User talk:Ral315/Archive 19

edit History Archives: Dec. 04 to Feb. 06 Mar. 06 to Feb. 07 Feb. 07 to May. 08 Jun. 08 to Present 2004-2005: 01 · 02 · 03 · 04 · 05 · 06 · 07 · 08 2006: 09 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 2007: 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 2008: 29 · 30 · 31 · 32

Admin coaching

Hi Ral!

On the recent Esperanza MFD (which was deleted successfully, BTW), you !voted delete, with the comment "Admin coaching isn't worth a keep (it's an RFA helper, not an adminship helper)". Admin coaching was one of the few programs which was not deleted.

Because I am an active admin coach, and because I would like to see this program be successful, I'm requesting feedback from you on ways in which Admin Coaching might improve. Your above comment indicates you believe admin coaching doesn't help a candidate learn about adminship (using the buttons, etc), just helps them during RFA.

Could you possibly take a look at some admin coaching sessions and point out potential problems that could be avoided in the future? For example, if there was something you specifically objected to, or something you felt should be added, we could address that, and improve the program. Here are some examples of Admin coaching sessions which I have participated in: My admin coaching page (June '06) Ginkgo100's coaching page (Oct '06), Exir's coaching page (Oct '06), Fabrib's coaching page (current). (Feel free to seek out others yourself; each admin coach has different techniques or ideas, and this may not be a representative sample).

Feel free to leave comments on my talk page or on the Admin coaching talk page. Best wishes and happy editing! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 22:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Large donor

I'm afraid that I don't have any more information than you do; all I did was pull the data off C.O.R.E. I'll try getting some more information from someone, but in the meantime, I would suggest contacting Mav, Danny, or the entire Fundraising Committee (fundcom, email list at fundcom-l at wikimedia.org, I believe) for this. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I've just asked for clarification on this matter to the ComCom, and I'll let you know if there are any updates. However, my instinct is that this is the anonymous donor - it seems (unless I just can't find it) that the initial donation of $$186,648 has been removed from C.O.R.E., and any mention of stocks in the $286,800 donation has also been removed. There's also a handy-dandy search feature allowing you to specify a minimum donation amount to search for that has been added to C.O.R.E., which makes finding these large donations a lot easier; I've also asked to see if they can add in a sort-by donation amount feature as well. Finally, you should probably also note a few of the other large donations we've received (a $25,000 donation being the largest after the anonymous donation.) Thanks again! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Esperanza

Hey! It's been--a year!-- since I talked to you. =) Do you think that the link to Wikipedia:Esperanza on Talk:Esperanza is still necessary? Esperanza is officially inactive.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 03:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Etiquette for others editing Signpost stories before and after publication

I sometimes notice typos and stuff in Signpost stories after publication, and have corrected a few in the past. I recently noticed that it is possible to watch Signpost stories developing if you read Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom and follow the links there. I recently followed a link to here (nice pun in the title!) and spotted a missing 'were' here: "Even early in Esperanza's history, there worries about the organization's bureaucracy." I thought about correcting it there and then (always tempting on Wikipedia), but then decided to drop you this note instead. I know there can be a grey area between obvious typos and more subtle changes that you would want people to avoid, so I thought I'd raise the general etiquette question with you as well. Thanks. Carcharoth 13:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Template

Thanks for letting me know. Just H 20:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

I am Ral315 on freenode and I would like the cloak wikimedia/ral315. Thanks. --Ral315 (talk) 06:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Iran-Iraq War

Out of interest, do you know of any other cases that have been dismissed for lack of evidence? I don't, but there may have been some before my time. David Mestel^(Talk) 09:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Pi users

Pi * 10 ^ 6 users, nice :) -Ravedave ^{(Adopt a State)} 16:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia Page

There are many unaccurate information in Saudi Arabia's page. Would you be willing to work with me in improving the page and stopping the vandalism? All what I need is an editor who can edit my writing to make sure there are no grammtical or stylistic erros. Arabiainfo 18:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

*whack* Don't use AWB for non-controversial edits.

