Revision as of 12:24, 6 June 2006

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

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21

Older stuff Initial run 28th Feb 2003 – 13th Feb 2004, 15th Feb 2004 – 05th Aug 2004, 06th Aug 2004 – 15th Sep 2004, 15th Sep 2004 – 23th Nov 2004, 25th Nov 2004 – 10th Mar 2005, 10th Mar 2005 – 11th May 2005, 11th May 2005 – 11th Aug 2005, 11th Aug 2005 – 07th Nov 2005, 07th Nov 2005 – 23rd Feb 2006 Arbitration items 28th Feb 2006 – 10th May 2006, 12th May 2006 – 16th Sep 2006, 05th Nov 2006 – 03rd Mar 2008, 07th Mar 2008 – 18th Jan 2009 IRC items 27th Jul 2006 – 16th Sep 2006, 2nd Jun 2007 – 10th Mar 2009 General items 25th Feb 2006 – 10th May 2006, 12th May 2006 – 24th Jul 2006, 25th Jul 2006 – 16th Dec 2006, 22nd Feb 2007 – 03rd Mar 2008

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Non-Arbitration matters

Add new item

Invitation to comment

As per your comment , I'd like to invite you to comment on whether user:William M. Connolley has abused his power as an administrator to use the rollback button to remove my messages on his user talk page. Thanks in advance. — Instantnood 20:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

My views on the rollback priviledge are well known; it is generally inappropriate to comment on specific cases where one has nothing novel to say, and particularly so when one's actions are percieved throught the prism of the mantle of Arbitration duties, so I choose not to contribute to this particular situation. My apologies if this disappoints you.

James F. (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks anyways. :-) — Instantnood 22:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The meaning of OW

To my knowledge, OW stands for "Old Waynflete", and refers to an old boy of Magdalen College School, Oxford. I have no idea whether MCS has a Royal Charter allowing the use of these letters; is it necessary? Tamino 13:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It is to use them in anything other than an informal context, yes. :-)

James F. (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

cloak

can you set a cloak for me on irc? Whopper 21:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course. It is easiest if you contact me on IRC, however.

James F. (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

#wikipedia-en-admins

Hi, James. Could I be given access permissions for #wikipedia-en-admins please? Thanks. —Whouk (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course. It is easiest if you contact me on IRC, however.

James F. (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That channel is still in use? Wow! Do otrs or office people still come there?

In any case I've switched to #wikipedia-en. No more need to log in, and I actually get decently fast admin response there! :-) Kim Bruning 00:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and yes. :-)

James F. (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, so Travb was spamming, but...

Is saying something bad about TBSDY doubleplusungood? SushiGeek 23:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Vote stacking for a deletion debate and an attempt to overturn legal policy? Please - in removing the item, I've done him a favour, saving him from (some of) his embarrassment. :-)

James F. (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Where exactly does he mention any deletion debate in the comments you removed from SushiGeek's or my talk page? Regardless, it's kind of pointless to revert someone's user talk page edits, since the "you have new messages" notice shows up anyway and people get confused (particularly if you fail to leave an explanation in your edit summary, which is arguably inappropriate anyway). Better to respond on the talk page advising of the evils of vote-stacking. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

At which point we get debates across tens of pages, Eek!

Hmm, how about a link to a central point? Something like a heading on this talk page, for instance. Would that be a good idea in future? Kim Bruning 00:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Ummmm

Pardon me, but why are you deleting messages on my user talk page? Jtmichcock

See above; it was part of a failed attempt to vote-stack, and such things are normally removed for everyone's sanity.

James F. (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of comments from my talk page

I am fully capable of censoring my own talk page thank-you. The user in question made fair comments, although I do not support such campaigns. Even though I do not necessarily agree with him, he did nothing to warrant having his comment removed. There was no vandalism, there were no personal attacks... As far as I'm concerned, YOU are the only one who broke a rule. I see that you've deleted comments by travb from many pages. Why? Did he call you a bad name? Or is a petty grudge for some other reason? I ask that you respect the conetent of my talk page and only act if a serious rule has been broken or a violation committed. I happen to like to have the ability to read what's there. --Arch26 04:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

See above..

James F. (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleting talkpage messages

You deleted a message from my talkpage. Why? And why, even if you had reason, did you not leave a note that you had done so and explaining? Please don't do that again. I like to read all messages left for me, regardless who leaves them. Grace Note 05:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

See above..

James F. (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Autoblock

Thank you for unBlocking me, but the Autoblock is still blocking me my IP is 67.87.251.76. Please unblock it. (I am Using AOL To post this message Lovely Bypasses).--E-Bod 02:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Done at the time.

