User talk:John Broughton/Archive 4 January 2007

Re: Map of Taiwan

I felt that the geography map of Taiwan is not necessary in the Republic of China article because the article already included a political division map of Taiwan in the "Political Division" section. The article is talking about the government of the Republic of China, not Taiwan. However, the map is appropriate if you add a geography section into the article, which it is currently lacking, with appropriate link to Geography of Taiwan article. Also, please try not to leave messages that include ALL CAP words, thank you. --Will74205 02:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

New AfD on LoPbN

Your work on the LoPbN tree suggests you'd support its retention. At this moment, vote is 10 Del to 7 Keep on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people by name (2nd nomination). I would appreciate it, if you care to weighing. Thanks in any case, and happy holidays.
--Jerzy•t 16:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

zeouspom

happy new year john. please see the pg page and let me know your thoughts. could kitabfest.org for the citation needed for kitab 2007 info ang guestlist? and majesticpetra.com for the petra citation? the british council counterpoint site (under external links) could be used for citation for the russia and turkish fests? thanks very much. there was a huge article in october about him in the saturday times magazine and all his future festivals but there is no online version sadly of the piece. Zeouspom 19:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

yeah

uhm.... hey. an 'editor' just accused me of 'trolling', which apparently has no specific things that you do, just some guy claims you are trolling then decides to ban you. what the hell? what kind of civilized society is this when some guy can just come along and accuse you of someting without any proof and without any kind of reasoned debate? no code of rules no nothing, just whims of people with power?

anyways, where are the brave 'police folks' of wikipedia to come to my rescue? huh?

because last time i tried to report a problem and go through the 'resolution process', i got instantly smacked down and someone claimed i was threatening to report them to the authorities, or whatever... some kind of 'no legal threats' rule... i wasnt threatening anyone with anything legal, in fact it was a joke reply about a tv show article -- anyone who knew anything about the tv show (i have seen every episode and memorized lines) would get it. what is this? experts are being banned by people without any knowledge? and i couldnt even defend myself because I WAS BANNED.

what kind of place is this when you can be accused without any kind of specific legal code, banned without any reason or reference to what you are being banned for, etc? there is absolutely zero accountability, zero transparency, zero sense of western civilization and the legal system on this website. its just autocrats playing autocratic games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.250.195 (talk • contribs)

Note that this user, despite claims above, has never been banned. At least, the IP address, 70.185.250.195, has never been banned. It has been blocked twice, however. --Yamla 18:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

zeouspom again

thanks, john. yasmin albhai-brown wrote a large piece last year in the independent newspaper about ganguli's kitab fest in india: http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/yasmin_alibhai_brown/article358243.ece

the sat times magazine feature on ganguli is 3 pages long. i will send you some lines from the article soon.

http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/books/features/article317654.ece the above is an article written by boyd tonkin on ganguli's marrakesh fest for the independent.

http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/books/features/article355733.ece caroline phillips on kitab in the independent

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20060526&fname=kitabfest&sid=2 an interview with ganguli in outlook magazine, india

Zeouspom 19:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Thank you for your support in the RfA on my behalf. It is an honor to have received your expression of confidence. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. It is my wish that I will continue to deserve your confidence. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 20:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Started Wikiproject

I have quickly set up the Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies. I am new at this so I would greatly appreciate any help you might want to give. Remember 22:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

zeouspom

im afraid i cannot find any links that mention ganguli's fests in russia and turkey except the counterpoint british council page. the sat times magazine article did actually have a line that mentioned the russian one.

Zeouspom 02:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion statistics

Well, as far as setting policy, those numbers are a bit weak. But it does paint an interesting picture. An interesting comparison would be to check the average daily article creation and see what percentage of those are deleted. ---J.S ^(T/C) 22:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

sat times article

Pages 52, 53 and 55 Saturday Times Magazine Part of the Saturday Times Newspaper Writer: James Collard Feature title: Culture Clubber (Pablo Ganguli)

'This will then be followed up by an Anglo-Russian event in St Petersburg.' (talking about India and Petra)

'Ditto Russia, which seems ripe for fresh cultural encounters, while getting writers from Britain and Arab world together at Majestic Petra seems, well, almost too interesting for its own good.'

the counterpoint site is listed under external links. thanks.

Zeouspom 22:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

actual date

28 October 2006 is the date when the article was published.

It is a very long article with many interesting quotes and anecdotes. So not entirely certain as to which lines I should add! I think ganguli has far too much on there already. Wouldn't you agree?

