User talk:Jdforrester
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "User_talk:Jdforrester".

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

Arbitration matters

Add new item

Active?

*takes his old Clerk hat out of storage* Should you be moved back to active on any or all pending cases? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Have done it myself. But yes. :-)

James F. (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

PHG

Hi James. I am asking you to reconsider your judgements at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision. It has just been made clear that a large part of the accusations made against me were based on a false claim being made by Elonka and Arangar about a name "Viam agnoscere veritatis" being used for a multiplicity of Papal bulls Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis#Untangling (arbitrary section break). Both were making a false claim, intentionally of not, and have been using this claim to motivate a multiplicity of editors to make depositions against me (here, here and the numerous "Viam agnoscere depositions of the Workshop page such as [1]). It's clear that the discussion heated up (on both sides) but it turns out I was right to dispute their misrepresentation of historical facts. I challenge judgements which are based on such false evidence and manipulation. Another recent case of Elonka obviously misrepresenting sources has been exposed here Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Introduction. All my contributions are properly referenced from published sources, and if sometimes we can have differences in interpretation, nobody has been able to identify a single case of fabrication of sources or whatever (as demonstrated in User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed, embedded responses [2]). I am asking you to think twice before believing the accusations of such editors. Regards PHG (talk) 11:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Please view Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision for a update of these issues. PHG (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Will follow-up there.

James F. (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

James, hi, I had a question about the amendment that's currently being discussed, regarding PHG.[3] Would "everything, not just articles" mean mainly that he should stay off user subpages, or would this be restricting him from history article talkpages as well? Or are you talking a site-wide "all page" ban? Thanks, --Elonka 03:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification in IRC case

I have requested clarification in the IRC arbitration case here and am notifying you as a recused arbitrator who was involved with the case. Carcharoth (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Have posted there.

James F. (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Weird Edit

I know arbing matters are above my head, but did you mean to replace all of Kirill's comments here [4]? MBisanz ^talk 09:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[Posted below; merging. James F. (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)]

You replaced all of Kirill's votes with your own, just so you know. Bellwether ^B_C 11:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that as well. He probably edited an old version of the page by accident. Carcharoth (talk) 11:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Can anyone boldly fix it, or does it have to be an arb? Bellwether ^B_C 11:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• The new version of remedy 1.1 needs to be restored also, along with some copyedits I made. If James or Kirill doesn't pick this up, someone post a note on AC/CN. I'd fix it myself but I'm travelling today with limited access. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoops. Have now fixed.

(Darn, now it's rather more obvious that I work on cases for hours at a time and come back to them before saving - not sure why this didn't just edit-conflict.)

James F. (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

User Page

Hi James. You seem to be arguing on Arbcom for my User Subpages to be included in my restrictions from editing Ancient History or Medieval History articles. Please note that I manage vast quantities of images from museums around the world (such as User:PHG/Metropolitan Museum of Art), which indeed could be interpretated as "related to ancient history". I have however been "encouraged" by the commity to keep contributing such images, as well as material for Talk page discussions and suggestions, and User Subpages are an essential means of achieving this. Could you kindly reconsider? Regards; PHG (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in answering.

I understand your concerns, but I hope you can see why we feel the need to impose a further clarification of the retrictions. I'm not sure that such image categorisation shouldn't take place on Commons, anyway.

James F. (talk) 12:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Postpone closing of ArbCom case?

Dear Jdforrester,

I saw that now 4 arbitrators have already moved to close. If I understand correctly, the case will be closed at 15:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)?

I love Wikipedia's concept: The sum of human knowledge is just that: the sum, not the subtraction. I believe we wikipedians of all colours are going to be able to differ violently in opinion and at the same time work together in an atmosphere of camaraderie nevertheless and respect one another. These conflicts are burning editors out, myself not the least. We need help to find the way back to the core policies of wikipedia, which are there to prevent these conflicts and to warrent the creation of high-quality, neutral articles by due process.

It was not I who invited the ArbCom to this matter, but now that we're there, I would welcome a solution to the ongoing conflicts. I believe my proposed principles are in line with Wikipedia Purpose and Policy: Would you be inclined to continue on the case and see whether you can rule on some of the Proposals I and other editors have made? Perhaps the ArbCom would be willing to consider my Proposed principals 3-11? The most simple one, and quite important, would be nr. 3:

(POV tags are not there to point to dissensus amongst reliable sources, but dissensus among wikipedia editors.)

