User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 57

notifying of mediation case

Well, I see that you already found your way to Giovanni's mediation case on your own :) --Enric Naval (talk) 01:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Davis

Fred, thanks for your note. I figured it out. JKeck (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

You might want to respond here. There is a question about whether you meant the Three layer cake with frosting finding to be only a statement or summary of background information or the parties' positions. That's what Newyorkbrad says. I used it to justify an edit removing the implication that no scientist could be a parapsychologist. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

German 'Guarantee'

Hi thanks for the note.

I removed the line about the german guarantee due to what was actually announced. The Germans said no one would lose out, with out actually guaranteeing it. This is similar to the British Govt saying that they have not let anyone lose their money. A quick look on the BBC website shows the following note http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2008/10/what_the_germans_did.html

Whilst they are saying people will not lose savings this is not quite the same as offering an unlimited guarantee as issued by the Irish, Danish and Greeks.

Secondary Source - http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Business/German-Bank-Deal-Sky-News-Learns-Germany-May-Not-Guarantee-Savings-In-Full/Article/200810115113805?lpos=Business_Carousel_Region_3&lid=ARTICLE_15113805_German_Bank_Deal%3A_Sky_News_Learns_Germany_May_Not_Guarantee_Savings_In_Full

Lots of confusing and apparantly inaccurate reports out there.

--GazMan7 (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see...

Hi Fred, did you see this? NJGW (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On RFArb page

Hello Fred. It seems that a backlog may be developing in clarifications and other requests. I know you've put a lot of hard work and assistance in past cases (coz I've seen it in old cases I read this year, and coz Nyb also said it), and at Nyb's suggestion, I'm hoping you can provide some assistance concerning one of the cases you'd voted on back when you were a sitting arb. I'm requesting/nudging/nagging you to provide your input on this one, preferrably in the next day or so, or otherwise, as soon as possible. Appreciate it :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikinfo down?

I have tried for the past two days to access Wikinfo, and my sessions keep on timing out. Is Wikinfo down? My stuff is not lost is it? What's happening? I'm very worried. Please email me wheelerplatsis(AT)hotmail(DOT)com. Thanks let me know what is going on will ya.WHEELER (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even access ibiblio.org!WHEELER (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing whatever is going on. Wikinfo is up, as is ibiblio. Fred Talk 01:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still can not access Wikinfo. I think I am being blocked. Is that possible? I try 15 times and no go. I have been trying for a couple of days. I can access every other website, I can access the Drudge Report, Wikipedia and Hotmail, but I can not access Wikinfo. I believe I am being blocked. WHEELER (talk) 01:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you were blocked you could still read it. You would get a blocking message when you tried to log in if you were blocked. Fred Talk 02:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try this Fred Talk 02:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion didn't work. Still, I am getting this message ""Network Timeout:: The server at www.wikinfo.org is taking too long to respond."" I have written to Sprint, my internet provider, to check why this is so. Many times Wikinfo is slow, but never like this; this is very very strange. WHEELER (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried both Mozilla and Internet Explorer and both do the same thing. Is my ISP being used somewhere to block me? Or is it a Sprint problem. I don't know.WHEELER (talk) 02:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try starting over: go to http://wikinfo.org Fred Talk 03:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't work as well. I think it will be awhile before I am back on. I am now in contact with my internet provider, Sprint, and see what can be done. It may be some time. I'll get back to you. Thanks for trying to help.WHEELER (talk) 02:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trying using the Firefox browser. Fred Talk 02:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano

Fred, I appreciate that posting on Giano's page that the block will be reviewed, is necessary to prevent any old tom dick or harry reblocking him - but are you sure you're the right man for the job given your two histories. This doesn't look like an impartial action. --Joopercoopers(talk) 22:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(cross post)Prior to a proposal I made to ban Giano for incivility as a remedy in an arbitration case a couple of years ago we had no conflict. I did not even know who he was. Fred Talk 22:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely - for several years, there has been bad blood between you - and presumably you know who he is now - its stretching credulity a little to think you're impartial here. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with getting that past the community. Can we expect Mr Gerard's actions to be reviewed and balanced against the subsequent events in a similar manner by you while you're in extra-curricula mode? --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I will not be considering that matter. I'm not sure there is any appropriate administrative action to take. Remember, I am not an arbitrator. Fred Talk 22:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A question:

Hi Fred. I have some concerns about your analysis, and wanted to get your thoughts. Are you counting amongst Giano's seven civility blocks the three that William M Connolley applied to Giano in short succession, that ArbCom decided was not a valid escalation of block terms, (as well as the fourth that was WMC wheel-warring the block back on). Are you also counting the ones that were overturned as not incivil? I'm just afraid in that coming from the outside, as you are here, you're getting a false picture of the block terms? Thanks for your thoughts. SirFozzie (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The William M. Connolley block is counted once, number 4 at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IRC#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. I count all blocks that were made upon a sound basis. Some were overturned but not by the person who made them. Fred Talk 18:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About Giano, how about his block is suspended until after the election whether he runs or not? Then it would not look like he is being forced to run, and he would be allowed to comment and vote on the election. In the end, you still need an administrator to carry out the block of course. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea. Fred Talk 19:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may have to clarify that on his talk page as well. Take care btw. You will have a lot of unfriendly people coming your way. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a query based on Wikipedians by age

Hi Fred, there's a thread at User talk:Secret/Attract More Editors#Grey Power where your views would be much appreciated, whether you want to chuck a bucket of coldwater over us the idea or otherwise. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 21:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fru23

I have a basic idea of what sources are acceptable, but there seems to be a double standard.Fru23 (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Media matters on Bill OReilly and newsbusters on al franken/Olberman, when I proposed the use of newsbuster as a source on the those articles it was shot down for the same reasons I stated on bills article for the removal of mediamatters. WP:own wp:tagteam Fru23 (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just an aside...

That Jo Freeman link provided on your userpage has been an immense catalyst for me recently. Do you have any links to works like that (about small organizations)? I'm a coordinator for the mediation cabal and I can see some of this stuff already happening. Or not; it's hard to tell. At any rate, thanks for providing that link :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KingsOfHearts, Fru23, JcLiner?

Maybe a new one here: [1] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Giano

Fred, you stated that "If anybody else had acted like Giano they would have been gone long ago." Let me clarify something: its not Giano, its good content contributors that are given this leniency. This is an encyclopedia, and its first priority is to try and get as much content as possible. However, everyone knows that content contributors get attacked because not everyone agrees with what is added and it can cause conflicts. The more you add, the more conflicts. This is where the leniency comes in. Its not improper. Its not evil. Its actually what allows this encyclopedia to continue its way towards being complete. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for guidance

Hello. Thanks for the help you have earlier provided me on Wikipedia! I could need your input here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Law_Lord. Please help me with your guidance. Thanks! --Law Lord (talk) 05:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent you an Email

It's concerning a check user I would like to request. SteelersFan-9 4 05:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please look again

Hi Fred. You responded to an incident post I created about More random musing (talk · contribs) at [2]. He received no administrative warning or other effective measure.

Since the incident, he has continued to add original research (including the "Nazi" comparison [3]) and otherwise tried to skew the article with quotes and highly selective use of source. A number of editors have stated their disagreement with this skew and with these edits, and I have cogently argued against the attempts to place OR into the article. Lacking both consensus and the support of policy, he has continued to push the same things.

That More random musing so recently reintroduced the Nazi OR really seems like bad faith editing to me, and I suspect that he is just taking advantage of the situation created by nobody responding seriously to the problem I brought up at the incidents noticeboard.

If nobody of rank and authority deals with this user, I don't think that this article's problems can be fixed, since he even reverts {{fact}} tags on unsupported and contested material [4]. Chedorlaomer (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feliz Navidad

Hombre. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronism

please take a look : [5]. More random musing (talk) 08:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_badge#Muslim_countries.

