User talk:Mackensen/Archive15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No
Solicitation

Mackensenarchiv

The Eye

Spammers: I would like for this page to stay reasonably clean. If you have business with me, feel free to leave a comment, else please move on. Please ignore the gigantic eye in the corner with the pump-action shotgun.

Unsigned messages will be ignored. You can sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). I reserve the right to disruptively eliminate gigantic blobs of wiki-markup from signatures on a whim if I think they're cluttering up my talk page.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine[edit]

I've closed the above arbitration case and have posted information about the final decision to Talk:Great Irish Famine, in addition to the customary notices to the parties. I take it that you (or someone you're in contact with) will post some information there regarding which admins have been chosen as the mentors and how they will proceed? Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baby 81[edit]

Why have you restored the name of an infant unnecessarily to Baby 81? --Tony Sidaway 01:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove it without reference to the talk page, after a month of inactivity? Mackensen (talk) 01:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my edit summary. I also take issue with your false accusations of collusion here and here. Don't play these silly bloody games with me. You know me better than that. --Tony Sidaway 03:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIVIL people. Be nice. Prodego talk 04:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motion[edit]

Hi Mackensen. Could you please review and vote on the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Huaiwei motion, which is sort of stagnant right now? Thanks. Picaroon (t) 19:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ex accuso lucellum[edit]

I have been trying for awhile to find a translation for this phrase that you have used a couple of times in reference to the names of arbitration cases, but the only Google hits I can find are of you using it. This may jeopardize my reputation as a polymath, but I need to ask you to please clarify for us non-Latinists. Newyorkbrad 19:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a play on a phrase used by Robert Lowe, Chancellor of the Exchequer in William Ewart Gladstone's first government. As a part of his budget he introduced a new duty on matches, and quipped "ex luce lucellum" (out of light a little profit). For this he was quite reasonably accused of being flippant and got himself into some hot water. I'm sure I've got it wrong, but the desired reading would be "out of accusation a little profit." Mackensen (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)[edit]

The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]


The Second Battle Group[edit]

If you are not personally involved in this tit for tat edit unedit then can i ask you to reinstate the original post about the salute show and then my response about the salute show and then lock the entire entry. Someone has it 'in' for the SBG, likewise the SBG will remove the 'attacking' article. A reasoned response would be a more appropriate way of dealing with the issue - as the basis of the 'attack' is a fabrication or the truth anyway. thank you.

83.104.165.113 13:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The appropriate place to raise objections is on the talk page of the article: Talk:Second Battle Group. As I've suggested there, your real beef is with the BBC and possibly the Daily Telegraph, although there are other news sources picking up the story. I'm not going to unlock the article until I'm satisfied the edit-warring ("tit for tat") will cease. Best, Mackensen (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fishing[edit]

I need a checkuser for a fishing expedition. I'm fairly convinced that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dfitzgerald probably shouldn't be editing, but I don't know all the players in the Armenian-Iranian mess well enough to point to a suspect. Do you know the field well enough to take a look? Thatcher131 01:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thatcher131 01:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 2007[edit]

ugh i feel like an idiot. ignore all that vandalism information. my internet is too slow to do anything right now! sorry again! --Tm1000 00:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprised[edit]

Our definitions of "common sense" are frequently at odds -- you'd be surprised at the amount of negative feedback I've gotten to the cessation of my practice of abstaining in post DRV AfDs, an action I undertook in response to your and Tony's persistence -- so I'm hardly shocked. I feel that the readings of policy offered by both the keep commenters and the deletion commenters were reasonable: after certain basic requirements are met, there is a subjective element in the evaluation of what constitutes a reliable source, and that decision is one susceptible to community determination. In such a circumstance, no overriding policy ground for deletion exists. That is the justification I will offer at the DRV.

Incidentally, your gruff notice was a bit offensive to me (also hardly unusual). I did apply more than a little judgment in my closing as I always do. Judgment is not a commodity on which you and like-minded people have a monopoly, you know. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was not my intention to give offense, and I wish we could have a discussion without you reminding that I've offended you before. I'm certainly not keeping score and I wish that you wouldn't. I thought I was being kind by warning you that I was contemplating a DRV, explaining my reasons, and offering you an opportunity to respond. I confess that my note was workmanlike but I disclaim any intention to offend or cause distress.
  • Anyway, I've taken my own advice and opened a merge discussion at Talk:Wikinfo. Mackensen (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake... I had expected an arbitrator to be familiar enough with the finer points of policy to understand that, if a merge is all you desire, a DRV review of the AfD close in completely unnecessary, to the point of being a waste of time. The talk page discussion is, of course, the most appropriate way to proceed.
While I have no desire to "keep score", I do notice when individuals make a habit of odd interpretations of policy, and a habit of impugning my judgment. If I were the sort of person who "kept score", be confident that I would have reason to make my words less mild. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact, I'm well aware of that finer point. If you trawl through my contributions I believe you'll find me making that point to someone just yesterday. Hence my decision to take my own advice, abandon any notion of a DRV, and start a merge discussion. If you like, we can discuss the proper way to handle an AfD when the proper outcome is actually an editorial decision, and whether such an outcome is binding. I've regarded long this as an important but under-appreciated policy gap, and I think it stems for an improper understanding in the community at large as to what AfD is actually for--determining whether content belongs in the encyclopedia at all, not whether it belongs in Place A, as opposed to place B. Mackensen (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On that point of policy, we are agreed. Xoloz 17:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A slight little dispute with Adam Bishop over Raymond IV of Toulouse[edit]

I'm in a slight little dispute with Adam Bishop, an administrator over two figures of historic notes, both have same name and the same title of count: Raymond IV, Count of Toulouse. I've used the excellent and very comprehensive website called Foundation for Medieval Genealogy for sources and references on medieval-era nobles and royals. Adam deleted the URL link to FMG whereas there are evidences of two Raymond IVs, Count of Toulouse. I do not understand why he deleted the link and then said it's not true in spite of proven genealogical evidences? I'm in no way involved with FMG, only using it for references and sources. I'm only a new contributor but am very serious about matching right persons based on family and genealogical links among royalty and nobility, referring to FMG and few other credible websites for appropriate sources and informations. I welcome all feedbacks. Kind regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sundehul (talk • contribs) 13:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arden Wohl[edit]

if you look at the last delete vote ..comes from an ip with no prior history...sorry I dont usually get like this but there seems to have been alot of "personal" feelings about this subject..sorry Im Canadian and the whole crucifiying of celebrity thing seems to be a weird phenomenom to me..check this url out:http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2007/09/arden-wohl-wikipedia-page.php

I don't know why I bother (sigh) I just though this was an interesting up-and -comer with a social consciousness and I just got pummeled..my little feelings are pretty hurt Cheers! and what you said about the ips is correct! geez people are paranoid! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweety21 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikirage[edit]

If you get a chance I think you are a good person to tell me if the tool I built wikirage could be enhanced beyond the current statistics and time periods I am tracking w3ace 18:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion[edit]

Hello, I'm just here for your reasons as to why you think consensus for deletion was reached at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ice hockey players who died young? Now I'm an administrator, and granted I speak with an unavoidable bias due to my involvement with the article, but I must make notice of the way the discussion changed. After an original bunch of delete comments, the idea was put forward to change the article to just players who's careers were interrupted by death, and that seemed to be a popular idea. After that idea was put forth there was not a single blatant delete comment, and the consensus (at least I thought anyways) was to change and re-name the article. Am I wrong? Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 01:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I confess I didn't get that impression reading the debate, but I could be wrong. I still saw a rough consensus to delete; certainly the article as it existed was not acceptable to participants. If you'd like to undelete, on the understanding that the article will be substantially restructured, I would raise no objection. Best, Mackensen (talk) 01:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll undelete it and move it to List of ice hockey players who died during their playing career and revise the list. Thanks for the support. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 20:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DelRev[edit]

I've apologized on my page, and will fix my comment. You are correct that i very much over-reacted. DGG (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated vandalism[edit]

i REQUEST YOUR INTERVENTION TO AID STOPPING THE REPEAT VANDALS "JustThatGuy2" and also "Dihydrogen Monoxide"

AND ALSO THE CREATOR OF THE PAGE INVESTMENT BANKING (WHO APPEARS TO BE A RUMANIAN, ETC?)

the gist is this i created a page "investment bankers" and then worked heavily on it a long time

it was a listing of two things Wall Street investment banks /firms, historically, for 150-200 years AND a listing of major well known investment bankers

then i added more firms involved in capital raising as LBO firms, Hedge funds, etc

and after working on all this a long time including adding links ... for dozens upon dozens of entities and persons

i added a footnote at the end as to who i am ... and also then added also a short synopsized timeline that included some major, very major deals, etc i had done... (these are historic and worth noting) so that readers could see who the author was etc

then repeatedly the page was vandalized by wiping it out repeatedly and putting instead of the page a redirect to the wikipage mentioned above "investment banking"

and that page has absolutely nothing to do with my page(s) as it is mainly a discussion of organizational structure for investment banks...

then i changed the name of my page slightly to be instead of investment bankers (to drop the s) to investment banker

and it only survied a short few weeks until "JustThatGuy2" and also "Dihydrogen Monoxide" heavily vandalized it again wiping out ??? 1/2 the article and

the main complaint is esp this none of the vandals, and editors etc know anything about the subject and will wipe out expert paragraphs that are esp worthwhile to any person who is knowledgeable and even those expert are not knowledgeable to the degree i am as the pages have a unique huge history of key important info for wall street persons, like a primaer of key firms, key players, key investment bankers and esp ***key market information...

then enter the repeated vandals who wipe out whole sections willy nilly all with ZERO knowledge and all using idiot level editing claims as "article needs "cleanup" WHEN the article was a precisely written precision info source for experts, and also for those wanting to learn inside key market info...