Would the ArbCom be able to rule on this? Reminding the other editors (4 of which are valued admins) that this is how wikipedia works might be of help in resolving the conflicts and informing our readers about the status of the article.

PS See also this, at the bottom.

 — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Decision

In the Tango case, most of the parts have a majority vote, but there are a few parts that will need voting from other arbitrators who have not gotten involved in the case (yet). If you will be voting on the case, I'd like to make a request for your vote on the parts that do not have a majority: principle 4.1 or 4, principle 5, and principle 9.1 or 9 (or if you'd like to make a proposal, then that). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Y Done

Homeopathy case

Would request you check the "Motions and requests" section in the workshop for this case - I would particularly like some clarification from all ArbCom members on the 2nd request by me - Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Requests page

Particularly from clarifications, amendments & appeals, the requests page has been clogged up recently. I'm going to remind you (or inform you) of some cases that may need your attention, views and reasons, or further discussion to try to fix this problem. Once the page is less clogged up, then that's that :) You may find the links to the cases mentioned at {{RfarOpenTasks}} - created by one of the clerks, AGK.

Currently, there are 2 requests which require arbitrator attention, one involving IRC voting, while the other involves "Episodes and characters". Regards - Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Retraction of a charge against Dana Ullman (the homeopathy case)

Thank you for participating in the Arb case on homeopathy, even though you have voted for banning me for a year.

Sam Blacketer also voted for this one-year ban, and in doing so, he noted serious problems from one of my seemingly erroneous edit summaries.[5] However, FT2 alerted him that my edit summaries were accurate,[6], and Sam retracted his statement. Further, PhilKnight showed good faith in retracting these same charges that he had on the Evidence page. However, because Sam felt strongly enough about the seemingly erroneous edit summary that he made a comment about them, I asked Phil if he would contact the Arb committee members who have voted in case this (false) charge influenced your opinion. [7] Instead, he has suggested that I do so. [8] If, by chance, you too were influenced by the charge of bad faith summary edits, please note that this has been proven to be inaccurate.

Finally, although I have made some errors on wikipedia, I do not feel that they are serious enough to warrant the proposed one-year ban. Due to limited space, I am unable to reply to the many other erroneous charges against me, and I therefore ask if Arb committee members have any specific questions or concerns about my participation here for which they want my reply, I urge you to simply pose these questions or concerns before placing your final vote. DanaUllman^Talk 16:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed the case, but I'm afraid that the correction notwithstanding, my opinion holds. Sorry.

James F. (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Appeal - PLEASE HELP

It is high time that the abuses against the unjustly banned user "Gibraltarian" were dealt with rationally and fairly. My ban was brought about by a troll user's malicious complaint, and he continually vandalised any words I tried to post in my defence. I appeal to you as Arbcom member to please contact me on a_gibraltarian@hotmail.com to discuss the matter.

This is a massive injustice, and only allows others to continue to assert factually incorrect, malicious, offensive and POV items about my country.

Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.120.246.83 (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You are still banned. I am not really the best person to ask to have it over-turned; the Committee has decided as a whole that we do not think it would benefit the project to release the ban, and I agree with my colleagues in this matter. Sorry.

James F. (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Guy

Though you appear to mean well, this is a spectacularly dumb idea. The Cla68 case is about C's pursuit of Slim Virgin and others s/he perceives as abusive, among other marginally related crap. That JzG also happens to fall into Cla68's peculiar crosshairs should not mean that the totality of Viridae's concerns (and, more importantly, the concerns of the 76 who endorsed Kirill's RfC statement) can or should be subsumed by the Cla68 mess.

I should note that I have no strong opinion on the merits of Viridae's request. I personally find JzG a largely uncooperative, incurably foul-tempered and occasionally helpful bully (who has even helped me on occasion); I don't specifically wish to see him sanctioned--I merely wish to convince you that combining the two cases would be needlessly messy and does nothing to address the community's genuine concerns about this admin.