Zeouspom 23:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Your feedback on my RfA

Hello! I appreciate your taking time to provide feedback on my RfA. I've provided some responses to your comments, particularly your last one, and would appreciate it if you might have time to examine them. I appreciate your feedback. Thanks, --Shirahadasha 03:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

A suggested WikiProject

Before reading any further, you should read this and this.

I believe there should be a WikiProject called WikiProject Verify (or Verification, whichever), a project in which editors collaberate and verify articles in detail to make Wikipedia the best it can be. Editors will collaberate on ten random articles per week (not per person) and will check for reliable sources, review the articles thoroughly, and add sources when possible.

Because you an experienced editor, I wish for your candid opinion. Cheers, Sr13 (T|C) 08:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand the flaws with my argument, but would you say the same if the project was run such as say, WP:WWF? Also, there could be just a verification project for the Mathematics portal, as mathematics articles are rarely made and checked...a significant improvement of WP:MATHCOTW, perhaps? Sr13 (T|C) 01:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Bot

Thank you for giving your view on my request for bot approval. The idea of the bot is very advanced, and I've noticed, not all inapropiate names have been, caught, this is where it is manually helped, even though I'm not an admin the bot, will make a list of names which seem to be inapropiate appear in a popup on my desktop. Then I can sort it out. It should take about a wee to fully programme.--Rasillon 17:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

National Retail Federation

Another editor has flagged National Retail Federation as a possible copyright violation. Could you please remove any copyrighted text from the article? --Eastmain 18:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your suggestion that I remove copyrighted material from this article, I'd be happy to review it for copyright problems, and to make changes as needed, but the template explicitly says Do not edit this page until an administrator has resolved this issue.. -- John Broughton | Talk 23:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• To write a new article without infringing material, follow this link to a temporary subpage and create the new article there. State that you have done so on the article's discussion page. --Eastmain 23:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

iMac edit to Village Pump

Oh, okay thank you. I posted that on Village Pump because I figured more people would see it. Sorry for the mishap...

--Alegoo92 16:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

your advice

Thanks for the advice, I'll keep a cool head. I did notice the criticism directed at the RFA nominee who felt the need to respond to criticism and I did find it a bit puzzling especially since Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship specifically encourages candidates to respond to the oppose votes. I simply felt the need in both instances to calmly provide my take on the context surrounding the actions I'm being criticized for. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 20:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

ganguli page

hello john, can we now finally move the page to the pablo ganguli page?

Zeouspom 20:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

good news

i see that the other editors have given the green light! let me know please what the next step is.

Zeouspom 15:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

User:John Broughton/Editor's Index to Wikipedia

Thanks for creating this page, I have used it several times to good effect. A long time ago, I saw a need to have a list of admin related user subpages, so I created this list, but neither of our lists will ever truly be complete - the job is just too big :-p. Cheers, NoSeptember 05:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks re WQA:MidiUser

Thanks for the advise. I don't have much experience with copyvio, the most notable time the offending editor never returned after being confronted with the situation. As for WP:BITE, I do my best and if I need to do better then there should be better documentation, templates, etc for how to handle such situations. If there was a way to just completely dump such situations on another editor, knowing that it would be handled well, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Thanks again for the help. I think AfD is probably the way to go (now that I've searched for some notablility sources), though I'd like to see some response from the editor(s) involved first. --Ronz 00:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I just ran across some of the follow-up you've done. Thanks for this as well. --Ronz 00:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Message received

I apologize for having misused the talk page of the article. I give you some background not as an excuse but only to let you know. The background is that Randroide was trying to introduce his conspirationist theories (about AIDS and 11-M bombings) in Spanish wikipedia for many (many, many) months using all kinds of tactics. At the end, really energetic action was took by some administrators. Then he said that Spanish wikipedia was in the hands of KGB and came to English Wikipedia to do the same with the same two articles (AIDS and 11-M bombings). Me and a couple of other editors have being discussing with him since July trying to reach an agreement with no succes because he boycotted any solution other than puting his conspirationist theories at the same level that what the world class media says about the issue. At the end of december, it was decided to wait until January for the RFM because the page for RFM was saturated and the most neutral editor -who everybody wanted to do the wording of RFM- goes in vacation. Instead of waiting, Randroide has completely changed the page of 11-M in spite of the warnings of this editor (Southofwatford). Now he was involving an editor who ignored the process to simulate that he was working in colaboration with someone. I should have warned this editor in his page and with a more neutral language. I am sorry again. --Igor21 16:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Mike Mendoza