James F. (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

ok

Are you there as James F? I never seem to catch you there. IS there a way i could get one here, or have a time during the weekend soon? Whopper 03:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Easiest thing to do is send a memo on IRC, but I am going to be online for most of this weekend.

James F. (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Help on page of Falun_Gong

Hello, Samuel Luo is chronically reverting others. He threatened that "well, we can keep doing this until someone stop us." I don't want to get in a war with him. But the issue is he destroyed my hours' step-by-step edits.

Could you please kindly provide some idea? I don't know other ways. Thank you very much. Fnhddzs 00:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the problem is solved. Thanks! Fnhddzs 18:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't do anything, but... sure. ;-)

James F. (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

IRC, Skype, Exilim

I'll get on IRC again when I have one of them copious free times, I'm still trying to work out how to get the headset to work (Linux recognises it, now to find which shiny rotatink SVG ikon in KDE kontains the prokram to make it work ... probably I should just try the Skype binary) and I haven't had a chance to low-light-test the EX-S600, but it does unbelievably good MPEG-4 video and apparently it comes with a bonus charger. Gosh! - David Gerard 05:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure you will. ;-)

As to the camera, any update?

James F. (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, invite

Hello, effeietsanders has nudged me to ask you: I wonder if you would would be interested/have time in september (september 3, if memory serves) to come over to the netherlands and speak at the m:Wikimedia Conference Netherlands, which wikimedia netherlands is trying to set up? Kim Bruning 05:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, erm, err, possibly. Not sure what I'd talk about. :-) If you think I'd make a good contributor, I'd be happy to pop over, though.

James F. (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well done

elements cross-posted

You could have asked anyone to do that, but instead you chose to involve yourself, and also chose not to mention to anyone that you had done it (least of all, myself, per my request).

Quite frankly, I'm not even remotely surprised at your behaviour, and that really rather saddens me.

James F. (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Read what you wrote on my page. Now pretend I was saying that to you. It all still fits except alot moreso. You could have asked anyone. You could have talked to the people who had gone before. And you could have reacted in a less angry and dismissive way. You are in the wrong here James. Two weeks with no edits from Locke Cole and you decide it is time to goad him again about how he hasn't left? Not editing is a pretty good sign of actually having left. Leave him alone. --CBDunkerson 18:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I looked for you on IRC (and I hate IRC), but apparently you aren't around. I'd prefer not to make this a big thing where we bring in 'outside opinions' to re-decide again what was previously decided for the second time (and other redundancies), but if you seriously think that undeleting the page serves some purpose other than aggravating him and keeping him around to request it's deletion again then we can do so. I just don't see how the answer will be anything different than it was last time. --CBDunkerson 20:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree - I was involved. I was, indeed, already involved. You, however, were completely uninvolved in this manner until you decided to go charging in, and ignored a direct plea (that was essentially directed at you and no-one else) not so to do. I agree completely that I erred in doing it myself, but you erred both in bringing yourself into a situation wherein you were comprimised and in deliberately provoking a wheel-war when none existed, as well as your actual action itself; all I merely did was follow policy where I had a minor stake in proceedings. Nevertheless, I'm sorry if I upset you - it was not in any way my intent.

I wasn't aware that Locke hadn't made any actual edits with his account for two weeks until after you went against my request - had you pointed this out to me, I would (of course!) have undone my actions. However, you evidently don't get the emails - I'm very happy for you, and, certainly, envious. But to say that Locke has actually left the Wikimedia bubble is... well, probably not true. Which is sad, because I don't want Locke to have to float around in the ether - I want him back, making a difference and helping with the project, along with the rest of us. I do find it rather odd that you seem to think that I have some sort of vendetta against him, though... where did you get that impression from?

And you really didn't try hard enough if you say that I'm not on IRC - I'm currently connected to over a dozen Wikimedia channels. :-) Out of curiosity, why do you hate IRC? I find it a most wonderful, free-flowing medium wherein useful and rapid discussion and agreement can take place...

James F. (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'd had some minor involvement in the issue a few weeks ago when someone undeleted Locke's talk page, protected it, and wrote a note saying that if he wanted it redeleted he could join the discussion at AN/I... but someone else had at the same time blocked him, which would prevent any response to AN/I or on the protected talk page. The block was justified so I left that in place and unprotected the talk page to allow any desired communication. Technically 'wheel-warring', but the cumulative effect of the two admin actions was clearly not intended by either of them.

However, the issue became moot, and I had thought was settled, when shortly thereafter Jimbo said the debate over 'how gone he was' should end and deleted the page himself. I would dispute your claim that 'no wheel-war existed' prior to my action... it was to stop the wheel-war which was already ongoing (as is readily apparent from the page histories) that Jimbo stepped in. This was actually the second time you undeleted the page and others had done so as well following corresponding re-deletions... that's a wheel-war. Which had seemed to end with Jimbo's action until you undeleted again.

