User talk:Jdforrester/Personal Archive 2

This is an archive of my talk page, the current version of which is located here.

---

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

Invitation to comment

As per your comment [1], 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)

Wikipedia: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." [2] 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 ^talk 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 ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 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. [3] 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.[4] 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 ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia. 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)

I've merged it in to the aestivation article. Thanks for the note!

James F. (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

Started to add content. Thought you might like to know.

Oliver Naturalhomes 00:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Great! This was on my list of things to do, but... damn, you've got there first. ;-)

Keep up the good work!

James F. (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Requesting Cloak

Hi. I already left this message on Meta, but it might get noticed quicker here. I want to request cloak for GHe on IRC. Is that possible? I believe that I've followed all of the steps here. If you request any more information, feel free to reply here or by E-mail. Thanks. G.He 03:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

See meta.

James F. (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Meta:RfP

Responded on meta. Thanks.Voice-of-All^Talk 18:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Understood.

James F. (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

(Moved comment down)Are current request being considered, or are they put on hold until more general consensus about this right is developed? Thanks.Voice-of-All 02:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think our current general opinion is to hold-off on granting it to anyone other than Arbitrators and CheckUser users. Sorry.

James F. (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

As soon as I saw the "arbcom has to approve" line on RfP I knew that had to have been the case, and always will be (like checkUser), excepting Essjay, the only reason I bothered to make a request was at the urging of another user. Nevertheless, please read this, maybe in the future it might somehow matter.Voice-of-All 23:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

A thank-you for all your efforts

Hello there — I wanted you to know that I really appreciate the time you put into this project. Your efforts in the ArbCom as well as helping out in IRC are invaluable and I am grateful that you take the time each day to help out. Thanks for everything, and if I can ever be in assistance I would be obliged to give it. Yours in gratitude, Snoutwood (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's really kind of you. Thank you so very much! On the other hand, I really don't do that much - I'm just a terribly small part of something so very much larger and greater than myself, muddling along as best I can. I'm not sure that I deserve such a thing, certainly as compared to some of our other, sterling volunteers, who make me feel embarrassed to call myself a "contributor" at some times!

Still, all the same, thank you terribly. It's very kind of you.

James F. (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

My great pleasure! Um, you have forty-seven edits today... seems like you do quite a lot to me :) Regardless, what's important is that you do the tasks at all. I know many people who wouldn't touch ArbCom jobs with a ten-foot pole due to the constant stream of conflict, and there's never enough people who can help out with IRC. That you willing perform these tasks and do them well is what's important. Snoutwood (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Civil?

In regard to what, in particular? And who are you? I don't recall saying anything to you about anything. Wahkeenah 18:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I get it now. Your pal Ed_g2s complained to you about my complaints about the way he has tried to push his personal point of view on the Carmen Electra page. Fine. I'll leave that page alone, and your buddy can have his way. Wahkeenah 19:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Ed did not mention the page to me; I found it entirely by conincidence. He is not "push[ing] his personal point of view", he is enforcing Wikipedia policy. I'm sure that you know this by this point, so I was forced to invoke the second part of "Assume Good Faith" - hence my warning.

James F. (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The point of view he is pushing is that the mugshot is "better than no picture at all". I don't see where he has the right to unilaterally decide that. Just because there is a free picture that we are allowed to use does not compel us to use it. And as I keep saying, she is an actress, not a career criminal, and the only picture being a mugshot carries its own inherent bias. Meanwhile, I have posted a note on that talk page asking some ambitious soul to maybe find a more appropriate free image, so we can put an end to this stupid little edit skirmish. Wahkeenah 04:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiSheriff

Thank you for addressing the cyberstalking problem I reported. Abe Froman 19:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course; no problem at all.

James F. (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Concerning NSLE

Hi James,

I think it appropriate to copy my response to you at AN here, in context, for better discussion between us.

It isn't a matter of trust. The idea that someone can be desysopped in camera isn't thrilling, I think, and a precedent needs to be set to make anything that can be public, public. Xoloz 21:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you need to know? He knows why, the Committee know why. That's more than sufficient. Titilation and curiosity is not the basis for chosing the appropriate mode of action.

