User talk:Lawrence Cohen/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

On break

I've been trolled and harassed enough for the past few weeks, and seen too much back slapping of both high ranked senior trolling and abusive sock puppetry trolls back slapping each other. Back later to write more featured articles. Most of the Wikipedia name space is now off my watchlist from a blind cut of my raw watchlist. Let me know if anything moral or good happens to the bad people that I may miss. Lawrence Cohen 16:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please note that calling good-faith edits vandalism is generally considered a personal attack. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I said if you did it again, as you had been asked to not do it again as an involved participant, could be seen as vandalism. That is a subtle distinction. Please re-read what was written on your talk page. Lawrence Cohen 20:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And I reiterate, unless I did so in bad faith, that would be a personal attack. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And I reiterate, that I cautioned you as an involved party to not blank others' comments on the RFAR page. You are not a clerk (are you even an admin?). Deleting others' comments there, in a pitched discussion as a participant yourself, is not acceptable to myself and surely others. My caution to you was to not again remove the comments of others. Were you to have done so again, despite being directly warned to not do so, would have been a sign of abrogating good faith intentions and disruptive. An editor in conflict, performing a contentious action he was warned or cautioned not to do, is in the wrong. You would have been welcome to discuss on a new thread on the talk page the mass-blanking of everyone else's comments, once challenged. Edit, revert, discuss. Your second edit to blank your own exceedingly inappropriate and deliberately provocative editing is of course fine. I left a note in the now archived discussion to clarify this was done, so the closed discussion could make sense for arbiters reading it later. Lawrence Cohen 20:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, he is., as well as being a Current ArbCom clerk. Notice there's a distinction between "inactive" and "former". Hope that clears up whatever the misunderstanding was, if not, ignore this. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion hidden

Because it adds nothing to the purpose of the page. I figured if you refused to have it removed, then at least it would do to have it behind hat and hab where anyone so inclined can edit/look at it but the rest of us viewing the page don't need to.

On another note, I've noticed that some of your recent edits (on this issue, but more emphatically on the rollback issue) demonstrate a high level of frustration with Wikipedia and other editors. No offense intended, but I respectfully suggest that you consider taking some time off to reconsider the importance you attach to events on-wiki. ^Avruchtalk 20:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to revert war or complain about trivial things, as some have on this page. Thanks for doing that; it was a good idea. I've already just now taken the two RFARs I'd been dragged into off my watchlist. As my "On break" note above says, I've been trolled enough for a while and will be back shortly to finish my next FA. The recent ongoing attacks and nonsense from various yet-to-blocked sockpuppets and SPAs have pretty heavily stressed me. I've turned in a mountain of evidence, though, so I guess it's not my problem anymore. Thanks for taking the time. I needed someone to tell me to get lost for a bit to clear my old noggin. Lawrence Cohen 20:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Protection of Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision

On 17 January, following a series of edits to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision, User:FloNight protected the page and added the following in an edit summary: "I protected the page from all editing until the case is closed or edits all agree to make all productive comments about the proposed ruling and not other editors". Flonight has not left any further messages as yet, so I am posting this message to all those who edited the page in this period, and asking them to consider signing this section at Flonight's talk page indicating that they will abide by this request. Hopefully this will help move the situation forward, and enable the talk page to be unprotected (with any necessary warnings added) so that any editor (including those uninvolved in this) can comment on the proposed decision. Thank you. Carcharoth (talk) 05:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

My copy/pasted responses to the Waterboarding RFAR

Before you ask, if you're asking, on for example, these sections:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waterboarding/Workshop#Purpose_of_Wikipedia
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waterboarding/Workshop#Banned_users
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waterboarding/Workshop#Advocacy_and_propaganda

If a proposition has been accepted by the Committee before on a dozen-plus cases related to various issues, and especially nationalism, what would make this Waterboarding RFAR magically so special that they may not be valid here? I copy/pasted this answer in several places because it's simply accurate. If you think the Arbitration Committee has been doing their business wrong the past four years, you better be able to demonstrate why under policy. If you can't, and you're only Opposing to stay on-message, why bother? This isn't a game of politics and talking heads. Lawrence Cohen 07:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

compare these diffs

Shibumi2 Dec 23 2007

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_Republic&diff=prev&oldid=179902311

Justin88 March 15 2007

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_Republic&diff=prev&oldid=115426946

209.221.240.193 January 5 2007

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_Republic&diff=prev&oldid=98683310

BryanFromPalatine January 5, 2007

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_Republic&diff=prev&oldid=98629804

Note that Bryan is the sole source in the internet connecting WyldCard with Chuy's Eschoir (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty damning. Post it to evidence. Lawrence Cohen 20:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which closed unsuccessfully with 25 support, 18 oppose, and 6 neutral. Thanks for stating your rationales why I should not be granted this time and I'll try my best to deal with it. I'll look forward working with you. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Journal articles and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Opdyke

Please see my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Opdyke. --Eastmain (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Replied there; thanks. Lawrence Cohen 16:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a new sig

I wanted one that was more functional. How is it? Lawrence § talk/edits 21:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm so fickle. Redone again. Lawrence § t/e 22:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't so much like it when the talk link is just a single character. Easier to miss! Lots of people do it, 'tho, and aesthetically it looks good. ^Avruchtalk 22:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Now perhaps we can get FR to remain on lock down until we have an RFA decision

Next time you need to revert the socks more than once, though, consider letting somebody else do it, or email me. We can't be getting into 3RR territory here without damaging our case. Thanks! --BenBurch (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I shouldn't have pushed it to the edge of 3rr that once, as I despise edit warring. Once I realized the sock parade was coming out to perform, I asked for the protection ASAP. Lawrence § t/e 22:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You done good. I've been to that verge and over it myself with this guy. --BenBurch (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's quuiet locked down. It would be nice to continue for a few months. Any editing the sockpuppets want to do can be done on the sandbox version. Eschoir (talk) 04:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't miss this and the graph after it, and the last graf of Durova and the section after that. Eschoir (talk) 04:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm going nutz. Deep, deeply ripened sock? Both Neutral Good and Samurai COmmuter voted for [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/518536/posts?page=110#110 MONGO] for admin.Eschoir (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

thx

I have the mop but can you search the RFA meeting shown to find the bucket?	<font=3> Thanks for your support, my request for adminship passed 60/0/0 yesterday! I want to thank Mrs.EasterBunny and Royalbroil for nominating me, those who updated the RfA tally, and everyone for their support and many kind words. To paraphrase a president ... I wish my mum and dad could see the comments made. My dad would be so proud to see the comments ... and my mum would have believed them". I will do my best to use the new tools carefully and responsibly (and you may be surprised to find that I have not deleted all of the pages by accident..... yet). Thanks again, Victuallers (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)	An early RFA meeting to decide if Victuallers can be included as a sysop - use cursor to identify.