Now I'm going to have to go find and revert all the removing that you've done. If you're going to depopulate the template, discuss it first. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow. No wonder we've got so much drama around here: A tool that you're only allowed to make controversial edits with! Cool.
brenneman 04:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Haha, I didn't notice that. Ral315 (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert. I thought it was odd I could even do that. Plus, I've got a touch of the ole' OCD when it comes to copy...and thumbtacks...it's a long story:).Nina Odell 05:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost and WP:OWN

The bylines on Signpost are a violation of WP:OWN as they are now without some kind of caveat. However, i'm not sure how to proceed now as I do not want to get into an edit war with you. I'm thinking of an RFC for the project, but i'd like to find some kind of middle ground with you before going that route. Just H 06:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply

1. I did initiate discussion, you can see it right above. Talk pages are hit or miss depending on what part of Wikipedia you're in to get feedback from, with user talk and article talk being much better than project talk it seems.
2. So basically you're saying, as long as it isn't in article space, and as long as it has something vaguely related with wiki, it's "mine": basically copyrighted to myself? When I see that byline up there, that's what that connotes to me if it "belongs" to somebody.
3. What about all those other people who made edits to those signpost articles? Why not include them in the bylines or in a sub-byline(minor edits by..."blah")? Just H 06:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply #2

Why would an RFC be a threat? For users, I can understand what you mean, but I do not understand why you would take it personally in terms of the Signpost -- I was under the impression that non-user RFCs were there to gather a broader consensus to make something better.

My apologies for not trying the talk pages first, I'm somewhat jaded with project space talk pages.

However, I can still not understand your logic on how article space is different from project space in terms of "ownership". If you pour a bottle of water into the ocean, how can you tell where the water from the bottle ends and the rest begins?

That's what a wiki is to me, at least from what i've seen at Wikipedia, and it appears that the Signpost is written in a wiki format rather how traditional newspaper articles are written -- it seems like it should be treated as such. Just H 07:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost

Since you seem like a main contributor to the Wikipedia Signpost, I thought I'd let you know I've left a comment at Talk:Wikipedia Signpost discussing my proposal for a new scheme at the paper.

Hope you like it, and I'd appreciate your input on it.

Cheers and regards,
Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 14:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Never mind - Daniel Bryant and I have set it up and are currently running it [myself]. Thanks anyway. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 14:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Follow the teachings of Jesus--

Don't be a dick.

I'm sorry, that chapter of Matthew must be missing in my bible :-) Ral315 (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost error intentional?

Eh? *confused* --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 23:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Experanza, as in Ex-, meaning "former", "now gone" etc. See Ex-. It was a little confusing to me at first, too :) Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Publishing date for Jan 8/9

Which one is it? The header says "Next issue (January 8)", but the clock says "The deadline for story completion is Tuesday, 17:00 UTC (holiday schedule)" - Tuesday is January 9. Are we still going to be on "holiday schedule" for another week, or are we going back to the Monday timeframe? By the looks of things, you may have forgotten to update Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Time, but I'm not sure. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, cheers - F&A is ready for publishing. I readded the link at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom, because Anthony appears to have removed it when he added the comment about the interview...by the way, I withdrew from that because I'm not sure how effective it will be, and I can't afford to waste time on it if it does flop. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For all your tireless work on editing the Wikipedia Signpost; for finding the time to write at least half the articles for it as well; for being supremely patient with writers (such as me) who don't meet their deadlines; and for managing, in addition to all this, to help write the encyclopedia. David Mestel(Talk) 22:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thought it was time someone recognised you for all your work, and this barnstar seemed somehow appropriate ;) David Mestel^(Talk) 22:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD on Monty Hell problem

You seem to have neglected to create the AfD page and give it an entry on the daily log. --Trovatore 00:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Yes. Do you think I have snowball's chance in hell? David Mestel^(Talk) 16:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom interview from jpgordon

1. How do you feel about getting the opportunity to serve on the ArbCom?

   Grateful for the trust that's been put in me; apprehensive about the scope of the real work ahead.

