare [59] and [60]. Cheers, Ncmvocalist ( talk) 16:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and closed the DRV and restored the article... the DRV IMO is a waste of time (although I don't blame you for going there as I have the retirement template up.) In the future you can simply add a source or material and recreate CSD'd materials. DRV is only needed if the article to be restored is to be the essentially the same as the one deleted... if you add a few sources the article will avoid that fate. I'd also suggest trying to give a reason or to as to why they are independently notable. Being swallowed by a company that is swallowed by a notable company isn't a claim to significance, it happens all the time in the business world.--- Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
John, please see my posts at the RfC talk page and the election talk page. Tony (talk) 02:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi John, just a ping to see my response to your comment on the JohnWBarber arbitration. Regards, Mackan79 ( talk) 02:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
As you participated in the recent
Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two
requests for comment that relate to the use of
SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the
SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (
talk) 08:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey there. I sent you an email about 30 hours ago. Do you think you could get back to me please? Thanks, NW ( Talk) 03:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello John! I have just gone through the Asmahan Arbitration Workshop and noticed that you are expecting answers from Arab Cowboy. I think I should let you know that he left a post on my talk page on the 3rd of November informing me that he would be preoccupied with other matters and away for few weeks. So I don’t think we should expect any contribution from his side for some time. Also, I saw today on Supreme Deliciousness talk page that he was blocked on the 10th of November for 24 hours due to edit warring. Trust me, I don’t think he will ever stop, unless he is banned! – Nefer Tweety ( talk) 12:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I saw you adding text to the workshop, there has been a RfC, This link [ here] shows several posts not shown [ here]: for example: "Annyong, please explain what is involved in this RfC process." "The RfC is open now. It gets listed at a central location, and people will come here and read the discussion and leave their opinions below." "This is my first contribution to Wikipedia, but I have been following the debate for some time. My position is that I support the current version of 15:48, 2 July 2009" -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 13:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
And there has been two mediations, one with Diaa abdelmoneim and Al Ameer son. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 13:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I dont know about the mediation with dia, I made a post at admins talkpage after he blocked me, and he responded [61] [62] right after Dia showed up at the talkpage to mediate, I dont know if it was the admin who requested through the medcom or directly to Diaa. I personally made a request to Al Ameer son to mediate.-- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 13:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
you haven't read anything of the evidence page? There is no problem with the ethnicity or nationality of Asmahan, the problems are with details inside the text that Arab Cowboy has changed against the mediations: [63]-- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 10:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Is this a part of the "mediated compromise"? [64] -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 16:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
John, "mediated compromise" is it only referring to "Syrian-Egyptian" and nothing else? You apparently do not see the two mediations we have been trough as real mediations as you have not posted them at "Proposed findings of fact" at the workshop. In those two mediations several things was agreed, are these things also part of the "mediated compromise" ? -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 13:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Guy has already closed the deletion review after only a few hours,. I';ve protested this to him, I do not support the journal; I think the arguments in its fact are not correct, but there were several comments by reliable eds. including yourself partially supporting the journal. I think this clearly wrong--there needs to be time for discussion. DGG ( talk ) 18:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
For your diligent research of Adamantius (journal) during its deletion review discussion, and helping to politely reach out to Alastair Haines ( talk · contribs) during that process. Cirt ( talk) 01:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC) |
You said at the current case amendment discussion that it might be helpful to see something like the Deacon's User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/North-East Europe AE threads relating to the Troubles. I've started one at User:Angusmclellan/Troubles. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Cheers. Steve Smith ( talk) 17:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Cinephile (disambiguation). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cinephile (disambiguation). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
You recused yourself from the EEML case because "I am recused because user:Russavia is a member of m:Wikipedia Australia (see User:John_Vandenberg/recusal#AU)". But I cannot find Russavia listed among m:WPAU members, nor does he seem to be active there. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
These words were sent to ArbCom in June, but they produced no response:
In the context of the six months, there should have been some kind of follow-up. There was not.
In the absence of any reply to any question, how could anyone have converted this into a teachable moment?
A minimal level of understanding is needed in order to comply with ArbCom's decision. Arguably, I thought I had some grasp of what was expected. Obviously, I don't; but it points out ArbCom's collective misjudgment more than my own.
If this is part of a pattern affecting more than just one ArbCom participant, then the problem needs to be addressed. -- Tenmei ( talk) 19:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
You recently voted on a topic ban. I feel it important to state the following:
Facts
Questions
1)By pointing out harassing behaviour it has been assumed that there is, "a failure of either to work together or disengage”, and that "breathing room" was needed. Why must one have breathing room when one is being harassed? Why has no administrator ever intervened in any way against many false, blatant, and spiteful comments against me?
2)How can one disengage from harassment, especially when part of the harassment is the filing of sanction processes that include a number of bogus accusations?
3)If administrators discounted numerous allegations of wrongdoing during the two amendment requests, why did administrators make further accusations and propose a new topic ban?
Principles of care and justice
1)In a community, those in charge have a duty of care. No one should have to endure months of ongoing abuse.
2)A basic principle of any form of justice is that those making claims can be challenged, and that they must respond.
3)A basic principle of any form of justice is the separation of duties. One party can not start a process, make accusations, not communicate with the accused, and then vote for sanctions.
The sanction process is a "blunt instrument" but it shouldn't be an indifferent instrument and punitive instrument. I view the year long topic ban as unjust. How would I appeal it?-- scuro ( talk) 19:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Not quite sure what you mean by your comment about me here. Did I do something wrong? Asking someone to correct an obvious mistake - which they have at last acknowledged, it would seem - is not of itself a bad thing. When they refuse to do so, it is likely one might ask again. Perhaps your comment would be better directed at the admin who caused all this nonsense in the first place - it was not only me who noted how ridiculous it was, I believe about 15 other people said much the same. And of course, now the issue has been sorted out, I have no reason to be involved further - as frequently pointed out, I was never an involved editor on the article itself. Following the discussion threads usually makes such things clear. Cheers. -- Nickhh ( talk) 00:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
ps: if you had looked into this, you might also have noticed that User:Off2riorob is the one who has since described other editors as "IRA editors", and that User:Sarah777 seemed to be basing her call for Troubles protection on the fact that obscure "Irish" articles had been so tagged, kind of a WP:OTHERCRAP thing. Whereas all the 15 other involved and uninvolved editors who commented agreed that it was all a bit daft. But you know, cherry picking and favouring the contributions of the abusive and aggressive is how much content here comes to be. -- Nickhh ( talk) 00:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
[72] noted and changed. [73] The reason he left is not material to the point I am making. Strife leads to bad results. People should try to get along. Jehochman Talk 22:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
John, if you want Jack Merridew to stay on Wikipedia, it may be best if you have a chat with him. After he deleted all his userpages and gave the impression of leaving, he has now gone back to some, well, rather negative editing. Editing a since long historical page to add yourself as a "rogue sockpuppet" [74], or restating (in a not very cryptic way) that you still believe someone to be a pile of shit [75] (follow the last link he gives) will not endear many to him, and the text of his new user page doesn'( give much confidence that he will do more constructive work on the encyclopedia. I can understand that the arbitration discussion is stressful and that he may feel that some people create a portrait of him that's quite different from how he really is, but now he's just throwing in his own windows. Fram ( talk) 13:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 07:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Am I walking that road... or are you? Tcaudilllg ( talk) 04:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. :) I tried to answer this one solo (and have done), but I'm not confident enough yet to fly without asking for review, and there is still a question of whether the book was published also in the US. Rather than ask you to view over my page, I'll just reproduce my note here and ask if it seems okay to you. This is the book in question.
Have I got it right, basically? Do you know how we might find out details on any US publication, if there was one? -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Created, now for the parent articles. Aaroncrick ( talk) Review me! 05:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the incredibly late response. Since my take on the project died a long time ago, feel free to use the page. Just make sure that my old version is properly archived and linked to in case anyone wants to take a look at it. Let me know if your project gets off the ground. - Mgm| (talk) 10:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
1 - 2004 — July 7, 2007 |
Thank you for your attention to my contribution FASEB Journal and advises on my talk page. Eboireau ( talk) 14:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Emailed you on June 25th. RSVP there. Thx! SoCoColl ( talk) 11:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
May I suggest {{ talkarchivenav}} instead? -- Avi ( talk) 12:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I added links to the two previous archives to the talk page, but I'm not sure if that was correct given the first entry on the second archive page. Flowanda | Talk 03:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi John, Head of Dept:I am the only Chairman in Immunology since about 1991 .I hope this will finish soon;burocracy has been shared among us lately.We have two parts in our Dept 1-Microbiology and 2-Immunology.Both parts function separately , so I am the Head of Immunology.If you are going to Edit something I would prefer to be named Chairman.The concept is different in all 3 countries: USA,UK and here.