James F. (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to know -- but generally, public disclosure of information promotes fairness and fellowship. Secrecy, contriwise, promotes speculation and rumor. The truth is good, and should be spread. The fact that I need to remind you, James F., of these axioms, coupled with your apparent assumption that my interest in disclosure is merely for the purposes of "titilation," does nothing to increase my confidence. Xoloz 02:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I have little to add to my comment at AN, but I do hope you understand the general wisdom of transparency in decision-making. In this case, for example, because the logs of admin actions are public, curious people will now be left to comb NSLE's record, spawning rumor and gossip. These matters are almost always simpler and cleaner when laid out in honesty at the outset. I hope you do, at least, agree with that general principle. Best wishes, Xoloz 02:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you appear to believe in transparency to a very great, so much so in fact that you disregard any other opinions by labelling your views not merely as statements of fact, but indeed as "axioms" [sic] (a rather blunt rhetorical trick). Obviously it would entirely inappropriate for me to comment on the specifics of this or any other such case (and if you can't even work out why for that, this conversation is meaningless).

James F. (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Your politeness is quite striking. A) "Axioms" is an accepted spelling of the plural; B) You have a very nice rhetorical talent for deriding opposing views through overstatement and simplicification, without answering the substantive points raised. In my judgment, you have violated WP:DICK, a very, very poor thing for an abitrator to do. Best wishes, Xoloz 14:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

My query was not with the (entirely correct) use of the plural form, but with using a term specific to rigorous logic-systems in a discussion which plainly isn't the case here - you're discussing the "optimal" manner (ha!) in which a group of humans, messy irrational things that they are, might organise. If you have any questions, please ask them - but you've yet so to do. BTW, the term is "Arbitrator", with a capital 'A'.

James F. (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Protection of List of Lost episodes

elements cross-posted

How long are you planning to leave List of Lost episodes Protected?

20:30, 26 May 2006 Jdforrester m (Protected List of Lost episodes: Repeated reversions in explicit and acknowledged violation of the Fair Use policy by a highly suspicious number of "new" users. [edit=sysop:move=sysop])

Also Please change the {{protected}} Template Because you are miss using this.

This page is protected from editing until disputes have been resolved. Please discuss changes on the talk page or request unprotection. (Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version.)

Your protection is an endorsement of the current page version (Regardless of whether or not the page still needs to be protected) or it is a strange coincidence

Unfortunately The Debate on the page is a MetaConflict so we won't really get anywhere and leaving the Page Protected Forever is Hurtful. You could at least remove the Awful formatting that was designed for use with images just like Every other page of it's kind.

Also the fair use Policy is not to clear on this issue so you may want to write a Policy Solely for the use of media navigation list pages, being that all the other ones also include fair use images. If you are going to use your powers as an Arbitrator you need to say you are using your Powers, because it would be unacceptable for a normal admin to take such actions. Especially when you are only supposed to protect pages for issues that you are uninvolved in.--E-Bod 05:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you supposed to be editing just like any other admin or does your Arbitrator status give you special privileges other than a user with tools? Can you Please indicate when you are using your special privileges and when you are using you normal privileges--E-Bod 05:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The Fair Use policy in this regard is crystal clear; it is your reading of it that is either hazy or merely outright faulty.

I am but an editor; I gain no special rights though my being a sysop, an oversighter, an Arbitrator, or an Officer - they are all symptoms, not causes, of the worrying tendancy that people want to listen to what I say. ;-) I cannot indicate when I'm using my "special privileges", because I have none excepting that it is I who wields them and so people sometimes chose to pay more attention.

It certainly would not be "unnacceptable" for a "normal" (have you met some of our sysops? "Normal" is, I fear, not the word ;-)) sysop to take these actions. As to editing the page whilst protected, I'm sure that you can understand why that would be strongly frowned upon.