2. What do you think of the election? Do you think they were conducted properly? What could have been improved, in your opinion?

   Seems to me they went smoothly; at least, I didn't notice any glitches that mattered.

3. What would you say to those who supported you? Opposed you?

   I hope I can perform to my supporters' expectations. Those who opposed me mostly had good reasons, and hopefully some will find their opposition unfounded.

4. What do you think of the other Wikipedians who were appointed along with you?

   They're an interesting and pleasant mix of personalities and opinions.

5. After about two weeks on the job, what are your initial thoughts?

   Theres some messy stuff out here. Encyclopedias are easy; people are hard.

6. How active a role do you plan to take on ArbCom workshop pages, and in writing ArbCom decisions, a role that has historically been handled mostly by just a few individuals?

   I'm thinking I'll be fairly active; it's the public face of ArbCom, which appeals to me.

7. What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom? Weaknesses?

   Too soon to tell.

8. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?

   Mm-mm. I'm not falling for THAT one again!

9. Do you plan on finishing your term? If you had to make a choice right now, when your term expires, would you run for re-election? Why or why not?

   I plan on finishing it. If I had to make a choice right now about running for re-election, I'd say "hell no", because I don't have adequate information with which to make such a commitment now. Two weeks on the job says nothing at all about what three years will feel like.

10. If there's one thing you could say to the Wikipedia community, what would you say, and why? Is there anything else you would like to mention?

    Back in the days of FidoNet, the only two rules were "Don't be too annoying. Don't be too easily annoyed". It's a good way to live. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

answers

1. How do you feel about getting the opportunity to serve on the ArbCom?

   It is, at the same time, an honor and a huge responsibility.

2. What do you think of the election? Do you think they were conducted properly? What could have been improved, in your opinion?

   I continue to believe that the project would be better served by an election process based on a secret ballot. I think that the open voting leads to unnecessary WikiDrama. I have believed for some time that the RFA process is due for review, and have started Wikipedia:WikiProject on Adminship to that end. Using an RFA-like voting process for the arbitration committee, while having the benefit of familiarity, poses many of the same problems RFA itself does.

3. What would you say to those who supported you? Opposed you?

   I would like to thank everyone who voted. I am going to do my very best to avoid having the votes, pro or con, affect my feelings about any user who chose to vote.

4. What do you think of the other Wikipedians who were appointed along with you?

   I believe that we are fortunate to have elected and appointed an excellent group of people, in spite of using an election process with many flaws.

5. After about two weeks on the job, what are your initial thoughts?

   I've been reflecting on the diverse nature of the arbcom. All the people who are involved care deeply, very deeply, about Wikipedia and its sister projects. Yet we have widely varying biases and approach problems in differing ways. I think that's one of our strengths. I've also been pondering the best way to improve the overall collaboration environment at Wikipedia. Some cases are better vehicles to serve as a catalyst for change than others.

6. How active a role do you plan to take on ArbCom workshop pages, and in writing ArbCom decisions, a role that has historically been handled mostly by just a few individuals?

   I believe that my early involvement in these areas speaks for itself.

7. What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom? Weaknesses?

   I think its strengths include fair process and community support. Its weaknesses include an inherently slow decisionmaking system.

8. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?

   At this point, I am unconvinced that I'm smart enough to make a change that would be sure to improve things. I believe I'll make some suggestions on how we write up cases, and on ways to speed up the process, over the coming months.

9. Do you plan on finishing your term? If you had to make a choice right now, when your term expires, would you run for re-election? Why or why not?

   I do plan to finish my term. I have no comment regarding a possible re-election bid and do not anticipate that I will have any comment on such a possibility until the end of my current term approaches.

10. If there's one thing you could say to the Wikipedia community, what would you say, and why? Is there anything else you would like to mention?

    Administrators are powerful. People in positions of power should treat those who are relatively less powerful with constant respect. It makes me cringe to see people being mean to others who are in weaker positions, whether on Wikipedia or in real life.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

My answers

1. How do you feel about getting the opportunity to serve on the ArbCom?

   I feel both honored and the weight of responsibility.