Fundacion de Estudios Geneticos y Lingüísticos:I am the president.If I wanted to expel a member I could not ;perhaps after a long process.Dumu Eduba showed documents,that I was.
My last 2 books have been published by Fundacion de Estudios Geneticos y Linguisticos .FEGEL or Fegel is a private company:if I do not have time to proceed against the linguists who are after me ;I am not going to proceed to somebody who has worked with me.In addition,Justice in Spain is slow and very expensive.
I am going out and I will have access to Internet not everyday(or may be not even in some days).
In addition ,if you wish documents for your work ,just send me and E mail and I will send you by Fed Exp or any means.But I am not going to answer (with my name,directly) more private or personal questions except about what I have published and I must give an explanation, if requested,through my official E mail.
PS_Unfortunately I am now Head of Immunology and Microbiology also.I will get rid of Microbiology as soon as possible.--
Arnaiz1 (
talk) 17:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
When I have said Fegel ,it means Fegel Editions-- Arnaiz1 ( talk) 17:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC) We are getting too personal.Please E mail me-- Arnaiz1 ( talk) 17:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I wrote a note for your mediation yesterday in AAV page. Make this sense? Here is a copy. Sincerely-- Virginal6 ( talk) 14:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[edit] Other Wrong Statements (like "scientific fraud") Vandenberg mediation does not want web pages as references. There is a web page from Fegel Editions which has nothing to do with Arnaiz-Villena.”Scientific fraud” has been removed because it was taken from this page. In addition the following phrase should also be deleted:
“and advertises that Basque can even be used to translate the Indus script of Pakistan,[24] Rongorongo of Easter Island, and the Mayan glyphs of Mesoamerica,[25] showing that "Usko-Mediterannean technology and religion diffused across the planet."[26”
This should also be removed because: 1-Its only reference comes from the same page. 2-Arnaiz-Villena has never writteen anything about Indus script,Mayan Glyphs or Easter Island Rongorongo language.
This is an information which is wrong and misleads Wikipedia readers. THIS SHOULD ALSO BE REMOVED.
--Virginal6 (talk)
http://www.arguewitheveryone.com/race-issues/58836-100-facts-3-lie.html
(see end of third page)
I would rather change
:
1”-FRINGE” by “UNORTHODOX”,since editors are changing Basque and Dene Caucasian languages Wikipedia pages in the last times to a more balanced ones and closer to AAV hypotheses:Basque has been compared with many languages and AAV is basically repeating those approaches.Because of these repetitions he should not be insulted in Wikipedia .
2-All extended critics are unbased :LAHOZ on ly critics his first book.LAKARRA critics 32 words out of thousands. (and he comes to the conclussion that 85% of the AAV work is wrong) ,since in fact what he says that 85% of the 32 words are wrong.Pichler (from un unknown Bulletin,refers toan Erratum- The last critic:Jacobsen does not mention to Arnaiz-Villena is a general critic which has nothing to do wit Arnaiz-Villena
3-In view ,of the Wikipedia misuse by phanatics,I would stick to the text propossed by AAV,now and we have always have time to add further.
This is what he-AAV proposes (pasted) 7:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)-- Virginal6 ( talk) 14:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] REMARKS AND PROPOSAL I would not like to be crucified by months in this page “while we discuss calmly”(Dumu Eduba). Obvious mistakes could be removed as soon as possible.If we write in detail all other article paragraphs, we would fill all Wikipedia.I think that we should size this linguistic section on article.
1-I would like to remove soon languages which I have not even mentioned in my writings and “an invented accusation of scientific fraud stated by me”.The reference is a web page whith which I have nothing to do and my name is not in it. (EDITION A).Scripts names to be removed:Mayan,Rongorongo,Akkadian,Babylonian,Dravidian, Indus Valley, (Harappa,Mohenjo Darro),Proto-Indo-European,Greek,Latin,Semitic languages....If they still state that I have written a word on these languages,they should scan my false writing and show it here.
2-I have nothing to do with Fegel Company,I have contacted them and asked them to remove all quotations to Fundacion de Estudios Geneticos.I expect they remove it.
3-If Iruña-Veleia is to be mentioned, then mention supporters and non-supporters(EDITION B).
4-“Few scholars have found it worth their time to refute Arnaiz-Villena”:this a defamatory opinion.I think that they rather cannot refute (EDITION C).
5-DE HOZ CRITICISM: (1999)references only a small part of my work :the first of 7 books on linguistics .
a)Title of Javier de Hoz commentary “Travel to nowhere througout the Mediterranean:languages that Iberians,Etruscans,and Cretans did not speak”He does not write about Cretans a single word and refers to a single Iberian example to dismiss our whole work.
b)Statements written by Lahoz:
1-...sometimes this type (of books) are written by unscrupulous (“desaprensivo” in Spanish) people...,including people from the Academic World.He is stating I am unscroupolous I consider this a false unbased accusation which damages my reputation.
2- ...(authors) do not know at all gramatical structure of Iberian and Etruscan...(This is the one single time he mentions Etruscan except in title).Grammars do exist as such only after Middle Ages and although some Grammatical features ,not standardized and variable,must exist in the first times, but it lacks standardization.Our hypotheses on this topic are as good as Lahoz ones.
3-...(books authors) are a plain disaster (no further explanations).This is an un based defamation. 4-...(books) are an a aberration in methods and results.No further explanation.This is an unbased defamation. 5-...Public money has been missused to pay the issue of a book with a scientific interest similar to that of using wax puppets and exorcism to cure cancer. This is tasteless joke and a defamation.. 6-A crime has been perpetrated and there must be a responsable person to pay for it.(END) .(He referes to deviation ofpublic funds... or to the authors?).This book was unusually reprinted.This is a defamation;Hoz is not a Judge.. Thus ,Lahoz does not criticise the specific content of the ONE SINGLE book which was out,but attacks the authors ,without any base:he only does not agree with one example( 2 words in Iberian). I accept this.Although ,I believe we were right.He does not mention Etruscan or Cretan (only in title) : only to say that we do not know a word of Iberian or Etruscan grammars:our hypothesis on these are as valid as his.Grammars did not exist by then,and these languages are not firmly and finally translated.Historic linguistic reconstructoins for ancient languages are hypotheses only ,including ours.
I have already (last year, 2008!) complained to De Hoz himself:we had a nice chat and I asked him to phone me up if he had any problem with our writings.We are full professors at the same university.
We should only refer to his opposition he only dismiss work and authors without specific critics,just a general dismissal. .EDITION D.
-6-LAKARRA CRITICISMS: -LAKARRA(in Protovasco,munda...in Ohienart 21,2006,229-322) He has feuds with some others ..His references should not be included in Wikipedia regarding to Dene Caucasian or Basque or in this page.He reflect extreme views.; he states:
a-Page 242:Ruhlen and other seditious Greenberg underlings....Ruhlen is a linguist with different ideas,not a militar.Merritt Ruhlen is a linguistics professor at Stanford University and co-Director of a big project at the Santa Fe Institute of Languages. b-Page 243:He attacks senior linguist Theo Vennemann [29] just because Theo V. thinks that Europe is full of old Basque toponyms, i.e.:Basque or related languages were the ancient European languages. According to Lakarra,Theo V. put forward this hypothesis ,because “eager of success at any cost”.This is an extemist view c)-Page 245 (footnote):he says that from 32 Basque words used by us ,8 are Lating leanings (we hypothezise the contrary) and 5 are invented “ad hoc” by us[30]. Later,he acuses us of forgers.This is an extreme view and also he uses picaresque :he studies 32 out of thousands of words we have researched.Then,he transforms his “ 32 word study ” in percentages and ALL our work becomes 85% wrong.I do not think this is a serious critic.I would edit it(EDITION D).This reference should be removed. 7-WERNER PICHLER-He (?) writes in a Bulletin without adscription, editorship or peer-review “La Lettre D’AARS”.He dismisses “amateurs and specialists”:3 or 4 authors ,including us.We have studied Lybic –Berber Canarian Rock Inscriptions (from page 214 -243 ,about 200 Lybic Berber words) ,he does not critisize any of them and then comes to a clear secretariat Erratum ,which is corrected in any scientific magazine,issues later.There are several hypotheses.1)He has written the criticisms: he,who does not know neither Iberian nor Basque languages,did not notice about the Iberian Guanche inscriptions (he does not mention them).He might be upset abut that.This remark about us and about others would not have been admited in a regular magazine.2)He has not written the criticisms(he is quite old by now)I would remove this unknown Bulletin reference. (EDITION D)[]
8-JACOBSEN-He does not refer to me because its publication was before my first liguistics book was out. He specifically referers to a preliminar Alonso work (see his references),when I and my colleagues did not yet colaborate with Alonso.This paragraph is also very long and reflects only a point of view,about Basque language evolution which does not coincide with Alonso work (EDITION D)[]
-9-HIEROGLYPGHS-No universal claims of discovering were done or pretended by us. This is an editor opinion. Champoillon decipherment is not universal. Not a single Egyptologist translate the same hieroglyphic paragraph in the same way.There are no Egyptian Chairs at Universities:only Seminars. Many more Egyptian scripts has come out since Champoillon and a revision is needed . EDITION E
-10-OTHER SCHOLARS HAD DONE BEFORE THE SAME COMPARISONS THAN ARNAIZ-VILLENA,BETWEEN BASQUE AND OTHER LANGUAGES.