I would ask you to retract immediately your comments and accusations against my character, including that I am seemingly involved in the issue - I have never edited the page, not once, nor made reference to it; that I have deliberately chosen m:The Wrong Version on which to protect the page merely to frustrate you - I protected it in the form that it appeared to me when I went to the page; and that, indeed, I am doing anything other than what a responsible sysop who saw the situation would do. It is a most hurtful thing to say, especially when it is wholly lacking in any factual basis.

Also, please spend some time to work out the rules of English grammar with regard to capitalisation. :-)

James F. (talk) 10:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your Reply. I'm Sorry for the Accusations. I was just overwhelmed by your accusations of me. It's just that the last edit was Ed's and you have had prior relations with him on the same issue regarding fair use. You have a picture of him on your userpage. And your edit summary did endorse an edit. A assumed you and Ed were working as a team. Him editing and you’re protecting. I know there is no Wrong version but you are involved in the fair use dispute. And you are allowed to protect the page to Lock-off the copyright license notice for the site. However leaving it Protected forever is not acceptable. Please indicate how long you are letting the issue cool down. Also Please indicate that you are protecting it to protect our GNU integrity an not just stooping and edit war.

The Policy does Not specifically address media navigation pages. And the president is. Very Different from your Official interpretation of the Policy. If the Policy was clear it would be the same as the president. Also the policy page seems being used for Ballot Stocking on these issues. We don’t have to fallow what the policy says, we do have to fallow what the policy is trying to say.

If this problem is ever going to be resolved we need a featured list as a Model to work from. No such Model exists without excessive Extensive use of fair use. I agree that you did what you had to do. I just feel that if you are Endorsed the fair use Policy you need to say that. Otherwise it is an awful coincidence.

As Far As My Caps Go I Am So Sorry. I spend 2/3 rds my time just Spell Checking i Usually ignore the Caps. I also use it for putting the wrong emphAsis on my silAbles.--E-Bod 17:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you must be open to other Interpreting Of Policies. As far as the Guideline of WP:Point. We are entitled to one violation of a policy until somebody objects

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules Wikipedia:Interpret all rules Wikipedia:Use common sense M: Instruction creep

I went out of my way to make my edits very non-disruptive.

For instance I linked to all my edits so they can be easily reverted and not pass under the radar. (This was used against me to find the questionable edits).

I had not involved any bystanders. This was only against one user, and my point was so mild that the user unfortunately agreed with my edit (Hence my edits were a catch 22. If the person didn’t like my edit they would be more civil about removing fair use images and if the person liked my edit I didn’t offend anybody.)

WP:Point is about making edits that nobody would agree with just to make a point. My point was not an extreme.

My point was he should not remove fair use images until he removed all of his. I felt it would be less destructive for him to revert those three documented changes that to have the numerous other user have his changes on their page without even knowing it and latter having to find aE-Bod

Actually maybe I should re-say this. My Objection is not In your Initial Protection of the page. I Just think you can't leave the page Protected for ever. I wouldn't even object you saying that you have choice but to protect the page to keep the Fair use images off of it. However I do object to the Template saying that it is not an Enforcement of a Version when your stand on Fair use Is Clear. I am just Objecting to your process. You Should not Just leave that page protected for.

And Factual Evidence leading to my suspicion of you and ed working closely together. You are Both in the same picture at a Wiki meet in Real life. You had been really quick to Block me Without notifying me when i complained to ed. Even though i was uncivil Admins are not supposed to Jump to a block unless you are actually trying to Block me from doing something. (You ended up interfering with the resolution of the issue). And I see the last edit your protect is Ed's. But it's not just that. The thing stays Protected. Protection isn't something you should be taking so lightly. You do what you have to do and then let us go on to editing. I haven't' Edited the Lost Page Once. In fact I found out about the issue when Ed Ballot Boxed the page with a notice on the Fair use Policy page. I am very disturbed by the fair use Enforces asking Other Fair use Enforcers to look over Possible Fair use Violations. We may have to get rid of a lot of Fair use images but that decision should not be made by a small group of people who only go to themselves to talk about the issue. Ballot Boxing is bad when use For or Against policies. I don't understand why people are going to the talk page saying they were told to on a message on their talk page. As an admin and an Arbitrator you should not only Hold yourself to high standards but also Encourage others to do the same, Just don't set the standars to hight eather. --E-Bod 05:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think that there's anything more to say. "Fair Use" is not a guideline - it is an extrmely strictly-applied set of rules, and your reading of it in this context is, well, wrong. However many people come to the talk page agreeing with you, you're all still wrong. Sorry.