Hi John, I found this official document here confirming that Mike Mendoza and the Adur District councillor are one and the same person. Unfortunately, I lost my cool with User:Samuel Blanning and revealed my political colours, so he has taken against me rather. Your help would be appreciated, and would like to preserve my anonymity. Thanks. 217.134.92.108 17:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

For "revealed my political colours" read "ranted on about paranoid conspiracy fantasies" and for "would like to preserve my anonymity" read "would like to be able to roll my IP to evade my block for 3RR". You can read the full discussion on the talk page and see the history of the article, but I don't think there's any more need to tolerate this anon's crusade and violating of Wikipedia policy. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I have ceased edit warring, yet User:Samuel Blanning is still blocking me and is now deleting my arguments on the discussion page. 'Ranting conspiracist' or not, the source I have provided is sound. 217.134.124.197 18:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, User:Samuel Blanning has now locked Talk:Mike Mendoza and is unwilling to respond to my argument. 217.134.234.26 19:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to the document. I will pursue the matter of incorporating its contents into the article. John Broughton | Talk 00:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. 195.92.67.75 17:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Hey, thanks so much for supporting my recent RFA. A number of editors considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and unfortunately the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). There are a number of areas which I will be working on (including changing my username) in the next few months in order to allay the fears of those who opposed my election to administrator.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you sincerely for your support over the past week. I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 18:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)

Started first study

Go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies/Study1 to check it out and help make it better. Remember 22:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Vanderbilt University

Dear Mr. Broughton,

You must not have noticed the history of my contributions to the Vanderbilt University article, which have been substantial. Before I saw this message, I posted a message on the Vanderbilt discussion, which I suggest you read. Anyone can easily see that more than half of the information on Wikipedia has no documentation, so when information that is factual is repeatedly deleated for lack of a reference, it seems that there is some unstated axe that is being ground. I would think that you would welcome information that is factual, not just what is easily verified. Zeamays 18:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquette intervention

Thank you also for referencing Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. A note in case the VU talk page isn't on your watch list and you haven't see my post there with thanks for your intervention: The initials alone, without the full name by which the university recognised it, are an anomaly in a section where all other fraternity and sorority names are given in full. Athænara ✉ 23:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

re my comments at WP:PI

Ah, perhaps I expressed myself a bit too forcefully. Still, it's not as if what I said was inaccurate. E.g. "sterile and pointless warring" - what I was referring to here was, well, sterile and pointless warring. I guess I could have phrased it as "delightful and productive discussion" or something, but that wouldn't have been accurate. So I didn't say that. But yeah, I guess I should have been more diplomatic, so, sorry about that. Herostratus 21:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Editor review

It would be great if you could voice your opinion for me on WP:ER! Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 04:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply...

Hi John,

Many thanks for your detailed reply to my citations and references question here - this makes things much clearer. I shall try to follow your suggestions when I next get time to update these articles. Regards. Hassocks5489 21:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Amy Mihaljevic

I agree with your Amy Mihaljevic edit. However, I would have suggested that you not have "reverted." Instead, you should have just removed the "suspects" section. Now I have to go back and recorrect the typo errors that I contrubited during the time between the addition of the "popular suspects" section and your revert. Please consider this when you plan to revert. 172.146.10.238 22:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to respond here because I reverted six edits at once, four from 207.58.222.242 and two from different 172.x IP addresses, neither of them 172.146.xxx. So I'm assuming you don't have a stable IP address.

Both of the 172 edits that I reverted included edits to the part of the article added by 207.xxx that was the problem - descriptions of various murder suspects without any supporting source. So if you did both the 172.x edits, you missed the basic fact that the section shouldn't have been in the article at all.