There is no cause for raging ,unless a lynching is going on.
1- All comparisons done between Basque and Mediterranean languages by Antonio Arnaiz-Villena had been done before by others.I do not see here the need of doing a thorough revision of the books written by me (at least in the article page).In addition, curious and spurious statements attributed to me are repeatedly being added:this is a mistake.
2-All European languages have a Basque base according to linguist Venemann.´ Iberian,Etruscan,Minoan,Sumerian,North and South Caucasian and Berber languages all Have been compared (see review in book “Towards a history of Basque language” edited by Hualde et al;John Benjanmins Publishing Co,1995,in chapter written by Larry Trask,pags 65-100),ISBN:9027236348.
3-Egyptian language is also related to to East African and Berber languages by Gardiner,accepted by almoust all scholars In “Egyptian Grammar”,Oxford University Press,1969, [31]
4-Uhlenbeck,Bouda,Lafon,Marr,Dumeznil,Schuchardt,Reinesch,Pokorny and Trombetti have found relationships between Basque and Hamitic languages (Middle East and North African languages ,including Phoenician,Berber etc);Hamitic languages concept might overlap with Usko-Mediterranean languages concept.
4-Bengston and Ruhlen have treated relationships of Basque and Hurrian, Hatti and many other World northern and southern Hemisphere languages,not only Usko-Mediterraneans (see book”On the origin of languages “ by Merritt Ruhlen,Stanford University Press,1994,chapter “Global Ethymology” by Bengston and Ruhlen,pags 277-336;(ISBN 0847-2321-4) [32]
5-Hittite has also been studied in relation to Basque (By Imanol Agirre es:Imanol_Agirre in “Vinculos de la lengua vasca con las lenguas de todo el mundo”.Edited La Gran Enciclopedia Vasca,1980,Bilbao,Spain (ISBN:842480501)
6-I have also removed references:1) to Iruña-Veleia from newspapers and recent web pages,following guidelines.2)to a web page on Egyptian-Bsque,following guidelines.
7-I have added “The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Linguistics” for contradicting our studies.
Please,read the text if see if it is suitable for a Wikipedia section of article.--Arnaiz1 (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Fringe linguistic theories Arnaiz-Villena and his collaborator Jorge Alonso-Garcia have used Basque to decipher many of the ancient languages of the Mediterranean and Middle East which are believed by scholars not related to Basque, including Egyptian, Hittite, Sumerian, Hurrian, Ugaritic, EDITION A Elamite, and Phoenician.EDITION A .Arnaiz-Villena's Egyptian translations, for example, include the cartouche of the bilingual Rosseta Stone in which Champollion identified the name of Ptolemy, which in his version does not include that name .EDITION E.The Code of Hammurabi contains "no hint of laws" but is a Basque funeral text;[4] They also have put forward to read poorly attested languages such as Etruscan, Iberian, Tartessian, Guanche, and Minoan, which nobody else has been able to decipher with any certainty. They posit that these are all part of a "Usko-Mediterranean" branch[5] of the speculative Dene-Caucasian language family, which they extend to include the Berber languages of North Africa,[6][7][8][9] EDITION A This thesis flatly contradicts basic Egyptological, Sumerian, EDITION A scholarship. Phoenician, EDITION A, Ugaritic, and Eblaite, for example, are clearly Semitic languagesEDITION A; Egyptian along with Berber and Semitic have been demonstrated to be Afro-Asiatic, and some linguists have been unable to find a connection with Basque,but not others :Federico Krutwig related Guanche and Basque and other authors related Basque with Iberian,Etruscan,Minoan,Sumerian,North and 8 South Caucasian ,Berber,Egyptian and Hittite ..EDITION A,EDITION F [39] ,[ Towards a history of Basque language” edited by Hualde et al;John Benjanmins Publishing Co,1995,in chapter written by Larry Trask,pags 65-100),ISBN:9027236348.],[ Vinculos de la lengua vasca con las lenguas de todo el mundo”.Edited La Gran Enciclopedia Vasca,1980,Bilbao,Spain (ISBN:842480501)]. EDITION C De Hoz,1999 ,Werner Pichler-EDITION D (2005) and Joseba Lakarra strongly oppose these linguistic comparisons .Arnaiz-Villena hypotheses also contradict other established theories .[40]---Arnaiz1 (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
-- Virginal6 ( talk) 15:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
John, it would seem that Red Pen is carrying out a personal vendetta against links to MyWikiBiz, even when they are linking to highly informative, instructive pages directly in tune with the Wikipedia article. See here, here, and here. Your opinion? Obviously, I can't get involved directly. -- Thekohser 03:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Rather than view this as a personal vendetta, it can be viewed as igniting discussion via WP:BRD. WP:EL is a guideline, and I dont think it is appropriate to remove links due to WP:ELNO #12 "Links to open wikis.." as that is guidance for the many crappy wikis around the Internet. There are many well administrated wikis. (A few days ago I noticed that Oracle Corp has one now) As a result we need to evaluate each link separately.
John Vandenberg ( chat) 03:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you know anyone at the Houghton Library, Harvard? There is a manuscript of Christopher Smart's Jubilate Agno there. Although I have some pieces, and a few others are also copied, it is hard to find a holograph or copy of the work in full. It would be a lovely edition for some eager individual at Wikisource to find. Could you pass on the word whenever you have a free moment? :) Ottava Rima ( talk) 20:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
This? I'm uncertain whether it requires oversight.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 06:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The problem seems to have partly solved itself with an admin speedily deleting the page (I'd query the appropriateness of the speedy, personally, but I'm not worried enough to bring it to DRV).— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 08:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
{{helpme}|}uploaded umages are owned by me and filed with the U.S. Library of Congress. This includes all photos and cover art. Knightflyte —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightflyte ( talk • contribs) 16:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know of a solution beyond simply using {{ multicol}}. {{ reflist}} has had this problem for a long time now; it uses the same method to create columns as both of our templates do, and it is a much more popular template; yet, there still has been no solution for it. Gary King ( talk) 22:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
You should be aware the Wikisource version is riddled with spelling errors. I comment on this here. Peter Damian ( talk) 07:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
You have some. Cheers. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Er, I received a polite note from one John Vandenberg thanking me for my "contributions".
It's true that from time to time I modify a wikipedia page if for one reason or another I have special knowledge on the subject, or my housebound personal library happens to contain a book of special relevance. It contains for example an original copy of the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica, leatherbound, printed on rice paper, still in its Louis Vuitton case, which I inherited from my grandfather.
In general though, I just don't have the energy to make a wikipedia account worthwhile. My IP address changes every so often; but I will try to sign with four tildes as recommended.
Best Regards, Terry Cole -- 60.234.132.128 ( talk) 10:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I was quite interested in your ideas on version control and flagging revisions. I may follow this up. Another idea: as you may know I work on medieval manuscripts. One thing a Wiki environment would be well-suited to is deciphering of these. They are famously illegible and a group of people working together could definitely make better progress than one. Here is an example of one I made public. The disadvantages are (1) there are probably only 5 people in the world who have the experience to do this, relative to any particular area or era (part of the skill is knowing which Latin technical term is being used, and a strong vocabulary is essential in any case). (2) Copyright again. The version I posted there is a digital version that is copyrighted. To get over this I reduced the grain of the image right down from 3M to a few hundred k. Perhaps this would be acceptable to copyright owners, but not sure. Also, when the grain is reduced it makes it somewhat less legible though personally I have no trouble reading the image there. Interested in your thoughts. Peter Damian ( talk) 11:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
John, you may have read my post quickly. Please see the link to ArbCom's second draft update of its policy. That is what I cite below the existing policy. It's nothing to do with what I would propose, although I support the change. Tony (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
http://www.arguewitheveryone.com/race-issues/58836-100-facts-3-lie.html
Look at the end of the 3rd page.