James F. (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand. I know fair use is not a guideline, Point is. This is not an issue of fair use. This is an issue of you not fallowing Wikipedia process. Few object because you are an arbitrator, not because you are doing the right thing.

1. you clamed you blocked me for making a point.
   • my point was ed should do to others as you would have them do to you and i made it by removing fair use form ed's userspace. Unfortunately ed actual did want others to do that and he did not get my point because he appreciated the edit. You clamed to block me for wp:point but you meant to block me for being un Civil, and i did not break the spirit of the point guideline. I did not add fair use images, i made my point by removing them. If a user makes an uncivil edit you don’t block then right away. You warn them and if they don’t cool down then you say I’m sorry but i have to block you.
2. i am not asking you to allow fair use images on lost
   • i am asking you to unblock the page and ask the users not to repost the images. If they are reposted revert one. If they are reposted again revert and protect. But don't block the page just like that.
3. you are enforcing the fair use policy the wrong way.
   • all the featured media lists have fair use images so even if the policy says something it would be better to make a policy solely to address this issue. If you object to a specific instance you can remove the fair use images from that page. If you object to the way every single model media list violate fair use policy is made you need to (in addition to what you did) create a policy page. Quote existing policy or jimbo. And direct all the arguments to that page. Jimbo reserves the right to have the final say and he has already said what he has to say regardless of consensus. If an editor adds a fair use image to a page, that does not warrant a page protection for a month. You had no choice but to protect the page but you can't just leave it protected forever.

A further problem is the people enforcing the fair use policy doesn’t even read it the same way. Some see it as a, we are respecting copy rights while others see it as protecting our GFDL while others see it as a primitive way to avoid lawsuits. The truth is it is all of these things combined plus more, however many people in favor of the fair use policy only see some of the issues.

I am not commenting on fair use. I am commenting of your abusive/disruptive actions.

And by the way. My microsoft word does not fix cap errors. I have changed it to all lower case and back to sentence case but some words that should be capital are now lower case such as “i”. I hope this is less distracting for you.--E-Bod 20:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

To summarise your length and meandering prose, you wish me to unprotect a page that I know will immediately erupt into a frezy of counter-policy image use violations, and no doubt then an edit war, and then dedicate many hours of my life to patrolling the page and laying down impromptu rules and threats that I have no position to be making. I'm sorry, but no. Talk to the other sysops involved (and there are quite a few who have commented).

James F. (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The Problem is I'm more Optimistic about the issue than you are. Correct me if I'm wrong but the message you are sending to me is "No, I will leave that page Blocked Forever". Anyway the Page has been Unbocked and Images have been added and reverted twice, However The people Removing the images included the people advocating for the images. 3 users have Contributed 5 Improvement Edits. That alone was worth an unblock.

In Other Words. You were Wrong. In fact the current Edit war is over the page Formatting. You had nothing to worry about with the Copyright issue because those of us who Argued For the images Still Value Wikipedia enough to Understand Adding the images is unacceptable while the issue is being discussed and we are receiving it against our Wises. You should WP:AGF in the Future We can Be trusted to Enforce policies we disagree with strongly. You should be more trusting of our community. Don't let a few bad apples hurt us all.--E-Bod 21:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I "should be more trusting of our community" because they picked an even more stupid thing to edit-war over. Quite.

James F. (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 22:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, but I don't think that I'll be interested. Good luck, however!

James F. (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Your vote on List of terrorist organisations

At Talk:List_of_terrorist_organisations you wrote: "we don't generally move for AE/BE issues". This isn't an AE/BE issue, it's about adherence to policy. See discussion. You might want to change your vote! Best, --Cultural Freedom talk 06:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.