That your plea was 'directed at me and no one else' was not apparent from the text (and might better have been placed on my talk page)... and... you requested that others consider other actions before re-deleting, and I did, but I chose not to because that seemed less disruptive than making a 'federal case' out of it on AN/I or elsewhere. As I said, there was a previous discussion there wherein I and most others involved put in their thoughts and the matter was seemingly closed following Jimbo's action. Reopening that again seemed to me worse for all involved. On the 'no intent to upset me'... so you were saddened but not surprised that my behaviour was so good and didn't mean to imply that it was otherwise? :]

My concerns about your impartiality in the arbitration stem from a comment you made on the QIF MfD which seemed to indicate an assumption of bad faith about the people involved (of which Locke Cole was one of the most prominent) and then, as you know, I have specifically questioned the rulings. The 'judgement calls' on 'is/is not' harassment and 'is/is not' misuse of admin powers are one thing... such differences of opinion are common (though I think that's a reason for much greater caution in making such subjective judgements), but the bit about Locke Cole 'misrepresenting restrictions on Netoholic' is another. I'm sorry, but I see no way that such a ruling can be valid. If the fact that the restrictions were 'completely lifted' was not publically announced, and Netoholic himself was (by his statements) unaware of it, then it is simply not proper to hold Locke Cole to account for failing to disclose what he could not know. You assign a nefarious motive to his not mentioning the repeal when instead he simply didn't know. Finally, on this RTV issue specifically... you acknowledge that you shouldn't have taken action. Yet you did. Does that not to speak to emotional investment? Which... is also just rather to be expected following being the target of pronounced incivility.

You think that I am "compromised" on this issue, but if that is so then it must be doubly such for you. No? I actually consider myself a fairly neutral observer here... my only dog in this hunt was my view that 'hiddenStructure' should have been abandoned and removed after Brion disputed the 'server load' concerns about 'meta templates'... which has since been made moot by #if: and has nothing to do with any of the issues at hand.

On IRC; somehow I had until now managed to avoid the knowledge that more than a dozen Wikimedia channels exist. :] I tried '#wikipedia' and fled when I didn't see your name on the list (though I did get to chat with Morwen about old times). As to my dislike - it isn't for the means of communication so much as the substance. It seems that nearly every time I go on I see people bad-mouthing others in the most egregious ways. --CBDunkerson 23:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Need for a "massacres" category?

Hi there. As someone who took part in this CfD, I'm notifying you of a discussion I've started at Category talk:School massacres. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks. Carcharoth 11:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Interesting discussion.

James F. (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

#wikipedia-en-admins

Hello : - ) Could you give access to #wikipedia-en-admins? FloNight 23:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If you contact me on IRC (I'll probably be away, but will action when I next get to the terminal), that'd help.

James F. (talk) 23:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, me too, if you don't mind. Thanks in advance! --Lord Deskana 18:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This has now been done. Hopefully. :-)

James F. (talk) 23:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg new revert war at Ahmadinejad and Israel

I would like you to take a look at the removal by Jayjg of a section in the article. This section was first inserted in mid April, when the speech was widely reported internationally. Jayjg removed it not only without suggesting an alternative, but did not make any mention of the fact that he had removed it in the discussion section. That major change was first discussed after two reversions by other people when I brought it up in the discussion section. I restored it to the state it had existed for six weeks pending a compromise being reached in discussion but it was reverted by a different user. I removed all quotations except one so that the section fit better with the others. Jayjg reverted that also. I find this behavior offensive from anyone, especially an arbcom member. TopRank 16:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The section in question was just a near verbatim reproduction of an uninteresting speech by Ahmadinejad; as part of a cleanup of the article I removed it and explained clearly why in my edit summary. It was subsequently moved to Wikiquote. The removal has also been discussed at length on the Talk: page. None of that constitutes "Jayjg new revert war", and your spamming of this duplicate message on the Talk: page of every single ArbCom member is highly disruptive. Jayjg 17:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; I fail to see how I, as an editor who deliberately stays away from such areas, would be in any way a sensible person to contact with regards to sorting any confusion and upset involved in editing around this subject.

James F. (talk) 12:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sozza?

Found an article sozza about a word that doesn't seem to exist (although the author does helpfully link to aestivation, which is basically what he/she is desribing). At least, the OED doesn't think it does (the whole one, not your namby-pamby pocket version) and the only link when googling it is back to Misplaced Pages. I bring this to your attention because... err... I don't know what to do about it. Tag for deletion?

Viki

--Viki 17:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)