Jump to content

User talk:John Vandenberg/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

FYI

See this. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought you'd like to know that there have been more than two reverts at Watts Up With That? so you should rush off and protect it immeadiately, following your new policy. Of course, *I* haven't edited it recently, so in that case you don't need to, following your unstated policy. If it would help, I could edit it too, then you could protect it. Would that make a decision easier for you? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW - don't forget that anything you say in reply may be taken down and used as evidence [1] William M. Connolley (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Correct me if I am wrong, but the reverts on Watts Up With That? don't involve people who are parties to an ongoing arbcom case, and I don't see that they are edit warring on other related pages as well. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you're hopelessly wrong, I suppose it would have been far too much trouble to check the case page. MN, AQFK, SA are all parties to the case William M. Connolley (talk) 08:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Message

Thanks for the note. I used to have an account here, but it was taken over and used for vandalism, which I rather disapprove of. I'm actually an admin at the IMSLP (perlnerd666), so I consider it part of my duty there to update the page here.
On a related note, I'm doing work with the Bach Cantatas at IMSLP, and the info could probably be transferred to pages for that cantatas missing here. Cheers24.136.171.237 (talk) 01:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, John Vandenberg. You have new messages at Missy2468's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Missy2468 (talk) 05:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Designer2000.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Designer2000.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 05:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

All my pennies for you-

File:British Penny.jpg I didn't say I was rich. Thanks for turning up. J Milburn (talk) 10:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Will you take a quick look at EuroWeek for me?

Hi John! You removed a db-spam tag I had placed on EuroWeek... and I instantly realized you were right to do so. All the annoying marketing puffery was blinding me to the fact that the bones of a passable article were hidden under all the cruft. So I made an attempt to take out all the peacock squawking... and I am wondering if you would mind taking a look at the article now and letting me know If what I did was okay? I haven't yet tried to wikify at all, or even search for better references... I just took out the PR jargon and tried to bring it back to an NPOV tone. I am fairly new at this, and would really appreciate your guidance. Thank you, Tarastar42 (talk) 06:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Tarastar42

It will take a while for it to be a decent article, but you've done a great job on nudging it in the right direction. Thanks, John Vandenberg (chat) 15:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

delsort documentation

Some days I feel like a newbie. I can't get the delsort tab to show up even after purging. It'd help if the screenshot was updated. Marcus Qwertyus 20:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You are using the new vector skin? I'll update the documentation and screenshots in a few hours. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I've added three images to User:John Vandenberg/Deletion sorting tool. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/210.165.133.93

The only thing this user has done since being unblocked is to edit war on my talkpage. What recourse do I have at this point?--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If it happens again, we can reblock the IP and/or semi-protect your talk page for a short duration. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, they got blocked for it on Commons, but I really let this one get under my skin. Deep breath...--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Removing warning messages from discussion

Hi John. Is it allowed removing from your own discussion the warning messages like the one related to 3RR? I mean this. --210.165.133.93 (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is allowed. In this case, their block log records the 3RR anyway. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the information, John. I did not know that. --210.165.133.93 (talk) 09:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

congrats

\*/

cheers, Jack Merridew 06:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

thx mate. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Welcome!

Hi John, I am concentrating on Indonesian pages, and therefore there will be only small changes on English pages. Thanks for the greeting. Surely I will ask from senior wikipedian like you hehehe... -- Stepanus David Kurniawan (talk) 03:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

User:WritersCramp

Are you still "mentoring" this user? You should be aware that he is now calling Yomangani (talk · contribs) a sockpuppet in [2], is apparently reverting false information back into his pet article Monkey-baiting in [3]. I would appreciate any attention you can give to your charge. Hipocrite (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and filing incipd wikilawyering sock investigations - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yomangani. Hipocrite (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps your input would help make me understand WP:ANI#WritersCramp ban evasion? Thanks,  Sandstein  16:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not actively mentoring WritersCramp, but he emailed me when this started. I was away for the weekend, so I missed it. I'll talk with him offline about this, but Roger has clarified the current situation. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Xanderliptak

John: I'm not sure if you're aware of this discussion on Xeno's talk page. I need to back off from engagement with Xanderliptak, because he's getting under my skin, and I really don't want to get any testier than I already have been, but it seems to me there's a real problem with this editor of serious IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and perhaps even of COMPETENCE, and that, eventually something will have to be done about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