so the whole of it is like insane persons with NO knowledge repeatedly wiping out such unsually useful info and then esp wiping out my credentials to write the page so showing any reader who is the expert speaking... (and i am llike a global no. one market expert which the info given that was wiped out PROVES entirely)

so i ask you or someone please end these idiot level attacks and ban such vandals permanently as they are destroying hugely envaluable contributions and the repeated concentrated nature of it makes you think it is like a idiot teen etc... but more than that, likely this the market commentary includes frank remarks esp e.g. about the sleeping & huge neglect being discussed recently and widely on cnbc, bloomberg in regard to both US sec of treasury paulson and chairman of the fed rserve ben bernanke where both of them had done about nothing as the markets have been severely damaged by the sub prime lending issue.... and so giving the history of that and the further background about it is key to any market participant knowing where they stand in their own investing and what is likely to happen affecting their future investing... and that includes needing frank commentary that is NOT flattering about both paulson and bernanke etc

that is the nature of such needed comments and they were done in this article with giving the facts & factual reasoning as to why the action or lack of actions by bernanke and paulson were not great, etc... (and that is done also on cnbc and bloomberg tv channels)

then enter these vandals,,, "article needs cleanup" "article scheduled for deletion" when there is nothing else like this article anywhere and the "investment banking" article is nothing like it being a discussion of organizational structure and the listing of firms and leading bankers is no where else (except a person began a weak listing of wall street persons a year after my listing and that newer listing doesnt have the historical and leading persons) and so iot appears you have pirates who want to tout their own weaker and in this case NON revelevant articles and do so by setting up a deletion / redirect wiping out a hugely far better article page...

the history for both "investment bankers" and "investment banker" (no s) have this whole crazy endless string of attacks in their pages.../ histories...

and esp noting that this ongoing endless attacking has gone on for 1-2 years and so the persons doing this need to be permanently banned as none of it has anything to do with proper editing and proper use of wikipedia...

it appears esp to be perhaps a personal attack but i have no clue who is behind it etc

11:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC) note i have not used signing and logging in in the past or ever etc for this reason

i put up a page which was like a 1/2 page in length as i am an author of 5 books and that page came under such crazy level attacks that i let the attackers win and left that info deleted...

all another example of that crazy kamikazi style of idiot level attacking that has zero to do with proper editing etc...

this latest round was esp done it appears to destroy my linking to the ending pargraphs i had added to that long article on investment banker(s) that included a sketch of me and my key accomplishments and that was included in links to my listing on my college alumni lists for univ of alabama and harvard business school... and that careful editing to destroy those links surely appears to make all these attacks personal and the attackers nut jobs... etc.

for example in including the following in alumni listings the destruction of the links within makes the listing worthless 

* L E Butch Cooper, Inv Banker, Atty, Author

[http://www.booksamillion.com/ncom/books? id=3892526554193&type=author&find=l+e+cooper], Govt Advisor [1]


footnote there is NO simple way that is apparent on wikipedia to enter a complaint and a request as t his to stop vandalism and the vandals and ban them there are almost endless articles on submitting disputes that NEVER get to the point of including a button for making any dispute submission etc.

  • Thanks for your message. Could you please clarify which specific articles have been the subject of vandalism? Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ice hockey players who died young[edit]

You closed an AfD recently for List of ice hockey players who died young. I counted 6 keeps and 9 deletes, with the main delete voter saying that my suggestion took care of most of his objection and most of the delete votes being on the grounds that age 45 was an arbitrary cutoff. My suggestion, which the voters after me thought was good, was to change the list to List of ice hockey players who have died during their playing career. Could you elaborate on your closing of this AfD? If I were closing it and didn't have a hand in the discussion (i.e. somebody else brought up my point instead of me, and I didn't vote), I would have closed it as a no-consensus keep. Thanks! --Idont Havaname (Talk) 01:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poke[edit]

Hi Mackensen. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Catalonia is able to close with one more vote on several proposals, and you're one of the three arbitrators active on the case who haven't voted. No pressure to vote with the five in favor of these proposals as opposed to vote with the two opposed, of course. Picaroon (t) 04:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SBS membership renewal request—Project in great need of contributors[edit]

The summer has passed (unless you live in the Southern Hemisphere), and for most people holidays are over. Therefore, it is time for work again. Not that work ever stops in Wikipedia, but I believe we can at last get over the stage when slow progress can be taken for granted. Like yourself, most members of WikiProject Succession Box Standardization have been away during most of the summer (and some of you have been away for much longer); this lack of contributors has almost led SBS activity to a standstill.

A couple of members have stayed, however, and things have greatly improved in the project. There is a renovated and functional main page; the talk page has organised archives and a dedicated page for archived proposals; the Guidelines page is in a very good shape and I am preparing a further set of guidelines to be proposed for adoption by the project and incorporation into the page; the Documentation page has been again updated and a potential restructuring is being planned; the Templates list is the operations centre for the ongoing removal of antiquated and redundant templates. The Offices page is the only one that has yet to be improved, but there is a proposal for that one as well. Even a new SBS navbox has been created and added to the project's pages, easing navigation between the different parts of the WikiProject, while shortcuts have been created for the three most basic pages.

And the project itself is not the only thing that has been improved; the headers system has been cleared up and rationalised during the last six months, and a new parameter system is being inserted into templates like s-new and s-vac in order to successfully adapt succession boxes to more tricky cases of succession without large, clumsy cells or redundant reasoning. S-hou has also been improved and /doc pages have been added to most of the headers' pages, as well as to many proper succession templates' ones.

Despite all these breakthroughs that have made SBS a better, more functional and more user-friendly WikiProject, things move excruciatingly slowly as far as the adoption of proposals and correction/improvement of succession boxes in the mainspace are concerned. As has been mentioned, this is due to the utter absence of all but two of its members. I completely understand that a few of them might be unwilling to resume work in SBS, and some of them might even have left Wikipedia altogether. However, we are certain that there are people intent to continue improving Wikipedia's succession boxes and helping others to do so as well. If you are one of them, please return. And even if you cannot help at the moment, but want to contribute at a later time, please let us know by renewing your membership. You can do that very easily by removing the asterisk next to your name in the member list in SBS's main page. The deadline is 31 October; members that do not renew their memberships until 23:59 of that day will be removed from the list, as these members will be assumed to have left the project for good.

SBS is a project highly capable of doing some serious work in Wikipedia. These potentials are seriously undermined by the unavailability of helpful hands. I hope you shall consider this message seriously before taking any decisions.

Thank you for your time. Waltham, The Duke of 14:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Mackensen's Day![edit]

Mackensen has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Mackensen's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Mack!

Love,
Phaedriel
00:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A record of your Day will always be kept here.

TfD nomination of Template:Vdp[edit]

Template:Vdp has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. szyslak 09:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old IP block[edit]

Hey Mackensen. I just declined an IP unblock request at User_talk:65.222.216.15 for a 364-day old block you made. Any reason why that indefinite block can't be lifted, tho?--Chaser - T 03:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, you made the right call. If Alex101 wants that block lifted he can surely make the request on his talk page. Mackensen (talk) 10:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom activity[edit]

Hi. We've noticed that you haven't voted or commented on any arbitration pages for the last couple of weeks. I assume this is schedule-related and I hope you will be back soon, but in the interim, please let us know if you would like to be moved to inactive on the pending cases for now under the 14-day rule. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, move me to inactive. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doing so for all cases, except Allegations of apartheid where you already voted. Newyorkbrad 16:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Accuracy-1911[edit]

Template:Accuracy-1911 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Rocket000 05:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Farhill Transport, 14th Mar 1939.png[edit]

Hi, I have started a commons deletion request for an image you uploaded here. The image you uploaded here is of course a reasonable fair-use, but I am concerned that the artwork in the game makes it "unfree" and unsuitable for commons. Your thoughts on this would be appreciated. See commons:Image:Farhill Transport, 14th Mar 1939.png. John Vandenberg 23:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the note; I've commented there. Be advised that it was a different user who uploaded it to commons. Best, Mackensen (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yea, I saw it was the only contribution of whoever uploaded it there, so I figured your input on it would probably prevent a long discussion on commons. Thanks. John Vandenberg 01:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Mackensen/Flarp[edit]

Hi, Ive left a comment there. Regards, The Fulch 01:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ...[edit]

... for this comment. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biophase[edit]

Hi, I read his story on some website, why was he indef. blocked? I don't see any violations of WP:SOCK. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Checkuser block confirmed by the Arbitration Committee. Mackensen (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't answered my question. What did he do wrong? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have answered your question. He was the sockpuppet of a user banned by the Arbitration Committee. He was therefore blocked indefinitely. Mackensen (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. You never told me he was banned, though. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was obvious. It says right on User:Biophase that he was blocked for being a sock of PromX1 (talk · contribs); if you wander over to that fellow's talk page (and his block log) you'll see the circumstances of the block. Whatever this "website" was apparently has an incomplete picture of the situation. Mackensen (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Mackensen. You might like to say the same thing at meta, not just on your page, but also on Jimbo's! Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, WR has it. I might as well delete my meta page; I never look at it. I've made a post of explanation at WR, since that's where the discussion is. Mackensen (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BVG colours[edit]

Hi! I've decided to concentrate my non-gnomic activities on the Berlin U-Bahn-related articles for now, and I was wondering if you could remove one of my distractions by telling me your source for the colours in the very useful Template:BVG color, since they do not match the set given in de:Berliner_Verkehrsbetriebe#Farben (also unsourced) or the colours used in the network map (PDF) on the BVG website (which appear to most closely match a hard copy). While I realise this of fairly low priority in the overall scheme of things, it is currently at the top of my list of "little niggles that could possibly be fixed with a quick request". And since I'm not really in a copy-edit mood at the moment: do you still have that info to hand? ObfuscatePenguin 02:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's an excellent question. I suspect I worked from either our main article or de's main article. Certainly whatever's on the official network map should be authoritative. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and changed the colours to match the network map, and linked to the source on the talk page for the sake of anty future ponderers. Thanks for the quick reply, and also for fixing one of the red links in the main article—much appreciated. ObfuscatePenguin 07:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks for fixing that! Mackensen (talk) 12:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)[edit]