James F. (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You're Welcome! I see you've neither changed your vote, nor removed it. May I ask why? As an admin, I would have guessed you'd be interested in seeing that policy is adhered to. Thanks, --Cultural Freedom talk 07:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the prod. Forgot about this one. Done now. :-)

James F. (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of something

elements cross-posted

Your comment at the Tony Blair talk page that "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" got my curiosity going. I went to [WP:NOT] and couldn't find an explicit mention of the phrase there; the phrase does exist as a redirect to [WP:NOT], although What links here for it gives only two WP talk pages and a user page. Can you tell me what you understand about the meaning and/or cultural significance of this phrase in WP. Having only been here a year, I assume it must be something (policy, guideline?) that originated before I joined, which is familiar to old hands like yourself, but is no longer known by that name? Rather than guess incorrectly what you are referring to, I thought it better to ask directly. I also thought I'd better post this query here rather than at the Tony Blair page as the section on which bits of trivia to include & exclude has already got cluttered up with stuff that isn't actually about that subject (partly my fault!). Cheers. SP-KP 21:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Interesting - it has been removed from the policy page. BTW, this exhibits rather well how policy pages don't always (well, very rarely) accurately reflect what "policy" is, and are imperfect instantiations of some words that to some extent describe the ethos of the policy - or rather, hope to, and often flat-out contradict it.

In a nutshell, the phrase "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" means that Wikipedia isn't here to follow policy blindly, and that process and its application with all that entails - including, to rather unfairly quote you (;-)), "accountability and auditability" - is generally strongly discouraged and often ignored because it has been found to be not only unhelpful, but outright counter-productive, good only for alienating contributors and enforcing a hierarchy of those who are more familiar that the others with the archanery and complexities which they can exploit to raise themselves above hoi polloi. Yes, I am going off the deep end with hyperbolæ, I agree, but that's the line of argument that I was hoping to convey. Sorry if I confused you - I really didn't mean it to suggest that I was more correct than you in my point of view because of my better ability to cite policy, certainly. :-)

One of the major social problems we're having on Wikipedia is what Kelly has coined as our "enculturation" - basic, fundamental ideas such as this just aren't being communicated effectively to newer users at all, or, at best, with only partial and patchy sucess.

James F. (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that - quite an interesting reply. To me though, it does raise more questions than it answers. Reading through your second paragraph, I see a point of view - a well-argued point of view - but I have no way of telling that it accurately reflects the real position (other than the fact that your are quite a well-established Wikipedian, so extra weight should be attached to what you say, but ...). As a not-totally-new but not-quite-in-the-old-timer's-league editor, I feel that 90% of the time, I understand what we're all about, but then things like this come up which completely throw me. I'm now not clear whether I should pay any attention to policy, or pay some attention, some of the time, and if the latter, when I can choose to pay attention, and when I can choose to ignore. Do you see the difficulty? Aside from the specific issue of whether trivia sections are OK or not, and how I as an editor would know this in the absence of a defined policy on the subject, what do I do?? To be frank, this particular incident is making me doubt quite seriously whether Wikipedia really is the kind of endeavour that I thought it was. It felt like a place where we actually tried to make progress towards consensus, harmonious discussion, respect for alternative viewpoints, the pursuit of well-written, NPOV text etc etc. I'm now beginning to get an awful feeling that its actually somewhere where mushroom management is alive & well, where policies & so on are created as a smokescreen, to give the impression that we actually do things through process, agreement & consensus, but where in fact, behind the scenes, they don't really matter. Blimey, I don't normally write stuff that sounds as emotive as that does - sorry! Calm me down and stop me walking away bemused & disillusioned, please? SP-KP 22:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I agree that it's a real difficulty. Some have likened Wikipedia's internal processes to a game of "Calvinball" - certainly, there is a strong element of fluidity and flexibility in some of what we do - though, certainly, to a lesser extent than the "progress towards consensus, harmonious discussion, respect for alternative viewpoints, the pursuit of well-written, NPOV text" and so on that you mentioned rather worthily. :-)

Have you considered becoming a sysop? I'm tempted to nominate you - given what you've said here, I think you'll be an asset.