The JzG problem should be dealt with separately or (more likely, knowing the way things work around here) not dealt with at at all. By the way, if you need a replacement for Newyorkbrad, you know where to find me. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the toss can be argued both ways; however, I see the root cause as something with which we should deal in a holistic fashion.

James F. (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica Linking

Could you please clarify the statement you made here? Are you saying that you agree with the general sentiment expressed by FT2, but agree with Krill that the issue should be left to community discretion? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarification:

• The Arbitration Committee does not, and should not, decide content.
• Per Kirill, "we stated fairly clearly at the time that our prohibition on linking to ED was contingent on there not being a legitimate article on the site".
• Per Kirill, "the existence of such an article was a matter for the community to decide".
• Per FT2, the community's decision such as it is - that no such link should exist - should stand, though this conflicts with our general policy of neutrality.

Sorry that this wasn't clear.

James F. (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up for us. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision - CAMERA LOBBYING

Ready to close - 2 votes made already. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Err, yes. There really isn't a need to spam my talk page with the news - especially the wrong one. :-)

James F. (talk) 11:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed this - seems like I wrote that a long time ago. I think I'd wanted to give a quick nudge in case you miss(ed) the update, and so you could submit your vote to close (or not) sooner. Sorry about that...but I'm not sure what you mean by the wrong one? While I'm here, I'll also remind you (or inform you in case you didn't know yet) that some closing votes have been cast for Footnoted quotes - hopefully the case is closed soon. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I created Template:ArbComOpenTasks merely so that I could use this to keep up with cases easily, so... ;-)

I paginate my talk page; you left the comment initially on the non-Arbitration, non-IRC talk page. No worries, though. :-)

The Footnoted quotes case is subject of quite a lot of private discussion (and both public and private representations, indeed), hence my holding off, but yes.

James F. (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Apologies :X and cheers. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

urging

You are marked as active on the case list. Although I don't see any contribs by you over the weekend, or even very recently... I urge you to get active. I see no reason for any arbitrator to be engaged in anything at all other than getting this matter resolved. Routine sock blocks, discussions of names of users, and the like should be, in my view, left to others or deferred. Your highest priority, each and every one of you, ought to be talking through this and coming to a resolution. Please. I posted this first at FT2's page and FT2 indicated he is waiting on responses... the longer this festers the worse it is for everyone... ++Lar: t/c 15:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ground Control to All Arb.s (a friendly request for comment)

I wanted to ask you to please consider posting some of your responses, or feedback to the current arbcom situation - I don't think it's massively hyperbolic to note that this really is in many ways a Wiki Summer of discontent (well actually winter for us southern hemisphere types...).

I believe it's the right thing for you, and all other committee members, to be doing right now - I don't think the community as a whole are getting the benefits of any private discussions, and I believe they, and the individuals named in the various debacles around the place, deserve much, much better.

I entreat you to consider signing up as available to offer thoughts, or answer some short, focused, questions. I would also ask you to consider contacting the Wikipedia Weekly team, or the 'Not The Wikipedia Weekly' team, if you might be available for a short voice conversation.

It's my view that communication really really matters, and I think there's an urgent need for arb.s to step up.

cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Have given some feedback on the page you've suggested, though it saddens me that we don't get asked these questions more frequently - it shouldn't take on-wiki drama for people to feel the ability to query our methods.

James F. (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

July arb stuff

• Thank you for taking the time to vote on the 2 requests that have been on the Rfar page for sometime.

• The majority for the Giovanni33 case is 5 - 6 arbitrators have voted now. Perhaps it is ready for a support (vote) for motion to close?

Cheers again - Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

As to the first, just doing my job. For the Giovanni33 case, I'd rather let my fellow Arbitrators come to some agreement over R2 before forcing them to an up-down vote on the whole case.

James F. (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I meant to say something along the lines of 'thanks for being prompt' as there's been some concern that certain arbitrators have not been lately, even when considering the complexity or simplicity of certain cases. But I agree. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• I probably should have checked this first, or got you to do it, but I think it was obvious. But to let you know anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, sure. Sorry for the thought-o.