Having said that, you're right, it would be better for me to just remove the problem section. And in fact, the easiest way for you to restore your edits is to go back to the version of the article just before I did my revert, and do what you suggested I do - delete the problem section and leave the rest as is. John Broughton | Talk 22:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup, it's done. I am the 172 editor. And yea, I should have just removed the unnecessary section as soon as I saw it, opposed to correcting the typo's in it. 172.166.182.103 02:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for reminding me of the proper way to take out a bad section - I've been using "undos" a bunch (somehow the edit summary seems more intimidating if read by a vandal, though I'm probably fooling myself), and an "undo" in this case wasn't the right tool to use. John Broughton | Talk 02:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

moving page

john, it's been five days now. can we move the zeouspom/ganguli user page to a proper ganguli page? thanks -- Zeouspom

larouche

When these people reverted my properly cited changes (made to prevent them from grotesquely misrepresenting my writings) twenty times in a row, it would have been nice to get some support from you. I think if you go back over the record of the LaRouche discussion page and of their recent request for mediation you will find that I went out of my way to be polite and conciliatory to Tsunami Butler. I backed off from their edit war for a few days and made noncontroversial changes to improve the article. But when I tried once again to restore my changes, they started the edit war again. At a certain point, anyone's patience wears out. That happened to me when in reverting my changes again today they gave as the reason that LaRouche's defense of Nazi war criminals was really just a defense of "scientific research." Cults such as the LaRouchians have been given free reign to waste everyone's time with their nonsense (and in the case of Fred Newman's followers, their blatant intimidation tactics--go see the Discussion Page for "Fred Newman" and then look at what they are doing to the Political Cult article.) Do you have any constructive suggestions for dealing with this problem?--Dking 02:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

My Behavior

That thing you linked to on my talk page was not said by me. In fact it was in response to me telling another user to back down as to not face these damn warning messages as well. The user said that to me because Manticore has really been dicking with us lately. I deleted it because I didn't want Manticore coming on here and calling me out for being in the wrong. I e-mailed the user who wrote it too and told him that we should probably back down a little because I'm sick of these damn warnings about my behavior. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 05:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Further problems with Save Indian Family editor

Hi John, thank you for your speedy response. Further issues are arising with Newageindian. He posted on the Project Gender Studies Talk page. I am going baout requesting an advocate and have asked TheronJ on their talk page. His post continues the same personal attack against myself and FisherQueen. It is also POV, COI and unverifiable. Have you any advice about this? And on Fisherqueen's talk page there I think he's using sarcasm--Cailil

Thanks

Its me superx I joined the abandon articals project thanks for the warm welcome but I have a problum I don't know anything about the articals in the block you opened if you have anything about cartoons I could likely work on that. Also I'd like to start a project myself but don't know how. Can you help with this Superx 00:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

11th march bombings

Dear John : I am sorry for having broken the rules again. Since this a local Spanish affaire, I think is dificult for people to understand it. I am going to show you the big picture so you can understand what is this all about. Randroide is part of a very small group of right winged fanatics that says that the current Spanish socialdemocrat governement planned and did the bombings (helped by a Basque terrorist group called ETA and by the police). Absurd? Yes, but they have a "source". Their ONLY source is a newspaper that is known for having lied, bribed witnesses and even fabricated a plot, so its credibilty between informed people -at least regarding this issue- is ZERO. The tactic of Randroide is to take quotes out of context from mainstream media (or the indictement) and then mix whith quotes (lies) from this "second Spanish newspaper". I am an expert in contemporary history and terrorism and I have many books and newspaper pages stored in my library (I recommend Ron Suskind's "The one percent doctrine" to know opinion about that of CIA and NSC). In NONE of my books there is any doubt about the fact that local islamist extremists inspired by Al-Qaeda that at some point have had some contact with some operatives of this organization did the bombing. As I said, I have been trying to make the article in wikipedia reflect this well known fact instead of the conspiracy theories. This has become imposible because seems to be imposible to rule out this "second newspaper of Spain" as a source in spite of the fact that is clear that is lying on purpose. Randroide has all the time of the world to dedicate to his obsession while I am a very busy person with better things to do than discuss mad statements that only in wikipedia could have room. If you thing that the lies of the so called "second Spanish newspaper" must be in the article at the same level than the opinion of world experts in terrorism as MIPT or the RAND corporation or CIA, its bizarre but I have found to my hapiness that I do not care anymore. I deeply apologize for the disturbance I have caused to wikipedia procedures and I leave to others with more time or patience the responsability about what to do with Randroide and his "documented" lies. I will try to keep an eye on what is going on and help with RFA but I do not feel responsible for the article anymore. (At this very moment, the first paragraph is a moronic manipulation of truth - insinuating that police was involved- and cannot be removed. The rest is an aberration). Sorry again. --Igor21 15:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to comment on this situation. The article on the Madrid train bombings is under dispute and has been for months. Randroide has taken advantage of the temporary absence of those who disagree with him to impose politically partisan and strongly contested changes on this article. To start censuring those who oppose such a break with the agreement that existed until Christmas to follow dispute resolution procedures does not seem to me to be at all balanced. Randroide has no automatic right to make significant changes to an article when other users dispute both the content and his objectives. There was an agreement by all parties involved to separate the controversies from the main article, Randroide has shredded that agreement by his unilateral and completely contested editions. Yes, lets apply Wikipedia guidelines - to all users involved. Southofwatford 19:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not referring to a content dispute, I am referring to a breach of dispute resolution procedures, including ignoring all warnings about the disputed nature of the changes made. The real point here is that if Randroide had not acted to destroy the agreement on seeking a consensual solution then Igor21's intervention would never have happened. Are you telling me that he he is entitled after months of dispute to override other users objections and impose unilateral partisan changes on the article? That would be a reward for rejecting consensus, I don't find that anywhere in Wikipedia guidelines. BTW, I mentioned censuring, not censoring - they are not the same thing. Yes, lets apply Wikipedia guidelines - to all users involved or to none. Southofwatford 20:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I have given you a specific example of a breach by Randroide - this article has been under dispute for months, a mediation process was due to be launched following agreement by all users concerned - despite this Randroide has unilaterally chosen to go ahead with controversial and contested changes to the main article. I have now warned him 3 times that he is breaking consensus by doing this and he has brushed aside those warnings and continued his edit, a clear breach of guidelines on dealing with disputed articles. I have never claimed that one wrong justifies another, but I do claim that refusing to recognise the sequence of actions that has taken place means that taking action against someone who has responded, however wrongly, to a clear breach of consensus, whilst not taking action over the instigator of the situation is simply unjust - if I throw a stone through your window and you insult me for doing so you might feel a bit offended if you turn out to be the only person arrested, thats my point. Southofwatford 22:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