Straw poll to merge "Alternative terms for free software" to "Free and open source software"

Can you please comment at Talk:Alternative_terms_for_free_software#Survey. Thanks. --Karnesky (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Give me a couple days? My plate is pretty full and that one looks like it needs brain time to get a proper answer. If I don't post there in 3-5 days please remind me. Lawrence § t/e 19:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I was a bit negligent in reminding you. It has been just about two weeks & there is currently no consensus & the merge tags were just removed. Feel free to weigh in, though! --Karnesky (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Something deeply deserved

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For staying calm, yet strong, in the face of relentless attacks. Truly above and beyond. henrik•talk 20:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Just hang in there for a little while longer and don't let it get to you, Lawrence. henrik•talk 20:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Henrik. It means a lot. Lawrence § t/e 22:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 4	21 January 2008	About the Signpost

Special: 2007 in Review, Part II	New parser preprocessor to be introduced
Commons Picture of the Year contest in final round	WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Freely-licensed music, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"Fire at will" or "Whilred peas?"

Lawrence Cohen
While I might second your intentions in the IRC arbitration, at the current moment your passion might be in error. We've seen how fast the talk page can go off the rails, so I'd request that you have a good long think before putting pen to paper there again? Please feel free to tell me to get stuffed.
152.91.9.144 (talk) 05:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's fine, I just wanted to answer where I was seeing the feedback from the arbs and community as coming from. Lawrence § t/e 05:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The bracketing is fine, but spell my name right! :) Mackensen (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oy, I'm sorry. Look through my talk archives... I singularly am unable to get people's names right half the time. Sorry! I think I've probably misspelled yours at least thrice now, and have called Badagnani "Bagagnani" at least a dozen times so far. :( Lawrence § t/e 18:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Just remind me never to tick you off[1]. Odd what comments can prove motivational. Best, Risker (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, I'm a teddy bear, and it takes a lot to get me worked up. Ask the fellows over at Talk:Waterboarding and the relevant RFAR that's ongoing. Strident denial of the obvious is a pet peeve of mine, and the shifting reasons for why the committee can't or shouldn't sanction him, from a lack of evidence, to a lack of proof that he's engaged the "Scoobies", to baldly stating he's not incivil (that one took my personal cake), to finally Wikipedia besmirching his name (!), made me say enough is enough. I just want the damn thing done with, because

a) I'm sick of looking at it

b) sick of all the gamesmanship and attempted failed wordplay--it's not even "varsity level" as some have said

c) I want the committee to wrap it up since nothing new evidence-wise has been offered until Phil basically goaded me into looking at his contributions

d) they can then hopefully address the other case that I'm sick of looking at after having been drawn into it

e) I can then just remove Wikipedia-space from my watchlist for a few months to finish a bunch of articles, which is all I personally want at this point.

I just don't enjoy dangling threads and like to see things through that I decide to shoulder. Lawrence § t/e 20:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Is/isn't/maybe

It seems that in the last 2-3 weeks editors have been adding sources (mostly to the "is torture" column) to pages and sections other than the "Definitions" page that keeps tally--for example, some are adding them under the "Sources provided by X" section of the main talk page. Thus, there may be more than 148 saying that waterboarding "is" torture. I think all new sources stating the belief that waterboarding is, isn't, or maybe is/isn't torture should be included in the "Definitions" page list keeping tally. Could we do that? Badagnani (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing the past week, the RFC has gotten buried among all the other chaos on there, and I've been sidetracked with other issues. It's going to take a pretty substantial amount of housekeeping to sort that all out (again), but yeah--it would be tremendously beneficial. I was thinking maybe doing a subpage that was just the list, and then including it both at the top of the main talk page and the RFC page. RFA style, so that people could edit it from either spot. Lawrence § t/e 21:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Explantion please

Your revert on the Tuja page requires an explanation. Anthon01 (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Already had the talk page open there, was about to post. Lawrence § t/e 23:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Which argument do you agree with? Anthon01 (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Please bring this up there on the talk page. I prefer to have article discussions whenever possible in as public a forum as possible. Thanks. Lawrence § t/e 00:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

a thank you note

		Thanks for participating in my RfA!
		Although it failed 43/27/0, I'm happy because the outcome has been very helpful in many meaningful ways. Your support and remarks contributed so much to this. If you followed my RfA you know what happened. Most of the editors who posted opposing opinions have never edited with me. Some articles I edit deal with controversial topics and with respect to a very few of these, editors who didn't know much about me had some worries about confrontational editing and civility. Since I support their high standards I can easily (and will gladly) address this. The support and ecouragement to run again soon has been outstanding, thanks again. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback

...on my RfA. Any constructive feedback is greatly appreciated. However, I have some questions regarding your statement "dealing with and correctly blocking random vandals is a major part of what you'll have to do. You only have 11 posts so far to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism." I stated that I intended to be involved primarily with "WP:3RR and WP:SSP pages. I would also use admin privileges to prevent edit wars as much as possible through semi-protecting/protecting pages before they get too badly into such a conflict." In the case of WP:3RR and WP:SSP vandalism need not necessarily be apparent as much as disruption. While I have 11 edits in WP:AIV, I have warned lots of users and participated in other facets of WP:AN including WP:AfD, WP:IfD, WP:3RR, and WP:SSP. I humbly and respectfully ask that you look over my contributions in these areas. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent question. Thanks for your reconsideration. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, But I wanted to thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 19:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Triple Crown

Your majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow this triple crown upon Lawrence Cohen for your contributions in the areas of WP:DYK, WP:GA, and WP:FA. Cirt (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, and such varied contributions too, Storm botnet is really fascinating! May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Lawrence § t/e 05:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:DEGRADE

Reading some AFDs got me thinking, so I wrote Wikipedia:Notability does not degrade over time. Might be insane, but tossing it out for consideration. Is this a lunatic essay, or did I just describe practice that is policy? Lawrence § t/e 08:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Commented at WT:AFD. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 09:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw, thank you! Read the talk at WP:DEGRADE. How ironic. Lawrence § t/e 09:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent piece, thanks for writing it. Cirt (talk) 13:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, the Chanology AfD is nuts. I'm not sure I've ever seen an article with no meta implications get that many votes. ^Avruchtalk 14:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Your expertise

A computer security expert theorized that members of Project Chanology may have utilized some botnets. Any additional info you could find in WP:RS/WP:V sources on this for use in the article would be most appreciated. Cirt (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cirt. The only source I can find is this one, that says,

"Ken Pappas, security strategist at intrusion prevention systems provider Top Layer Networks, told SCMagazineUS.com today that the hacker group likely is using botnets in the takedown operation."