  James F. (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Case

I don't doubt that you've seen it, but I'd like to formally point you towards [9] motion on the C68-FM-SV case. The continuing delay, resulting from refusal to arbitrate, of this case is getting beyond a joke and I personally find it unacceptable. Many in the community are as a result of this delay calling Arbcom's very existence into question. The refusal to come to a conclusion, echoing the MM case amongst others, demonstrates that Arbcom is no longer willing to deal with long-term problematic behaviour and is giving a free pass to those involved. What is worse is that even the vote to dismiss is being delayed. Please vote there as soon as possible, because the community needs some kind of closure and to prolong the case further is a disservice to the many editors who have spent time preparing the case. I'm posting this to your talk page as you are a sitting arbitrator, and I will be doing similar on the others'. Thank you, --78.145.83.124 (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it to my attention, but yes, I had seen.

James F. (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Where I am concerned, [10] please do not have any thoughts whatsoever. Thank you. Giano (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but my duty is to consider everything, even items unpalletable to some or even most of the community.

James F. (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser oversight

Well, you have three en.wiki checkusers petitioning that you review the use of checkuser. While not a formal case per se, it is one in which you'll be expected to make a public pronouncement at the end of formal deliberations. Call it what you like and handle it however you see fit. In my experience a simple note to arbcom-l does not carry the necessary leverage. Best, Mackensen (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. My primary concern is that people will gather expectations from the terminology and macroscopic process (i.e., like an Arbitration case) that we are not going to follow (as it's not appropriate/helpful), and that this will disappoint them; it's more that it's unfair to the community than that I'm overly attached to a particular process. :-)

James F. (talk) 07:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

IRC matters

DO NOT POST A CLOAK REQUEST HERE

Ask them of Xyrael on meta instead.

lmfao

Matthew 11:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite.

James F. (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

I've responded to the thread you started on WP:AN concerning an IRC-related matter. As a purely semantic point, while I understand your role as a chan-op and the group contact, I think it would be better if terminology such as "all of my domain" were not utilized to refer to the IRC channels that are connected, albeit in some vague and unofficial fashion, to Wikimedia. I suspect that this wording was a somewhat tongue-in-cheek formulation on your part, but I am concerned that it may rub certain users the wrong way. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; such was not my intention.

James F. (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

On the chat room..

Discussion at my talk page seems to have petered out. Would you consider moving the page(s) promoting your chat room to your own website rather than having them on Wikipedia? Leaving aside the whole question of "does IRC do more harm than good?", the conflict of interest should be apparent, no? Friday (talk) 14:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I somewhat fail to understand the question, I think, so forgive me if my answer is not as clear as you would wish.

I am charged with running IRC as I see fit (the Freenode term is "Group Contact"). As such, all of the WMF IRC channels are, to the exact same extent, "mine", and so I would seem to have, in your view at least, a conflict of interest. However, I would equally have such a "conflict" over articles about sysops, dispute resolution (including the Committee), and various other significant segments of the Wikipedia "plumbing" with which I am and have been involved. Would you wish me absent myself from them, too? If yes, why me alone? In the logicial conclusion of this, who should be able to edit such items, in your opinion, if no-one involved therewith can be? If no, why do you feel that pages advising people about proper behaviour and standards expected in this particular area should come in for such especial treatment?

In short, no, a substantive conflict of interest fails to present itself to me on this matter, I'm afraid. I would welcome some insight into what I may be missing, though.

James F. (talk) 11:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Project-space pages are supposed to be for the good of Wikipedia, not for individuals to promote their side projects. As for why I asked you particularly, mainly it was because you seem to be quite heavily involved with this, and I assumed that if you agreed to remove this content from Wikipedia, others would not object. The conflict of interest was, I thought, obvious- you're using Wikipedia resources (in the form of a project-space page) to promote your own chat room. I would feel no differently if you were promoting any other private service, with no connection to Wikipedia. If you're editing a page like Wikipedia:Administrators or something, I see no conflict of interest at all- that's a page that belongs on Wikipedia, and as an editor, you're certainly allowed to edit it. Obviously, you're free to run whatever chat rooms or other side projects you wish, but I don't see how it's appropriate to use Wikipedia to promote them. Friday (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloaks

User:Sean Whitton seems to have stopped processing cloak requests submitted through the automatic form. What is the current process? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Replied; in short, be patient. :-)

James F. (talk) 01:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I am patient. I made the request in October, and asked him about it in early November. I haven't received any replies. If the process really takes three months then we should figure out a new system. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you had any response from SeanW? I wrote him an email but haven't heard back. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Query about Freenode