replied on Commons. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

C'est moi, with a PD question

Hi, John. :) A contributor at my talk page is seeking input on the copyright status of this 1955 telegram. It is posted at this specific subsection of the National Archives and Records Administration. Per their information page, "Generally, materials produced by Federal agencies are in the public domain and may be reproduced without permission. However, not all materials appearing on this web site are in the public domain. Some materials have been donated or obtained from individuals or organizations and may be subject to restrictions on use.... You may consult our reference staff for details on specific items. We are aware of donor restrictions applicable to our collections, but we can not confirm copyright status for any item. We recommend that you contact the United States Copyright Office at The Library of Congress to search currently copyrighted materials." In other words, we can ask them, but they won't confirm copyright status. Do you know any way I can help her determine if this content is free? I don't see any indication when it was originally published, even though the origin date is indisputable. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, John. Since you seem to be quite busy, I'm going to check elsewhere on this one. :) Thanks anyway! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Changing the question. :) The feedback I received was that the telegram should be usable under {{PD-US-no notice}}, but the contributor who believes so also recommended that I seek other opinions. Would you concur, or would you find that problematic? I know that it's "not binding", but I know if I were in Moni's position I'd feel more confident uploading the content knowing that others don't view it as a clear issue. (Or, conversely, not uploading it if they do.) If you don't have an opinion, please let me know, and I'll keep looking. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
{{PD-US-no-notice}} does not apply unless the document was legally published before 1978 without notice; I doubt this was legally published - public display is not legal publishing. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Unless it was published before 1978 without notice, it will be copyright for many years to come (the greater of 70pma/2047).
There may be some special rule which allows this to be PD, but I can't think of one.
The simplest approach is to ask any living relatives for a PD release. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks much, John. As I always, I greatly value your input. I so much prefer my simple, current copyright issues. :P Just as an update, User:Physchim62 agrees with you, while User:Magog the Ogre and User:Peripitus both have weighed in at Angus's talk page agreeing with Angus. I've told them your view. I guess I'll wait a bit to see if anybody switches sides and then tell Moni the feedback I've received. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Query: Does [4] (which I'm not quite sure how to cite) have relevance here. Or am I reading it wrong. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sort of; that is the provision which allows NARA to be immune from copyright violation. A similar provision allows Congressional Record to include copyright works. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Gimmietoo and harassment

Hi. Please see Talk:Halle Berry#Awards style and the similar stuff re Angelina Jolie. This fellow has been systematically dogging my edits and undoing reasonable things. Undoing ref improvements, markup structure, &c. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

and WP:ANI#Merridew behaviour — resolved ;)
Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

You have new messages (last change).

/ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Wikileaks

Template:Wikileaks has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Half Price 13:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, John Vandenberg. You have new messages at Jayen466's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Heads up about an RfC

Please note that there's a new discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure in which you may wish to comment. It is expected to close in about a week. You have received this message because you participated in a similar discussion (2009 AC2 RfC) last year.  Roger talk 05:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

"Die gesammten Naturwissenschaften"

My English is rather poor, therefore I'd better not to interfere in articles. You took the risk to leave your address on my talk page (by the way: the dictionary said carelessness, but this expression was definitely not the thing I wanted to express).

My problem: In the german Wikipedia I created an artikel [5]. Using this list of links it's possible to visit every picture, but I aimed for reading the text as an electronic matter, this means without looking at the pictures. For the first pages I completed my work. Please take this as an example for the real question.

Also in the German WP I did such work for "Die gesammten Naturwissenschaften". But this is transferred to commons [6] and does not work yet in detail. Those who moved it didn't finish their work yet. I'm not an administrator and have no possibility to get the texts I had already written. The page above is an example that works, but the next page (link to nachfolgende Seiten) doesn't contain the nessesary next link.

The first problem is the language of the links. But this is formal.

The whole thing would be better in wikisource, but I'm not able for this. And the thing is, it is a task for an open wiki, a wiki everyone or at least many people can contribute to this work. Nobody I think takes a random look at those things. This doesn't meet my aim.

The way I choosed gives this posibility but lacks by writing all the text in refs. It seems to be the best to have about 100 artikels of the same name which differ in parentesis. E.g. in "Taschen-Lexikon_des_allgemeinen_Wissens_von_Daniel_Sanders" this could be an article for every letter.

In the german WP I dare not to do such a thing. The questions I put there have not been answered. Good bye -- Wefo (talk) 11:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello Wefo.
We have a saying, "Nothing Risked, Nothing Gained". ;-)
What a lovely 'little' project you are working on. You are right that this project is better on wikisource.
It is late Friday evening for me, but I can help you move the text to Wikisource this weekend. I have already asked someone who is better at German to help, and they have agreed.
John Vandenberg (chat) 12:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
German is not a problem, but first: Which project are we talking of? And the thing is, that I'm not convinced Wikisource is really the best solution. Greetings -- Wefo (talk) 13:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't mention: There are links at the first pages of Taschen-Lexikon which lead into the german WP. What about these in Wikisource? Gr. -- Wefo (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
As an example please take a look at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Wefo/%E2%80%9EDie_gesammten_Naturwissenschaften%E2%80%9C#Mechanik._Von_Dr._P._Zech.2C_Professor_am_Polytechnicum_in_Stuttgart. There are many links into the ge:WP. There could be also references to explain our modern view. Having such an artile in german, it would be possible to translate it for other WPs. -- Wefo (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
To your information: There is obviously no possibility to organize a comfortable access to the pictures nor to any electronic form of the texts. Good night -- Wefo (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Dumbarton Oaks Papers cover.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Dumbarton Oaks Papers cover.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that my experiance with pictures concerning the famous ZX81 (to find in http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Sinclair_ZX81) is something similar. Even the package was not accepted, one of the books remained with a silly text. -- Wefo (talk) 06:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
In the article is specially missing such a picture like Verkaufskarton showing the set of delivered parts in connection with the parts being expected the user has already got. -- Wefo (talk) 11:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Adamantius (journal)

Hello John--when you have a moment, can you chime in here, Talk:Adamantius (journal), please? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I'll provide the background to the restoration shortly. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Siddiqui