2. What do you think of the election? Do you think they were conducted properly? What could have been improved, in your opinion?

   The elections went more or less smoothly. There was some negative campaigning which I thought was unhelpful.

3. What would you say to those who supported you? Opposed you?

   I think most voted responsibly and deserve everyone's thanks for participating.

4. What do you think of the other Wikipedians who were appointed along with you?

   I really don't know most of them very well yet. I'm sure they are all good folks.

5. After about two weeks on the job, what are your initial thoughts?

   It's a difficult job.

6. How active a role do you plan to take on ArbCom workshop pages, and in writing ArbCom decisions, a role that has historically been handled mostly by just a few individuals?

   I intend to contribute wherever I will be most useful, but I hope to be active in all areas.

7. What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom? Weaknesses?

   Too soon to say.

8. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?

   I can't think of anything specific I would change just yet.

9. Do you plan on finishing your term? If you had to make a choice right now, when your term expires, would you run for re-election? Why or why not?

   I hope to finish my term. Three years is a long time. I would guess by then I will be ready to turn over the job to some one else.

10. If there's one thing you could say to the Wikipedia community, what would you say, and why? Is there anything else you would like to mention?

    I would like all of us to realize that wikipedia is not some giant internet adventure game, but serious work that effects the lives of millions of people throughout the world. And I would like us all to appreciate just how wonderful, unique and important that work is. We should all feel both a sense of pride and a sense of responsibility.

Paul August ☎ 07:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

WIkiCast , Signpost, and license compatibility..

Hi Ral315,

Have drafted the following in attempt to resolve the issues regarding content reuse. - http://www.bitshuffle.org/wikicast/Template:GFDL

I have no objections to GFDL on WikiCast, and as Signpost (text) is wholly GFDL already, it's not that difficult to seperate the relevant script page.

Any progress with Greentryst on planning?

ShakespeareFan00 12:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Signpost interview

1. How do you feel about getting the opportunity to serve on the ArbCom?

   Honored and grateful.

2. What do you think of the election? Do you think they were conducted properly? What could have been improved, in your opinion?

   It seemed to go as well as might be expected. There were a few unpleasant incidents, admittedly, but they're probably unavoidable in any open system.

3. What would you say to those who supported you? Opposed you?

   I hope to fulfill the expectations of everyone who voted.

4. What do you think of the other Wikipedians who were appointed along with you?

   We have a very good group of new appointees; I have nothing but the highest respect for all of them.

5. After about two weeks on the job, what are your initial thoughts?

   It's a lot of work, but interesting enough to make up for it.

6. How active a role do you plan to take on ArbCom workshop pages, and in writing ArbCom decisions, a role that has historically been handled mostly by just a few individuals?

   I'm hoping to take a quite active role in that aspect of the process.

7. What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom? Weaknesses?

   The ArbCom is made up of people with a diversity of views; this is a great strength, but is also the cause of much of the delay in the process.

8. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?

   Too soon to say, I think.

9. Do you plan on finishing your term? If you had to make a choice right now, when your term expires, would you run for re-election? Why or why not?

   I have every intention of staying on for my full term. As far as re-election goes, it's rather too early to say.

10. If there's one thing you could say to the Wikipedia community, what would you say, and why? Is there anything else you would like to mention?

    I would prefer to interact with editors outside of my role as an Arbitrator; so please be nice to one another!

Kirill Lokshin 05:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:User would smoke

Hi Ral—you speedy-deleted this template, and I've just closed a TFD pertaining to it here, assuming that your speedy deletion was the final judgement. Because it has been deleted before, and was apparently recreated, you may want to consider salting it. Cheers, The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 04:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Interview questions

1. How do you feel about getting the opportunity to serve on the ArbCom?

   I am honored to have this opportunity and great responsibility, and hope to serve well.

2. What do you think of the election? Do you think they were conducted properly? What could have been improved, in your opinion?