James, query for you here. [11] It would be much appreciated if you could explain the exact relationship between Wikimedia and Freenode, how you came to be a group contact, and in what sense Freenode recognizes this. It's something a lot of people are confused about. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I have responded on Wikipedia and I believe Sean has responded on Meta. Cbrown1023 talk 00:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

James, would you mind responding, please? People are very confused regarding your role. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

#wikipedia-en-admins

I've decided to cool things a bit by leaving the channel. Please remove me from the access list. --Tony Sidaway 00:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it. Cbrown1023 talk 00:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to talking

Hi. I'm trying to facilitate a laid back, on-wiki discussion about Wikipedia and IRC and would appreciate your particpation. Thanks. Regards, El_C 18:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that it would be grossly inappropriate for me to comment whilst a case is in train. I also find it beyond odd that you would seek to carry such a conversation out on a user's talk page, but hey. :-) James F. (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything prohibiting you from commenting; I can ask other members of the committee in case you feel constrained. And I'm sorry you feel Wikipedia users carrying such a discussion on user's talk page is "beyond odd," but IRC was unavailable! ;) El_C 17:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

IRC would be even less appropriate, true. This should not be the reasoning, though.

James F. (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Response.

See User_talk:Zenwhat#Please. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, thank you for looking into the matter. Almost forgot to thank you. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Drini

Drini has banned me from #wikipedia-es without a reason. This is a formal complaint to you as you are freenodes wikimedia contact. This is the second time user has banned me without a reason. -- Cat ^chi? 21:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems like it is resolved for now - as in I was unbanned. This is the second time drini banned me without a reason. I'd like you to look into this, please. -- Cat ^chi? 21:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I just am getting sick an tired of getting randomly banned from channels on IRC. I request your assistance but I suppose I am talking to a wall. -- Cat ^chi? 05:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I kickbanned White_Cat for very aggressive nationalist trolling - #wikipedia is no place for this. If you have any concerns, I will gladly furnish my private logs of this incident. :/ krimpet✽ 05:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yea you do that, all users but me gets to appeal or be heard. -- Cat ^chi? 13:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

cloak requests

elements cross-posted

Hello, JD..

I applied for an IRC cloak a few months ago, still don't have it. When I revisit http://stable.ts.wikimedia.org/wmfgcbot/request it tells me my request is awaiting review. There are 141 other requests pending, and I see that Sean Whitton has been inactive for several months. I expected this would be a simple process, taking maybe a few days. I think if the process is broken, you'd best change the text at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_channel_cloaks so that no new people waste their time going through this process for no reason. Thanks, Odedee (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, cloak requests for anything other than Wikimedia/ are very much broken right now. This is outside of our control, and due to actions - and primarily, inaction - by the Freenode team. I've been haranguing them for some time now to try to fix things, without success so far. Sorry that you have been caught up in it; in normal operations it does indeed take less than a day. I have, as you suggested, edited the meta page to this effect.

P.S.: I don't know where you get the impression that Sean "has been inactive for several months"; he's carrying out his duties almost every day.

James F. (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's unfortunate that this is delayed for so long. I thought Sean was inactive based on his contribs. Odedee (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Other channels

I noticed neither you or Sean are the top level individuals at #wikipedia-BAG and #wikipedies-en-crats, so I figured I'd let you know at the GC. MBisanz ^talk 11:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Will deal with it.

James F. (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Other matters

Bot activity

I was going over the list of bots and noticed that JdforresterBot (talk · contribs) has not edited in a very long time. Is this bot still active and if not, would you object to it being de-flagged? Please post your comments to Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Dead_bots since this is a rather widely-posted message. MBisanz ^talk 06:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Have replied there.

James F. (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Username rename

http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jdforrester#Username_rename

Please take a look. Thanks. -- Cat ^chi? 13:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Done.

James F. (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice willow picture

I'm using it on my userpage. I like to cycle my photos around, and my girlfriend saw a weeping willow for the first time recently and I went searching for a nice picture. Good work. Keegan^talk 07:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, though I'm sure I could take a better one given a push. Maybe I'll pick a nice day and go walkies with my camera & tripod. :-)

James F. (talk) 12:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in ...