It makes sense, since you need something huge like that to do a big attack. That particular source and passage would probably be worth noting, but there is nothing concrete or any other sources. That sort of thing is hard to find from what I've seen. I'll add that into the article. Lawrence § t/e 18:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone already added that source with that very passage. Lawrence § t/e 18:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

rfa requirements

Thank you for your comment at my RfA. Both for my future reference, and for discussion, could you clarify your request that I participate in the backend more? Your requirements would, based on my participation in the Wikipedia and Wikipedia:talk spaces, seem to be satisfied by my participation in the project to date. Are there particular areas of experience I am lacking? Thanks in advance for your input. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, nevermind about the editcounts for Wikipedia talk, as I thought the Administrator's Noticeboard was a Wikipedia talk: page, given the nature of discussion that typically takes place there. By the numbers, then, I am deficient. Thanks for your input, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And it's not so much the raw counts, which ultimately are meaningless. It just shows that you've been into and are familiar with all the random junk you'll have to deal with in time as an admin. :) Lawrence § t/e 18:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting requirements: At first glance, it seems like a catch-22: participating in administrative areas is for administrators; to become an administrator, one has to participate in their discussions. A year or two ago, I looked at some of these pages a few times, but there were people trying to do work, so seemed I would be unwelcome in the "backend" as a non-administrator. I participated in WP:IMAGE and created quite a bit of discussion about thumb size overrides, and got the distinct impression that this was an area primarily for more experienced editors. My 500+ contributions in the wikipedia: and wikipedia talk: namespaces were mostly to help editors with technical questions and problems. That seemed an obvious way to offload work from more senior contributors. Do you have any suggestions for aspiring administrators where best to participate—welcomely—in the backend? —EncMstr 19:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

My thinking was that an admin should have exposure to multiple facets of WP, in multiple areas. Probably half of my Wikipedia space contributions for example are to various AFDs. When I wasn't feeling like contributing in articles as much with researching and that sort of work I'd pick a day in AFD, maybe 2-3 days old, and just start at the list and work my way down. Any article topic that sounded interesting, or where the AfD appeared contentious or split, I'd check out the article, dig around for sources, and then weigh in. Probably 500+ of my WP edits are there on AFDs if not more. Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates is another place I used to post to often, but not so much anymore. Beyond that I never really worried if I felt welcome. If I saw something interesting where I thought I could or ought to weigh in and thought I had something useful to add, I'd just sort of add it. My main thinking was that an admin should be exposed to as much as possible, just so they'd know what to expect. Noticeboards like Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard can always benefit from more eyes, too. Lawrence § t/e 21:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to let you know that I disagree with your requirements. You claim that administrators will be involved in these specific namespaces, but that is not necessarily true. I've been an editor for over three years now, and an admin since July 2006, and I still wouldn't even come close to your requirements. Please reconsider them, as an admin I don;t think they are indicative of standards which would be helpful in adminship discussions. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 20:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Also please post replies to my talk page, I prefer to keep a very small watchlist. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 20:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Lawrence § t/e 21:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

To extrapolate wrong data is not a crime, and honestly, I am quite heartened that you have changed the standards. Think nothing of it, we all make mistakes. Cheers, RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your requirements because there isn't necessarily any correlation between edit count and experience (especially now that editing aids that crank up one's edit count are so widely used). I probably failed three of your criteria when I became an admin, and I still don't have 1500 mainspace edits. The thing about accumulating such a large number of mainspace edits is that it can happen in one of two ways: editing a large number of articles after incredible amounts of research and discussion over the course of many months, or running a vandalism-reverting script for a few hours. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Probation

Wheatgrass has absolutely nothing to do with probation. Why was a tag placed on the page? Anthon01 (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a homeopathy topic. All of those are on probation. You would need to take it up on WP:AN if you wanted to life probation. Lawrence § t/e 23:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not a homeopathy topic or it shouldn't be if it has been listed as such. Quackwatch is absolutely nothing to do with Homeopathy. May be the topic needs to be alt-med instead. Anthon01 (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion here, bring it up there. Lawrence § t/e 23:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Good humour

Lawrence - When I woke up this morning, and found your post on my talk, I honestly laughed my head off - thanks for the giggle! signed....

		The I Just Posted Barnstar
		In recognition of this post you just read that I just posted, I award myself this barnstar for having posted it. Ryan Postlethwaite ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ 23:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 5	28 January 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: New feature
Special: 2007 in Review, Part III	Signpost interview: John Broughton
New parser preprocessor introduced	Best of WikiWorld: "Truthiness"
News and notes: Estonian Wikipedia, Picture of the Year, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Tutorial: Reporting and dealing with vandals	WikiProject Report: Molecular and Cellular Biology
Wikipedia Dispatches: Banner year for Featured articles	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Anthon01

I've blocked him (see log) for edit-warring and attempted harassment for 24 hours. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm reviewing this now. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably for the best. The constant harassing of User:ScienceApologist seems incessant. Lawrence § t/e 20:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Are complaints against ScienceApologist's behavior off-limits? Anthon01 (talk) 13:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is off limits unless the community decides it is because of the disruption it's causing. Actively and constantly badgering and hammering against another user when you have no support. An important caveat: if uninvolved people are telling you to knock it off, you're being disruptive. Case in point, East718's response to you on ANI yesterday:

"If you continue to carp on so, you may find the forthcoming probation enforcement to be to your displeasure. east.718 at 21:35, January 31, 2008"

You need to stop pestering uninvolved or barely involved users (like me and others) on their talk pages over this, and follow the Dispute Resolution process if you've got a problem with another user in a conflict. Lawrence § t/e 15:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no AGF here. Do you realize that Bearian said it was fine to post it on the AN/I page? Your comment "Actively and constantly badgering and hammering against another" is IMO, an inaccurate summary. Your summary response to my AN/I contributed to my being blocked inappropriately. You keep claiming I am harassing SA when I am simply bringing up an issue I am looking for guidance and resolution of. These issues I am raising or not about DR but policy. From my understanding, the post on the template page has nothing to do with DR. It is a policy issue. Not to worry though, I will not post any notices on your talk page. Anthon01 (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Your fine to post here with anything, a question, a hello, or what have you, I just don't want to be dragged into this massive Homeopathy War because I made the odd comment here and there and a grand total of one edit to one article. You have a fundamental disagreement with SA about interpretation of policy--that is not an administrator action to fix. Admins have no extra authority over any content issue that doesn't involve "violations" of policy or behavioral issues. They're simply regular editors with a few housekeeping buttons and tools. ANI is not the place to go for a content dispute. Read that dispute resolution link I gave you. It's your best friend. Read about mediation and article RFCs. Thats what you want. Lawrence § t/e 16:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I don't mean to drag you into anything. All am after is clarity and resolution. You believe that I need DR. I appreciate your input. Since you are involved in the homeopathy probation as an admin, I came to you. I was not asking for AN/I to resolve a content dispute but to act or clarify on what the article probation really means. Prior to the probation I would have reverted SA two reverts with a edit summary response explaining why. Now I won't touch the article page for fear of being unfairly treated with a block or a ban from an admin mislabeling me disruptive. Put another way, I feel like I am in the dark with no clear instructions. I am sure others fell that way to. Instead of a ban without clear guidelines, I think the addition of perhaps a 1RR limit which sets clear instructions would be helpful. Anthon01 (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not an admin. But the 1rr thing is a good idea. I'll propose it. Lawrence § t/e 19:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Explaination of ehat was the page on your the cool stuffs mean

The page shows earthquakes or any other events that are related to earth happening and are real time and it had a English version too, click on the Britain flag and it would appear.--Quek157 (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, excellent!! Their wasn't an English version when I'd found it originally looking for sourcing on an article. I'll fix the link on my page. That site is just incredibly neat. Lawrence § t/e 16:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