You didn't happen to save any data on the following did you? If so, mind taking a look? Thanks, Tiptoety talk 03:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, John. :) Should I ask you directly when problems seem to arise with this particular sockmaster? I'm not sure the protocol here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl, you did nothing wrong by filing an SPI and requesting a CheckUser be ran. The reason I made a stink on the case page was because the clerk should not have endorsed without checking to see if the accounts were stale or not. The clerk should have been the one to raise John Vandenberg's attention. So, for the purpose of keeping a good record go ahead and keep doing as you are doing and filing an SPI, and we can handle the more "technical" aspects. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 18:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

George Alan Rekers

Thanks for asking questions on George Alan Rekers and thereby helping to solidify a consensus. Part of the talk was about whether to use the word "prostitute" in favor of "escort." Sex work is real work and does not bring shame to those who voluntarily decide to do it, as prostitute is not a disparaging word in those cases. I appreciate what I have read on Australian news sites about the progressive actions in sex worker rights on the east coast of your country and I am flattered that you in Australia for whatever reason have an interest in social issues in my country, America. Thank you for your attention. Blue Rasberry 16:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

You have new messages (last change).

/ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

ACE voter log

Greetings John. I recall you took an interest in analysing voting patterns in last year's ArbCom elections. I've started a discussion at the election talkpage about whether it's worth having an on-wiki voter log this year and wondered if you would like to share your thoughts. Regards, Skomorokh 12:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Log suppression

Hi, you recently hid a bunch of log entries with the following comment:

RD5: Other valid deletion under Deletion Policy: author request

As you will be aware, use of this tool is subject to the following conditions:

  • Log redaction (outside of the very limited scope of criterion RD2 for the move and deletion logs) is intended solely for grossly improper content, and not permitted for ordinary matters; the community needs to be able to review users' block logs and other logs, whether or not proper.
  • RD5 and RD6 should be accompanied by additional clear explanation.

I do not see that these have been fulfilled. Log entries have been removed for a reason other than RD2, and RD5 has been used without clear explanation. "Author request" does not constitute clear explanation, especially as it also does not constitute a "valid deletion under deletion policy" -- the only "author request" provision in the deletion policy is speedy deletion G7, which applies only to pages, and as written clearly cannot apply to log entries.

If the reason for suppression was that the file name or content contained personal information, the reason should state this (and specify RD4, not RD5). If it meets one of the other criteria (though I'm struggling to see how it could), it should specify that. As it stands, these actions go against the policy as written. Gurch (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gurch, it's good to see someone is watching. ;-)
You've correctly guessed the underlying reason here.
As a bit of background, this was done in response to an oversight request. The person realised the error of releasing this information soon after they did it, and in June 2006 they requested speedy deletion under 'author request'. As a result, the content was deleted by three different admins (iirc), and at the time this was seen as sufficient. The person left the project soon after. With the increased popularity of Wikipedia, and the increasing attention to the history of pages, the person realised that the information in the logs was still 'public', and requested it be removed.
In cases where personal information is released on Wikipedia, strictly speaking it is no longer 'non-public'. However oversighters have always taken into account whether the person released this at the time. When information is released by minors, by honest accident, or by Wikipedians before they understood Wikipedia well, we consider granting them WP:OVER (1) in order to 'do no harm'. We take into account whether or not the material being redacted is of any significant value to the community.
wrt to the condition that log redaction is not permitted for ordinary matters, the intent was to ensure it was not used to patch up mistakes or prevent scrutiny. If WikipedianA calls WikipedianB a c* in a log, I wouldn't use REVDEL unless the matter has been recorded on WikipedianA's talk page for future reference, WikipedianB requests that it is removed, and this use of revdel would be an admin action, revisable by another admin and/or community consensus. And it would never qualify for WP:OVER in my books.
My thinking process for this oversight request was as follows. Strictly speaking, it doesn't satisfy the criteria for OVER(1), and they were not a minor. Moreover, this type of information is useful for WP:researchers and I couldn't justify hiding it from admins. Note that blitzing it under OVER(1) would have been the easy option, because then my actions would be in a non-public log and not open for scrutiny by your good self, and I wouldn't need to then go back and revdel my own log entries so that only admins can see the details. As you know, I took the other approach, applying admin visible REVDEL to the original 2006 problem, and then I applied admin visible REVDEL to my own log entries which repeated the original problem.
The end result is that this blunder from 2006, which has no value to the community, is no longer public. However, admins can review it.
It would have been better for me to have mentioned 'personal information' in addition to 'Author request'. It was both. Another approach could have been to use OVER(1) in my log message while still using admin-visible revdel.
I hope this has addressed your concerns about the actions I have taken, but realise this may not address concerns that my actions and log messages don't strictly align with policy.
If you are still concerned about my actions, I can provide a little more detail private, you can ask an admin to take a look, or you can email the audit subcommittee.
John Vandenberg (chat) 23:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Having re-read the policy and asked on the revision deletion talk page I realise I was wrong in my assumptions. (The bit about oversight actually says that when dealing with revisions containing personal information, you're supposed to avoid saying that's what it is... and assuming writing a blank summary or nonsense isn't an option, something like the summaries used here is about the best option).) I'm not entirely sure I agree with that segment of the policy but I can hardly complain to people that are following it. Sorry for bothering you. Gurch (talk) 01:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
It is not a bother; it's good to have more people, esp non-admins, thinking about these issues. There is no easy solution other than locking down the wiki. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

hello

Mr. Vandenberg:

Seems like you are quite harsh on this John W. Flores article, for some reason. It is very prestigious for a civilian to receive the U.S. Navy Meritorious Public Service Award--obviously you don't realize that. And one signed and delivered from the Marine Corps Commandant. A previous recipient of that award was a scientist who developed a new aspect of sonar for use in ballistic missile nuclear submarines. For one example. I know this guy, former colleague. He is a notable writer for sure. The Texas Senate Resolution is incredible as well as his book and new book coming out soon. Google. He's there. To me the references are there, easy to verify. IF this article is deleted, so what. Somebody else will write another one. He has made a great impact, positive, for a lot of people in Texas and New Mexico. Gov. Bill Richardson has sent two citations to him for his work in New Mexico since 2005. For another example. And recently actor Martin Sheen wrote to Flores and expressed a great interest in the new book. So when it comes out he'll probably send a copy to Sheen who is well-connected among actors and directors. Should a movie be made, Wikipedia will have to put him up there! This kid is on his way up.

J. Chisholm

98.230.192.94 (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo FH-Koeln.png

⚠
⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 05:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo FH-Koeln.png

⚠
⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 03:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment

You Ozzies raise our expectations and then dash them to shreds immediately. I was looking forward to reading and comparing the statements of the two Caslibers and then asking each of them what they thought of the other. Now I will have to tailor those questions for Kate de Burgh. (I believe she has modified her preferred form of address following the official announcement of the Royal Wedding; she was of course privy to the news well beforehand.) Mathsci (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the election!

Dear John Vandenberg, thank you for nominating yourself as a candidate in the 2010 Arbitration Committee elections. On behalf of the coordinators, allow me to welcome you to the election and make a few suggestions to help you get set up. By now, you ought to have written your nomination statement, which should be no more than 400 words and declare any alternate or former user accounts you have contributed under (or, in the case of privacy concerns, a declaration that you have disclosed them to the Arbitration Committee). Although there are no fixed guidelines for how to write a statement, note that many candidates treat this as an opportunity, in their own way, to put a cogent case as to why editors should vote for them—highlighting the strengths they would bring to the job, and convincing the community they would cope with the workload and responsibilities of being an arbitrator.

You should at this point have your own questions subpage; feel free to begin answering the questions as you please. Together, the nomination statement and questions subpage should be transcluded to your candidate profile, whose talkpage will serve as the central location for discussion of your candidacy. If you experience any difficulty setting up these pages, please follow the links in the footer below. If you need assistance, on this or any other matter (including objectionable questions or commentary by others on your candidate pages), please notify the coordinators at their talkpage. If you have followed these instructions correctly, congratulations, you are now officially a candidate for the Arbitration Committee. Good luck! Sven Manguard Talk 22:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Awesome ;) Jack Merridew 23:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe you're missing an E. :) ++Lar: t/c 01:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
fixed ;)

Questions from Lar

Hi. Best of luck in your upcoming trial by fire. As in previous years I have a series of questions I ask candidates. This year there are restrictions on the length and number of questions on the "official" page for questions, restrictions which I do not agree with, but which I will abide by. I nevertheless think my questions are important and relevant (and I am not the only person to think so, in previous years they have drawn favorable comment from many, including in at least one case indepth analysis of candidates answers to them by third parties). You are invited to answer them if you so choose. I suggest that the talk page of your questions page is a good place to put them and I will do so with your acquiescence (for example, SirFozzie's page already has them as do the majority of other candidates). Your answers, (or non-answers should you decide not to answer them), that will be a factor in my evaluation of your candidacy. Please let me know as soon as practical what your wish is. Thanks and best of luck. (please answer here, I'll see it, and it keeps things together better) ++Lar: t/c 01:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to answer them; feel free to place them on the talk page like SirFozzie, and I'll answer them as soon as I've done the main set of questions. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Added, thanks. ++Lar: t/c 04:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

wikipage.js

Hi, John. I've long used the std server, not the secure server. I might-well switch, now. I've also long had an odd issue with the secure server; I was getting a message box on every page-load that said "WikiPage: Couldn't parse page name from url" followed by the url. I didn't bother looking into it until today. I Googled it, and saw some external ref to wikipage.js and Googled that, and the top hit was User:John Vandenberg/Deletion sorting tool which pointed me at User:Quarl/wikipage.js. Ding. That's one of the dependencies of your tool. I just commented-out that stuff in my User:Jack Merridew/monobook.js and it, of course, went away. I'm not using it lately, but would like it back... could you peek at the config I was using and comment or just slap it into shape?

Ya good? Enjoying projects? Best wishes, Jack Merridew 23:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Other than being a bit masochistic, and missing Wikisource, I'm well. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
No hurry; you've a few tough questions on their way. I'd not seen ↑that↑ until I saved this thread; the '+' being at the top facilitates missing the bottom threads. I saw your off-wiki comments about Firesheep; it's gonna become a problem and we need to stay ahead. Stay well. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

WM Australia proposal

John, have you thought more about copyright? I guess it would be good to have an idea about how serious an impediment it might be to the repertoire, when I have this meeting with them on Monday. Perhaps we can talk on the weekend some time to get my lines right, as it were? Tony (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I have thought more about it ;-) A chat before Monday would be good. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ...