   In general, I think it ran extremely smoothly, even though there were a few "bumps" along the road. It was an improvement over last year's elections, when I remember moving all the voting and candidate subpages to a standardized form less than 24 hours before the voting, which had already been delayed for weeks, was to start. Thanks to everyone who helped, asked questions, and expressed their opinions by voting, the election was a success.

3. What would you say to those who supported you? Opposed you?

   I thank those who expressed confidence in me, and also thank those who opposed for taking time to give their honest feedback and opinion. For those who supported, I hope that I will meet - and even exceed - all of your expectations, and for those who opposed, I hope I will improve in those aspects you pointed out. I also appreciate everyone leaving comments and suggestions in their votes; I have read those and will take those suggestions seriously.

4. What do you think of the other Wikipedians who were appointed along with you?

   Wikipedia is lucky to have so many great, intelligent, and reasonable people willing to serve, and I look forward to working with all of the ArbCom.

5. After about two weeks on the job, what are your initial thoughts?

   It's been extremely hectic (but interesting), and things have been extremely complicated. There has been no shortage of opinions on our mailing list on a few issues, and the emails keep on flowing in. However, throughout all of this it strikes me that there are so many great people on the Committee, all of us working together for the best interest of the project.

6. How active a role do you plan to take on ArbCom workshop pages, and in writing ArbCom decisions, a role that has historically been handled mostly by just a few individuals?

   As I promised during the elections, I will do my best to assist in this area, although as of now I'm still "getting my feet wet", as the saying goes. (We also haven't accepted any cases since the election, an odd coincidence that is allowing me to examine the current cases - in which we're all automatically recused - with great detail.)

7. What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom? Weaknesses?

   The main strength is having so many dedicated people collaborating to find a way forward; however, this is also the primary weakness, as the abundance of opinions may sometimes lead to delays and standstills.

8. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?

   To quote Dmcdevit, "Hunger, poverty, war... Oh, about arbcom you mean?" It's too early, though, for me to make a meaningful suggestion at this point, although I would probably advocate changes expediting the process and making it less bureaucratic.

9. Do you plan on finishing your term? If you had to make a choice right now, when your term expires, would you run for re-election? Why or why not?

   Yes, I do plan on finishing the term; I've made the commitment, and unless the situation changes in some drastic way, I intend to fulfill that commitment. It's also too early to tell what will happen in (a little bit less than) three years.

10. If there's one thing you could say to the Wikipedia community, what would you say, and why? Is there anything else you would like to mention?

    You mean besides how familiar these questions are? In all seriousness, though, I would implore every Wikipedian here to keep in mind the spirit of the project. Whether you are an administrator, arbitrator, editor, writer, or janitor (or any combination of those, indeed), we are all here volunteering our time to improve this great project, dedicated to spreading free knowledge around the world. Conflicts will arise - that is inevitable. But what we can do is to treat all other people, especially other Wikipedians, with the greatest and utmost level of respect and politeness, and to assume good faith for everyone here. We're all here to write an encyclopedia, and though our methods may differ, our ultimate goal remains shared. Whether you are writing here on a wiki, or discussing on some other forum like IRC, please, please, remember to be courteous to everyone else, and to extend the same respect even to those who aren't currently present in the channel. Disagreement is fine, but disparagement is not. The next time you are involved with a heated debate, take a step back, and look at the situation. Take Essjay's creed and apply it, even when you are off-wiki; stop and smell the roses - look at the amazing progress we have gone through, and then think about the situation again. You are a Wikipedian. You can help us change and improve this project. You can be proud to be a true Wikipedian - civil, hardworking, and dedicated. Thank you.

Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Answers to interview questions

1.How do you feel about getting the opportunity to serve on the ArbCom?

I am delighted and honored to have the trust of the community for this important position.

2.What do you think of the election? Do you think they were conducted properly? What could have been improved, in your opinion?

Overall I think the election was well run. I'm a little concerned about the small number of female candidates. I believe that there is one less female on ArbCom now.

3.What would you say to those who supported you? Opposed you?