RE BQZip01 RfA

I feel you may have over-interpreted my comments. I certainly don't advocate giving people adminship just because of their RL occupation, or giving them any extra privileges because of it. The opposers all have valid opinions, to which they're perfectly entitled. My objection was only on the grounds of phrasing - I think a more respectful term should be used than "immaturity", given who the candidate is. It was only a minor point, but one that's important to me personally. As I said, I have no quibble with the substantive grounds for Bearian's oppose (I disagree with him, but he has every right to oppose in good faith). Walton^One 19:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Your points (even though we often seem to disagree!) are always incredibly well-reasoned and thoughtful. I just don't think it's a good idea to ever allow even the illusion of separate classes of editors to emerge, given what I've seen. Especially the idea that editors, based on their having disclosed their real name (me) or profession (BQZip) should have any rights or priviledges based on that. Everyone needs to be treated the same. Lawrence § t/e 19:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree, in general. Given the Essjay scandal, we should absolutely avoid giving people any privileges, whether formal or de facto, based on RL qualifications. And as I said, I would 100% oppose any suggestion that we should give adminship automatically to people from certain occupational backgrounds. For me, it was just a matter of wording - just a matter of showing a minimal level respect to those fighting for their country, even when criticising them (which everyone, of course, has a right to do). Btw, your posts are also well-reasoned and thoughtful, and I think our disagreements only lie in certain limited areas. Walton^One 19:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

And I absolutely can't fault you on that reasoning; some of my best friends and family are active duty military, both as officers and enlisted. I agree, our disagreements are really stupidly specific, when we get into it. When pedants clash, eh? Lawrence § t/e 19:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)q

What is the problem?

I am already listed there, and I am not involved in content disputes. See WP:POINT. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, but I looked further at your contributions and you did have much more of an editing history on the homeopath article than you had stated. Lawrence § t/e 22:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You are WP:POINT, as you probably are aware. I have not disrupted editing in any article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no point violation in any way, shape or form. Neither have all of the editors listed there; I see some are added who simply contributed. As you do actively edit the articles in question, I wanted to just follow procedure. Admins are bound by the article probation as well. Again, as an involved figure here, you may want to reconsider adding yourself as an admin for the probation purposes. Thanks. Lawrence § t/e 22:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: homepathy error

Jossi is already listed here, which is the first bullet on that list. The list is not intended as a hit list but to keep track of who is aware of the probation conditions. It applies to everyone equally, including you and me. east.718 at 22:38, February 1, 2008

Yes, but as Jossi is demonstrably an editor involved in these articles, he is listed in the wrong section. Lawrence § t/e 22:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So you want to have him removed from the list of admins willing to provide enforcement? That's between you and him. east.718 at 22:40, February 1, 2008

No, the community can simply remove him. Lawrence § t/e 22:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

why?

1. Don't alter something I type. If you want to comment, please feel free to do so.
2. I included it there because that is the most applicable place (if he feels this way others might too). This can prevent future misunderstandings.
3. Accordingly, I'm moving it back. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

At first glance late at night it seemed like the wrong place, but maybe it wasn't. OK. Lawrence § t/e 14:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for the correction at Diran Kelekian! You can say its a minor edit but I think such a work you're doing is too much important for the Wiki. So good luck! And hope you will correct my other addings too:) They surely need it! Andranikpasha (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Privacy concerns.

How would you remind him that his good work on his user page is wasted unless he cleans up all his other information caches? I don't want personal information on-wiki either, so emailling is out of the question. Would you rather he went on just thinking he was now anonymous? Raving Nutter (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously not, and I'm sure he's aware of it. Your comments to him read as mean spirited. Lawrence § t/e 23:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it is just that I find his reasoning about the "privacy concerns" disengenuous given that his user name, picture, etc, are all over the Internet, and there has been no activity anywhere else to clean it up. (Perhaps that will change now.) There had been questions asked about his veracity (none of which meant he could not have his page deleted, of course) but the righteousness of both the attackers and defenders made me curious. I did some checking. If he is serious then he does indeed have a lot of scrubbing to do. All that this drama on wiki has done is to make him the center of more attention, like mine. I wouldn't otherwise even have noticed him. Raving Nutter (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

And would your main username happen to be, mysterious stranger that wandered onto Wikipedia just to comment on this one thing? Lawrence § t/e 23:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hardly "just happened to" anything. I would have to be very stupid myself or think you very stupid to deny something that obvious, though vandals try it on all the time. I am protecting my privacy. There is neither malice nor skullduggery in this. I opened the account several days ago. It will continue to be used for things I don't wanted related to my main account, but only for privacy reasons. If there are "death threats" involved, I want the other user reminded of his off-wiki exposure and the fewest possible links between us and our real lives. In the next few days, I will give an admin the names of the accounts I have established. If you feel you need confirmation that I have done so, I will ask the admin I choose to let you know that I have done so. I like the sound of "mysterious stranger". And now that I have answered your question, this can go into the delete file, too. Raving Nutter (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've had a questionable experience of late with what appeared to be roving bands of "new users", if you know what I mean. You can hash out where from my last 500 or so Wikipedia space contribs. "User:Mysterious Stranger" sounds better, by the way. Lawrence § t/e 00:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

True, but you have outed the name and it is now too exposed for my purposes. Using a "hard" name is also an experiment I am running. Someone will be in touch. I am sorry about adding to your woes of "new" users. The timing was bad. Raving Nutter (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, don't worry about it. Lawrence § t/e 00:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What does an "admin review" as you have requested on AN/I mean to you? Is this a checkuser request? Raving Nutter (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That was posted after your first post to Squeak that El C removed. At the time you looked like a garden variety troll. Nothing personal! Lawrence § t/e 06:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

		My RfA
		Thank you very much, Lawrence, for your support in my RfA which I really appreciate. It closed at 83/0/0. I was surprised by the unanimity and will do my best to live up to the new role. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC) The patio at the Partal Palace in the Alhambra, Andalucia.

User:BQZip01/Comments

It now appears that he intends to track my contributions on that page and give his own subjective analysis for each. I don't think I'll be very helpful to the project with that level of scrutiny being given to my edits, so until such time that the page is deleted, I don't think I'll be making any further contributions. I am grateful for your support in the matter and I do appreciate the things you said. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Take a break for a few days. This'll sort itself out. If he keeps hammering that page so hard, and takes this to DR, you may want to be ready and assemble corresponding evidence. I'd do it off-wiki, if I were you. Lawrence § t/e 06:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 6	4 February 2008	About the Signpost

Special: 2007 in Review, Part IV	Tensions in journalistic use of Wikipedia explored
Best of WikiWorld: "Calvin and Hobbes"	News and notes: Milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Tutorial: Adding citations
Dispatches: New methods to find Featured Article candidates	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Misc for deletion

A useful tool was provided for you on the subject page 70.4.248.49 (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't Vote

Thank you for the clarification. Being new, I would never have started(or known to delete)such a thing. My interest was in asking for clarification to what was presented as fact, but was clearly flawed. Thank you for the education on the matter.TomPhan (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I left you a note as well since your reply to the "tally" was removed as well. Lawrence § t/e 00:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Vann Nath photo

Could the editor proposing this be one of the Harvard law students who caused such a commotion at the discussion page a month or so ago? Badagnani (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, they're an admin. Lawrence § t/e 21:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Re: your most recent warning to Momento (talk · contribs) on his talk page, you may wish to weigh in regarding his continued disruption, at this report on WP:ANI/3RR -- here. Cirt (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could say something to Nakon (talk · contribs)? I do not feel that full protection of the article is appropriate at this time, as there is only one disruptive party - Momento (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Simply wanted to say