... for catching that one. I ran the case just now to get it done. Saw the initial diff being suppressed and thought it was finished :) - Alison ❤ 05:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't finish it the first time; I got side-tracked .. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Disturbing Behavior at FT2's Question Page

This message has been posted to both involved parties' talk pages in identical form. Please discuss this further at the coordination talk page, rather than on your individual pages.

Let me make this very clear. This has to stop, if not because it reflects poorly on the two of you, if not because it reflects poorly on the elections, but at the very least because it is, at this point, disruptive. You are bickering over information that the public can not see, and accusations are being traded that can not be verified by the community at large. At this point, the damage is limited, and both of you have much more to gain by shaking hands and moving on. If there is a real concern here, it should be brought to ArbCom in private. If this is only posturing, it has to end. This is neither the time nor the place for this concern to be voiced, and while I do not have the authority to compel you to stop, I would kindly ask (in the strongest possible way) that it does.

Thank you, Sven Manguard Talk 05:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're entirely wrong, Sven. It's a terrible idea to shush things up, and it's murderous of language to describe this as 'disruptive'. Have better faith in the electorate / wiki editors, that they can judge for themselves the merits and pitfalls of both John and FT's handling of this matter. It really isn't for you to make that call..... in fact, it's disruptive ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I think "both of you have much more to gain" is the operative phrase here, from the point of view of whoever is socking with Sven. Ceoil (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Invalid speedy deletion rationale

Wikihounding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted by you with an apparently invalid rationale. The rule which you referenced applies "to any other namespace except the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespaces." As the redirect which you deleted was to the Wikipedia namespace, this would be covered by that exception. __meco (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I thought they were not allowed. I've restored it. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

RE:answering your followup

Nah, it's not a problem at all. Go ahead. - Fedayee (talk) 05:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

RE:rollback

Hi John Vandenberg. Thank you for granting me autopatrolled, rollback and reviewer rights.  :) --JinJian (talk) 08:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks John!

Thanks for that John! MikeLynch (talk) 10:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Sharonmil

Can I get a clue about this one? In the area I was working this person's contributions seemed entirely helpful. Dragons flight (talk) 08:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Basic info provided; email myself or functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org if you would like to discuss this further. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
The discussion looked fair and why would you erase the whole discussion.--Stone (talk) 09:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
What does the : Basic info provided; mean? The user page does not state why he was blocked. --09:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't very clear earlier. I have emailed Dragons flight with some basic information. I don't know how much he wants to know. If he or anyone else wants to know more it will need to be via email. I've added a tag on the user page now.

The comments by this person needed to be removed. I couldn't see a way of keeping only other peoples comments in this thread, but someone involved may be able to. this was a copy of the same discussion. In other cases I removed only the offending comment. Sorry for meddling in your articles and discussions. ;-( John Vandenberg (chat) 09:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted your change regarding this user in Adrian_Lamo. Please discuss at Talk:Adrian_Lamo#Small_reorganise. Ms7821 (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I need your help

Um I reverted an IP edit and now hes trying to get me blocked on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. Your help would me nuch appreciated! Big Brother of The Party (talk) 10:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry mate, but the blocking admin has done the right thing. Come back tomorrow and don't repeat that type of behaviour. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Glenn Greenwald

I realize you were cleaning up after a banned user, but this revert restored a poorer version. What do you recommend as the next step? Viriditas (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Rebuild, but avoid simply re-integrating this persons work. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice homepage

Hi, You have a very nice user homepage. I need to make a nice user homepage like you have. mike James Michael DuPont (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, John Vandenberg. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Survey says...

Welcome back, Jay. — Coren (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys; any idea what the process is from here, and how these results are going to be interpreted? John Vandenberg (chat) 02:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
It's in Jimbo's hands now. There will be 12 seats to fill for 2011; Jimbo may not fill them all (has happened before). Hearty congratulations and welcome back from me also, Skomorokh 02:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

What? What do you mean you didn't know about the robes? I thought the only reason anyone ever ran for such a thankless job was so that they could get a nice set of plush golden robes. "In it for the community" you say? Bah! The bling is where it's at. Even the Supreme Court can't top this swag. You could pawn this for a house! Why the heck else did you think that the foundation needed 20 million dollars?

So you're really serious about the whole "helping the community" and "for the good of the project" business? Aww, shucks. Go ahead and keep the robe anyways then. Do us proud.

Congratulations on your victory, may your tenure be peaceful and have a net low adverse interaction on your sanity. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Harrumph! That made me sad. Go ahead and toss the robe if you want. I'll send you a robe of sawdust and cat hair, if you prefer. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Congrats from me as well Secret account 19:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations from me as well. I look forward to working with you once again. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Emailsenttext

I noticed your addition today that overrides the mediawiki default. Would you consider removing that? A lot of editors don't care for templates, and I'm not sure a system message encouraging the use of a template is appropriate. At the very least, the message should be more neutral and simply inform them of the existence of the template without saying it's a "good idea" to use it. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The wording was taken from MediaWiki:Emailpagetext. I'm not keen on the wording myself, or the template to be honest. It was added by Od Mishehu (talk · contribs). If it is to be removed or revised, the change should take both into account. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I knew I was going to miss some nuance, given your edit summary suggests you copied the wording from elsewhere. I will track it down there. Thanks! --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Good grief