The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

List of Peers 1180-1189[edit]

Do you have any sources you can list for this article?--BirgitteSB 20:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, it's mainly derived from Wikipedia's other articles on the matter (e.g. List of Earldoms), most of which is in turn derived from Leigh Rayment's pages or Burke's and Debrett's directly. It was something of a failed experiment; trying to catalogue members of a hereditary legislature by year. Mackensen (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK I was hoping you might have had a handy book. It looks like the guy that tagged it {{unreferenced}} thought the Scotland info was wrong. I have been working to clear some of the stuff out of this category and it is rare to find a creator who is still around. I don't know anything about the subject or the websites(?) you are referring to but was just hoping to get lucky in asking you. Honestly I am not even sure how to approach these lists as I have been trying to simply find a general reference for the articles to show there is basic merit in having the article. But some of the lists do not seem to have general references at all.--BirgitteSB 17:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Night of the Long Knives[edit]

I would request that the page be semi-protected as it has already been vandalized several times today, each time by an anonymous user. Please help. --Mcattell 15:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • We're keeping up with the vandalism I think, and I'm reluctant to protect an article featured on the main page. Mackensen (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Railroad/NRHP Infobox comboes[edit]

I just tried to merge the Railroad & National Register of Historic Places infoboxes for Greenport (LIRR station), and it didn't work. How were you able to do it for Sebring (Amtrak station), and will we be able to do these to others in the future? ----DanTD 19:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration activity[edit]

Heya Mackensen. You aren't editing much lately - a shame, as that's one less checkuser I can bug. Would you like to remain listed as active on new arbitration cases and on cases you haven't voted on, or would you like us to move you to inactive? Picaroon (t) 02:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever your answer to Picaroon's question, you remain listed as active on Allegations of apartheid, where you cast some votes, so your input on the motion pending there would be helpful. Newyorkbrad 14:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll move you to inactive on all cases save Apartheid, and for future cases. Tell us if you'd like this reversed. Picaroon (t) 20:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Hans von Seeckt.jpg[edit]

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Hans von Seeckt.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Liftarn 13:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP block due to suspected COI[edit]

Mackensen, on October 12 2007 Yamla blocked an IP range because of suspected COI at the Fellowship of Friends article. A discussion was started at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard but Yamla hasn't participated for almost 2 weeks. Meanwhile, the IP block is affecting 3 editors of the page. Could you help decide if the IP block is appropriate? I am one of the editor affected by the IP block and strongly feel that Yamla's action was too harsh. Thank you in advance. Mfantoni 07:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC[edit]

Thank you very much, Mackensen. What is so bizarre about that process was that the text for solving the original dispute has been written by me, using key material devised by them, and now approved by the complainant. All in the past 48 hours. So what was the walk-out from formal mediation about, and the subsequent attack via this RfC process? It would be too silly for words if it hadn't been at great personal expense to me.

See Talk:Inversion_(music)#Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation.2FInversion_.28music.29.2FSandbox. Tony (talk) 12:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And PS thanks for you offer to be a go-between; if there are problems, we might need your mediation skills. Tony (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

?Mackensen... didn't you notice I'd taken it in hand, as an uninvolved admin? And put a long screed of instructions into the RFC? I thought at first I must have forgotten to save, when my write-up and conditions didn't appear in my contribs. Or did you just not see the deletion of it as worth a courtesy note to me? Bishonen | talk 16:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I regret that I did not see your note while reviewing the discussion. I was asked by a third party to review the matter as I was completely outside the dispute and came to the same conclusion: that the RFC was invalid as formed, and that direct communication between the parties would be best. Had I seen your comment I would likely have refrained from action altogether; in no way did I intend to step on your toes and I apologize. Yours, Mackensen (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mentors on Great Irish Famine?[edit]

Hi, Mackensen--I saw this comment from you and was wondering whether you might know the status of the mentor assignment for this article. It needs the attention of someone familiar with the case. Dppowell 18:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe it's in limbo (shock! horror!). In the interim, I'm willing to do some informal mediation. What's at issue presently? Mackensen (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Mac, I didn't know you'd responded here. By now, I trust, you're up to speed. Thanks for checking in. Dppowell 20:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Mac. I wanted to leave a note too to ask you to look into the situation. It's also being "discussed" here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sony-youth (talk • contribs) 11:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have lived up to the spirit and the letter of these [2], and the only one involved to sign up to it. Now I have this BS to contend with. Not to mention these edit summaries. To back up these accusation, would be obvious for some, now you either agree with them, and should act against me and impose the ban , but do not condone it with silence. How do I reactivate or request comment from the Arbitration Committee? --Domer48 19:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow your line of reasoning. First of all, I doubt the committee would agree to revisit the matter so soon, and given the speed (lack thereof) at which the committee currently functions, you'd be left waiting at least a month. I'm not sure who "you" and "them" are in this case; I've maintained throughout that a full list of Young Ireland publications doesn't make sense for this article. I still don't understand your reasoning for including the list; that it passes WP:LIST is irrelevant, the operative questions are how such a list is germane to that particular article. But these are points better addressed on the talk page. Best, Mackensen (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I’m suggesting is that you be a little more proactive in relation to the principles of Wikipedia. In particular to WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Not only because of your position in the community, but as an editor. I have not asked you your opinion on YI here, but just look at you response, it's reasonable, calm and productive. Compare that, to the reactions above which I have linked. In what way is this conducive to the discussion, or maybe I’m just wasting my time, and the last comment is right, either way, I can wait a month, I not going anywhere. --Domer48 16:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest the following as one possible solution:


From the Troubles ArbCom that recently concluded.

3.2) To address the extensive edit-warring that has taken place on articles relating to The Troubles, as well as the Ulster banner and British baronets, any user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given. The administrator shall notify the user on his or her talkpage and make an entry on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Log of blocks, bans, and probations. The terms of probation, if imposed on any editor, are set forth in the enforcement ruling below. 

   Passed 5-0 at 08:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

2) Participants placed on probation are limited to one revert per article per week with respect to the set of articles included in the probation. Any participant may be briefly banned for personal attacks or incivility. Reversion of edits by anonymous IPs do not count as a revert. 

   Passed 7-0 at 08:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I would address a number of concerns, and might allow us to work in a more productive environment. --Domer48 19:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not familiar with the case, although I'll read through it later on. I remember one of my friends did about this for their GCSE History though. But I will try and help out with the article where needed. --Solumeiras talk 18:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If wishes were horses...[edit]

I don't think 3-5 admins even read WP:AE. Thatcher131 19:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher has a point. I do believe he is the only one to read the board with any frequency. I occasionally sort-of try and make an effort, and another few admins pop by from time to time too, but it's very taxing work, and I don't foresee mentorship as likely to be any different. Maybe knock it down to 1-2 mentors in all cases involving this sort of thing, and encourage the retiring arbitrators to help out? By the way, glad to see you back. Tell us if you want to be reactivated on any cases. Picaroon (t) 21:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)[edit]

The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Email[edit]

Just to let you know, I've sent you and email. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 22:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sock for arbcom?[edit]

Hi, Mack. Might you be interested in commenting here ? Bishonen | talk 00:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Jasenovac[edit]

Can you tell me please what is where on wikipedia I can ask for solution about this problem ? --Rjecina 18:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • Well, bringing in outside editors with no stake in the quarrel is one possibility. I'd be happy to intervene personally as a third party. Mackensen (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have given request for comments (Talk:Jasenovac concentration camp ). For me this discussion like many similar is simple stupid because saying that there is 7 Holocaust camps when Holocaust museum accept 6 is original work which is against rules of wiki. I am only loosing time with this ... --Rjecina 18:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Your comment[edit]

  • "Bureaucrats are free to exercise their discretion in determining the outcome of a discussion"

While I agree, there seems to be a difference of opinion on this. As a question of convention/process, can a case be accepted on those grounds? - jc37 19:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the question. Which grounds? Mackensen (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying Bureaucrat discretion in interpreting "consensus" in the closure of an RfA. - jc37 19:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, the committee has never accepted a case for such purposes, or in the resolution of a case explicitly ruled on the matter. While the committee has, on occasion, granted sysop rights, this has always been within the context of a previous decision (usually a suspension). We've never claimed oversight over the 'crats, and I think the committee as a whole would be most unwilling to do so. Mackensen (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I meant in general, not regarding a specific instance. As a principle, or finding of fact, or something. - jc37 19:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I don't believe we ever have, and I don't believe we ever would, except to state that it's up to the bureaucrats. For that matter, even making such a statement might go too far; for the committee to rule as such would imply that we've some level of control over the process. The committee resolves disputes. It doesn't make policy. Mackensen (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that. (And hope I'm not belabouring the obvious.) But if the source of the dispute is whether bureaucrats can use such discretion, and "how much" discretion they have... - jc37 19:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to the first question is yes (that's policy). Your second question doesn't have an answer. If we could answer it then there wouldn't be any such thing as bureaucratic discretion; bureaucrats would promote based on a strict percentage, and there would be defined rules for excluding ineligible "votes." Mackensen (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to the first question is and has been apparently no, not really. I've been told that Bureaucrats shy away from closing counter to a "vote" result. Which I find rather concerning for several reasons. However, this is where I think I'll drop this. (Looks at the poor dead horse...) - jc37 20:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S-rail[edit]