That I was not aware of [2]. I discovered it today. Anthere (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

MfD

• Thanks for calling that to my attention. I said the wrong thing. I did not the mean the MfD page. I meant the sub-page that was so controversial: User:BQZip01/Comments. I was offering to delete that, if BQ agrees. Sorry about the confusion. Johntex\^talk 18:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 7	11 February 2008	About the Signpost

Petition seeks to remove images of Muhammad	Foundation's FY2007 audit released
Vatican claims out-of-context Wikipedia quote was used to attack Pope	Best of WikiWorld: "W"
News and notes: Working group, Wik-iPhone, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Tutorial: Basic dispute resolution	Dispatches: Great saves at Featured article review
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 23:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC deleted

I tagged for speedy, it's gone. It was a week old and uncertified. Lawrence § t/e 07:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If it gets recreated or sent to DRV, or on ANI, please notify me as speedy tagger. I don't watch ANI, AN, or DRV on my watchlist routinely and only check them if I'm already involved in something. Lawrence § t/e 07:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• I will do that, I am grateful for all of your help and support throughout this whole, difficult ordeal. Yours, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your message but you are mistaken. "Two people" includes the person who files the RFC. That is clearly the interpretation that was being used during the discussion on the RFC. That discussion centered around whether or not I had certified it. If I, as the second person, was still insufficient to certify, then the conversation would have been completely different. It would have centered around whether a third person was stepping forward. Johntex\^talk 21:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree, and this needs wider review, on ANI. The harassment of Cumulous Clouds will be stopped no matter what. Lawrence § t/e 21:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Nonsense. CC is being harrassed by no-one but his own errant actions that have come home to bite him. Johntex\^talk 22:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence, I'm sorely tempted to file an RfC regarding your behavior in this RfC, for your wikilawyering and tendentitious editing regarding the dispute between BQZip01 and CumulusClods. Puttign a speedy-delete tag on an RfC a week after it was certified is all kinds of wrong. Argyriou (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my attempts to protect a user from harassment and a hit page that is made up of either fictional or utterly trivial edits that may or may not skirt policy. Feel free to file an RFC if you wish. Lawrence § t/e 00:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding

This Arbitration case has closed, and the final decision may be reviewed through the above link. Further to the relevant findings of fact, Waterboarding and all closely-related pages are subject to article probation (full remedy); editors working on Waterboarding, or closely related pages, may be subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator, whereby any edits by that editor which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, may result in a block. (full remedy).

Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block length shall increase to one year (full enforcement). Before such restrictions are enacted on an editor, he or she must be issued with a warning containing a link to the decision.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank God. Thank you. Lawrence § t/e 14:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

BQ / CC and the whole mess

Lawrence, this is all getting very messy and double-plus un-encyclopedic. There are no white knights here, no black knights, and trading RFC-dares isn't helping a lot. The original problem (from my POV) was BQ keeping a page on CC with an indefinite timeframe, i.e. an "attack page". BQ was challenged on that and to his credit delivered an RFC (with prompting from Riana among others), the original page is now gone.

I shared your concerns on proper certification of the RFC but backed off after Avruch's intervention. I was a little suprised to see your CSD attempt, in the event, that was overturned. I offered amateur mediation, BQ accepted the offer, CC was silent - probably due to my manifest incompetence in that area, though I would have appreciated a reply to that effect ;)

CC then offered a partial solution, to which BQ has not lately replied. I have specifically not added to the RFC in any way, because I have an open offer of mediation.

I'm disturbed by the (perceived) calculations on both sides as to whether activity or silence is the course best calculated to "win". BQ has announced limited wiki-availability yet left an RFC hanging in the air. CC has made an offer but has apparently gone on to attract further criticism and appears to have some genuine communication deficits (I have no specifics on that, just an impression).

Neither side looks to be blameless here and you have now escalated the rhetoric. "American nationalistic garbage", can you show a specific diff? Isn't there a way out of this that cools things down? Franamax (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking I should just disengage and pull out completely. I'd been (to be honest) considering an RFC on BQ because of the whole "I will win at all costs" vibe and tone he constantly seems to set, which just seems to drive people batshit crazy. BQ is a really, really good content editor, when he's not doing that, and I think it's going to end up hurting him big-time. I saw it first on Talk:Waterboarding, then the RFAR on that, then his RFAs, and now the CC RFC mess. "Boss of me," and all that 'I bow to no one' sort of rhetoric is like slapping collaboration in the face, to my eyes. Maybe it's just me? I honestly don't know, and I think part of it may be me slightly burnt out with the lunacy of the waterboarding issues, Free Republic whackos, and the Durova to Giano RFARs I ended up getting somehow sucked up into. What do you think? Lawrence § t/e 05:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sitting here reading BQ's latest contrib's and sighing. I'd have to say step back, they're both going to flame out without our help or hindrance. BQ has got a bug in his ear about something and will prove his point come hell or high water (whatever that point actually is). CC has some other point to make, CHOHW. They're arguing about how important "band queer" is to the encyclopedia, and they will apparently use any intervention as a calculation to advance their own theory.

My advice would be to do what I do sometimes, click "Random article", it won't take long 'til you find something else needing help, correct a typo or grammo, find a cite, do some fun stuff. I have to say I'm tired of trying to be a voice of reason on this, I can see where you would be tired of trying to be an advocate. Do you know the Star Trek episode with the two guys with one side of the face black, the other white? They were destined to fight through all eternity and the crew of the Enterprise just went on their way. Live long and prosper. Franamax (talk) 06:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Let That Be Your Last Battlefield. I hear you loud and clear. Lawrence § t/e 07:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me for using your talk page to reply to this Lawrence, but I wanted to say a few quick things. First, the scope of the conflict between BQZip01 and myself has narrowed from a very wide array of issues down to one very simple issue on BQ. I don't think Queer should be used in a disambiguation page, but BQZip01 apparently believe it's absolutely necessary. He filed a request at the 3RR board and a mandate was placed on both of us to stop reverting the other. This means no further edits should be made to that article on the basis of this dispute without one of us being blocked. This should resolve the conflict. Now I'm waiting for the RfC to close, since it appears that people are losing interest in it and it may have exhausted its own usefulness. This should bring a formal closure to the dispute between BQZip01 and myself. I agree that BQZip01 is a very good content editor, and I like to think of myself the same way, so I'm very eager for all of us to go back to working on this encyclopedia instead of spinning our wheels in process and procedure. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat Page

Lawrence, I moved your comment about charges that the movement was a cult to the criticism section of the page, and discussed what I did in the talk page section "Removed Text (Randi)". There is so much discussion there, and it being a non-obvious place to find my comments, just wanted to let you know what I was up to. Msalt (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

PD

I'm not sure that was a good idea. I think the painting was executed during the Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia, after the Khmer Rouge were deposed. Badagnani (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I see, no subsequent government signed up to the copyright conventions either. Badagnani (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. With my understanding of the laws, Chris's research appears very sound. Lawrence § t/e 20:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

MML

"He is free to deny this (again)" — Did he ever explicitly deny that RL connection on-wiki? User:Dorftroffel 17:07, February 21, 2008

You know, in hindsight, I don't know that I've seen that on-wiki. Was it off-wiki? Lawrence § t/e 17:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrt off-wiki, Jimbo said so here (Mantanmoreland steadfastly denies being Gary Weiss.), but I can't recall seeing any wiki-diff. User:Dorftroffel 17:18, February 21, 2008

re Mantanmoreland ArbCom

Hi. I have noted your comments restricting M to one account, and various sanctions. I wonder if you have considered extending your wordings to encompass editing under ip addresses, and the effect on the sanctions applied to the remaining account? My work in the workshop on my own proposals is a little stale - otherwise I would add it myself - but your section is still active so I thought I would suggest it to you. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic amended

In light of continued disputes, remedy 4 adopted in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic is amended by adding:

"Additionally, any uninvolved administrator may impose a reasonable editing restriction (for example, 1RR) or page ban upon any editor who repeatedly engages in disruptive or uncivil editing of Free Republic or any closely related page. Prior to imposing such a ban or restriction, a warning should be given on the affected user's talkpage. All bans and restrictions shall be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic#Log of blocks and bans."