Don't let the stress get to you. The holidays are a difficult time of year, and it's not very nice to receive unwanted attention now. Hopefully your admirer will take the hint and go do something else. Sometimes it is really best to drop an issue, irrespective of whether one is right or wrong. Jehochman Talk 12:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Your username on gawiki

Hi John,

You've an outstanding account rename over ga.wikipedia. It's been far too long, too (sorry!) I've just been made 'crat there today and would like to get it sorted for you. I notice there's an account already there, created by SUL so do you still want User:Jayvdb renamed to this one? - Alison ❤ 04:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Congrats Alison; please move aside the SUL account, and rename Jayvdb to John Vandenberg. Sorry for creating busy work. Thanks, John Vandenberg (chat) 05:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, John. All  Done now - sorry about the delay. We've only had one 'crat on there & he's been very busy IRL - Alison ❤ 05:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Africa topic

I am looking for advice. Template:Africa topic is used as {{Africa topic|Geology of}} in two articles: Geology of Cape Verde and Geology of Chad. All the other countries are redlinks, but presumably could/should have articles. However, geology often does not fit conveniently into countries. I would like to make a "Geology of Africa" template something like:

The idea is to start with the major geological formations, then go down to the country level. But I do not want to duplicate the country list. I suspect geology is just an example. Other subjects would be similar: useful to have a template that includes (transcludes?) the standard list of countries, territories etc., but that also has other stuff. Thoughts? Aymatth2 (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The simplest approach is to begin with two templates on each article, one under the other.
i.e. create template:Major African geological formations (?) with the top half of your example above, and then use it and {{Africa topic|Geology of}} in the articles.
Will that achieve your immediate goal? John Vandenberg (chat) 09:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • That works. I was sort of thinking there could be a neat method of including the country list in another template, which could be useful for articles on subjects like music, languages etc. that also span countries. But simple is good! And come to think of it, some articles may be better with only one or the other template. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of File:Buzzmcnabpsych.jpg

What's your reasoning for this tag? I've declined the speedy for the time being, but am curious to see if I've missed something. — GorillaWarfare talk 06:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It's rationale is for a list article, and we don't usually keep non-free images for lists. The rationale could be adjusted to be for Buzz McNab, but a rationale needs to demonstrate that the image is needed, and reliable sources are missing from that article. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

When other state libraries do it maybe - just one state - hmmm SatuSuro 11:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Also - the leading to the pdf in the australian noticeboard is one thing - what about the other 6? I think it would be good if some indication of where the state of play is with them - dumb bureaucrats playing the money game or 'oh not us' - a shame list if there is no current negotiation going on would be well worth showing here or at wm oz SatuSuro 01:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There are no negotiations with any other state libraries at present, but that is because we put our time into working with the SLQ rather than going to the other state libraries. We hope the others come to us, or we will reach out to them when we have more time on our hands (after Wikipedia Ten). You should talk to your state library, by social media or email, etc. WMAu isn't going to send out negative messages about other cultural institutions, as this media campaign is being felt, so we should give them a bit of time to work out what they are going to do. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
yeah i can see the need for a positive field - (and the time and energy issue for wm people) - but am jus slightly aware of some of the forces within some state systems that smell of nah no money in it attitude - maybe something like Australian regional rivalries will play it self out in this area over time - to everyones benefit in the end SatuSuro 07:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
This is why we are focusing on SLQ. Galleries and Museums are usually money focused, but Libraries are (or should be) full of people who want to make large volumes of information available to everyone. We want to ensure that SLQ can show that this collaboration resulted in increased access and usage of the information. We're building reports so that they can see how many eyes saw these images; this data will be compared to how many eyes see the same images on their website. They are pretty cool about accepting that they can no longer measure impact by catalogue search requests, books borrowed, people through the front door, or even website visits. They have a neatly focused Flickr Commons collection, and now a large Wikimedia Commons collection, and they are including these as part of their "impact", as if it was bums on seats at the tty terminals in the old days. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

note

Replied at my talk page. Orderinchaos 23:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikisource request

I am switching user names. Could you delete my current Wikisource user page and move my account on that project to the new user name "Haymaker"? - Schrandit (talk) 23:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted your userpage there.
You can request a rename by asking s:User:BirgitteSB or s:User:Zhaladshar.
I can relay your request, but you'll first need to rename on one project. See [7] for how I started the process. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the guidance, I will get on that. - Schrandit (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Members

I see you've edited this page. I've discovered that there are a number of names on the list that actually do not exist as accounts and were added by other editors. See WP:AN#Is there a way of finding out when an account was created? Looking through names where the userpage is redlinked I find others, eg [8]. Dougweller (talk) 13:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Two more observations - some of the non-existent account names have been added with some detail, which is odd. Also, some names are of existing accounts but their only edit has been to add their name to the list. A bit fishy? Dougweller (talk) 13:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I also found an account with only one edit but added by another editor. Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
To help find when they were added, perform a linear search for the username using the history search tool.
Ganga Panda was added here by an IP in India. My guess is that the person who uses that alias did want to join the project, and merely copied the entries around it, without ever creating an account.
The very next edit is another example of a 'member' being added by someone else; Coolguyche17 (talk · contribs) added Bharathmeister (talk · contribs). And User_talk:Bharathmeister redirects to User talk:Coolguyche17.
[9] looks like a person adding their real name instead of their username.(see bottom of [10])
If the 'right' username can't be found, these invalid usernames should be removed from the list, especially when a real name is involved as it is a oversight request waiting to happen.
An edit filter might be able to alert when a user is adding a username other than their own.
Good luck sorting that mess out ;-) John Vandenberg (chat) 23:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I did a bit and gave up. :-) Dougweller (talk) 12:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, John Vandenberg! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Festive season ended

I would like you to make good on your word to return to the past questions you left outstanding in December (you know which ones). If you need time, let me know a specific date within a week or two that is viable.