Do you think you could guide me on how to update or generally edit templates such as S-rail and rail-line? How to show destinations, line colours etc etc etc? Simply south 14:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Absolutely. There's already some documentation at Template talk:S-line, but I'm happy to answer any and all questions. Do you have a specific line/system in mind? Mackensen (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am more meaning how to edit the templates themselves, then previewing work on the appropriate page. Simply south 14:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, that's the real trick. If you're dealing with a set of templates serving a complex system of lines (Amtrak, the London Underground, Chicago), a minute change might have unexpected effects. I'm supposed to understand how these things work and I've surprised myself before. Sometimes you simply have to commit the edit then look around various pages to see if it had the desired change. It looks like you were playing the Central Line - what change were you trying to make? Mackensen (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The trains from Woodford towards Hainault either terminate there or continue towards West Ruslip or Ealing Broadway. They do not all terminate at Hainault only. Some for the other direction. On LUL in general, it should display Central Line, Jubilee Line etc, not Central, Jubilee etc. I would like to learn how to do this and other similar changes. Simply south 15:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay. On the first one, I'll need to check and see how it's set up. On the second, it's a simple modification to Template:LUL lines. Where it says " | #default=[[{{{1}}} line|{{{1}}}]]", you simply change it to " | #default=[[{{{1}}} line|{{{1}}} Line]]", and the changes will be made system-wide. It might take some time for the job queue to catch up, of course...Mackensen (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is a modification of an earlier request here. And the second one, it doesn't matter on capitals so much for now but it is showing it properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simply south (talk • contribs) 16:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, before I answer, let me make sure I understand how the Central line operates. There are two western termini: Ealing Broadway and West Ruislip. Trains from there terminate primarily at either of two eastern termini: Epping or Hainault. There is a shuttle service from Woodford to Hainault, but some of these trains continue through Hainault to the western termini. Finally, some of the Hainault trains continue through Hainault to Woodford. Is that correct? Mackensen (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. Simply south 16:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally all of this is complicated by a loop! This requires several alterations, but I'll explain in detail. First, let's look at Template:S-line/LUL left/Central. Because we have a loop, both the "left" and "right" termini templates will duplicate each other. The left has the following entries:

  • Ealing Broadway=Ealing Broadway
  • West Ruislip=West Ruislip
  • Hainault=Hainault
  • Epping=Epping
  • Woodford=Woodford
  • #default=Ealing Broadway or West Ruislip

These all regulate the various possible termini. Ealing Broadway or West Ruislip is a special entry; it denotes multiple termini. For such a situation you need a corresponding line in Template:LUL stations, which we have:

  • | Ealing Broadway or West Ruislip=[[Ealing Broadway station|Ealing Broadway]]<br /> or [[West Ruislip station|West Ruislip]]

Now, this definition is insufficient; it does not allow for these trains which pass through Hainault to Woodford from the western termini, and vice-versa. We need these lines (or something similar) in the "left" template:

  • East=Ealing Broadway, West Ruislip, or Hainault

To make that work, we need an additional line in the "stations" template:

  • | Ealing Broadway, West Ruislip, or Hainault=[[Ealing Broadway station|Ealing Broadway]], [[West Ruislip station|West Ruislip]],<br /> or [[Hainault tube station|Hainault]]

We need to make a similar change to the "right" template. Here's what it has now:

  • Epping=Epping
  • Woodford=Woodford
  • Hainault=Hainault
  • Ongar=Ongar
  • #default=Epping or Hainault

The default entry here is incorrect; it needs Woodford as well. Therefore, we change the default entry to this:

  • #default=Epping, Hainault, or Woodford

Then, update the "stations" template by replacing the "Epping or Hainault" entry in the same fashion as above.

Those are the structural changes. You now have to go through and modify the actual templates in the articles. This isn't a major task; most Central line stations update automatically. The loop stations will need to be altered, but everything else will be fine. I know it looks and sounds complicated, but once you've got the hang of it it's pretty straightforward. Best, Mackensen (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It is only those on the Hainault loop which terminate at Woodford, i think, which is where it joins the main Epping branch. Btw, i added Woodford on the left (or was it the right?). Should i delete this? Simply south 17:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not doing any harm there. Mackensen (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh* It's close enough for now although i need to sort out the other direction more. I'm busy right now though. Simply south 18:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look. As I side, I figure only the loop needs to be touched. Mackensen (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I've sorted it out or got very close. Thank you very much for the tutorial. Simply south 13:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now i'm just curious. Why is it called S-line\S-rail? Simply south (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, if memory serves, I approached the idea in the spirit of WP:SBS, which prefixed its templates with "s-". S-line was intended, after all, as a generic replacement for the vast array of one-shot transportation succession boxes. Mackensen (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Island (Metra)[edit]

Hey, thanks for adding the article on Blue Island (Metra) station. Although I thought the station for the Rock Island Branch & Metra Electric Branch were two different stations in close proximity to each other. ----DanTD 01:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Tramlink start/insert[edit]

I've gone over all Tramlink articles and replaced {{Tramlink start}} and {{Tramlink insert}}...with {{s-rail-start}} and {{s-note}}. It is now safe to delete {{Tramlink start}} and {{Tramlink insert}} without ruining any articles. Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 04:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, thanks for the heads-up. Concerning s-rail, I think NE2 and I went with Previous/Next because all the older rail succession boxes, at least the American ones, did that. I suppose it makes sense to bring it in line with {{rail start}}. Let me test in my userspace to make sure nothing will break, then I'll go ahead. Mackensen (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking and copyright problems[edit]

Sorry for disturbing you again but you know more or less all wiki rules. We are having new sockpuppet master with minimal 10 user accounts. Maybe I am mistaking but IP address is always blocked for small time period. My question is: can we block IP address on period of 12 or more months ? Reason for question is this user is always using 1 IP address. I will not take more of your time because other administrators and checkuser are "playing" with this sockpuppet master. --Rjecina 21:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Owner of this [3] map is SOUR Svjetlost !! SOUR has been shortcut for companies during communist Yugoslavia period. Maybe today SOUR Svjetlost exist or maybe not but somebody is having copyright for all published works of this company. I have contacted administrator on commons but after his comments that I need to start debate and discussion about copyright of that map I am givin up. Now administrator of wikipedia and administrator of commons are informed about problem so my job is ended. --Rjecina 02:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ombudsman[edit]

Hello,

You may know that we are looking for changing the ombudsman team. Whilst talking to people, your name was suggested :-) What do you think ? Willing to do the job ? If that is the case, it will be necessary that you provide us with information about your real identity. Also, I would rather prefer that ombudsman do not act as CU for reason of conflict of interest. I have a list of a couple of names, I am contacting three people right now; Best Anthere (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good choice, Anthere! Thank you for doing this important job, Mackensen. Take care, FloNight♥♥♥ 16:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{s-rail}}[edit]

Thanks for backing me up here.

On a related note: what is the matter with the enormous image on the template here? I thought that this edit would fix it, but it doesn't seem to have made a difference (at least, not yet). --RFBailey (talk) 04:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A 115 pixel logo? That's an evil thought! It looks fine to me at the moment; I've tried Opera, Firefox, and IE. Did you try clearing your cache? Chances are your browser is remembering the old page. Mackensen (talk) 04:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh. Should've thought of that. It works fine now! --RFBailey (talk) 04:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom activity[edit]

Having seen you commenting on the Workshop, should I move you to Active in the Privatemusings case? How about anything else? Are you really sure you don't want three more years of this fun? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't you even dare! Yes, active on Privatemusings, inactive on all the rest. Mackensen (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

The Editor's Barnstar
This barnstar is for you for working hard on train-related and train station related articles. I've seen you start some of the articles about Amtrak stations. NHRHS2010 talk 12:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Train Station naming debate[edit]

I just remembered another reason why the idea of eliminating railroad systems from station names is a bad idea, and that information came from you(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains/Archive:_2007%2C_2#Hammond-Whiting_.28Amtrak_station.29_.26_Hammond_.28NICTD.29). ----DanTD (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ombudsman[edit]

Hello

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-November/035415.html

Feel free to organize yourself as you feel is the best. You may ask Cary help if you need anything (a list, whatever). Also, if you feel the policy needs changes etc... please do not hesitate to say so and suggest changes. Thank you ! Anthere (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hollerbird[edit]

In reviewing Hollerbird (talk · contribs)'s deleted contributions, it looks like she's pushing her own band, but I don't know that I'd call it vandalism. Someone might need to explain our content policies to her, but a block seems harsh, unless I'm missing something. Best, Mackensen (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Sonya esman article had to be deleted six times which seems pretty excessive. Several of those deletions cited WP:CSD#G3 - pure vandalism - so I'll admit that I was following the trend. I've restored the rest of the user's talk page which was full of warnings, etc. (and was truncated to just my block message for some unknown reason). I also received an unpleasant all-caps e-mail which finished with "JERK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Given all that, if you still think an unblock is warranted, feel free. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've received a similar communication, but I find it understanble. What we've got here is systemic failure--people labeling something vandalism when it's not, which leads to a cumulative block for vandalism which did not occur (not your fault). That it had to be deleted six times can probably be attributed to no-one explaining to a new user why the article was unsuitable. No doubt she wondered why it kept disappearing. I would favor an unblock with time served, and as you raise no objection I'll go ahead. Mackensen (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No objection. I'll keep an eye out for recurrence. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crossrail junctions[edit]