Page should be changed as suggested by AAV I have pasted his suggestion it in your talk page ,JVDB
-- Virginal6 ( talk) 15:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I will be these days out of work and will be able to answer rapidly.-- Virginal6 ( talk) 06:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
According to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jack_Merridew_ban_review_motion, you are listed as a mentor of the above described user. Following the long discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Jack Merridew-A Nobody, I thought he would leave me alone, but then the following happened over the past few days:
I don't know why the sudden resurgence against me, but trying to dismissingly disrupt multiple editors' efforts to improve the Home and Away character articles is not just some slight against me and the nomination of the Sally article is indicative of the indiscriminate and unknowing approach here. But given the past ANI threads between us and given his unblock conditions, I would think making some kind of flippant remark that I really am "a nobody" would be totally unacceptable. He has already been warned, sanctioned, etc. I don't much care to be insulted by someone who long-term harassed another user, nor do I care to have him see fit to target articles I try to improve. At this point, there should be no tolerance for such a thing and especially given the past ANI threads, the fact that he would make such a remark on my talk page alonside a slew of rapid-fire deletes for articles I tagged for rescue (if you check his contribs, the ONLY AfDs he commented in a ROW i.e. in consecuetive edits were either ones I tagged for rescue, tried to fix, or previously defended in an earlier AfD; given the dozens of active AfDs and given our history, well...). Please, please put a stop to this already. The talk page personal attack in itself should be blockable. I am not planning on starting any new ANI thread or anything else beyond this talk page request as I am here to build an encyclopedia and not play games, but I deeply implore you to do whatever possible to reign this ongoing fixation he has against me in, because I do not want to yet again become his new White Cat. Thank you for your time, help, and consideration. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 05:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Then there's Sarah's view of the soap opera mess: User talk:Jack Merridew#Thanks Jack and a shinny pointed thing. This edit is worth a look at. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 05:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I have looked at this quickly, and will discuss it with the other mentors within in the next few hours. John Vandenberg ( chat) 08:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A Nobody, I haven't been ignoring your posts here. To be honest, I'm still not sure what to do as a mentor here. But I need to do something now, as I fear this is going to end up with Jack Merridew becoming banned on technicalities and minor issues, or result in arbitration which will do neither of you any good. Both of you are working in the same area, and have diametrically opposing worldviews on a raft of issues. Since you work in the same area, you are going to bump heads occasionally. The most obvious problem you raise is the edit-summaries, and I have had a few ideas on how to address that, but not implemented any of them.
Feel free to both answer here. To begin with, talk to me rather than each other, and please both be considerate of the other when replying to my questions. John Vandenberg ( chat) 16:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
It looks like we nearly have an agreement on a voluntary withdrawal from AFD for a month, however A Nobody wants to still edit articles at AFD, without participating in the AFD discussion. I would really like to see you both volunteer to avoid articles at AFD; a month away from that venue will do you both the world of good.
I know you both are pretty keen on building this encyclopedia - you are both here for the right reasons. For a while I've been trying to convince Jack Merridew to be an inclusionist (I am a masochist), and I think that A Nobody can help me with that. Taking my original idea of working together on some content, and including A Nobody's desire to work on articles that are at AFD, I propose:
John Vandenberg ( chat) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
This edit: [13] shows bad faith, A Nobody characterized a good faith warning by me as "trolling" in the edit summary of his deletion of the comment (rather than replying) . This is typical behavior by A Nobody in response to criticism and shows that Jack is not the sole source of the problem here. It's entirely possible that A Nobody was just following Doctorfluffy around, a review of his contributions suggests he visited a large number of AfDs where Doctorfluffy commented, just to disparage Doctorfluffy's comments. One example would be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Ridden, an AfD he was not participating in until he arrived to trash another editor's input. In summary, this sort of ignoring warnings and disparaging the input of others (whether it be via warnings, contributions to discussions or what have you) is not something the community, or I, should have to put up with. - Josette ( talk) 19:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
The following from today are obvious reactions to my comments and all made right in a row: [17], [18], [19], etc. You would think with all of the above discussion. He would at least not be so obvioius. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 15:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Waa! John, he's stalking me. Also note that I was commenting on a group of AfD's all listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements. I'll make an effort to review everything listed there and comment on them all.
@AN; grow up. You've failed to agree to any of the proposals John has put forward. You also made lame comments in those "discussions" — you troll AfD discussions and this is why you need to be removed from the AfD realm (including the editing of articles at AfD). Sincerely, Jack Merridew ;) 02:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I've been watching this AN-JM feud for about 10 months now as both editors have blazed a trail across the wiki. Among other points, A Nobody has violated sourcing, COI, and sock/rtv policies with some borderline civility comments. Jack Merridew has violated edit warring, civility, hounding policies. However, given that neither of them is associated with a powerful group of friends, no one really has cared enough to take it any further in the dispute resolution process, since there isn't a strategic goal and it would probably end up being a very boring and tedious arbcom case like PHG or Prem Rawat 2. One of the failings of our DR system is that RFC doesn't work when two users are both at fault. I'm not sure it is at the point where Arbcom would take such a case, but given the intransigence of both sides to admit fault and accept meaningful restrictions, I suspect that is where it will end up. And it is probably worth noting that generally Arbcom restrictions tend to be more severe than voluntary restrictions. MBisanz talk 04:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
John, I think it is apparent that his trolling of AfDs and ongoing badgering of myself and others needs to stop and be deescalated. Thus, I urge a revisiting of his unblock agreement, either through arbitration enforcement or request for comment, becasue enough is enough. He was given a second chance after long term abuse and harassment, and continues to mock others and edit unconstructively. We should not have to put up with this any longer. It is clear he and I will not get along and so the best way forward is to as Casliber earlier warned him, to extend the arbitration ban of him to avoid me as well and again, to also initiate an Rfc or editor review on his unconstructive edits regarding fiction. We should be here to edit as mature adults, not play games mocking opponents. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 04:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I thought these were constructive edits: [20] [21]; note how much inappropriate content the second one removed ;) Best, Jack Merridew 04:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
AfD | A Nobody | Jack Merridew |
---|---|---|
Alien Shaplay | 20:23, 12 August 2009 | 05:37, 13 August 2009 |
Hapes Consortium | 17:11, 10 August 2009 | 05:32, 13 August 2009 |
Todd Williams | 15:39, 12 August 2009 | 05:26, 13 August 2009 |
<placeholder />
Ping. rootology ( C)( T) 18:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - I need all the help I can get seeming halfway intelligent. Steve Smith ( talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
From another talkpage, thanks for the welcome. Toolsother ( talk) 15:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
(Short version: You did fix it, Wikipedia just took a while to notice.) — Paul A ( talk) 16:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for signing up for the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! -- Jayron32. talk. say no to drama 22:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi John, I engaged with you on Jimbo's page, remember, and I see you are a checkuser. I honestly believe that MusicInTheHouse is not the same user called Wikipeire [23], the reason being that both deny that it, I AGF; and MITH with 3,000 edits is a pretty well established editor by now, so no need for him/her to be somebody else, and it seems bizarre to contemplate. What I'm asking of you is this, "is it germane to recheck the CheckUser results on MITH, as the CU involved only said "likely", and likely appears weakish to indef block a 3,000 edit user, imo. MusicInTheHouse cannot edit outside his talkpage at the moment, and is relying to a certain extent on "the kindness of strangers". Hope you can help move this forward. Thanks! Tfz 01:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I sent you some email @ your gmail address. Could you take a look? I'm getting nervous about this subject. Please respond via email, if that's OK with you. EEng ( talk) 04:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello. The 1st section (history) of the article Xinjiang is redundant since there is also another article History of Xinjiang. Most of the sentences are identical in both pages. I think the first section should be moved to the history article, including new additions, refs. etc. Xinjiang article better be just related to current Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, as Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region is redirected to Xinjiang. Maybe a new name "Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region" fits better to page, afterwards. Otherwise, Xinjiang article becomes lengthy, and subjected to vandalism by people who do not want to see names of earlier states of a region belongs to their country (PRC). Obuli ( talk) 22:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
For this photo not to be in the public domain would require a child photographer (unlikely) of a Gage near his own death in 1860 (unlikely), who then went on to live to be at least 95 to die in 1939 (unlikely). Making likely assumptions about these ages results in a photographer who had to live longer than 100 to die in 1939, 70 years ago. I think this is strong evidence, that, absent more info, this is a public domain photo under U.S. law. See the Gage talk page. S B H arris 02:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:
Again, thank you for making this event a success! -- Jayron32. talk. say no to drama 02:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Apologies if you felt I was too keen to assist here - thought you might have gone off-line. Best wishes.-- VS talk 09:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe you should help in this untenable situation. Arnaiz-Villena has said he has not written a word about Rongorongo,Mayan and other languages. You have said that this information source is not valid. Why don't you delete it? This is not a matter of voting about opinions ;this is preserving Wikipedia quality.-- Virginal6 ( talk) 16:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The article Kangarli Khanate has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