All editors, particularly including single purpose accounts and editors who have or may reasonably be perceived as having a conflict of interest, are strongly urged to edit Free Republic and related articles only in conformity with all Wikipedia policies and with this committee's prior decision. If the enhanced administrator authority provided in this ruling does not improve the situation on this article after 30 days, a request for a more formal Arbitration Committee review may be submitted.

For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 16:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Hey, could you pop by AIV again, and, take another look at the report you made, please? SQL^{Query me!} 17:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• See above cmt. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk

Just saw and replied. Weird. Lawrence § t/e 17:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Your note

Can you show me which edit I did while the page was protected (besides the self reversion)? Crum375 (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

On the history:[3]

1. (cur) (last) 20:49, 22 February 2008 Crum375 (Talk | contribs) m (142,822 bytes) (restore pp notice)
2. (cur) (last) 20:47, 22 February 2008 Crum375 (Talk | contribs) (142,782 bytes) (Rvt - missed Alison's protection - but BLP should be removed anyway (by someone else))
3. (cur) (last) 20:45, 22 February 2008 Crum375 (Talk | contribs) (142,798 bytes) (→Editors/admins here have been "drawn offsides" by WB before: another BLP redaction)
4. (cur) (last) 20:44, 22 February 2008 Alison (Talk | contribs) (142,822 bytes) ({{pp-dispute}})
5. (cur) (last) 20:44, 22 February 2008 Crum375 (Talk | contribs) (142,782 bytes) (→External stalking: redacted BLP violation)
6. (cur) (last) 20:44, 22 February 2008 Alison (Talk | contribs) m (Protected Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence: This is ridicuous [edit=sysop:move=sysop] (expires 22:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)))
7. (cur) (last) 20:40, 22 February 2008 Lawrence Cohen (Talk | contribs) (142,878 bytes) (→External stalking: rvt Crum375 - stop it)

Bold is her protection, Reds are your disallowed edits. You need to go back to the last pre-pp version, this one. You probably just missed it off timing. Lawrence § t/e 20:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I got them all now. Thanks for letting me know. Crum375 (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Waterboarding. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 17:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

ANI/Elias

It's just the user's whole tone - both anchored links took me straight to where Elias was quoting policy, and linking to Stormfront of all sites seems like a troll's move. Will ^(talk) 00:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably, maybe. Eliaslucard's commentary about his beliefs however isn't helpful to building an encyclopedia, however, and his screeds about how (from a glance) everyone from the Jews to the Martians are anti-Christian are just going to lead people to respond nastily. Why even post material like that? Lawrence § t/e 00:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, without diffs, I personally wouldn't drudge through 80kb of troll fighting. Personally, looking at it with a proper glance (more than flicking my eyes at it), it looks like six of one, but at least Elias is trying to restrain himself with his civility. Will ^(talk) 00:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

True enough, on that. I simply wish people didn't feel the need to expound on their personal beliefs in that way--it's only common sense that this sort of thing is just going to set folks off. Lawrence § t/e 00:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not simply a matter of "personal beliefs" on a talk page (which is already proscribed per WP talk page policies).It's a matter of using a talk page for anti-Semitic rants, and Jew-baiting of other editors (i.e., me). Is this tolerated on wikipedia? Can I make racist rants against other groups (non-Jews) and have people simply point out how Boodlesthecat "is trying to restrain himself with his civility" and have editors, in response to my racist rants, "wish people didn't feel the need to expound on their personal beliefs." If an editor complained on ANI about my racist rants, would that editor be told to "shut the hell up" like Will told me? Is that the extent of how Wikipedia responds to overt anti-Semitism and Jew-baiting of editors on Talk Pages? tell someone who protests it to "shut the hell up?" I am finding this exceedingly disturbing. Boodlesthecat (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Your note 2

Hi Lawrence, thanks for your message. It's very much appreciated. Crum375 (talk) 13:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Email please?

Hello, Lawrence. If you're able, please email me: palabrazo@gmail.com Thanks! --WordMail (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 8	18 February 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Michael Snow, Domas Mituzas appointed to Board of Trustees	WikiWorld: "Thinking about the immortality of the crab"
News and notes: Administrator desysopped, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Tutorial: Getting an article to featured article status	Dispatches: FA promotion despite adversity
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 9	25 February 2008	About the Signpost

Signpost interview: Michael Snow	Controversial RfA results in resysopping of ^demon
Sockpuppeting administrator desysopped, community banned	Two major print encyclopedias cease production
WikiWorld: "Hyperthymesia"	News and notes: Wikimania Call for Participation, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Family Guy
Dispatches: A snapshot of featured article categories	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Notice

Just FYI, your talk was altered as part of a mass canvass and mass revert. Franamax (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed. Thanks. Lawrence § t/e 14:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Email

You have mail - urgent. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Received and replied. Lawrence § t/e 17:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Great Idea!

The new NPOV noticeboard is exactly what the project needs. Thank you so much. --QuackGuru (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

important tag

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chiropractic&diff=next&oldid=187991945 The tag you originally added...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chiropractic&curid=197022&diff=194750294&oldid=194744428 ...has been removed.

Who decides which articles will be under probation. Chiropractic related articles are related to homeopathy. They are both alternative/non-traditional treatments. QuackGuru (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Left him a note. The community decides, or specifically people that aren't already involved on the articles on either side. Lawrence § t/e 22:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to notify the other editors involved about the probation but would like a neutral party to this. There are a lot of people to notify. QuackGuru (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ask on the homeopathy incidents page. Lawrence § t/e 22:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again.[4] An involved editor removed the tag. The editor voted delete in the AFD. This article is related homeopathy and the main chiropractic article. Thoughts. QuackGuru (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of the talks at the chiropractic article seem to be more about wikilawyering rather than an intent to improve the article. I want the article to be a neutral presentation according to the WP:RS references. Wikipedia does not enforce NPOV at this time. How can I achieve the NPOV standard when some editors do not want that to ever happen. QuackGuru (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again. Another involved editor who voted at the AFD to delete the article off of Wikipedia has removed the tag. QuackGuru (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Enjoying that wikibreak?