Ahah! yes, good point. Whitechapel needs doing too then ... --AlisonW (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC) ps. For some reason, although the directions for use say use the succession boxes per geography where possible, lines to the west of Paddington are currently illogically reversed. I'll try and find some time to reverse them at some point! --AlisonW (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been wondering about colour; the logo is a dark blue but the only route diagram issued to date has used blue (above ground) and red (below ground) so leaving it white/blank for the moment seems a logical thing to do? Define an emopty one perhaps? --AlisonW (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When it's not clear I've used whatever might be "most correct" (in this case dark blue) because the empty color looks awful. Mackensen (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I quite liked the white as sortof implied it was an 'under construction/development'planning' route, but I've set a colour. Feel free to change it ;-P --AlisonW (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re sline/CML it seems very odd to have an abbreviation in there without which rail route it refers to. CML doesn't include a railway line in the list. --AlisonW (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it does. The way the switch expression works, you can list multiple terms like that, and have them point to the same thing. By listing it that way, both CML and CMT point to Copenhagen Metro. Mackensen (talk) 02:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheonan Asan[edit]

Sinchang will be the terminus of Line 1 after its extension. It isn't in the template yet, as that would screw up every other article. For now, no trains run through this station on Line 1 anyway, so that template just serves as a little information for future plans. Full information is in the Seoul Subway Line 1 article. I hope this helps. JPBarrass (talk) 07:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment at ArbCom[edit]

If you all choose to restrict Giano (one of the best article writers we have) it will further confirm the fears of many editors about the project: that the processes involved are more about personalities than creating great content, and making wise decisions. And you will also be chasing away other potentially good editors (I'm not nearly so new as my account seems), that simply throw up their hands in disgust and say no mas. My loss would certainly not be on the level of Giano's. I've created a few articles, but nothing like he has. He is great at what he does. And restricting him harms the project--which in my view should be anathema to what ArbCom is all about. Mr Which??? 01:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 1-year restriction to only discuss Featured Articles is insulting. It leaves the door wide open for any admin to block him if he utters even a single word that is not directly related to a Featured Article. I retract insulting.. its moronic. It actually prevents him from discussing any article that is not a featured article. Lsi john (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, by arguing the greatness of one individual overrides the project, you're actually encouraging us to focus on personalities. I won't be a party to that. Lsi john, I don't understand your concern. Articles are discussed on talk pages. Whether Giano stays or goes is his decision. I voted against a ban because I thought it was an insult and I want for him to stay. I felt I had to make the choice I did, and I've spelled out my reasons why in a rather long-winded fashion at the bottom of the Proposed Decision page. Best, Mackensen (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing the "greatness of one individual overrides the project", and I think you know that. I am arguing that Giano's contributions to the project as an article writer far outweigh any perceived disruption his actions in this case caused. And it's not close. He helps the project FAR more than he hurts it. Please outline for me how restricting Giano to talking about articles instead of editing them will benefit the project in any way. (For the record, I do not support John's insulting "moronic" comments above. I find the proposal extremely ill-conceived and counterproductive, but not "moronic.) Mr Which??? 01:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that he helps the project--with his article contributions. No one on the committee would dispute that. His article on Hannah Rosebery is as wonderful as anything on this project, and a damn sight better than anything I've ever written. I don't understand your concern. We propose to restrict him from the project space. How does that stop him from editing articles? Mackensen (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That portion was a misunderstanding on my part. The wording led me to think he could only work on FA articles, and even then, only in an advisory role. I apologize. I'm still not clear as to how restricting one of the only people willing to be a gadfly on the ass of the project is a good thing. He came to the defense of his innocent friend. For that, he's restricted? Any sanctions against Giano in this case (which is about Durova's egregious misconduct) are outside the pale of what is just. Mr Which??? 01:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's not restricted for what he did. That I approve of. He's restricted for how he did it. That I cannot condone. Mackensen (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you approve of what he did, then it follows that you MUST approve of how he did it. That specious "post" of Durova's wasn't seeing the light of day on WP had he not IARed and posted it. Mr Which??? 04:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even addressing the merits of the concept. I'm talking about the wording that prevents Giano from working on non FA's or discussing them. If he posts one single line that is not tied to a Featured Article, he is in violation of that wording. It's overly restrictive. It is clearly not well thought out. Lsi john (talk) 01:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think we're misunderstanding each other. We're talking about the project namespace (Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk). This has no bearing on the main namespace (articles and Talk:). Mackensen (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Ok, so he can't come to your page to discuss your edits to a non FA. No matter how you slice it.. the "FEATURED" wording is overly restrictive. It effectively blocks him from wikipedia and as such, I suggest that you vote for a 90 day block .. which is much shorter than 1 year. Lsi john (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
John, forgive, but I'm left the impression that you don't understand namespaces. This is User talk. This is not covered by the decision. We inserted a specific exemption for Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk only. Nothing else is restricted. Mackensen (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen, you are correct, there are many things I don't understand. So, my new understanding is that he can't edit articles at all, he can only discuss FA's in mainspace, and he can be as disruptive as he wants in user:Talk (current rules not excluded)? Lsi john (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a period of one year, Giano may not participate in any of the pages of the "Wikipedia:" or "Wikipedia talk" namespaces, except for civil discussion related to featured articles

This strictly says he can't participate in anything except disucssions, and then only FA discussions. Lsi john (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He can edit anything, except the Wikipedia namespace. In the Wikipedia namespace, he can edit only that which relates to Featured Articles. Prodego talk 01:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. He can edit the following things unrestricted, including the respective talk pages: articles, user pages, templates, categories, images, and portals. He is restricted from anything in "project" (Wikipedia:) that does not concern featured articles. Does that help? Mackensen (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not the way I read it.. It says he can not participate in namespace 'except' for discussions about FA's. It's poorly written and not well thought out. Lsi john (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is right. Namespace is not mainspace is not the wikipedia namespace. Wikipedia:Namespaces explains. Prodego talk 01:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I was somewhat clueful.. i'm wrong. That page makes no sense at all to me. In english, please, just what, exactly, is he prevented from doing, and where? Lsi john (talk) 02:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's difficult to enumerate. In practical terms, he's barred from the noticeboards, deletion discussions, wikiprojects, and dispute resolution, unless it concerns a featured article. Obviously if he had a legitimate need for dispute resolution the remedy would be modified by a motion. Mackensen (talk) 02:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, kindly. 'Featured' is still unnecessary. Lsi john (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Featured article nominations take place in the project namespace. Why should we restrict him from that? Mackensen (talk) 02:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears you are restricting him 'to' that. How about reasonable discussions about other articles for whatever reason? Lsi john (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look, you're going to have to take my word on this. The proposal does not say what you think it says. Mackensen (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to interject (which I am quite fond of doing), this measure does seem a big excessive. Could the scope be narrowed a bit (discussions not involving him, that sort of thing). It does seem some restriction would be in order here. Prodego talk 01:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A more productive line might be to restrict enforcement to arbitrators, who generally don't block on a hair-trigger. Mackensen (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be more palatable (even given the fact that sanctions against Giano in this case are anathema to me), though Fred's referring to Giano as "wimpy, wimpy" gives me great pause. The last time I heard someone called "wimpy" was probably in fourth grade. I've never heard one adult refer to another in such a way. Mr Which??? 01:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well the problem with that is it makes no difference assuming the restriction is followed. The 'unenforced remedy' is not a good remedy. I think that arbitrator only enforcement, and a slightly (less then I proposed) reduced scope would be useful. Just make sure that proposing AfD, reports to the noticeboards, and other things are allowed. Prodego talk 01:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)I took it to mean he thought 90-days was a wimpy punishment. Lsi john (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd ask Fred. Mackensen (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well if he meant Giano was wimpy, then I suggest a block on Fred for uncivil name calling... but as I said I assumed he meant 90 days was wimpy. Lsi john (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From reading dozens of proposed decision pages, I can confirm that Fred often uses "wimpy" (sometimes in triplicate) to refer to a remedy he thinks is much too lenient. There may be a reference there to an old series of TV commercials contrasting sturdy "Hefty" brand plastic trash bags to easily ripped "wimpy, wimpy, wimpy" ones. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brad. At least I know now what he meant in his commentary. It makes me view his vote as even more ill-conceived, though, as it's apparent that he would like to see a fabulous contributor like Giano blocked for longer than 3 months, which would be an outright travesty, and a huge detriment to the encyclopedia. Mr Which??? 04:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: Both jpgordon [4] and Fred [5] clarified on their talk pages. Both were referring to the remedy, not giano. Lsi john (talk) 05:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Last Minute Addition of Giano to Arbcom Case[edit]

I'm confused. Normally even contributors of opinion to the case cannot jump on board after it has been setup. Now, part way into the proceedings, and after Durova resigns, Giano is lumped in there, and assigned a punishment? No RFC? This is highly irregular. Imagine if you, Mackensen, were on trial for corruption, and halfway into the trial, they dragged your maid into the courtroom, and decided to give her a sentence too.

This is completely bizarre. If Arbcom want to make a case against Giano, then make a new RFC, and start a new Arbcom case. You don't just chuck another baby into the dirty bathwater of two other babies.

Speaking of which: Why nary a word about JeHochman??? No restriction?? No admonishment?? JeHochman was so zealous that he had an ANI for the same behavior the week before Durova's case came out, and during her case, he was blocking and AGF-ing and warning anyone who contested Durova??

According to moreshi, Mackensen was on the 2nd secret list of en-WPinvestigations. Doesn't this mean that Mackensen was on the secret list that got the email about !! to start with?? Why did he not recuse himself immediately?. And now, Mackensen's proposal (his odd proposal of a late entry with the apparent objective of punishment only - no discussion) to punish Giano gives a very strong impression of partisanship.