I ask them to give me positive and negative feedback so I can do this job in a way that reflects the desire of the overall community.

4.What do you think of the other Wikipedians who were appointed along with you?

I'm just getting to know some of them for the first time. Having Wikipedian with a variety of different editing backgrounds and skills sets should serve the community well.

5.After about two weeks on the job, what are your initial thoughts?

The committee is dealing with some tough cases now. Overall I am pleased with the way the old and new members are working together to solve the community's concerns.

6.How active a role do you plan to take on ArbCom workshop pages, and in writing ArbCom decisions, a role that has historically been handled mostly by just a few individuals?

I plan to do my share of writing ArbCom decisions. I was familiar wilth many of the open cases from my work as a clerk, so I started voting on those first that already were written. In the past, I commented on Workshop pages and will continue to do so in the future.

7.What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom? Weaknesses?

A strength is that the members of the committee all have the community's best interest in mind and take their work seriously. A weakness is that cases are slow to finish sometimes when there is very little left to do on the case.

8.If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?

Nothing so far. The new committee needs time to settle in before we make changes, I think. Having a clerk or ArbCom member keep watch on a case and more aggressively push it towards completion might be helpful.

9.Do you plan on finishing your term? If you had to make a choice right now, when your term expires, would you run for re-election? Why or why not?

Yes, I plan to finish my term. My term is for two years since I replaced Mindspillage making me more likely to run for re-election, I think. Otherwise, nothing has made me more or less likely to run again.

10.If there's one thing you could say to the Wikipedia community, what would you say, and why? Is there anything else you would like to mention?

I would like to reiterate my delight at being chosen by the the community and Jimbo. Also I encourage Wikipedians, especially females, to think ahead to the next ArbCom election. Familiarize yourself with the committee policies and assist with the current cases. Hopefully this will give the community a broad base of quality candidates to choose from next year.

All done. Take care, FloNight 16:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Questions

1. How do you feel about getting the opportunity to serve on the ArbCom?

   I feel honoured and surprised to be appointed. Also, it is a large responsibility, so it makes me more conscious of my actions.

2. What do you think of the election? Do you think they were conducted properly? What could have been improved, in your opinion?

   I thought they were conducted properly according to what was agreed beforehand, and given the system which we have at our disposal, it's surprising and very pleasing that distasteful practices were much less widespread than they could be, which is a credit to the community and something to be proud of. Aside from the unregulatable phenomena of negative campaigning, one thing which I feel can be remedied is that of people posting misleading and false statements in oppose votes to generate negative momentum and scare off the electorate (eg, of pushing POV on articles the candidate did not edit, organising sockpuppets, etc). I personally feel that having a system where the voter submissions are made invisible until after the voting period would make this tactic mostly obsolete.

3. What would you say to those who supported you? Opposed you?

   I hope that I can fulfil the expectations of those who supported me. I thank the opposers for being frank and giving me a piece of their mind, as a more comprehensive understanding of community sentiment can only help yield better results. I hope I can allay the concerns as to my suitability via my performance, and people are welcome to give me feedback, advice or criticism very liberally on my talk page or privately, especially if they did not give an explicit reason for their opposition.

4. What do you think of the other Wikipedians who were appointed along with you?

   I have never worked with any of them previously, but I have observed them in action from afar over the last year and have been extremely impressed by and respect them for their judgment, maturity, article contributions, organisational skills, work ethic and wisdom. I think the elections produced a very good result.

5. After about two weeks on the job, what are your initial thoughts?

   It seems like a large responsibility and a lot of work, especially because of the changeover, but I am confident that it will smooth out over time.

6. How active a role do you plan to take on ArbCom workshop pages, and in writing ArbCom decisions, a role that has historically been handled mostly by just a few individuals?

   I do think that the workshop pages can be useful, so I intend to use them perhaps more than has been done historically, as I think it's useful to have discussion prior to the final decision. I do intend to help write the decisions on the new cases.

7. What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom? Weaknesses?

   I think that the strengths are mainly diverse representation as well as the community and arbitrators viewing its role seriously and thus examining things comprehensively to try and get the most effective solution. Speed is often a problem, mainly due to slow processing.

8. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?

   As far as the arbitration process goes, it's too early to tell.

9. Do you plan on finishing your term? If you had to make a choice right now, when your term expires, would you run for re-election? Why or why not?

   I do intend on finishing my term, and am not thinking about the December 2008 election.

10. If there's one thing you could say to the Wikipedia community, what would you say, and why? Is there anything else you would like to mention?

    I would like to say that irrespective of what "positions" anybody holds on Wikipedia, the objective of the project is to write quality encyclopedia articles. Thus, everybody is an editor, first and foremost, and everything else is secondary and should be geared towards this. I certainly think of myself first and foremost as an editor and hope that the community thinks in the same way also. I guess the saying "It does not matter who is right, but what is right" is relevant here, as it is the content the world sees which is important, and that we would become a lot more efficient in getting closer to our goal if disputes were not framed in terms of personality, politics, winning and losing, etc, even if it is unspoken and psychological. I don't think that there is room to be complacent about the future success and growth of Wikipedia and everybody should always be looking for improvement.

Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

Apologies for 'correcting' your vote at Ryulong's RfA. I assumed it was a numbering error, but Gracenotes fixed it and Ryulong pointed out that you withdrew the vote. The only reason I can give for thinking that the numbering had been messed up is that the vote hadn't been struck through, which I thought was normal. I should have checked, and will do so next time I think there has been a mistake. In fact, I'll probably contact the !voter in question instead of rushing in to correct. Apologies again. Carcharoth 11:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Noimageforcd.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Noimageforcd.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Alex valavanis 14:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have listed this image for deletion as there is already a PNG image in use on many thousands of pages, including the album infobox. Thanks for contributing to the project and I hope you understand my decision. Alex valavanis 14:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost

Hi, i added my user-name for the signpost but i haven't got any yet. Could you please help me for my subscription? Thanx in advance. Best wishes. E104421 10:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanx mate, cheers! E104421 15:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you liked the interview questions. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Spam question

Regarding this edit — why is that link spam? It seems pretty useful to me. Mikker ^(...) 05:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I can see why you removed it as spam then. In this instance, as you say, the link is useful, so I'll reinstate it. Mikker ^(...) 03:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Your Edits

Ral315. It's sad that you make deletions to things for which you obviously have no knowledge in. I've already conversed with multiple moderators regarding All in the Family entries and you delete them anyways. Sad. Be careful, your edits regress Wikipedia for those topics unclear to you. --Edlisataylor 04:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Nofollow

I'd have to dig for the exact context in which he said it, I was basically cribbing from my story of two years ago. If it was in a post to wikien-l, or an edit on Wikipedia, he may well not have specified exactly but still mostly had the English Wikipedia in mind. Supposing that projects are allowed to choose different courses of action on an issue, then Jimmy isn't always in the best position to know what's the best course of action for non-English projects, and it's particularly the English Wikipedia on which he has a special role to influence such things, regardless of office or title. --Michael Snow 05:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

RfC -- Attack Pages

I noticed that back in october you changed the attack pages guideline. I opened an RfC regarding the unintended consenquences of that change, and I'm interested in knowing what precident precipitated the change (or why). I hope we can get your input at the RfC I opened. Thanks! /Blaxthos 07:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost

I just spoke to Trodel about helping him to do ITN. This could help me write the Wikiproject Report. What do you think? -- Punk Boi 8 07:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This was not approved by me - no need for you to respond --Trödel 14:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Digest feedback

You asked for feedback, so here's some. I think having the full text of articles in the digest would encourage me to read more articles, but because emails don't have wikilinks, it discourages me from exploring further into the matter. Goes in one ear, gets a little bit of thought, then gets DELETED! Hmmm. — JeremyTalk 10:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Support Our Families