TeckWiz's RFA

TeckWiz's RFA

I would like to thank you for helping the Wikipedia community determine if I should become a sysop by voting oppose on my second RFA. Many opposes were because of my "different" answer to question two, which I still partly agree with. I withdrew per WP:SNOW, as consensus to promote was against me. I will continue to improve until one day, I become an admin. Happy editing! --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 22:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Pablo

Hello John. Glad to see that your efforts were not in vain. Sorry I could not help during the DRV as I was very busy in RL. Regards, - Aksi_great (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, even I was surprised to see how well the article turned out. It is best to leave it to some wikipedian in the future to make it an FA. You've laid an excellent foundation. - Aksi_great (talk) 14:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

new page

thank you for your help.

Zeouspom 22:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

re (m)r weiss

sorry for claiming the intervention was useless. the edit war appears to have moved to something else at least. regarding finding the institutions mentioned in the 'cv', probably a waste of time, haredim ('ultra-orthodox' jews) are mostly not supposed to use the internet. consequently their schools/colleges... imho the debate is acctualy about the guys 'credibility', whether he's been formally 'ordained' may not be relevant. this's (sketchily) covered in the article on semicha. oh & thanx for the reminder that arbcom, etc, may not buy the obviously correct version of the dispute. ben  ⇒ bsnowball  10:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your rewrite of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule

Please do not completely revise Wikipedia policies without extensive prior discussion and explanation on the policy talk page. I've reverted your changes to this policy and look forward to hearing about why you think it needs to be changed, and in particular why you thought it should be so dramatically shortened. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 16:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a message here: Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule#My recent revision. --bainer (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the elaborate ER! Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 06:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for contributions on the Drawing Board

Thank you John, for contributing to the Drawing Board. Your contributions help new users and editors in negotiating the task of suggesting or creating new articles. If you can let other experienced editors know about the need for their insight at the Drawing Board, that would be greatly appreciated. Again, Thank you. --cgilbert 18:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration for Design Methods

Thank you for your comments on the talk page of design methods in response to the concerns of Ronz. We are leaving a comment for you as we seem to be at a crossroads. Ronz seems to be determined to break up or delete design methods without any clarity as to what needs clarification. We have been left to guess his/her intentions with no end in sight. This article has gone through this once before with no agreement on deletion and alot of thoughtful dialogue. That is what is missing this time. We have asked for arbitration again and ask for your guidance, mediation with Ronz or any other help you can provide us. We want to be positive and make whatever improvements that will make the article stronger. But we cannot seem to move past Ronz' feeling that the subject is questionable and that he does not understand it. (Design Methods 02:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for your help concerning the above. I guess I'm deep in my first WP:OWN situation. He obviously doesnt understand what I even mean when I discuss verfiability and original research. Looks like we have a good mediator to help now in Shell Kinney. Thanks again. --Ronz 18:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