If the procedure was "send it to Arbcom" (not to publish the email online) but two members of Arbcom were on the secret list that convicted !!, then how could a fair assessment of blame have taken place under "secret" in Arbcom?? 85.5.180.9 (talk) 04:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've responded on the Proposed Decision page. I'll delay my rest a few minutes to knock down this ridiculous assertion. Best, Mackensen (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In appreciation[edit]

Being just a "little editor" (in this case, meaning I am incompetent when it comes to images), I cannot leave you a cookie or a bouquet of roses or even a marching band. But I greatly appreciate that you have taken the time to be the "spokesman" tonight. I have learned a great deal about the workings of Arbcom and the difficult job which you all find yourselves having volunteered for. Whether or not anyone agrees with the position that any of you as individuals or as a committee have taken, there is no doubt that you are genuinely looking out for the project as a whole. I will look forward to reading your further thoughts, hoping you have a good night's sleep. --Risker (talk) 05:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC) And anyway, the cookie would have clashed with the eyeball Images courtesy of Lsi john, who has unwittingly taken on the role of image guru[reply]

"Dutch doughnut"
marching band
roses
  • Same here. It's a shame you're not running for another term; even though I know you weren't a big fan of the job, you've always been a good arbitrator, and your comments on the proposed decision page are truly helpful. Ral315 » 06:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

I see you requested that you be notified of any follow-up questions for the arbitration case of Durova and Jehochman. I left you one here. It tails off from being a question into general comments, but hopefully you'll get the gist of what I'm asking about. I did intend to stay away from the site politics, but I find the unequal remedies proposed in this case somewhat worrying. Andplus (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • That page has gotten longer than I can manage, and my cards are on the table. Could I ask you to repost here? You'll probably get a longer answer that way. Mackensen (talk) 12:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Glad it isn't just me that finds it difficult to manage. Here it is anyway, with your statement that provoked it, and my self-indulgent puff struck:
      If I'm acting politically then I'm a damn fool--this is political suicide. I do this because I think it's best for the project. Members of the community can flay me alive if it makes them feel better; I'm standing down anyway. Wikitruth is a good place for leaked email anyway; hell of a lot safer there. If someone had just leaked it there in the first place we wouldn't be having this conversation. This business about shooting the messenger is ridiculous, but it's been repeated enough it will stick. Mackensen (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
      Coming late to the party, and finding the proceedings here near impossible to follow (is there a decision on Jarndyce and Jarndyce yet?), but I find that last statement incomprehensible. Are you really saying that Giano's offence was to post the information here rather than at one of sites which fed the "need for secrecy" paranoia in the first place? Would it help to set up a site for the publication and discussion of information that would lead to sanction if published here? I'm sure it would ease the strain of being an Arbitrator if all discussion took place off the site as it would all fall outside your remit. It appears the publisher of the "private" "email" has avoided any sanction for the comments contained in that document precisely because it was passed around off Wikipedia. The character assassination contained therein (yes, I've seen it at one of those sites which I never knew existed before this case) seems far worse than any rash statements made by Giano, yet it seems that because of the convenience of it being posted off the site it can be swept aside; this, despite the fact it has been confirmed as genuine and the author identified (this is precisely why Giano is coming under fire for posting it), and the mailing list seem to be confirmed to be concerned with Wikipedia activities and populated entirely by "senior editors". I was warned that this was a silly place before I started editing here, but now I see the evidence for myself. Andplus (talk) 12:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As odd as it may seem, that is the assertion I'm making. We as a community, which I represent and of which I am a part, cannot control editors' off-site activities. My statement is practical: Giano could have faced no sanction posting private correspondence off-site, as much as I deplore such an activity, for the same reason we can't sanction editors who may or may not have received private correspondence concerning Durova's block of !!. The Arbitration Committee must act within policy. The community has not seen fit to regulate off-site communications. If this is the impetus for it, then so be it. It is incorrect, and unfair to Giano, to call his statements rash. He knew what he was doing. This is indeed a very silly place if you leave the article-space.
        Now, you didn't ask this but I'll note that if I had my druthers administrators would not make bad blocks, if they did make bad blocks they would have good sense to take responsibility for them, and that failing that they would not fan the flames of conspiracy and speculated by claiming "private support" and then refusing to name names. The committee has sought this information for days and not received it. What would you have us do? Mackensen (talk) 13:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the reply, I appreciate you must be busy. As to what I would have you do: I would have you show judgement and common sense. I don't believe you are so bound by legalities that you can not make a decision that shows an element of balance (though perhaps you have come to believe you are). It may provoke an outcry if you reprimand Durova more than Giano, because your jurisdiction is not supposed to extend to off-site activities, although there is little doubt that a connection can be made between the Durova of the "seminar" and the Durova of the block of !!, but at least vote against any proposal that punishes Giano and leaves Durova with no more than an admonishment. As this proposal stands it encourages attacks from external sites, encourages administrators to form off-wiki groups, and penalises anybody who dares to raise their voice against perceived injustice (as far as I can see there were numerous attempts to shut down the discussion before it reached an "official" body by parties who are not named as participants in this case). I think this is precisely the opposite to the outcome desired by the majority of the community. By the way, I also believe that Giano knew what he was doing (it is insulting to him to believe he acted without thinking), but I think his comments were often rash. Andplus (talk) 13:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's certainly not the intention--note the "responsibility" principle. Any administrator who takes this decision as a license to go underground is taking his wiki-life into his own hands. Mackensen (talk) 14:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • But your self-admitted inability to police that makes it toothless. Sure, they need to be able to justify a block on-site, but they can do what they like off-site in the run-up and aftermath, and even if an undeniable connection is made between the off-site and on-site activities no action can be taken. This "responsibility" principle should be self-evident and has already failed in this case. The block couldn't be justified and was overturned, but it appears an air of suspicion hung around !! in the wake of the failed block until the off-site correspondence was revealed. The proposed decision does nothing to remedy that, whatever your good intentions. By sanctioning Giano you make it easier for those who would have shut the the discussion down before any enquiry. He appears to have stated his intention to leave if sanctions are applied and it seems there are few, if any, editors that show his determination in getting to the root of the matter. Next time this happens we'll get the conversation archived and be told "Nothing to see here, move along." (And I thank you for reconsidering, whether my arguments had anything to do with it or not. I shall now stop bothering you ;) ). Andplus (talk) 14:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova used the list to votestack support for her blocks[edit]

Note the last diff in the note that has been circulated, if you have a copy of it. If not, visit WR, as they have a copy of it. She's very clearly demonstrating (and advocating) votestacking in support of controversial blocks. Mr Which??? 18:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm well aware of that. She's been de-sysoped and publicly humiliated. Her methods have been formally repudiated and treated with appropriate scorn. I'm not convinced that any further action could do any good. Mackensen (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? We could tried and get her fired from her job, or give her home phone number to the GNAA. I hear waterboarding is not supposed to be all that bad. Thatcher131 18:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even in context, isn't that going a little far? ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thatcher was being sarcastic. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing. Thatcher131 14:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The US Attorney General nominee was asked by a senator if Waterboarding was "going a little far", and responded that he wasn't familiar with the technique. I was attempting a joke, which fell on its face per WP:NOTE. Me = fail ^_^. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, sarcasm is tough to pull off in a text-only environment. Subtle jokes in response to sarcasm is downright impossible! But nice try anyway... —Wknight94 (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]

On a lighter note...[edit]

Hi, I saw your article Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti Street Railway is up for DYK. Very nice! Lar and I ate lunch across the street from the building in the photo just a few weeks ago. Pretty little town and great burgers! - Epousesquecido 04:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)[edit]

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 02:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

Updated DYK query On 2 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti Street Railway, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 02:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom activity question[edit]

Hi. I saw on WT:RfAr where you indicated that you were going to be inactive on cases opening this week because you didn't think they would finish before the election, and I responded to you on that talkpage. But then I just noticed on my watchlist that you moved yourself to active today. Please clarify? Thanks, Newyorkbrad 04:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I salute you[edit]

I know, because yours was the only name up there when I first attempted to register my vote. LessHeard vanU 00:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lost diff...[edit]

I noticed your question on the Workshop page, with you adding this link here. That confused me greatly (see here), until I noticed that diff didn't show three intermediate revisions. I initially thought Hoffman had added all those posts in one go, which might look like overkill to some people. I do remember seeing someone quote that diff somewhere before, but can't find it now. Did you possibly quote that diff from another page? Oh, and not many people may have noticed your question there. you might want to notify Adam of the question (actually, I've pointed it out to him). Carcharoth 02:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was quoting from someone's evidence. Mackensen (talk) 02:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found it here. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Carcharoth 02:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C to K[edit]

Hi, Mackensen! {{C to K}} is a part of the set of "x to y" conversion templates, which are maintained as an alternative to {{Convert}}. The main reason for that is the preference of some editors (who, apparently, are too lazy to type in the whole "convert" syntax and prefer "x to y" instead :)), as well as maintaining a healthy competition in hopes to foster innovation (a plan which so far has worked splendidly). The set was developed when {{Convert}} was still in its infancy and originally provided features pretty much identical to what Convert offers now. However, these individual templates are ultimately capable of much more than straight "convert" (see {{ft to m}} for an example), and I am planning to expand their feature sets in the near future, making them even more streamlined that the current version of "Convert". While you are quite correct about "C to K" not presently being used anywhere, it is only because it does not do anything beyond what "Convert" is capable of. Once its feature base is expanded, that may very well change (or not :)). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shoring up your term[edit]

Charles,

I read the signpost, and I've noticed the fast clip of finishing up cases over the past couple of weeks. Despite the fact that you're not running for reelection, I saw that you have contributed to your share of judicial effort during your last weeks on the job. Good show. I hope that the freshmen arbiters prove themselves to be as dedicated as some of the outgoing ones.