Thanks,

FT2 (Talk | email) 16:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

New Cats re floods

The earlier versions were far too generic and broad (Floods in Australia?)- so I tried some narrower cats - thanks for populating the main page of the Brisbane one - I am concerned the New South Wales floods are not being adequately described or indicated - any clues? River catchments? any ideas appreciated SatuSuro 09:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

afaics, we lack many articles about floods BW (Before Wikipedia). I can only see the two for NSW: 1955 Hunter Valley floods and 2007 Hunter region and Central Coast storms. See Floods in Australia and sort by casualties: top three don't have articles. see Gundagai#Floods, Clermont, Queensland. List of disasters in Australia by death toll is also missing articles about significant events.
wrt Queensland, finer grained categorisation is needed for the uploaded images of floods. see commons:Commons_talk:State_Library_of_Queensland#Floods. There is lots of potential for new articles in those images. It is nice to see 100+ of Commons categories being created each day to cater for these images of Queensland.
John Vandenberg (chat) 11:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
ta - busy stuff terrible tragedy SatuSuro 13:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
started stub -Floods_in_New_South_Wales but a very long way to go SatuSuro 13:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Lovely. There are some related NSW images in the SLQ donation. I'm offline today (Thursday) but I'll find them and categorise them on Friday. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, John Vandenberg. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Fæ (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Andes U.jpg

⚠
⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Signpost fixes

Hi, I was just going to reply to your note on Tony's talk page. Feel free to make such minor edits yourself in the future: Although the informational content of a Signpost story shouldn't be changed significantly after publication without a pressing reason, such obvious spelling fixes are always welcome - see also Wikipedia:Signpost/About. Thanks for your attentive reading of the Signpost! ;) Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know for the future. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Why the removal on Talk:Ruggero Santilli?

Can you explain why you removed the comments from the IP from Talk:Ruggero Santilli? While some of them were not phrased in Wiki-speak, some of them seemed to be legitimate issues. At first I thought you were just removing the duplicate message, but it appears you removed both. Was that in error? I know that I'm often more conservative about reverting soapboxing and/or WP:NOTFORUM comments, but to me those looked to be something slightly different. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Gday, the IPs blurb was both soapboxing about the theory and void of any information that might be useful in development of the article. It was not critical discussion of the article. It is not the role of the discussion page for proponents to demand that 'Wikipedia' publish academic articles which support statements in our articles and/or refute theories, or rant that the article will result in "catastrophic damage to Wikipedia's scientific credibility."; the discussion page is to be used for ensuring that our article aligns well with existing academic articles. I left them a note at User talk:80.66.190.78. I think it is more likely that they will become a useful contributor if they engage in discussion away from that talk page until they have better understood Wikipedia. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
When the IP reposted the comments, as you saw, I responded. Apologies if you feel my response made/makes the problem worse. After hearing your response above, I do think your deletion had merit. However, for some reason, I have what some probably feel is an overly optimistic approach to dealing with soapboxing, POV, and COI. Somehow I feel like even if we can almost never win them over, we should be able to walk away feeling like we did our best to lay out our rules, we were fair in applying them, and we tried to give the "other" a way in, even if they refused. Maybe, though, I just haven't had enough run-ins with incorrigibly recalcitrant editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
No need for apologies; it is good to be optimistic. I try to be, but on some topics we see the same comments appear year after year with very little progress to the article.
In addition to being fair to people like these anons, I also put weight on our future readers of the discussion archives; deciding how much "engagement with FORUM-only editors" to leave in the archives is a judgement call. (signal to noise ratio) I don't like to remove discussions between multiple people, so I tend to remove undesirable comments prior to the first reply.
In this case, there hasn't been any progress on the article, but the content isn't "worse", so there is no problem. ;-)
John Vandenberg (chat) 03:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hello John Vandenberg. I've noticed you had created some pages on Azerbaijan and that you are an admin. Do you normally comment or review cases on AN pages? Tuscumbia (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I avoid using my admin tool in Azeri and Armenian topics, but I am happy to take a look and provide comments. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Article review