I saw your name at Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers. I revised the pages at Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in England. Please consider adding your name to the top of the page at Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in London and to any of the other subpages for Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in England. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Neat idea - thanks, have done.

James F. (talk) 11:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice to meet you yesterday

Keep up the good work Bashereyre (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! And to you. :-)

James F. (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah good to meet you. I mentioned you and your work on my blog actually.

I've taken the plunge and arranged Wikipedia:Meetup/London 9 on the date you suggested. Sunday lunchtime again, May 11th! Not sure if there is enough interest to get something happening monthly. But let's see how it goes. Get yourself signed up on that page!

-- Harry Wood (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

See you tomorrow lunchtime! (Wikipedia:Meetup/London 9) -- Harry Wood (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Attempt to usurp ArbCom's role in appointing checkusers

A discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:RFA#BAG_requests_process to have checkusers elected to their positions rather than have them appointed. Apparently, none of the proponents of doing this have notified ArbCom of this effort. I am therefore informing you. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. We're going to have some "fun" with this, I'd imagine.

James F. (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Could be made to work, but only people with certain competencies can do checkuser in the first place. So that can be interesting. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Questionable redirects of links to Church of St. Margaret, Westminster

I do not understand the reason for these two edits: [12] [13]; the first one was done by you, and the second one by JdforresterBot. Especially in the first case, it is desirable that the article's title is used in the template, so that its name can appear in bold when that article is viewed. In the second case, the result is merely to use a redirect instead of going straight to the article, even though the appearing text is still different. Am I missing anything? Regards, Waltham, The Duke of 15:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I moved the article to what it would normally be called (per convention on Wikipedia and actual usage in the "real world", which are not unrelated); I thought it impolite to assume that the author of the text originally, and so chose not to replace "St. Margaret's Church" and "Saint Margaret's Church" with "St. Margaret's, Westminster". The appropriate name depends on context, and as we have to use the best non-contextual name we can with article titles, it is not always the one one would select to mention in-line within an article.

Note that the link is to the article's title; I always try to correct links before, rather than subsequent to, moving a page, so as to remove any possibility of broken redirects (even for just a few minutes) for our readers. Sorry for the confusion that this has evidently caused.

On a more general point, hello; it saddens me that my article editing of late has been so very slight that it has taken us a year to cross paths despite similar editing interests and your prodigious contributions.

James F. (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: Bah, edit conflict

All right, the page was moved and I did not bypass my cache. My mistake; perhaps I should have been a little slower in my reactions. Still, the move might not have removed all problems. The name does not have a full stop after St, following British conventions. Why is it still in the title? Waltham, The Duke of 15:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, it happens to me frequently, too.

I have checked all links to the page (this is one thing for which the bot is particularly good), and there should be no problems. If you do find some, I would be grateful (and concerned!) to hear.

As to "The name does not have a full stop after St, following British conventions.", I have to say I'm perplexed; do you mean to say that you do not believe that "Saint" should be written as "St." in British English? If so, I'm afraid that you follow a different strand of British English to that practised here in London. If you wish, I can go out and take some photographs of, for example, the sign above St. Margaret's, or for St. James's Park, etc.. It very much is part of British English in my (quite wide-spread) experience of it :-)

James F. (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I have under-estimated the impact of my contributions; I am just a Gnome... I must say that, although your name is not completely unfamiliar to me, I cannot connect it to anything in specific (typical of my memory...), so it must have been some time since the last time I have encountered it.

Now, the article in question is in need of copy-editing (which I intend to do), so it's nice to know the proper name has a full stop, but I recall a previous version not having a full stop in the prose, and I have been, so far, quite confident about abbreviations in British English ending with the word's final letter not using full stops (like Dr for Doctor and Stn for Station). I'll take your word for this case, so you don't need to take any pictures, but from other articles it does seem that St is widely used for other locations with saints in their names.

P.S. I appreciate your cross-posting your reply in my talk page, but you needn't have; I watchlist pages where I leave messages. Waltham, The Duke of 16:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Deserving of a barnstar

If I was still the type of person who gave out barnstars, this would deserve some sort of award for good humour. Guettarda (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I suppose it means I'll have to recuse if there's an Arbitration case, though. Oh well.