Few points:

In the counry of India this practice was put forth under Akbar's realm and his general Tukriya under whose realm it happened was known for forced conversions of Hindu race. Resistance to conversions usually meant killing of those who resisted.

The wiki article that you cited also cites the nazi patch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_badge#Nazi_period

All these articles suggest that colored patches were put on defeated to discriminate against them by the victors. So it does not seem out of place to mention the Nazi bit in the article as the yellow badge article also does.

More random musing (talk) 08:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

RfAr/Barrett v. Rosenthal

There is a request pending on WP:RfAr for an amendment or clarification of one of the findings of fact in the Barrett v. Rosenthal case. Since you drafted the decision in that case, I'd be grateful if you could contribute your thoughts to the discussion. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

threshold rpg article deletion

Could you weigh in on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Threshold_(online_game) a MUD article for deletion if you have the time. Thanks. --Theblog (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU! --Theblog (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Threshold (online game)

Hi, Fred. I'm sorry to bug you about this, but I noticed your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Threshold (online game) saying that "Anyone who doubts the unique nature of this MUD should try to create a character on it". This feels a lot like a comment intended to promote the MUD, and while I'm sure that wasn't your intention, you might want to consider rephrasing or redacting. But even if reworded, any evidence derived from this would be original research in my opinion, so redaction might be the best route. Thanks! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your note on LegendMUD

Saw you made a note of that one reference. So here's others I have handy. Of course, I cannot be involved in actually writing the article due to COI.

Manninnen & Kujanpää, "The Value of Virtual Assets – The Role of Game Characters in MMOGs," Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, Volume 2, Issue 1, 2007.

Balkin, J., and Noveck, Beth. The State of Play: Law, Games and Virtual Worlds. NYU Press, 2006. ISBN 081479971X, 9780814799710

Designing Virtual Worlds. Bartle. R. New Riders, 2003. ISBN 0131018167, 9780131018167. "LegendMUD was itself an innovative game, boasting a number of features to promote role-playing that had never been implemented before." Direct link to citation.

Direct link for the citation in the book you mentioned above is here.

Developing Online Games, Patrovsky & Mulligan. New Riders, 2003. ISBN 1592730000, 9781592730001. Includes mention of LegendMUD's connection to subsequent developments in MMOs.

"Virtual ‘‘Third Places’’: A Case Study of Sociability in Massively Multiplayer Games" Ducheneaut, Moore, Nickell. PARC.

I am still not sure how it went away as "non-notable." Oh well. :) If you do work on it, best of luck! I have also stuck this list of links on the MUD Wikia that you mentioned on my website -- thanks for getting that created. Is it legit for me to be putting things on there?

RaphKoster (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do about the Wikipedia article. On MUD Wiki, as a coder and administrator of LegendMUD you would be considered an excellent source. As to conflict of interest, just use common sense. Fred Talk 15:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for opinion

Hi, I and my fellow editors are facing a deadlock on a issue of removing/toning down few lines on 'Allegations of Human Rights violation against the Indian Army' under 'criticism of the operation' section in Operation Blue Star article, concerns include WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP & WP:V, the summary of dispute can be found at [6]. I would request you to kindly go through the article and please let us know your views/opinion at the talk page of the article so that npov, balance and undue weight concerns may be looked into and a consensual solution may be found. Thanks LegalEagle (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary forest

Hi Fred. I'm trying to figure out the context for this edit; I've been poking through van Breugel's dissertation but since it has over 250 pages, I was wondering if you remembered where you got that statement. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fred. That article badly needs reworking...I just need to figure out how... Guettarda (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Thanks Fred for helping me out when I was blocked.
Mdandrea (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom request regarding principle you wrote

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_Shoemaker.27s_Holiday

I'm sorry I didn't alert you right away, honestly, I forgot to check who wrote it and whether they were still an Arbcom member. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also asked the ArbCom to clarify if the decision on pseudoscience-related categories still applies, and to what extent, because of this recent kerfuffle. Newyorkbrad suggested that I leave you a note. Xasodfuih (talk) 01:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:213.237.21.6