Just kidding. But if arbcom doesn't directly address the issue of the MM/SH etc socking, then there is no "constitutional crisis." They just haven't addressed it, and the community is free to do so. It would be a different thing if one of the proposed findings was MM=SH, and the arbcom voted it down. But there is no such finding - so thus no contradiction if the community decides to address that issue by itself. Risker (talk) 07:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For seeing a need and attempting to fill it, by boldly implementing the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with it. :) I hope it thrives and serves well the Wiki. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence, as you started this new Noticeboard I think you should publish information about its existence on appropriate places at WP. As it is now, few people find it. MaxPont (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Help me out

The admins are trying to destroy my campaign.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 05:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Invective

Just so you know, not all older admins enjoy using or seeing invective. Take me for example. GRBerry 03:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 10	3 March 2008	About the Signpost

Wales' relationship, breakup with journalist Rachel Marsden raises questions about possible improprieties	Eleven users apply for bureaucratship
Signpost interview: Domas Mituzas	Role of hidden categories under discussion
Book review: Wikipedia: The Missing Manual	Military history WikiProject elections conclude, nine elected
Best of WikiWorld: "Extreme ironing"	News and notes: Encyclopedia of Life, Wikipedian dies, milestones
Dispatches: April Fools mainpage featured article	WikiProject Report: Football
Tutorial: How to use an ImageMap	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Edits at talk:Jimmy Wales

I think that you made two edits and accidentally switched the places or something. Could you look and format it right? I appreciate your comments, but it will be confusing for others if we leave it. Thanks! - ђαίгснгм ^таιќ 17:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Does it look ok now? Reformat if needed. Lawrence § t/e 17:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand what happened now. I created that exact section at the same time as you with that question. I think that the server automatically added my comment to it, or something. I was just totally confused why you posted above me. I was just commenting that the tag should stay, because someone tried to remove it. Sorry about the confusion! - ђαίгснгм ^таιќ 17:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

How do I change this? Now it looks like I'm upset at you, because my comment is a response to your question and it is kinda mean. I just wanted to comment on a vandalism made for future reference... Uh... this Jimbo stuff is a mess. - ђαίгснгм ^таιќ 17:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Search Engine Strategies

Is this nomination for deletion done in good faith? Igor Berger (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I mean I do not want to be wasting time debating an issue that needs no debate per WikiCommonSense. Igor Berger (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Always AGF, but who knows. The sources are all there, right in the search results. I think its silly to expect that they all be integrated into the article as a condition of it's retention. Lawrence § t/e 21:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope no one nominates the main page for deletion..:) Igor Berger (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggested changes in the WMF privacy policy

Hello, I posted some suggestions for changes in the WMF privacy policy at the WMF site: [5]. The gist of the suggestions is to institute a requirement for notifying those registered users whose identifying info is being sought by subpoenas in third-party lawsuits. These suggestions are motivated in large part by a discussion that took place in January 2008 at the Village Pump (Policy) page [6] in relation to an incident where identifying IP data of sixteen Wikipedia users was released in response to such a subpoena. I also left a note about these proposal at Village Pump, WP:Village_pump_(policy)#Suggestions_for_changes_in_the_WMF_privacy_policy. Since you have participated in the January Village Pump discussion, I hope that you will contribute to the discussion of the current suggestions at the WMF website, [7]. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 12:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Since he has deleted the thread what steps of dispute resolution do you recommend? —Whig (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I recommend you stop trolling antagonizing and baiting so that there is no need to block your account. Jehochman ^Talk 21:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing antagonistic in what I wrote above. I would like to find a peaceful resolution, which would be merely you withdrawing your accusation of bad faith against me. If you won't do that or support your claims against me, then I think we will have to go to the arbitration committee. —Whig (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, I honestly don't know you from Eve. Please use the proper dispute resolution process if you're unhappy with the resolution on his talk page. Bring it to WP:AN with solid evidence of this supposed wrongdoing. Again, keep in mind--it is MY book a personal attack to character assassinate another user without providing something called evidence. You will stop immediately unless you can provide evidence, or I will push for you to get an enforced timeout myself. Lawrence § t/e 21:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The thread is already on WP:AN. That's where Jehochman called me a meat puppet and falsely complained I had never noticed him, and the thread was started because Jehochman was carelessly repeating unproven accusations of sock puppetry involving a real named person and a new user. —Whig (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Real named users if they break our policies will be hung out by their underwear the same as any other user, full stop. They are entitled to no special protections that any other user does not enjoy. I see no violation there. If you have a "beef" you will bring it up on that page or via an RFAR request. Stop pestering Jehochman with unfounded accusations. He's reporting checkuser evidence is what I see. If a troll, or the Tutor, or whomever that is wanted to leave Wikipedia, he should have left. Picking up the same destructive behaviors under a new name to avoid scrutity is his own failure, not Jehochman's for reporting him. Please go to the proper channels on this. If you do, and lack support, perhaps that would illuminate you as to the value of your stance. Lawrence § t/e 21:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That's all very well but the real named user did not violate any policies. There was nothing to this except an attempted outing of The Tutor who also did not violate any policies. This is pure harassment and must stop before we drive away a valuable new contributor. —Whig (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Go talk to User:Thatcher about what needs to be done, if anything. He has the most information about this situation. Jehochman ^Talk 22:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Awwww

Well, it might have been an improvement to the article. - Denimadept (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Keeping up with news

The whole blog is worth reading, since from an insider (by definition, disgruntled ex-employee):[8] But for needed persective: [9]. Most of this has been picked up by AP by now.[10] SBHarris 00:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"Pendejo" Disclaimer

The word "pendejo" was solely my opinion; it is not a fact; it was based on what I considered to be Spitzer's foolishness. This in no way or manner implies what I think of Spitzer on any topic other than the current prostitution scandal and any activity that was believed by the media to have led up to it. Thank you for pointing out the BLP aspects of that comment. While I apologized for making an earlier statement to that effect, that apology was taken lightly and humorously, making me believe that it was okay to make another statement to the same effect. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. I said my pieces already. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Why are you reverting people's comments on W:ANI? What's the point? — Rickyrab | Talk 16:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The point is that we don't edit the meaning or context of each others' comments except to remove BLP violations and the like. The series of pointy little revert wars completely broke the context of those discussions and I had to fix it. Lawrence § t/e 16:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

I've expanded your disclaimer, both so that some abberant URL cannot be used as an excuse for a violation, and to attempt to make crystal clear that EVERY edit is subject to BLP. Please have a look and edit as you wish, but I think I captured the spirit of your disclaimer. Thanks, and good idea - UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You got it pretty spot on, but I expanded it slightly to be exactly my intention here on this next edit. BLP applies to logs too, which are sometimes even more immutable than edits--you can't Oversight a block log easily for example, or a move log. Lawrence § t/e 17:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I know I may appear a god...