WQA

Hi, My impression is that you seem to be handling WP:WQA almost singlehandedly. Is that correct? Jakew 14:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean that you were owning it, I'm just really impressed. :-) Jakew 16:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		We don't have bonus points, but we do - as you know - have barnstars. You deserve this one for your work at WP:WQA alone. Jakew 16:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

As for your index, it's a superb reference, and I shall doubtless refer to it again. I have only one question: why is it in your user space?

Oh, and I shall probably be along to help you at WQA in the near future. Best wishes, Jakew 16:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. It's a superb guide already - so detailed - I can't imagine what your "finished" version will look like, but I look forward to it. Jakew 22:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What next with the VNR article?

Hey John - It's inbirrabevitas. I forgot my password and had to change my name :D

Thanks again for the opportunity to edit the VNR page - and thank you for your comments requesting Calicocat include the information that was taken out.

As you might imagine, I'm rather dissappointed in the latest edit, as I tried very hard to provide information and sources so that someone reading the article, who has no idea about a VNR, could be educated on the subject in a well-rounded way. To quote Wikipedia's definition of an encylopedia to provide "a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge" (my italics). Hence, I tried to provide all the knowledge I could on the subject - the history, who, why, when, how-to - and current thoughts and opinion on the subject, and, amateur as I am in the ways of Wikipedia, cite examples as evidence and in support of what was being written.

I believe Calicocat's opinion is an important one - there are strong opinions on both sides of the argument, and Calico's is one and has its valid place in the ongoing debate on the subject. However, it presents almost only opinion, as it unfortunately deletes the "all" aspect of "all the knowledge" on the subject.

A reader of the article as it now stands, for example, will not know that VNRs are often used for public safety reasons, such as product recalls. Whether one agrees with it or not, is a matter of opinion. But the fact remains they are used in such a way, and surely the reader deserves "all knowledge"?

At this point, I'm at a loss of what to do next. Any thoughts? I really don't want to get into a writing tug-a-war with contributors, with each wiping the board clean of the other's edits, rather than building on them. That seems a bit silly. But I'm also rather saddened the information is buried. I'm assuming the "neutrality in dispute" label warns the reader there are no absolute definitions, and (hopefully) ends the edit-war. Is that the case?

Again, thanks for the invitation and opportunity to participate - and yes, congratulations and compliments on all your hard work. It's very commendable - I'm amazed at the complexity and variety subjects you have to keep an eye on!

Post Scriptum 17:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Policies for ever more

John, thanks for pointing me in the direction of WP:CIVIL. Yet another policy. I was actually aware of it, but there are so many of these policies that I'd never got around to looking at it. Anyway, the words "rant" and "fanatical" are hardly uncivil if used in the right context, but I take your point that such words might not constructively add to an argument. Also, how else would you describe User:Laurence Boyce's most recent user page edit, if not a rant, maybe a diatribe - and against me personally. Arcturus 18:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

many thanks

Hello John

Many thanks for your kind words and information. I tried replying on my talk, but not sure if you can read it. Let me know if you can't!

Post Scriptum 20:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Signature

How about this then? --Who cares? 21:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I would, but that signature (besides the text) is exactly the same as another user's (can't remember their name, it was on helpdesk). --Who cares? 04:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for cleaning that up, he is a newer user but I have no idea why he would want to put me up for RfA (I AfDed his page...). BJ^Talk 15:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Men's Rights - am I being a dick

Hi John, thanks for your help and advice with the Save Indian Family page - you really helped build-up a consensus based approach to that article. I'm sorry to bother you again but I need an outside opinion on myself in regard to the Men's Rights Talk page. I'm dealing with what I perceive to be a clear case of WP:COI involving a men's rights activist (& columnist), David R Usher. He's attempting to post his POV as reliable, notable and verifiable fact. I'm refusing on the grounds that his sources are partisan and not NPOV. I'm conflicted about my approach because on the one hand I'm worried that he might be spamming and at the same time I'm worried that I'm being too hard on him (that I'm being a dick). I know you're really busy with Wikiquette and your own interests but I'd be much obliged if you could give the article a quick look--Cailil 21:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a note on his talk page about a number of his violations of Wikipedia policies, based on his postings on the article talk page and his user page. Please take a look. If violations continue, please let me know; I'm not particularly shy about removing content from talk pages where it clearly is a violation and the editor has been warned.