James F. (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Getting a cloak...

Hey there, I was wondering if I might be able to get an IRC cloak. IRC nick is AmiDaniel, linked to AmiDaniel_ and AmiDaniel_away with e-mail enabled. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I will request this, but I have been having difficulties for the past few weeks trying to get cloaks set.

James F. (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I also wish for an cloack for the #wikipedia IRC room. The username I use for the room is Zscout370, which is also my nick on en.wikipedia.org. I also followed the instructions at Wikipedia:IRC_channel_cloaks. Thank you. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I would also like an IRC cloak - I have registered as Haza-w, linked Haza-w_ as an alt nick and set an e-mail address (hidden). I believe I have to speak with you before I can sign Wikipedia:IRC cloak verifications. haz (user talk) 17:40, 25 June 2006

I'd like a cloak to if possible. IRC nick Stormscape linked to Stormscape|AFK and Stormscape_ e-mail address is also displayed. Stormscape 06:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

All four now requested (along with a dozen or so more). Let's see how it goes. :-)

James F. (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I performed the second nick registration (Zscout370_) and have it linked, since that is one thing I believe I did not do before I asked for the cloak. I hope everything was rectified. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

CFD renomination

For info: a cat you previously voted to delete has been recreated. Please see:

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_26#Category:White_people

--Mais oui! 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Eurgh. Thanks.

James F. (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Accessing #wikipedia-en-admins

Hi Jdforrester. You are the only remaining active contributor who is listed at Wikipedia:IRC channels that knows how to grant access to #wikipedia-en-admins. I'd like to be able to join that channel, as I am an administrator on en. Could you help me out? Thanks. ~MDD4696 05:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Contact me on IRC ("James_F" or, more normally, "James_F|Away"/"James_F|Busy"/etc.).

James F. (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Rosie Winterton

elements cross-posted

David,

Re. your edit, "PC" is only used used for Peers because any sane publication would say "The Right Honourable" in front of PCs, and you can't tell with Peers from that because they already are. Also, I'm rather confused by your statement that it's not the house-style to use "MP", given that we have been doing so for years now on many of them...

James F. (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

While I may agree with you that it would be more appropriate to give Privy Counsellors the prenominal "The Right Honourable", this is not now thought appropriate. The postnominal "PC" is currently used only by Peers, who are of course already "The Right Honourable" (at least). If the form of address actually used is eliminated by house style then that is unfortunate, but Wikipedia cannot make up a new form of address.

It most certainly isn't house style to add a postnominal "MP" to members of the House of Commons. Look at almost any article on a current MP and you will find it is not there. To do so would also open up a can of worms about whether it should go on former MPs. David | Talk 12:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

We use a made-up new form of address for every article on a Peer. I hardly think worrying that stating PC in the PNLs is the straw for the camel's break. Right now, the style that you are enforcing, in conjunction with other, admittedly-stupid style conventions, actively removes useful information from articles. Think to yourself - "how does this make Wikipedia a better encyclopædia?".

Hmm. Obviously, "MP" as PNLs should go solely on the articles of anyone who is an MP now. It should technically not be present after Parliament is dissolved, though that's a bit more work than I think is sensible. That's not opening a can of worms - protocol is quite clear on where and when the PNLs should be used. For the few MPs who have died in office, almost none of them have died in the current Parliament, and over time, said number will always decrease; if necessary, we can keep "MP" as PNLs for recently deceased MPs up until the Parliament wherein they died is dissolved.

James F. (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I am thinking "how does this make Wikipedia a better encyclopaedia?". I don't think it makes Wikipedia a better encyclopaedia to use "PC" as a postnominal for members of the Privy Council who are not peers, because it misleads readers unfamiliar with their subject into thinking this is accepted usage, which it isn't. Perhaps it may be better to argue that Privy Counsellor membership qualifying for "The Right Honourable" be an exception to the general rule against prenominal honorifics? I would support such an argument.