I see you blocked this IP for disruptive editing but after that there was a tag added to the page that it was an open proxy. I'm wondering if the tagger thought that it was such because the block was indefinite. In any case, surely this individual has moved on from this IP by now and it can be unblocked? cheers, –xeno (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The seemingly inactive admin who placed them says these (possibly related blocks) were requested by you: 82.123.46.149, 82.123.57.232. Think they can be lifted as well? –xeno (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, but please keep an eye on them. Fred Talk 19:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki mail

Hi Fred! I've send you a wiki mail on Monday, 23 March 2009, 00:42. You might have a look at it! Thanks and kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 22:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

School IP216.20.1.211

Hi,

I see that you unblocked 216.20.1.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) because of a teacher request. Regrettably, blatant vandalism resumed the next day, so I've placed a "soft" block. Just wanted to let you know. Regards, JGHowes ^talk 18:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soot

Hi Fred. Do you have another reference for the 18% figure on the contribution of soot to GW? The popular press is notorious for things like referring only to the upper limit of a range or leaving out caveats. Thanks Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request on wording of Midnight Syndicate ArbCom decision

Hi Fred - Newyorkbrad suggested you should be notified of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FMidnight_Syndicate as you did the wording. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 18:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mohs surgery and copyright violation?

There are only 5 books written on the subject, 2 by Dr. Mohs, 1 by Dr. Mikkhail, 1 by Dr. Gross, and 1 by Dr. Maloney. Dr. Mohs is a surgeon, Dr. Mikkhail and Gross are dermatologists, and Dr. Maloney a pathologist. I wrote or rewrote the bulk of the material based on conferences and reviewing the slides of numerous Mohs surgeon available for studies. As a practicing Mohs surgeon, I feel sad that we do not have contribution from other Mohs surgeons except for insertion of biased and unreferenced deletion to further the politics of Mohs surgery. There was little references until I have inserted them later. Destructive edits by Dr. Nickcoop is probably the only reason why I am involved with winkipedia, as Mohs surgery is a very effective and inexpensive method, at least in the USA, as compared to other similar methods utilizing margin controlled frozen section. Comparing the reimbursement here, at least recently, my average Mohs case with reconstruction pays about $500 to $1000 USD. While the same case done in the hospital will cost over $4000 (surgeon, anesthesiologist, pathologist, operating room, and pathology lab fees). If you want more improvement, send suggestions to me. I do own all of the above reference books.--Northerncedar (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	To the best arbitrator Wikipedia ever had. You spoiled us and we didn't know how good we had it. Durova^Charge! 16:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Boondocks

I have nominated Boondocks, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boondocks. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block of NESLgrad09

You convinced me... Responded on my page. Block and semi-protection of the article are lifted. I appreciate you keeping me sharp. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Lenzen

Thanks for the heads up. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re Codiceanglais

Okay, I will defer to your judgment on that. Thank you for letting me know! :) Cirt (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:174.99.102.32

No problem with unblocking under those conditions.

We have an ongoing persistent problem with the NCLR article, but I can accept that one IP also interested in it might not be associated with the rest. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plasmodium

Thanks for the edit on the Plasmodium page. The description in the journal doesn't reach the required standard for a valid zoological species so Im wondering if it should be on the Plasmodium page as a species. Normally a valid species description requires a description of the organism rather than a pice of DNA which might have been contaminated. I had left this one off for that reason. DrMicro (talk) 12:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re Van Heusen Music

Would have appreciated it if you had notified me before unblocking, as opposed to afterwards. The account may be a WP:Role account. Cirt (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will continue to monitor the account's behavior? I assume that if the account continues to advocate on behalf of an organization and/or individual in the same manner as in the past, and/or continues to spam, it can be blocked again? Cirt (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, so will you make an issue regarding the username? Cirt (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks. Cirt (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note

I semi-protected this page for 24 hours. Just so ya know... J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 03:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another 24 hours. Acroterion _(talk) 03:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]