I'm not going to wade into the article at the moment; I suspect it would take a fair amount of time to come up to speed on this. I do have some recommendations, however:

• Don't try to keep his opinions out of the article; rather, based on WP:NPOV (undue weight), they should be limited in scope, and clearly labeled (that is, it's not legitimate to say "SSM emasculates men"; it's okay to say "Many critics of SSM believe that it emasculates men (cite, cite)."
• Focus as much on preventing him from removing or changing information that is well-supported by cite(s). He has no right to argue that his viewpoint is correct and therefore that arguments or information or others is somehow illegitimate or wrong. He has his opinion, others have their opinions, and there are actually some facts around, I suppose; all of these should be included in the article.
• Without even looking at the article, I suspect you'd do well to try to get agreement that this is such a controversial subject that everything needs to be sourced except the lead section (summary) and text added to make the article flow smoothly. If nothing else, if this ends up with 100 cites, and 70 of them are by him, to his blog or articles or whatever, then there clearly are problems with WP:OWN and WP:NPOV (undue weight, etc.). That may make the article much shorter to begin with (in many similar cases, an article has had to be stubbified in order to salvage it), but it will shift the discussions from personal opinions to looking at what the literature actually says.

And if you continue to be concerned about the state of the article or your behavior, drop me another note (diffs would be helpful) and I'll take a closer look.

Hope that helps. -- John Broughton ^(♫♫) 03:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks John, unfortunately it hasn't help change davidrusher's attitude. Please see here (current state of talk page), and this is the [diff when he asks for my editting privelages to be revoked]. Please note I did not, nor did I intend to delete that section. I'm going to RfC this as I find the comments particularly nasty. Sorry for dragging you into another row.--Cailil 00:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your useful interventions on this issue and other pages. I have been learning a lot by reading your posts and have learnt a lot from your calm approach. I thought you might be interested in this [1] and would know if anything needs to be done. I was pleased to see that some of your advice has been absorbed! Slp1 23:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Signature

Hi, just a small request: Please reduce the size of your sig text, to that of the surrounding text, per WP:SIG#Appearance and color, because it currently disrupts the way that surrounding text displays. Thanks :) --Quiddity 23:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Now that I look closer, it's a combination of the superscript and the (previously larger) large font. The superscript is now the main culprit; they create extra space above the line - see in the combined screenshots how the 2nd & 3rd lines have a larger gap between them than the 1st & 2nd lines do. Image:Screenshot-signature-problem.jpg.

It's not as bad now that you've reduced the font from 18 to 16 px, but still makes it appear that the line might be beginning a new paragraph. Makes my inner-typesetter grumpy, sorry to bug ;) --Quiddity 23:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for you comment to Uptional re talk:Jung Myung Seok. The problem is anyone who doesn't respect their various rules about keeping some stuff secret is an agent of Satan according to his followers (literally!), and so it's almost impossible for me to communicate with them being the major contributor to the article. I was wondering if you had some more advice: how could I go about finding an experienced wiki editor to watch over the article? I posted on the Japan and Korea noticeboards about a week ago but there's nothing to say anyone has come in. I'm just worried that the article will be in constant dispute and I don't want to deal with having to try to reason with editors who are convinced I'm a demon. RB972 09:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for giving that advice to RB972 - well explained out - I can think of some brilliantly grotesque humour about this issue - but this is not the time and place. I honestly believe there should be time zone watch groups looking over some areas of wikipedia - as while some sleep the vndls and others wake and do their bit and it all depends who is watching.... probably too difficult but...SatuSuro 13:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup - well with 4,500 arts on my watchlist - and about 10 actively vandalised arts that I watch - thats my limit at the moment - there seems some vicious religious stuff around at the moment I just spent half an hour trying to work out the source of one relisious threat... will have to go to sleep now - but might follow up later SatuSuro 14:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again John! RB972 21:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Cogswell College

Thank you for your response concerning the page for Cogswell College. If I have any further issues with the anonymous poster, I will hopefully be able to direct it to the proper individuals.--Joel Lindley 21:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Signature

How did you alter the font on your signature?

Paul Murray 03:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)