I did a quick check and the only articles which actually have a postnominal "MP" for current MPs are the ones edited on Thursday by a House of Commons IP to have them. I don't think that removing it, which I am now doing, harms the encyclopaedic value because in all cases it is mentioned in the introductory text that the subject is a current Member of Parliament. David | Talk 12:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

We used that argument, if you recall - it "lost". Isn't ochlocracy wonderful? (Though given your job, you'd probably say "yes" ;-).)

By your argument, why do we not remove the PNLs from every article, then? Almost all of them "mention in the introductory text" that they are what they say they are a Bt or SRS or FRSA, after all. It seems a tad odd to ignore our general conventions in the one regard of using "MP". And we use "MSP", "AM", etc. almost without fail - why is Parliament so terribly especial?

James F. (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Hawaii state seal.png

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Hawaii state seal.png. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Note that any unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 09:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed (some idiot deleted the original without thought to why a PD image of something rather well-referenced had suddenly become unused), but it's nothing that you could not have done yourself. In future, don't bot-message people about the copyright status of images when they are not the original uploader. An implicit message behind WP:CIVIL is not to ask silly questions. :-)

James F. (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

IRC cloak

Hi, I'd like to get a wikipedia associated cloak. If I understood it correctly, you are the only person left to contact, and that language associations are no longer available. I'm KevinBreit on IRC, and I've left you a message on IRC as well. The requested cloak is wikipedia/KevinBreit Thank you. Kevin_b_er 23:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Contacting on IRC.

James F. (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion at Village pump

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Resolving_content_disputes. Please help me to find the answer to my questions. Thanks.--AndriyK 13:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, though I think that everything that I would have said has been so done already.

James F. (talk) 07:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Helping out with IRC

I've noticed that there is often a backlog for cloak setting on IRC as you're basically the only contact left these days. I spoke with Jimbo on IRC and asked if I could help out as I'm often on IRC and in the -irc channel. In his usual fashion he delegated the job to someone else (jk), you, so I'd like to ask if there is a chance I can get involved in this. Thanks. —Xyrael _{/ 18:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)}

Dealt with on IRC.

James F. (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ian Bostridge - PNLs and years

Is there a WP policy on PNLs? I can't find one.

Unlinking isolated years is entirely consistent with the policies in WP:MOS-L#Internal links

An article may be considered overlinked if … low added-value items are linked without reason — such as, 1995, 1980s, and 20th century.

and with WP:DATE#Partial dates. Colonies Chris 12:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know exactly what that says. It is a highly controversial reversal of a very long-standing policy, and is widely vilified as such, but (as is too often the case) has its own camp of people dedicated to the current "policy", though it's in the process of being unpicked and rationalised. It doesn't mean that it should be followed blindly - links to the years give context (that is, after all, the entire point of links).

As to PNLs, I don't believe there's a specific written-down policy, just people tidying things up as they go about their wiki-business. :-)

James F. (talk) 07:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Flood exemption / Cloak on freenode for a bot

I operate the bot DigitalBot on freenode in #vandalism-en-wp and #antivandalism as a backup bot for pgkbot. I am interested in obtaining flood exemption and a new cloak (possibly Wikipedia/Digitalme/bots/DigitalBot). Please let me know if this is possible. Thanks.--digital_me^{(TalkˑContribs)} 20:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Issue has been resolved.--digital_me^{(TalkˑContribs)} 00:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Umm... OK. :-)

James F. (talk) 07:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Georgia Move

As a past participant in the discussion on how to handle the Georgia pages, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at Talk:Georgia (country)#Requested_Move_-_July_2006. Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. --Vengeful Cynic 03:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks.

James F. (talk) 07:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering...

Since you are an ArbCom member, you do have the power to delete individual history revisiosn, right? Could you delete [5], [6], and [7]? I don't want to give away my birth year. Hbdragon88 07:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Done.

James F. (talk) 10:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Babel templates again I'm afraid....