Proposed Deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Alborz Fallah (
talk) 09:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You addressed this image and link destruction for a 6 month period and have probably researched this the most. Please stop by to add your presumably well-informed view and/or act on this. Incorrigible, perhaps? -- Elvey ( talk) 20:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I have had a long look through his contribs, and much of the work is good, and he does engage people who complain in order to help them resolve the image problems. I will talk to him about some of the occasional mistakes he has been making, so he does less of them and more of the good work. Thanks for letting me know. John Vandenberg ( chat) 15:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I saw your comment here and have responded here. I can see how you got the impression that you did and want to apologize for personalizing things as much as I did there. I know you're a good guy doing good work here, I just think you got it wrong on that occasion. I was annoyed and I'm afraid I let it show. Anyway, just to say, there are no lingering bad feelings towards you or your work here on my part. I just hope I can get back to editing and put all this behind me if possible, even though I've quite enjoyed my wiki-break. All the best to you. -- John ( talk) 16:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi John. This category also has only one article (the same river) which makes removing under such ground that the category does not exist weak. You could not have ignored the borders since you created this article and on external links you added No. 6497 agreement. The word Abbasabad is used only twice, second time to highline Aras being the border. Your adding of that No. 6497 agreement is irrelevant to the article as it says nothing about the fortress itself, the only message it conveys is the dispute of certain groups on the borders of Iran. Your creation here further pushes that claim, we in fact see here Malikbek who had a similar intrusion on Khachen adding the same unreliable source you added on that article. You also added the weasel words which will leave people to think it was not in Iran, which it was. BTW, do you plan on fixing the copyvio here. Neither did you find relevant to add the word Iran somewhere because the original from where you copied it had the word Iran in it but you removed those sentences. Besides, the Khanate of Maku was a Kurdish Khanate not Turkic, it was falsely associated with a Kangarli Khanate given that this wording is practically hard to find anywhere in published works... will you be kind enough to tell me what prompted this reaction of yours to create such an article with such a wording? Thanks. - Fedayee ( talk) 20:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Can you see the last two SPA fellows who just popped onto Talk:australia-India relations please? Thanks YellowMonkey ( cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I sent you an e-mail. Please read it and respond, it explains everything. Afterwards, I'll send another for I came up with a solution.Thanks Schnitzel MannGreek. 22:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I know that I wasn't exactly helpful at the later points in the "Search soon to begin" discussion. And how else will further issues be solved without my own input when people only get one part of the issue.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 05:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, question for you here in case you miss it. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 07:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
(and egads! t'would seem I'm following Slim around - just serendipity, promise!) - I asked FT about the sockpuppet thing here. He previously mentioned that folk should ask you - perhaps because he feels he's unable to talk about it? Anywhoo - there seem to be some questions remaining to me (having had a look at TBP diff.s and stuff)... so I thought I'd swing by here and ask you if there's anything I should know, or where's a good spot to ask them. Hope you're good anyways - are you GLAMing at the weekend? Privatemusings ( talk) 06:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
< coolio... I guess it'll take a little while, so I'll pop back in sometime next week - I'd like to ask a few small questions at that point, if that's ok.. :-) Privatemusings ( talk) 04:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
< looks like I might have to call the wiki-word police on you, john :-) - to define maybe 3 or 4 posts concerning a question about admin / arb socking over the period of several months (looks like your investigations just tipped over the 2 month mark) as 'harassment' is a bit of a stretch in my view - and seems to me to actually make it much harder to resolve than just a really simple bit of communication. I reckon it should be easy to either state clearly that you've had a look at the situation and do not believe there is any question of dodgy wiki-behaviour, or say 'I've taken 2 months on this one, and it looks like I can't really get to the bottom of this at the mo' - whaddya reckon? Privatemusings ( talk) 12:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
< heh... 'ready to roll'? - nah - not quite! Just wondering what the good folk of the signpost might think (tabloid, or not!) - what would be ideal from my perspective (from you) would be to hear your conclusions on the matter - would another couple of months help? Privatemusings ( talk) 10:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman, if you are in the practice of indef blocking declared socks on the spot, you need to hand in your tools :-) because you would not be respecting the current WP:SOCK policy. Also, times have changed. What was acceptable in 2005/6 is not always acceptable now. p.s. I got a smile out of the irony of your claim that you will block accounts like Privatemusings, and pursuing the same agenda as him here.
Your use of words like "denial" and "counter-factual" indicate that you have made up your mind that FT2 is guilty of using TBP as a sock, and that his recent statement is a lie. And yet you know that there is private information that you haven't seen. If you are going to persist with this sort of language, make your own assertions about what you consider to be credible evidence to support the sock allegation, and state where you see that the two accounts were abusing the sock policy at the time, assuming that they were operated by the same person.
I am investigating it quite thoroughly, and I don't appreciate suggestions that I am not. I hope I havent said anything which would given that impression. Time is always a problem, and both real world and BASC/AUSC tasks have taken a priority. A definite answer will come from me when I have finished reviewing the private evidence. Ideally this would be an Arbcom task, however I took it on because I suspected that they would be extremely uninterested in revisiting something this old.
Fwiw, FT2's current use of the tools is subject to monitoring and audits where there are reasonable grounds for concern. That doesn't completely address the trust aspect you raise, which is why this does need to be reviewed. John Vandenberg ( chat) 14:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, John! I dont know if you remember me, you had helped me get into the Latin work on Wikisource. I would like to report a moderator by the name of Zaxby, who, after I made multiple correct edits on a page and then made one mistake edit, slapped a warning about vandalism on my discussion page, which is still there. Then, after questioning the warning, I was derided and ignored, also to be seen on my discussion page. Yes, I then made the error of returning some fire, at which point, after insulting me, he slapped me with a warning for attacking editors, ie, him. Can you straighten things out here? Im a huge contributor to the Latin Wiki and I hate to get banned because of this guys misunderstandings about my edits to a page and his bad attitude. I certainly dont think he represents the spirit of the Wiki. Thank you very much. Please let me know what you think of the situation. CeleritasSoni ( talk) 00:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
You've got mail. AdjustShift ( talk) 16:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I would like to voice my opinion on your unblock. CoM, for an hour, threw personal attacks at every user, admin and ArbCom person within arms reach. This wasn't a little fit throwing, this was blantant violation of WP:NPA. The block should have been either changed from a ArbCom violation to violation of personal attacks or lessened to 12 hours for those personal attacks. CoM wasn't going to attack once he was unblocked, he got what he wanted and you handed it to him. I would ask that the personal attacks from tonight be addressed and something be done cause this isn't the first and certainly won't be the last time he will hurl a personal attack at someone. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi John. This diff [38] seems to be a continuation of the personal attacks that CoM was placing on his talk page prior to your unblock. It's very hard to make any sense of it. ChildofMidnight has edited two articles created by me, Chateau of Vauvenargues and Butcher group, in their very early stages. Neither of the topics - French culture/Art history and mathematics - are within his normal interests, so although I wouldn't go so far, this editing - both unhelpful and uninformed - could possibly be described as wikistalking. On the other hand, as an academic I happen to know a lot of academic economists, including the late James Meade (an honorary fellow of my college whom I met at high table), Willem Buiter and Robin Wells, the wife of Paul Krugman. I have spent a little time trying to ensure that the BLP of Paul Krugman is as neutral as that of the other winners of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics. I have also tried to improve the articles of Meade and Wells. I also created Robert Hall, Baron Roberthall some time back. Mathsci ( talk) 09:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Would you consider undeleting the above? I believe that I created it as a redirect to something (not sure what). The target may need adjustment at this point. I am linking to it from my sidebar and think it a valid search term. I'm open to ideas as to the target and will go looking; Catharism#Massacre seems likely. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, Okay. But can you please let me know when things are being done? I keep ending up in situations where I'm told after the fact that things are happening. Usually after continued problems cause the situation to become much worse. For instance, the Homeopathy statement. Had it been dealt with within a day, a sentence or minor edit would be ample. But now quite some time has passed, and any edit is going to be to an obscure archived page - which means that the possibility of relief is reduced to miniscule proportions unless there's a public statement, which is far more than the problem actually deserved. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 187 FCs served 03:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to import the decision from Northeast Bancorp, Inc. v. Governors, FRS to Wikisource to complement my Bank of New England article. The text is PD and I would remove any headnotes/footnotes, but wanted to make sure it was ok. MBisanz talk 04:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | ||
For being such a great user who works hard to counter vandalism, removes abuse, contributes to articles and being a greatly appreciated user;) Schnitzel MannGreek. 16:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC) |
P.s.You got email;) Schnitzel MannGreek. 17:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello/---Are you even getting my messages?Once you respond to my last email---I have something important to discuss so please don't ignore me. Schnitzel MannGreek. 14:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I have something important to say once you do get the chance;) Schnitzel MannGreek. 14:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm probably missing something obvious, but I can't get the tool to work for me. I'm on Safari 4.0.2 and latest Mac OS X.