All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pittsburgh Light Rail[edit]

Hi, I noticed your contributions to Pittsburgh Light Rail. The Light rail in North America has a section dedicated to Pittsburgh's light rail system but it is not written. What's needed is a 1-2 paragraph summary of the whole light rail system if you'd like to write it. Cheers.--Loodog (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at Matthew Hoffman[edit]

[6] Bishonen | talk 14:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Loco Infobox[edit]

Hi Mac, Just wondering if you know how to make a default image appear of no image is chosen. I've been fooling around with User:Dp67/Templates/Test (a simuloid infobox locomotive) for my own learning experience and can't seem to get it to happen, feel free to tweak it if you like.. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong. Always turns out a bunch of garbage in the image field. If I can figure out all this if, then, else and what have you stuff on templates I've got a few ideas I'd like to play with. So far it's got me baffled. (which doesn't take much these days! lol)

Tnx! --DP67 (talk/contribs) 13:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks! I changed the default image size to 200, 300 is a bit large. I've got a few other ideas but I've got to do some more reading up on template design. It's been a while since I fooled with any scripting languages, I used to play with allot of Perl and Java, so hopefully if I stare at it long enough I 'll be able to get back into it..
--DP67 (talk/contribs) 21:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So far, so good. I've changed the image to 200px, it seems that even if the template default size is set to 200px, if the editor puts in | imagesize = with no value it still overrides the default size and places the image in its original size. I also figured out how to make a few of the most common options appear even if no value is given. It adds a reminder prompt for a name if one is not given, and for power type if none is given. If no gauge value is given it automatically fills the field with standard gauge specs. Now I am trying to figure out how to use multiple possibilities. Example: If the user fills the | builder = field with EMD an EMD link is automatically inserted, likewise for a value of BLW, ALCO, etc.. Basically, I'm trying to make the infobox easier to add, as well as provide as much info for the reader as possible with as little effort by the editor which will hopefully in turn become a better experience for the reader. Might be another pointless task, but at least it keeps me busy.. lol
--DP67 (talk/contribs) 04:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, another question... I've got the builder field worked out using {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{buildername....... now I am trying to do the same with the AAR wheel arr. and it won't work.. The field disappears completely from the template. Can #ifeq only be used once even if the parameters name has changed? Not sure what's going on.. Thanks!
--DP67 (talk/contribs) 13:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
D-OH! Fixed it.. I forgot a line of code.. :D --DP67 (talk/contribs) 13:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CTA articles[edit]

Personally, I think that the color border look better but I agree with you that the info box is easier to use. If there a way to have the color border around the infobox without using the old format? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zol87 (talk • contribs) 09:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It might be possible to work something out. Let's stick with the newer infobox, and I'll play around with the borders. Mackensen (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your post[edit]

Was this really necessary?[7] I had already explained that the question had been intended as good faith conjecture and had offered to withdraw it if it gave any offense. It was never my intention to poison the well, as you call it, and I try to be particularly scrupulous about avoiding logical fallacies since I have a low tolerance for them. Yes, I erred last month. I've been admonished formally and am very sorry for my mistakes. If you want me to strikethrough, please say so without casting aspersions on my motives. DurovaCharge! 03:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, it wasn't necessary, but then neither was the entire thread. Doc is well known for being sensitive over BLP issues and upfront in his motives. It may not have been your intention to poison the well but by creating the spectre of a legal issue where none exists, where the subject of the article has raised the matter of legal action before, does exactly that and hardens the resolve of people who treat this as a battleground. Mackensen (talk) 11:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My only intention was to consider possibilities proactively. It mystified me that the page had been deleted without discussion after stable compromise had been so difficult to achive. The cleanest solution that sprang to mind was the legal angle since that could have trumped everything else. I didn't know why he would have failed to mention such a thing, but the alternative before me was that he had unilaterally opened the door to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war 2. I trust he acted from the best of motives, but neither alternative was particularly appealing. You're right about how we don't need another battleground. He hasn't asked me to strikethrough so I'll leave that alone. DurovaCharge! 12:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

State/Lake (CTA)[edit]

Hi. Nice work with the infobox at State/Lake (CTA). Back in the summer of 2006 when I first started adding infoboxes to CTA articles I couldn't work out how to do the header without hand-coding, which is why all the CTA stations ended up with hand coded infoboxes. Although I was OK with the change to a standard template I always thought that it was sad to see the coloured header go, as it was modeled off of the station signs. Thanks, —Jeremy (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFCU Clerk[edit]

I'd like to help out at RFCU by clerking some. Is that OK? I took the liberty of moving a request over after checking that it was formatted correctly. I don't want to overstep. Also, if useful, I'd like to be able to check the irc channel for clerks and checkusers.

Thanks JodyB talk 21:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not presently active as a checkuser. You might try asking Deskana or Lar. Best, Mackensen (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will. -JodyB talk 22:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible bug in CTA header[edit]

Hi. I applied your new infobox to Bryn Mawr (CTA). This station lacks a photo and the infobox seems to add a lot of white space to the top of the article. I tested adding a photo and that gets rid of the white space. I don't think that I have a good enough understanding of the infobox markup to try to fix it myself. Thanks, —Jeremy (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've fixed it. It's a known issue with parser functions, the noinclude tags, and extra whitespace. Thanks for the heads-up. Mackensen (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoffman decision questions[edit]

I don't normally trouble the arbitrators to precise-ify me on their individual votes, as they don't particularly matter. However, I read this forming decision and found myself feeling out-of-kilter with a few of your comments. I wonder if I might mention a few things about your comments that made me 'pay attention'? (I'm using your talk page as it's not about the decision at large, but copy it there if you prefer).

  • Principle 5. I'm thinking that if acted upon with vigour this is likely to sow the seeds for the construction of a new paperwork operation for the review of blocks. I'm not so sure that would work out well in the end, as most processes come to be 'owned' by a smallish number of editors/admins and thence begin to idiosynchronise (new word?) with them.
  • FoF 5. Just wondering what you mean by 'purely negative declaration'. You're removing some other interpretation I can't see from the words in the finding. Are you saying it's not like the Scots 'not proven to be a puppet', but an actual 'is not a puppet'?
  • Remedy 1.1. The big one. I would normally expect to see "a long litany of offenses and infractions has been compiled" in the 'support' section, irrespective of whether the admin was 'warned' or not. Assuming Adam Cuerden intended to act in the execution of his best judgement, then evidently his administrative judgement is not adequate to the task; this is not particularly a function of 'schooling' from the admin corps after RfA, and that though no-one set out to attempt to educate in an appropriate way, it seems to me that this does not transfer the blame for the litany of offenses to the community to such an extent as to suppose no active remedial move is needed for the admin who pressed the buttons. At some point, the effect of on-the-fly feedback to an admin to improve and correct is less than the blaring horns of the standing policies and conventions they must have been very aware of in the first place. (And enough of these waggy-finger/everyone-be-lovely/cheer-up 'remedies', already). [I mean all this last point in terms of the contents of your comment, rather than necessarily trying to persuade you - as in, I get where you start from, but not how you finish up where you did].

Not that you asked for my opinion, but there you have it. Splash - tk 23:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm hoping no new bureaucracy springs up from principle 5; it's more a reaction to a perceived failure of the review process. Principles aren't especially actionable in themselves anyway. With FoF 5, all I'm saying is that there is no evidence that Hoffmann is a sockpuppet--not proved is a good description, actually. He might well be a puppet, but there's no evidence for it. We're in no place to state that he is not a sockpuppet. This is semantic overkill, I suppose. On remedy 1.1, you might see the feedback principle I've just proposed by way of explanation. If no one ever tells you that you're doing it wrong, then you'll just keep doing what you're doing. Mackensen (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson Park (Metra-CTA Blue Line) article[edit]

I've just started a sandbox for the proposed article on the combined Jefferson Park (Metra-CTA), and I'm sure it could use some cleaning up. Let me know what you think it needs. --DanTD (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOR Arbitraton request[edit]

You are probably correct to reject arbitration.

There is something that (in my mind) the arbitrators (singly or collectively) can do that would be beneficial. There is a clear policy that partisans to a dispute are not to lock a page. That has happened with respect to NOR. It may be happening now - I don't know (I dropped out of the discussion months ago.) It's against policy; it should not happen.

What arbitrators could do would be take full charge of NOR with respect to locking. I think it's locked now. It could remain locked, but with the understanding that only arbitrators can lock/unlock the page until some future time, when it might revert to normal status. That would avoid the opportunity (they'd no doubt call it a "need") for partisans in the dispute to engage in locking. I would hope that the page could be unlocked relatively soon - with the option to lock still remaining, but only to be done by an arbitrator if it is done. I think that if both sides of the dispute are aware that they cannot fall back on what is actually a forbidden action to favor the respective points of view that they would have a far greater incentive to actively engage in productive discussion. You surely can see that if a partisan who wants to preserve the current wording arrogates to himself the power to lock the page in its current state that partisan will have a rather limited incentive to engage in honest discussion. That has happened in the past, may be happening now. I suggest that the focus be on the future and that in the future the opportunity for that misbehavior be removed.

I suspect that this has never been suggested nor seen as one of the functions of arbitrators. If those engaged in the discussion agree to the suggestion (as I would think almost all would) that could be a positive step toward resolution of the dispute, a step that continues to avoid the messiness of a full involvement by the arbitrators. Both resolution and the avoidance of messiness are positive results. I think it's worth doing and I don't think (but cannot know) that the step would be considered an overstepping of authority by the arbitrators.