Hi. As I'm currently sanctioned with topic ban, could you review Caucasian Albania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for NPOV concerns regarding the recently added section "Caucasian Albania and Azerbaijani historical revisionism""? I think that the single-purpose accounts of Gorzaim (talk · contribs) and Vandorenfm (talk · contribs) (presently blocked) are being used to provoke other editors via editwarring, in violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Provocation. Twilightchill t 17:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear John Vanderberg. Please note that User talk:Twilight Chill has recently been banned from editing topics on Armenia/Azerbaijan for one year (see this: [11]) because of edit warring in the article on Caucasian Albania, and multiple other violations. Here, apparently, this banned user is trying to summon support from people like you to justify his misdeeds or to achieve his ends at the expense of someone else's reputation. Thanks. Xebulon (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Xebulon for alerting me to the AE request. It would have been better for Twilight Chill to refer to Gorzaim&Vandorenfm as new users, but it is easy to see why he views them as SPAs. I've been participating and monitoring the AA area for a long time, so it is appropriate for Twilight Chill to ask for my assistance/comments. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Twilight Chill, wrt your NPOV concerns, edit warring and removal of entire sections isn't appropriate. Historical revisionism is relevant to Caucasian Albania; maybe the section should be trimmed down a bit, but that should have been discussed on talk, noticeboards, etc., or a RFC if consensus can't be found. Removing it wasn't the right approach.
I can't see how these two accounts provoked you. Which edits?
Also, note that the first sentence of the Provocation principle is primarily there to underpin the second, which is based around the idea that we don't WP:BITE newbies - i.e. the intention is to prevent newcomers from being harassed by established users. In this circumstance Gorzaim&Vandorenfm are the newcomers, and you are the established user. Of course provocation can happen to established users as well, especially with sock puppets and anon edits, but established editors are expected to be more familiar with the editing culture, meaning that the bar is higher for provocation of established users. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hi John! I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE.

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Delsort

Hi John, I've just installed the deletion sorting tool. When I try to use it, however, messages like the following appear in the pop-up box:

Nominated article name: Yesenia Ortiz Acosta: Status

Check the article "Yesenia Ortiz Acosta" exists ...: Status

done: Progress

OK : Status

Grabbing edit form for Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Puerto Rico: Status

Error: TypeError: Object #<an Object> has no method 'toSource': Error

The last line is in red, and the process breaks down at that point. Could you tell me what is wrong? --JN466 14:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Which browser are you using ? John Vandenberg (chat) 21:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Google Chrome, mostly. --JN466 21:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
When I use Google Chrome 9.0.597.94 (latest) on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IQ testing environmental variances, delsort fails to add the delsort tab in the vector skin, and fails in monobook with:
Can not determine article name for "Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/IQ_testing_environmental_variances"
I've added Google Chrome as a problem on the documentation. Thanks for letting me know. Of course, it works in Firefox... John Vandenberg (chat) 23:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll switch to Firefox for delsorting then ... --JN466 13:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
And by the way, thanks for the pointer to the "useful" User:Lupin/popups.js. It really is useful ... I had no idea such a thing existed! --JN466 13:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
All in a days work, John Vandenberg (chat) 02:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Town sheriff

Hi. Noticed this? Cheers, Jack Merridew 17:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I have now! Thanks.
I give it a 10% chance of launching, and 2% chance of being beneficial. Which is sad. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Also being discussed on WR. --John Vandenberg (chat) 23:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I suppose they mean well. The old western movies are full of nice white-hat sheriffs, but most weren't, really. They're mostly depicted using Colts and Winchesters, but the reality of it was saw-off shotguns for sheer room-clearing. I left a few refs to prior attempt along these line on the talk page. WT:Town sheriff#Abuse. It'll get MfD soon enough, and if it lives it'll have either an Historical or Humour tag on it. And then there are the modern sheriffs, such as Joe Arpaio (Arizona, again;). Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Subulussalam

Seems Google has it wrong. I've added refs and have had talks with folks on id:wp and jv:wp about this, so I'm pretty sure I'm right. I'm going to go around to other wikis, and get them all in sync; I'm doing a lot of this. I'm wondering if Google will adopt this back into maps.google. They offer a link to our article from there. So, it's something to watch, and learn if they feed off us, or if they'll stick to their guns (↑pun;) and cut the association since I've changed the coords (by some hundreds of klicks).

Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

History of molecular biology

John, I've just been looking at huge chunk you cut out of this article way back on 30 Dec 2009. I'm not concerned about the Livingrm edits, but rather the large chunk added by ip 76.200.188.59 on 12 Sep 2009. A little googling showed that it had actually been moved from the James Watson article here (and it still survives in the schools-wiki "hand-picked" selection - well, yes). Now I'm not saying that it was a good move, but it's classic historic stuff which hasn't regenerated itself in the James Watson article or elsewhere. Can you possibly remember if there was a particular reason for excluding it? It could conceivably go in The Double Helix article tho that's really a book page. Chris55 (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Livingrm & 76.200.188.59 are one and the same. My only reason for altering those pages was to revert all their contributions.
However it appears that I missed reverting this edit.
Feel free to put the removed chunk of text whereever you feel it belongs. Nice catch.
John Vandenberg (chat) 20:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

poke

It's February, and, technically, user:Moby Dick has posted an {{unblock}}. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm recused. For best results, post a properly formed and phrased amendment request. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Recusal on Jack Merridew amendment request

The first part, involvement, looks fair enough, but I'm not sure why "Jack Merridew is a sysop on English Wikisource" would be a reason for you to recuse. Could you explain for me? Thanks, NW (Talk) 04:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) John was also the one who nominated me @Wikisource, where he's a key member of the community. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Before my first term on Arbcom I made a broad recusal rule for Wikisource admins, as I nominated swarms of them for sysop on Wikisource, and have worked very closely with them there. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Vandenberg/Archive_11&oldid=1240696463"