Here's what happens when I try to use the tool:
Nominated article name: Hungary–Mexico relations: Status Check the article "Hungary–Mexico relations" exists ...: Status done: Progress OK : Status Grabbing edit form for Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Hungary: Status Error: TypeError: Result of expression 'query.toSource' [undefined] is not a function.: Error
Here's my monobook.js
:
importScript('User:Quarl/util.js'); importScript('User:Quarl/wikipage.js'); importScript('Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Add LI menu'); importStylesheet('Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Add LI menu/css'); importScript('User:AzaToth/twinkle.js'); importScript('Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/delsort.js');
Twinkle is enabled in my Gadget Preferences.
Any idea what I'm doing wrong?
Thanks. -- Cybercobra ( talk) 06:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I recently made this edit on the Erich Feigl page, which essentially restored blanked text, and had it reverted by another editor with what I consider insufficient rationale. I saw you were working on the page at precisely the same time, and you did not seem to take any stance on the matter. I just wanted to ask, am I out of line? It looks to me like a nationalist editor is pursuing a political agenda there that constitutes a fringe view; am I mistaken?
Did you not notice this was going on as you worked on the page, or do you perceive me to be in error? I am loathe to get involved in these things beyond a single edit, but in this case I am interested in your opinion. Cheers, DBaba ( talk) 03:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Would you be willing to reconsider the indefinite semi-protection you placed on Daniel Choi to something more like a week or two? My understanding is that such an indefinite semi-protection should only be placed if there is persistent and recurring vandalism over many different time periods. Victor Victoria ( talk) 15:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I have a hard time believing that there are people out there who have nothing better to do than to mark their calendar when they can start vandalizing an article, but since you've been here almost 5 years, you must have seen a lot more things than I have. Victor Victoria ( talk) 02:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You about? I'm being hassled about my latest user page by User:Prodego; he's even edit warring with me and threatening me ;) See: User talk:Jack Merridew#Your userpage. nb: I'll be off in about an hour for some hours. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
This message is being sent to inform the Arbitration Committee of a sanction proposal forbidding me from editing Arbitration Committee pages and talk pages. Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mythdon and Arbitration Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 05:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikiproject: Did you know? 23:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
You've got mail. AdjustShift ( talk) 07:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to drag you back into the drama, but you previously warned this user about sockpuppetry and a further case has occurred: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jw2035. Cheers. Sillyfolkboy ( talk) ( edits) Join WikiProject Athletics! 13:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks for your assistance settling out the matter of SlimVirgin's concerns. Durova 306 00:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of ZooBank at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Smartse ( talk) 19:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
NW ( Talk) 17:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikiproject: Did you know? 05:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Thankyou for your message.
I used to log in and edit pages, but that caused me grief. There are people out there (probably IN there) who have the ignorance and arrogance that comes with a little power. One such deleted the last article I created. When I pointed out that I had meticulously written within the rules, the article was re-instated. No apology, no explanation.
So now I don't log in, just occasionally fix spelling and English.
Wikipedia should have better use for my 5 university degrees, but I've found that it doesn't. 121.44.1.84 ( talk) 07:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I'm doing a study about Wikipedia (particularly about sysops) for my Masters in Communications and Media Studies at Monash Uni, and was wondering if you would be so kind as to take some time to talk to me, assuming you are in Melbourne. I'm mostly interested in what your day-to-day activities are and your relationship with other sysops and editors. It shouldn't take more than 30 minutes.
Please let me know if you're interested/willing. It would be immensely appreciated :) Cheers, -- In continente ( talk) 08:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
You mentioned a merge of one of these articles into another. Perhaps a merge into an article called <redacted>, seeing as how that is the real name of the persona as admitted by himself in an official promotional notice about his radio show as DJ Pusspuss? Ottava Rima ( talk) 15:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
The BLP Barnstar | ||
Your hard work on BLPs in general, and at User:Lar/Liberal Semi specifically, is much appreciated. That page has now been sunsetted (and I hope never to need to bring it back) but the work you did there (whether by bringing articles forward, reviewing them, or protecting them... or even by questioning or criticizing the process!) was of great help to the project. See you in the trenches! ++ Lar: t/ c 01:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC) |
This message is being sent to all non-recused arbitrators.
I have sent a message to the Arbitration Committee at the amendment page, that mentions what I feel that I need to say to ArbCom before the ban takes effect.
The message is here.
Thank you. Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 22:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
FYI. This RFC is based on, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses which you participated in. If you already have commented at the RFC, my apologies for contacting you. Ikip ( talk) 00:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear John, you know where I'm from. What chances are that I'm pro-German? You know that I'm not a German, and I can't ever speak a word of German language. Please read this comment of Jacurek. Do you think there is ever a zero percent chance that I'll be aganist Polish, and support Germans on the basis of their nationality? :-) Please don't say where I'm from, but can you conform that I'm not a German here? AdjustShift ( talk) 15:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I appeal to your good name to look at Ching Hai wiki page. There is malicious updates by an anonymous and assisted by Yellow Monkey that makes many dubious updates that is clearly in violation of Living Bio policy.
This issue has persisted for a long time and they even undermine Gusi Peace Prize which you updated just so that it is removed from the Ching Hai wiki page. It is one thing to have a contentious update and totally another when it is a systematic continuous undermining for the person and totally dominating the wiki page.
Sorry but I don't know where else to turn to.
user:Truthexplorer (—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.43.12 ( talk • contribs) 2009-09-18T17:25:03)
Howdy. I note you reverted some edits to the talk page for this article following a change in title for the lead article and redirects. This resulted in the talk page being associated with one of the redirects rather than the main article. I have corrected this. 59.167.42.2 ( talk) 01:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Is this really yet another sock of Ararat Arev? If so, what on earth is he doing being unbanned? Curious. -- Folantin ( talk) 16:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, after some time, (and major computer-problems..), I finally got around to trying your solution for the Template:Palestinian_Arab_villages_depopulated_during_the_1948_Palestine_War ...and it works! It is a bit different from before, but I have tried it for a few hours, and I can sort of find my way around again.. So a big thank you for your help!
I hope you will enjoy a nice cup of tea? Thanks again, cheers, Huldra ( talk) 04:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Eh, help! --again. When I logged out 2-3 days ago; everything was fine. When I logged in today; the whole 1948-template has turned completely blue -again! And no; the template itself has not been changed (I have checked the history), nor is User:Huldra/monobook.css changed. What is going on? Do you have any idea? Cheers, Huldra ( talk) 12:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
per your suggestion ;) Sincerely, Jack Merridew 09:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. :) Kandyan Treaty of 1638 is copied from a book originally published in 1929. Are you able to help determine if this is PD? I know you are very, very gifted at that. (picture ingratiating grin here) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
While I'm here, I've started to wonder something this morning based on a recent copyright question, pertaining to Wikipedia:Public domain and Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights. The latter says, without disclaimer, "Any work published before 1923 is in the public domain in the United States, regardless of its source country...." The former says, with footnote, "In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world is in the public domain." That footnote further adds:
Strictly speaking, only U.S. works published before January 1 1923 and foreign works published in compliance with U.S. formalities (registration, © notice) before that date are in the public domain in the U.S. For non-U.S. works published without compliance with U.S. formalities (i.e., without © notice), the situation is a bit more complicated:
- If published before 1909, such works are in the public domain in the U.S.
- If published between 1909 and 1922 (inclusive) in a language other than English, the Ninth Circuit has considered them as "unpublished works" according to Peter Hirtle and following the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case Twin Books v. Disney in 1996. The case was about the book Bambi, A Life in the Woods; the decision is heavily criticized in Nimmer on Copyright ( ISBN 0-820-51465-9), the standard commentary on U.S. copyright law.
- If published between 1909 and 1922 (inclusive) in English, they are highly likely to be PD, given that the aforementioned controversial case was only about a work published in a foreign language.
- Additionally, any work first published outside of the United States without copyright notice prior to 1989, when the U.S. joined the Berne Convention, is in the public domain in the U.S. if it was in the public domain in its country of origin on the URAA date (in most cases January 1, 1996). See the section on country-specific rules for more information.