Thanks for your time. --Minasbeede (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:S-rail[edit]

Hello,
To salvage many articles written for Ido about the Seoul metro I wish to place the very good templates of the english wiki. But the are problems for example at Dongdaemun_Staciono. Can you please have a look. Regards. 216.86.113.233 (talk) 13:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The remaining problem is the other stations still red (even if their page exist). 216.86.113.233 (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prairie Crossing (Metra)[edit]

Did you know there were two Prairie Crossing Stations too? Here's the other for the Milwaukee District North Line(http://metrarail.com/Sched/md_n/prairie-crossing_libertyville.shtml).----DanTD (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yep. I'm going line-by-line at the moment; I've finished North Central and I've starte on Milwaukee District West. Mackensen (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. When the one for MD-N is done, you can always move this to a redlink for the Prairie Crossing NCS that I've got in the "To Do list." I've got to give you credit, though. You and TheCatalyst31 are moving pretty fast with these. I'm still trying to get more info on the history of the Jefferson Park (Metra) station, so I can prepare for merging it with the Jefferson Park (CTA Blue Line) article. I took my sweet time with a lot of the Long Island Rail Road station articles. ----DanTD (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, we're moving fast, but they're really stubby. I just don't know enough on the subject to add more (like which former railroads the service runs over). I'm going to go ahead and move the Prairie Crossing article now. Mackensen (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom Proposal[edit]

Hi Mackensen, Have I answered all your questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#Proposal for an "Arbitration Committee Public Complaints Commission". --CyclePat (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the elapsed time since we started the discussion I will assume that we no longer have anymore questions for each other? Thank you for you feedback on this proposal should you wish to add a final rebutal please feel free to click the above link. Farewell. --CyclePat (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Fusion Decision[edit]

The practical result of what has been done to the cold fusion article is the public will get misleading information on the current status of cold fusion. Since cold fusion is something that can be a major benefit to the human race, this is a serious error.

I have decided to give up on Wikipedia. PCarbon seems to me to have the patience of a saint. PCarbon has told me that he is also quitting Wikipedia. I will admit that cold fusion is a complex and unique issue. I think that most people who do not have at least a bachelor’s degree in the physical sciences or engineering would have a hard time grasping it. However there are many notable exceptions to this rule.

Pons and Fleishman made their announcement in March of 1989. The announcement was to protect The University of Utah’s patent rights. Some important information like the palladium alloy they used and the length of time it took to get a result (weeks) were not released to protect patent rights. Many scientists understood the significance of the discovery and scientists all over the world began experiments. Pons and Fleishman had been reproducing the experiment for five years and did not expect the difficulty others would have reproducing the experiment. Expectations were raised very high, and when a lot of positive experimental evidence was not appearing, there was a backlash. In the scientific world editors of journals have a lot of power, since scientists must publish or perish. The editor of Nature and other editors decided that cold fusion could not be real, that it was an embarrassment to science and that it needed to be squelched immediately. They also concluded the end justified the means. The used de facto censorship, name calling, and tried to ruin the careers of people who advanced the cold fusion idea. For this reason many of the scientists who continued to work on cold fusion, were retired, had tenure, or worked in another country where the witch hunt was not active.

Even while this political assault was under way, Nature refused to publish a positive result on the grounds that the issue was already decided. Melvin Miles had an initial negative result which he reported to the DOE committee. The DOE committee told the world about this negative result. When Melvin Miles later reported a positive result to the DOE committee, the DOE committee reported the result to no one.

This is how the “consensus” and de facto censorship came about. Cold fusion was done in by the political method, not by the scientific method.

The experiments have gone on for 18 years. Something like 3500 scientific papers by hundreds of scientists with PhDs in physics and chemistry have been written. Since 1992 nuclear transmutations with unnatural isotope ratios have been found. These nuclear transmutations are proof that nuclear reactions are occurring. More heat, tritium, He3, and He4 has been found. Some x-rays, gamma rays, and charged particles have been found. Reproducibility has improved.

Now some comments about Wikipedia. When working on the cold fusion article I have merely tried to include the experimenters’ point of view. I have not tried to censor or delete the skeptics’ point of view. I have tried to create a NPOV article.

I have a problem with some of Wikipedia’s rules and how they are applied. The rules do not show a grasp of the scientific method. Wikipedia has a nest of self appointed scientific censors that do not have a grasp of the scientific method. The scientific method is that experiment is the reality check of science. The only logical proof against experiment is experimental error. Consensus, existing the theory, and expertise can cast doubt on an experiment, but they are not a logical proof that negates experimental evidence. To imply other wise is a use of the political method. Your “undue” weight rule is seriously flawed. It seems to favor consensus over truth and does not give experimental evidence its proper weight. The principal of “information suppression” is well described in the NPOV Tutorial. Wikipedia does nothing to stop “information suppression.” Wikipedia claims that NPOV is its highest principal, but it does not enforce it. Apparently consensus is its highest principal. Truth and facts do not make the list. I do not see how content dispute is not a NPOV dispute. I do not see why “information suppression” is allowed under content dispute. “Content dispute” just seems to be a buzz word for doing nothing. I was told by one of your admins that if Wikipedia had existed in the Middle Ages, it would say the world was flat. If this is true, you should put this statement on your home page as a warning label.

You seem to be overrun with censors who like to throw around words like pseudoscience, pathological science, proto science, and fringe science. These are nonsense words. There only purpose they serve is political name calling. It is not all that complicated. If you are following the scientific method you are practicing science. If you are not following the scientific method you are not practicing science. If you make mistakes while following the scientific method, you are still practicing science.

There are ways that Wikipedia can improve their product. Wikipedia could change its rules to incorporate a sense of the scientific method and give experiment its proper weight They could stop using old censorship to justify new censorship. They could bring their nest of scientific censors under control. They could stop publishing articles on controversial science or new science since they cannot do it competently. They could issue warning labels. They could stop “information suppression”. They could enforce NPOV. They could resolve disputes with people who are scientifically knowledgeable and do not have a censorship passion or axe to grind. However Wikipedia does not seem to be interested in reform. Ron Marshall (talk) 03:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Dropped lines"[edit]

Hi, Mackensen.
See this [8].
When archiving, user Miranda has dropped several lines (the suspicious accounts and IPs).
It says, "please do not modify it". I suppose that only admins can change something there. I'm not an admin nor a user Miranda that archived it, so I'm referring to you, because I saw your username in conclusing part of the case.
I believe those dropped lines should be restored.
Sincerely, Kubura (talk) 09:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buon Natale e buon anno! Giano (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom ancient history question[edit]

Best of the season to you, Mackensen. On seeking an answer to a question I had about IRC and Arbcom's relation to it, I found comment by you indicating that there was a case prior to October 2006 in which it had been determined that Arbcom had no authority over the IRC channels. By any chance would you recall which prior case that was? Thanks in advance for your assistance. I'll watchlist your page so you can reply here if you prefer. --Risker (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giano. Thatcher 01:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Thatcher; however, the link above is from the Giano case, and Mackensen indicates that the principle had been stated prior to that. I'm looking for the case that came before Giano. --Risker (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it predates Giano. The case I had in mind was Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Njyoder, way back in 2005. It's interesting reading. Arbcom is of course not bound by precedent, but I note the case as a demonstration of Arbcom's consistency on the question. Mackensen (talk) 03:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom line, really, is that Arbcom is interested in off-wiki activities only as much as they demonstrably affect Wikipedia in a manner not otherwise obvious. To move from the abstract to the concrete, if an administrator makes a bad block, it's frankly irrelevant if they discussed it off-wiki beforehand. The latter is unprovable, uncontrollable, and immaterial. It's a bad block; sanction and move on. You cannot possibly control off-wiki communication; any attempt to do so is just plain silly. All you can do is set appropriate standards for on-wiki behavior, because that's something for which we can hold people accountable. The Arbitration Committee has ruled consistently on this point for years, because there's no sensible alternative. Mackensen (talk) 03:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back to me, Mackensen. I will read the above-noted case with interest. Carcharoth has also provided me with some further references specific to IRC. I very much appreciate the assistance you and he (and Thatcher as well) have given me in furthering my understanding. Risker (talk) 03:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology[edit]

I apologize for my comment in the RFAr thread. My suggestion was meant in good faith, but it apparently started a pile-on, and under the circumstances, I should have anticipated this. I have struck out my comment and one of the other users has apparently done the same. Hopefully the argument will be confined for now. I trust that the Arbitration Committee will use its good judgment in determining both the name and disposition of the case. *** Crotalus *** 20:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you. I think we're all going to have approach this case carefully; tempers are high and there's history here, most of it bad. Best, Mackensen (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I echo the apology. I overreacted to Nick's "tiresome" comment. Regards, Mr Which??? 21:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson Park (Metra-CTA Blue Line) article revisited[edit]

I just received an e-mail from somebody involved with the Jefferson Park Historical Society, who has a little more info regarding the railroad station. His name is Frank Sureth, and he sent me a link, which I've added as a reference.

The original Train Station was built at ground level and built sometime in the 1800’s. The photo at our website http://jeffersonparkhistory.org/ Could have been the first station house built. It is the earliest photo we have. Thanks for your interest in Jefferson Park history.

Regards,

Frank

So, do you think those separate articles are ready to be merged into this new one now? --DanTD (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Excellent work there. Yes, I think it's all set. Mackensen (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did it. Granted, I did get tagged for copyright violations by CorenSearchBot, but I sent a reply that I hope cleared things up with them. ----DanTD (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbitrationCommitteeChartRecent[edit]

There was no way to show that without having your name overlap with Dmcdevit's. I moved both yours and Essjay's to the bottom, just below Dmcdevit, to try and show that you both were added after Dmcdevit left. I would have rather kept it the way it was, but there wasn't an easy way to show that. Ral315 (talk) 06:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IRC arbitration case[edit]

Hi, Mackensen. Reading the IRC workshop page is a major pain because I have to keep scrolling up and down to read your comment, their response, and then your response to their response. Could it be refactored so it's easier to read, or is that just the way things are done on the workshop? hbdragon88 (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, the whole system is arcane and hasn't scaled well. We've (the committee) talked about adopting a new system, but it didn't seem right to try it on a high-profile case. For the moment let's leave it be. I expect I'm done commenting at this point anyway. Mackensen (talk) 05:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

Updated DYK query On 31 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Iron Range and Huron Bay Railroad, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 13:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mackensen/Archive15&oldid=1139366207"