You deleted Support Our Families saying it was a recreation of a deleted article. The only thing the same between what you deleted and the deleted article was the title support our families. What brought your attention to it and why did you delete it? Steve.fami.ly 07:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If you would be willing to restore the listing I would be willing to remove the reference for which you accuse me of being promotional and rewrite the entire article appropriately - also, I wouldn't have a problem with working in a sandbox area on it until it met your standards - I don't know if you have this kind of a feature or not but it seems like it would be useful considering the headache I have had trying to contribute a valid political slogan in the main namespace. Thank you. Steve.fami.ly 17:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I started a new article for support our families and put it in the category political terms instead of political slogans. Could you paste the first paragraph of my last article (including references) to the bottom of this sandbox? I was thinking of using a couple of sentences from it as part of a history section. Thanks Steve.fami.ly 18:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

signpost - John F. Street v. Bozo the clown

That wasn't the 1st addition of the clown entry, it looks like it was added once before [1] and stayed for *6* days! -Ravedave ^{(Adopt a State)} 16:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

about deletion of List of tools for static code analysis

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of tools for static code analysis. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. I don't think 10 minutes discussion was enough to delete the page! Cate | _Talk 18:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

image on wikinews - n:Image:Olympic rings.png

I'm going through the images in the english wikinews, deleting all the badly sourced images, duplicates, etc. Is their a reason for this image, or can I change it to the svg version? Bawolff 02:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Itsnotagame.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Itsnotagame.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 07:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Clevelandcover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Clevelandcover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 14:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Thugstories.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Thugstories.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 14:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost

Hi, Ral315. The problem continues, the last version was not posted to me. Could you please check this again? Thanx. E104421 20:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Why the bot skips mine not any other? I'm wondering whether this is a random or systematic error? Should i re-subscribe? Regards. E104421 03:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Nathanrdotcom

Just so you know, I'm happy to subscribe to your cleanup of the report. David Mestel^(Talk) 15:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair 'nuff. Oh, and check your e-mail ;). David Mestel^(Talk) 15:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:W2

Just wondering but did you forget to delete the template as per Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#January 21. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikiality vandals

Vandalism at Wikiality - suggest revert/protect. - JustinWick 04:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Also Truth and likely many other related items. - JustinWick 04:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The Colbert Report

I'd suggest a protect from new user edits for this page too. Cornell Rockey 04:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Reality protection

You protected a vandalized version. See first section heading. Noclip 04:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that several of the transcluded templates on Reality are not protected, particularly Template:Bias, please protect ASAP. /blahedo (t) 04:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Massive cascading protections

I've unprotected your usrpages that were cascading full protection to almost 100 pages, including ones having nothing do to with Colbert. I fully understand the need for emergency protections like this, but by now most of the pages needing protection have had explicit protections placed, and been properly tagged. — xaosflux ^Talk 06:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it's a good idea though, a big red colbert STOP button, if it needs to be used again, perhaps a 1-3 hour auto expiration would be good, should give enough time to have the other pages. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-01-29/Microsoft's_Wikipedia_standards

I thought your reporting on the recent Colbert issue as:

Outside the immediate orbit of affected parties, real vandalism was promoted by one of the usual suspects. The Colbert Report's Stephen Colbert mentioned the story on Monday (using "wikilobbying" for his recurring segment, "The Wørd"), and encouraged users to edit articles to state that "reality has become a commodity". Vandalism ensued, with pages relating to "reality", "commodity", Colbert, and others quickly protected. A similar incident occurred in late July and early August (see archived story).

rather misleading. Regardless of the issue of whether or not that show caused an increase in vandalism, it should hardly be left unsaid that the show itself is clearly satirical (and regularly makes suggestions with no intent of people actually following them) — that falls far short of promoting "real vandalism" (I also think the term "real" is a bit of a stretch here). I know cleaning up after the latest brigade of vandals can be annoying, but any media attention also means genuine contributors will be drawn to Wikipedia, and find that it's not as susceptible to vandalism as all that.

RandomP 10:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sing - ahem SIGNpost...

Just curious; are we really removing subscribers who take a 3+ week break, as I just did? Or did I misinterpret your edit summary, thanks! Glen 11:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)