Just thought I'd flag these (Template:User en-gb-0 and Template:User CalE-0) up again as they've been recreated, but with new text. Many thanks. Ian3055 21:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Lovely. Done. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

James F. (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

IRC cloak CheNuevara

Can I get a wikipedia/ irc cloak? I've registered the handles CheNuevara, CheNuevara_, and CheNuevara_away. I'd like the cloak to be wikipedia/CheNuevara. Thanks! - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 14:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This has now been requested. Sorry for the delay!

James F. (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Cloak

Hi I'm TehKewl1 secondary nick TehKewl22 email adress Simeon.Higgs@gmail.com, can I please have a cloak?

This has now been requested. Sorry for the delay!

James F. (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

irc cloak plz

main: Deon
Alternative:Deon555

I request a cloak of wikipedia/Deon.

thanks --Deon555|talk 03:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

ps i sent u a memo on irc. ;) Reply here or here

--Deon555|talk 03:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This has now been requested... again. Not sure what happened.

James F. (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam Sloan announcement

"I did not 'attempt' to post 100 chess biographies on Wikipedia. I did post 100 chess biographies on Wikipedia. All but one of them is still there. I merely waited until [ Rook wave ], [ Phr ] and Louis Blair were not looking and reposted them. I added a new biography yesterday and no I am not going to tell you where it is for fear that they will vandalize it again." - Sam Sloan (samhsloan@gmail.com, NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.199.110.255, 11 Jul 2006 05:23:13 -0700) http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/msg/f245a0650c22f010?hl=en

"My Biography of Dimitrije Bjelica" - Sam Sloan (sloan@ishipress.com, NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.199.110.255, Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:09:34 GMT) http://groups.google.com/group/samsloan/msg/eefc91bb2aeda9d0?hl=en http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimitrije_Bjelica - Louis Blair (July 19, 2006)

Libya

Hi,

I've recently added Libya to the list of featured article candidates. Overall the candidature is going well with many of the objections now sorted out. The final concrete objection is with the article's prose. I have been the main contributor to the article and have been looking at it for the previous 9 - 10 months. My eyes no longer see it freshly, so I am not a suitable copy-editor!

To meet the final demand of copy editing, I have been advised to ask different people to edit parts of the article.

I would really love to get this article featured as you can probably see from the page's history! I've worked very hard on it and I see this as possibly being the final hurdle.

You can see the prose objections, mostly raised by Sandy, on the candidature page. If you have the time, please choose a section (Politics, Religion, Culture etc.) and copyedit, perfect, ace it! I would be very grateful with any help I can get.

Thanks a lot,

--Jaw101ie 17:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Will try to do a little. Best of luck!

James F. (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Your recent brief absence

During your recent absence I counted you as present for the purposes of arbitration, because you are usually very active and the absence was brief. This affected the majority calculation on those cases opened in your absence, pushing it from 6 to 7. Please adjust if you won't be participating in those cases. --Tony Sidaway 09:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Ta, will do.

James F. (talk) 09:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Standard practice

It is not standard practice to protect closed RfAs unless there is vandalism going on (are you expecting some?), but some temporary protection here won't hurt anything for now. I'll unprotect it in a week if you forget. NoSeptember 18:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah well, I was evidently mis-informed. :-) Yes, hopefully I will remember to remove, but any poking would be much appreciated. Thanks!

James F. (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Cloak

Could you set me an IRC cloak please. My IRC nick is Konstable.--Konstable 10:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure; requested. It should take a day or so to come through.

James F. (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

IRC Cloak :)

Hi James
I left you a message earlier in the week (or last week i cant remember :P )
Here it is also: Deon|away
Could I please have that cloak :)
Thanks!
Reply here

) Ta

--Deon555|talk 10:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

See above. I've re-requested it.

James F. (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Cloak not yet in effect

How long does it usually take? You told me you'd made the request about a week ago; is this usual? Thanks much! KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Very odd. Have re-requested (along with a few others'); hopefully this time it will come through!

James F. (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)