James F. (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Coyote FP

Hi there
I've nominated for delisting here the Coyote featured picture you originally nominated. Perhaps you'd like to participate in the discussion there?
Cheers, Pstuart84 Talk 21:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Agr "Driving a stake in descriptive policy"

[14] That's not good. This is a pivotal point in time I think. I hope you can spare a few minutes to take a look. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Have done so. You probably won't like my response, however. :-)

James F. (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but you know what I'm talking about at least :-)

The problem with setting things in stone is that they start showing all kinds of odd and unpredictable behavior (chaos theory). The other problem with setting things in stone is that they become unmediatable (is that a word?). Mediation relevance and success-rate drop considerably when hard rules are involved.

The former is a problem because some of the unpredicted effects are bound to be causes of conflict (murphy's law), and the latter is a problem because most of DR (besides) arbcom is structured around mediation or is mediation-like structures. By altering the rules the way you say you are doing, you are increasing the arbcom workload, reducing mediation efficacy, and incidentally also reducing opportunities for information transfer and leadership (aka acculturation) for reasons that don't quite fit in this margin today, but which I'm willing to expand on.

So a couple of weeks ago, a pair of arbcom members walked in and basically said that the entire system is broken. I wonder why? ;-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC) That's a key issue, though there are several others ^^;;

Well, I was commenting on a trend rather than agreeing entirely with it. But yes, there are severe structural issues. :-(

James F. (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Reminder Sunday Lunchtime

Just a reminder about Wikipedia:Meetup/London 10 See you Sunday 1p.m.! -- Harry Wood (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely! Might even get there a tad early, just for fun.

James F. (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:List of countries by GDP (nominal)#Informal mediation

Hi - you're invited to join in a discussion on the inclusion of the EU in the List of countries by GDP (nominal) article. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 23:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the invite, but I'm not sure I have an opinion either way.

James F. (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Query

cross-posted

I need help renaming about 200 articles. Doing this by hand would take me all day.

Can your bot rename articles, or be adapted to do so?

If so, please contact me.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    22:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem; what do you want me to do?

James F. (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Two things. Maybe they can be done in the same operation, I don't know.

The Wikipdia:WikiProject Lists of basic topics has been renamed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Topical outlines. Unfortunately, "move subpages" only moved 100 of the subpages when the move was done. So 100 of the pages that need to be renamed are subpages of the correctly named WikiProject.

Those need to be renamed from Wikipedia:WikiProject Topical outlines/Draft/List of basic foo topics to Wikipedia:WikiProject Topical outlines/Draft/Topical outline of foo, where foo is the subject the page is about. Some of the new titles will need the foo, where grammar requires it. For example, Topical outline of the Solomon Islands, and Topical outline of the Central African Republic. A few need the plural tense added, resulting in for example Topical outline of black holes.

The rest are subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of basic topics/Draft and need to be moved, and renamed as above.

Is this something you can handle?

The Transhumanist    19:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)#Conclusion

The Mediation discussion regarding the inclusion of the EU in List of countries by GDP (nominal) has come to a conclusion with the following result:

• The EU to remain in List of countries by GDP (nominal).
• The EU to be positioned according to GDP rank between World and USA.
• No consensus on the EU appearing in all three charts. By convention this means the situation would remain as current - that is the EU remains on all three charts.
• Data for the EU on each chart to only be given if sourced, otherwise a dash to replace the data.
• Explanation to be placed in the lead section for the appearance of the EU and other non-countries. Possible wording: "Several economies which are not normally considered to be countries are included in the list because they appear in the sources. These economies are not ranked in the charts here, but are listed in sequence by GDP for comparison."
• The List retains the current name.
• A suggestion by Tomeasy that I feel should be carried out is that the sister articles are given the same treatment as agreed above.

Unless there are significant disagreements within the next 48 hours I will be closing the Mediation. Any questions, please get in touch. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 10:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Silly two-year-old query

Can you shed any light on the dilemma at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Policy.3F? Your name was mentioned in a years-old edit summary, yet for some reason, the page has been marked as policy ever since. Was there an ArbCom case involved? If you don't mind, pls respond over there so we can try to sort this, thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Sorry for the confusion caused.

James F. (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)