Also, the 1923 cut-off date applies only to the U.S. This means foreign works first published before 1923 are in the public domain in the U.S., but may still be copyrighted outside the U.S.
Given the footnote at the former, the statement at the latter seems misleading. My work never really dealt with the early stuff, so as you know I have no strong base in this gray area. Is 1909 effectively a cut-off date that we might consider that any work from anywhere is safe? If so, what do we do with stuff published in 1910? -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
You promised to keep me up to date on the problems with patently false statements about the case (The claim that pointing out a filing under a user's previous nick, still in the user's talk page archive to this day, and prominently linked to the user's new nick throughout the site on my part was supposedly in revenge, and exactly equivalent to users edit warring to out me after I left Wikipedia due to real name issues.) being presented as fact. I have trusted you to get this sorted. What's going on? Shoemaker's Holiday Over 208 FCs served 23:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello there. I noticed that you indefinitely fully protected this page on 23 June 2009. I was wondering if you think it would be safe to unprotect it now. Regards, NW ( Talk) 22:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Of course the vandal might be right, but anyway you have restored my image and your actions are noted. ;~) LessHeard vanU ( talk) 12:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Before you blindly revert my edits next time, I ask you to look at what you are reverting. In particular, can you find cited evidence of use of those "azeri" names in any encyclopedic or significant context. or, are they random words that have no factual accuracy or are simply wrong.
but at the same time, you have no qualms reverting, or ruining similiar articles with citations and armenian spellings. at least pretend to be impartial as an administrator instead of the raging azerophile impression you give. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.33.90 ( talk • contribs) 2009-09-29T00:52:51
You have it :) MBisanz talk 18:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Question for you here, John. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 12:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
John, if you want to preserve the anonymity of the functionary who contacted you - as seems appropriate - might I suggest you stop dropping hints that only encourage amateur sleuthing? Respecting her or his desire to stay publicly away from this ever-growing mess is the right thing to do, unless some really important factor later dictates a need for you to provide an identification. Unless that happens, please go with your instinct, it is the right one. EdChem ( talk) 14:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. There is an AfD discussion going on regarding this journalist from Saudi Arabia. I noticed your work other Asian media articles, and wondered if you might have any input. Cheers! -- Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 06:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I'm a Wikipedia user and I want to talk with users of this wiki. If you can, please add me: mateuzinhow_@hotmail.com. Thank you :) Tosão ( talk) 00:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
[41] (transcluding nobots won't have any effect, it needs to be hardcoded onto the desired page). Also, since mostly established users edit the FAQs, SineBot wouldn't try anyway (it ignores users with over 800 edits) – xeno talk 14:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
What is the current policy of wikipedia on fair-use of copyright protected images of dead persons. -- 122.161.41.130 ( talk) 15:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
[42] - Risker has been removed, could you please adjust accordingly? Ottava Rima ( talk) 21:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
You've had mail. RSVP! SergeWoodzing ( talk) 23:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
[44] User:Jack Merridew has been disrupting an legitimate attempt to handle personal attacks at a page he is involved in. The page is also an MfD of a page that Moreschi, his other mentor, has previously deleted and has made threatening comments over.
ArbCom has stated: "5. User:Jack Merridew agrees to avoid all disruptive editing." This is a serious matter and I would request you, as Mentor, to ensure that it does not continue. Ottava Rima ( talk) 15:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Ottava, this weekend you have been creating chaos in the community faster than you normally create content. It has been hard to keep up. Some people respond to that by ignoring the rules and shutting down the chaos generator. While I do not agree with the RFC being deleted the first time, your recent block, or the use of MFD, I don't doubt that the people involved meant well. Accusations that everyone is "involved" are inane when the majority of the highly active community has been either dragged into the disruption, or seen it spilling out onto talk pages everywhere. People wanted it to stop yesterday.
The recent RFC is the first time that I have ever felt it necessary to submit a view to an RFC. I was preparing to write another one before the rest of the RFC was deleted. I don't even know what sparked this mess. If you want to talk about that, I'll be happy to do so in a few days. If there is something meaningful underneath all this, it can be presented much more calmly, after proper (read: meaningful) attempts at dispute resolution. If you don't have time to engage in dispute resolution properly, avoid disputes. It is possible. This is a very large project, and there are sister projects.
As for Jack, he has a mind of his own, and expressing it is not disruptive editing. I haven't looked at everything Jack has said and done this weekend, but he voted keep on the RFC MfD. [45] As you know, Jack has had nothing but time for you, and I am sure he will continue to assist with any worthwhile endeavor where you have common interests, and there are many. I am also sure that his project-space edits in this recent scuffle have been trying to do the right thing, as he saw it. And I have to admit, I think he did the right thing in the circumstances. WP:WQA is supposed to be an early stage of dispute resolution; when a matter has already been given its own AN subpage and an RFC, it doesn't need a WQA subpage as well. The next logical step would be RFAR, or a scorched earth approach. If Jack didn't close the WQA thread, someone else would have, and they may not have been so kind. If you want to frame his edits on WP:WQA as edit warring, then you will be measured by the same yardstick. John Vandenberg ( chat) 15:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC) p.s. I am going back to bed now, and have engagements in the morning, so don't rush to reply to me.
Hello. Thank you for the welcome message. Actually, I am a very active user in Spanish Wikipedia (+12000 edits) so English is not my first language, but I'll try to contribute here as well. Thanks again and regards :) Mel 23 ( talk) 02:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Care to opine at:
His prior comment that he finds finds me 'despicable' is rather telling.
Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll drop this for now, but perhaps you could check why he choose to comment at User talk:Serendipity81 three times [46] [47] [48] plus one time on a subpage [49], when that user had the week before been adopted by A Nobody [50]. It doesn't give the best impression, and I can't find a good reason why Jack Merridew would have stumbled on that user except by following A Nobody around. These are edits from te end of last month and the beginning of this month, so quite recent. Fram ( talk) 07:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
So anyone still believes that he is not following A Nobody around, when the only AfD he comments in is one A Nobody is heavily editing [51], the only RfA he edits is one A Nobody opposes [52], and one of the five last articles he edited [53] is one where A Nobody had commented on the talk page only 3 hours before [54]? That's three out of Jack Merridew's last eight visited pages where he commented very shortly after A Nobody had edited them... Fram ( talk) 15:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
To everyone commenting here now: this discussion is extremely unlikely to a) improve the encyclopedia, b) improve relations with each other, or c) be something that I want to follow.
Jack, your last few comments and edit summaries on this page are not helpful; you should avoid commenting on other users, especially people who you don't like. Please ... John Vandenberg ( chat) 10:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Note the timestamps ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I hope that you've considered this carefully, and not been led up the garden path by a prankster. Wikipedia is not in need of more patent plagiarism (taken word for word from Mariner's mirror), that is then flat out denied. Similarly, this can be traced to books such as Björn Landström's The Ship, even if the references to book figures scattered throughout aren't dead giveaways. Are you yourself willing to clean up the mess if more plagiarism ensues?
Special:EmailUser/Uncle G works and should be usable by that account if necessary. For obvious reasons I don't hand out mailbox addresses. Uncle G ( talk) 14:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I have not been able to put my hands on a copy of Björn Landström's The Ship, so could you please provide a specific example of plagiarism in this diff. Thanks, John Vandenberg ( chat) 11:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Could you please oversight this edit. It makes no sense in German, looks like a machine translation of another language, but nevertheless contains abusive words in its attack edit summary. Regards Skäpperöd ( talk) 12:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
When will the Asmahan arbitration continue? -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 08:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello John, thank you for your kind words. The resolution only contained two pages. Yes, an English translation would be nice. To tell you the truth, I don't mind if the article about me is deleted, it happens. What I do mind is the personal vendetta/witch-hunt which User: YellowMonkey, who voted against the article, has taken against my person as evidenced by his dedication to making sure that every photo or mention of me in Wikipedia is eliminated [ evidence]. These are not random acts of editing, he has taken it to a personal stage and no one has done anything nor told him to put an end to it. Tony the Marine ( talk) 18:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello John, In regard to Somos Primos, I found the following statement here: [56]
HISTORY OF SOMOS PRIMOS
"Somos Primos was first published as a quarterly in 1990. January 2000, Somos Primos went online. Somos Primos will continue to publish current events and articles that reveal the reality of all those historically connected by their Spanish ancestry. Somos Primos currently is being received by major libraries and archival collections across the country, such as the Library of Congress, Smithsonian Institute, National Archives in D.C., Bancroft Library, Sutro Library, and many universities and colleges."
I don't know if this helps. Tony the Marine ( talk) 01:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello John Vandenberg, Rjanag has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the
WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I'm not sure if this was just a Friendly error, but in any case it gave me a good laugh, since User:ZhBot is a bot. "especially what you did for Tibet", hehe... rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 21:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
John, first of all I would like to thank you for all the work that went through in posting the references in my father's, Tony Santiago, article, however I am requesting that you notify the user who does not seem to understand who did this [58] of your actions and how the removal of the references could affect the out come of the AFD, please. Thank you. Antonio Martin ( talk) 19:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you tagged and rated this for WikiProject Academic Journals, but the article seems to be about a book, not a journal? Cheers, -- Crusio ( talk) 09:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
[please insert message placed at Risker's page about tallies on Rfarb page]; except compare [59] and [60]. Cheers, Ncmvocalist ( talk) 16:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and closed the DRV and restored the article... the DRV IMO is a waste of time (although I don't blame you for going there as I have the retirement template up.) In the future you can simply add a source or material and recreate CSD'd materials. DRV is only needed if the article to be restored is to be the essentially the same as the one deleted... if you add a few sources the article will avoid that fate. I'd also suggest trying to give a reason or to as to why they are independently notable. Being swallowed by a company that is swallowed by a notable company isn't a claim to significance, it happens all the time in the business world.--- Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
John, please see my posts at the RfC talk page and the election talk page. Tony (talk) 02:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi John, just a ping to see my response to your comment on the JohnWBarber arbitration. Regards, Mackan79 ( talk) 02:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
As you participated in the recent
Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two
requests for comment that relate to the use of
SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the
SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (
talk) 08:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey there. I sent you an email about 30 hours ago. Do you think you could get back to me please? Thanks, NW ( Talk) 03:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello John! I have just gone through the Asmahan Arbitration Workshop and noticed that you are expecting answers from Arab Cowboy. I think I should let you know that he left a post on my talk page on the 3rd of November informing me that he would be preoccupied with other matters and away for few weeks. So I don’t think we should expect any contribution from his side for some time. Also, I saw today on Supreme Deliciousness talk page that he was blocked on the 10th of November for 24 hours due to edit warring. Trust me, I don’t think he will ever stop, unless he is banned! – Nefer Tweety ( talk) 12:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I saw you adding text to the workshop, there has been a RfC, This link [ here] shows several posts not shown [ here]: for example: "Annyong, please explain what is involved in this RfC process." "The RfC is open now. It gets listed at a central location, and people will come here and read the discussion and leave their opinions below." "This is my first contribution to Wikipedia, but I have been following the debate for some time. My position is that I support the current version of 15:48, 2 July 2009" -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 13:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
And there has been two mediations, one with Diaa abdelmoneim and Al Ameer son. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 13:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I dont know about the mediation with dia, I made a post at admins talkpage after he blocked me, and he responded [61] [62] right after Dia showed up at the talkpage to mediate, I dont know if it was the admin who requested through the medcom or directly to Diaa. I personally made a request to Al Ameer son to mediate.-- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 13:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
you haven't read anything of the evidence page? There is no problem with the ethnicity or nationality of Asmahan, the problems are with details inside the text that Arab Cowboy has changed against the mediations: [63]-- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 10:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Is this a part of the "mediated compromise"? [64] -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 16:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
John, "mediated compromise" is it only referring to "Syrian-Egyptian" and nothing else? You apparently do not see the two mediations we have been trough as real mediations as you have not posted them at "Proposed findings of fact" at the workshop. In those two mediations several things was agreed, are these things also part of the "mediated compromise" ? -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 13:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Guy has already closed the deletion review after only a few hours,. I';ve protested this to him, I do not support the journal; I think the arguments in its fact are not correct, but there were several comments by reliable eds. including yourself partially supporting the journal. I think this clearly wrong--there needs to be time for discussion. DGG ( talk ) 18:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
For your diligent research of Adamantius (journal) during its deletion review discussion, and helping to politely reach out to Alastair Haines ( talk · contribs) during that process. Cirt ( talk) 01:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC) |
You said at the current case amendment discussion that it might be helpful to see something like the Deacon's User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/North-East Europe AE threads relating to the Troubles. I've started one at User:Angusmclellan/Troubles. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Cheers. Steve Smith ( talk) 17:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Cinephile (disambiguation). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cinephile (disambiguation). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
You recused yourself from the EEML case because "I am recused because user:Russavia is a member of m:Wikipedia Australia (see User:John_Vandenberg/recusal#AU)". But I cannot find Russavia listed among m:WPAU members, nor does he seem to be active there. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
These words were sent to ArbCom in June, but they produced no response:
In the context of the six months, there should have been some kind of follow-up. There was not.
In the absence of any reply to any question, how could anyone have converted this into a teachable moment?
A minimal level of understanding is needed in order to comply with ArbCom's decision. Arguably, I thought I had some grasp of what was expected. Obviously, I don't; but it points out ArbCom's collective misjudgment more than my own.
If this is part of a pattern affecting more than just one ArbCom participant, then the problem needs to be addressed. -- Tenmei ( talk) 19:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
You recently voted on a topic ban. I feel it important to state the following:
Facts
Questions
1)By pointing out harassing behaviour it has been assumed that there is, "a failure of either to work together or disengage”, and that "breathing room" was needed. Why must one have breathing room when one is being harassed? Why has no administrator ever intervened in any way against many false, blatant, and spiteful comments against me?
2)How can one disengage from harassment, especially when part of the harassment is the filing of sanction processes that include a number of bogus accusations?
3)If administrators discounted numerous allegations of wrongdoing during the two amendment requests, why did administrators make further accusations and propose a new topic ban?
Principles of care and justice
1)In a community, those in charge have a duty of care. No one should have to endure months of ongoing abuse.
2)A basic principle of any form of justice is that those making claims can be challenged, and that they must respond.
3)A basic principle of any form of justice is the separation of duties. One party can not start a process, make accusations, not communicate with the accused, and then vote for sanctions.
The sanction process is a "blunt instrument" but it shouldn't be an indifferent instrument and punitive instrument. I view the year long topic ban as unjust. How would I appeal it?-- scuro ( talk) 19:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Not quite sure what you mean by your comment about me here. Did I do something wrong? Asking someone to correct an obvious mistake - which they have at last acknowledged, it would seem - is not of itself a bad thing. When they refuse to do so, it is likely one might ask again. Perhaps your comment would be better directed at the admin who caused all this nonsense in the first place - it was not only me who noted how ridiculous it was, I believe about 15 other people said much the same. And of course, now the issue has been sorted out, I have no reason to be involved further - as frequently pointed out, I was never an involved editor on the article itself. Following the discussion threads usually makes such things clear. Cheers. -- Nickhh ( talk) 00:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
ps: if you had looked into this, you might also have noticed that User:Off2riorob is the one who has since described other editors as "IRA editors", and that User:Sarah777 seemed to be basing her call for Troubles protection on the fact that obscure "Irish" articles had been so tagged, kind of a WP:OTHERCRAP thing. Whereas all the 15 other involved and uninvolved editors who commented agreed that it was all a bit daft. But you know, cherry picking and favouring the contributions of the abusive and aggressive is how much content here comes to be. -- Nickhh ( talk) 00:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
[72] noted and changed. [73] The reason he left is not material to the point I am making. Strife leads to bad results. People should try to get along. Jehochman Talk 22:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
John, if you want Jack Merridew to stay on Wikipedia, it may be best if you have a chat with him. After he deleted all his userpages and gave the impression of leaving, he has now gone back to some, well, rather negative editing. Editing a since long historical page to add yourself as a "rogue sockpuppet" [74], or restating (in a not very cryptic way) that you still believe someone to be a pile of shit [75] (follow the last link he gives) will not endear many to him, and the text of his new user page doesn'( give much confidence that he will do more constructive work on the encyclopedia. I can understand that the arbitration discussion is stressful and that he may feel that some people create a portrait of him that's quite different from how he really is, but now he's just throwing in his own windows. Fram ( talk) 13:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 07:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Am I walking that road... or are you? Tcaudilllg ( talk) 04:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. :) I tried to answer this one solo (and have done), but I'm not confident enough yet to fly without asking for review, and there is still a question of whether the book was published also in the US. Rather than ask you to view over my page, I'll just reproduce my note here and ask if it seems okay to you. This is the book in question.
Have I got it right, basically? Do you know how we might find out details on any US publication, if there was one? -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Created, now for the parent articles. Aaroncrick ( talk) Review me! 05:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the incredibly late response. Since my take on the project died a long time ago, feel free to use the page. Just make sure that my old version is properly archived and linked to in case anyone wants to take a look at it. Let me know if your project gets off the ground. - Mgm| (talk) 10:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)