... but, though I hate to disillusion you, I'm actually just a normal user...  :-) Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait, really? Am I completely thinking of someone else that rhymes with you? I am atrocious with names and routinely bone them up--my talk archives are littered with people correcting me on names. Did I do it again? Lawrence § t/e 22:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean I don't have any special status from being a former member of the Arbitration Committee! Which is, in any case, ancient history now... Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok! Sorry. With how blurry the roles have been in the past few cases I've watched, with some arbiters seeming to be saying they have less authority than they do and that the AC also does, and some ex-ones acting like they have more or the AC has more, it gets confusing. Sorry. Lawrence § t/e 22:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

sockpuppet

Please explain what's not true. I am neutral on the facts here, I'm a totally uninvolved party. But it seems that there's some sore losers here. I changed the tag to be factual. The arbcom investigation found "not proven", the community consensus believes - but it can't "determine", since votes don't determine facts. I'm reverting you, but if you can explain to me what is factually wrong, or if some other neutral party disagrees, I'll revert myself. As I say, I have no axe to grind here.--Doc^g 23:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

We routinely tag as confirmed sockpuppetry per community consensus--this is our standard modus operandi. We do it daily, on 1/100th the level of evidence presented in regards to this case. We've tossed out "Wordbomb" socks on a singular edit. Why on Earth is so much protection and deference awarded to this fellow? Did you see all the heaps of evidence and consensus on the RFC that MM=SH, and the additional reams of evidence in the RFAR? Lawrence § t/e 23:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please also discuss this on AN, rather than here. We need eyes on this. Every editor here needs to bow to and respect consensus on this nasty mess. Lawrence § t/e 23:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, we usually tage socks without arbcom. But we usually send the difficult and contentious cases to arbcom. Arbcom may be wrong, but we generally believe that difficult cases are better answered by the elected experts than that mob. In any case, the arbcom finding is very pertinent and should be noted along with any community dissent. To say "we don't usually" misses the point that we don't usually have an arbcom finding, and when we do we "usually" follow it.--Doc^g 23:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There is NO arbcom decision. They gave it back to us, and we decided. SH=MM. Lawrence § t/e 23:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Careful Lawrence. You've made 3 reverts there as far as I can see. I suggest you leave off that page for a bit, lest you break the three-revert rule. --82.19.1.139 (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, 82. Lawrence § t/e 23:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wiped out my edit

Why did you wipe out my edit? See [11] — Rlevse • Talk • 23:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Accident, sorry. Lawrence § t/e 23:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've seen this happen before with two edits close in time. No problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79

I entertain the possibility that I goofed. I am hoping that Mackan79 will ok releasing the email and others can review for similarity. His phrasing in the diff in question was very much similar to or identical to other emails Judd sent me, and much stronger than the email, in my judgement, however I think that third party review is appropriate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You really should unblock. Your incredibly strong block language in the log if proven wrong will look atrocious for you, degrading others' trust in your ability as an admin, and is now a permanent smear on Mackan79. Lawrence § t/e 06:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Boo!

I agree with everything you are saying on Doc's page and elsehwere, but I can't comment, or they will say I'm troling and cause disruption. Just to let you know I'm behind you. Giano (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Excessive cross-posting

Hello. You're overdoing it a bit. Why not inform people about it in one central place, like WP:AN, instead of multiple user talk pages. Thanks. El_C 17:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. It's still a draft so I wanted to go with people I've worked with in AC issues before. Lawrence § t/e 17:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I should have emailed... Lawrence § t/e 17:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That's okay; next time: centralize, centralize, centralize! El_C 17:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Who is ChipotlePickle?

Added a statement to the Mantanmoreland case, his 7th edit to WP, and made this edit [12], which makes things look kinda icky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyAnode (talk • contribs) 17:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Appeal of topic ban for User:Whig

I have filed a request for arbitration in this matter: Appeal of topic ban for User:Whig, in which I have named you as a party. You may wish to provide a statement. —Whig (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I left a statement. Good luck. Lawrence § t/e 18:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

good idea

But if I participate any more on the talk page at this point people are gonna be calling me your sock puppet, so I'll withdraw for a while. Thanks for doing this. Noroton (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

From having seen your contributions I'm pretty sure we're in different time zones, so unlikely on the socking unless one of us has very long arms. :) But ok, if you want. And thanks. Lawrence § t/e 23:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you very much for your intervention against vandalism by User:Pgp688 -Ravichandar 07:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat I was topic banned by the arbcom without any diffs

I was topic banned by the arbcom without any support diffs in the case of Satya Sai Baba, so I do not trust that the arbcom makes fair or good decisions. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2

I was the only serious contributor to Sathya Sai Baba movement and there were never any serious problems in that article. After I was topic banned the article degenerated signicantly (unsourced personal comments were added).

So why would I trust the arbcom? I am unwilling to take Prem Rawat to the arbcom.Andries (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't help you then. Lawrence § t/e 18:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I will appeal to the topic ban, at least for Sathya Sai Baba movement. Please check the history to check of Sathya Sai Baba movement to see whether I am incompetent or a blatant POV pusher [13]. I prefer to stay away from the arbcom reg. Prem Rawat for the time being, because it seems that they want to topic ban contributors merely for extensively editing an controversial articles over a longer period of time, even if they cannot find incriminating diffs. Andries (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Estádio de São Miguel (Ponta Delgada)

Do you know what's wrong with the infobox at Estádio de São Miguel (Ponta Delgada)? I can't seem to fix it. -WarthogDemon 18:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Some small missing bits. :) Lawrence § t/e 18:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

JzG

I didn't personally attack him, I quoted him directly [14] where he said [15] f off to someone else. Uconnstud (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Mackan

I know I replied to the email within 1.5 hours because I have the details of incoming and outgoing mails. But I don't know when my reply was actually read, when he blocked (timewise) in relation to his email or my reply, or whether he had some other basis or concern that wasn't emailed to me and which was relied upon. On-wiki timestamps in contribs listings and logs may differ from email system logs, for example. The email I saw and responded to was about one diff which caused concern "is this a self-outing", and I checked it out a dozen different ways and replied "exceedingly unlikely any connection" within 1.5 hours.

Any use? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: RFC Draft

I greatly like your idea over at User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft. My senior college thesis was on appellate court structure and what not. Would you find it most helpful for me to apply my research and crafting RFC suggestions once it opens or would it be better ot maybe distill them into an essay in my userspace? MBisanz ^talk 04:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

For now (since some aspects of it are semi fuzzy) any suggestions from your experience to make the process as simple, painless, and neutral would be great. Leave them on the talk page there. :) Lawrence § t/e 04:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lawrence. I've just commented on the issue. Cheers. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg (talk) 02:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Gabriel Williams Spermula Straw poll Downtime Drumfunk Rock Your Body September 2005 California wildfires Pike National Forest Edward Craggs-Eliot, 1st Baron Eliot Softimage Earth in the Balance List of webcomics in print Darkstep ClanLib Plicatic acid The Eagle (novel) Lauch Faircloth List of people pardoned by Bill Clinton Flamingo International Airport

Cleanup E-meter Delia Stafford-Johnson Fursuit Merge Wikipedia Watch New Times Media Shaggy Add Sources List of the most popular names in the 1890s in the United States The Concert for New York City Seneca, South Carolina Wikify National Journal Webster University Little Dixie (Missouri) Expand KFC Children's Defense Fund Gaston Glock

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 11	13 March 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Accusations of financial impropriety receive more coverage	Best of WikiWorld: "Five-second rule"
News and notes: New bureaucrat, Wikimania bids narrowed, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Vintage image restoration	WikiProject Report: Professional wrestling
Tutorial: Summary of policies	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 12	17 March 2008	About the Signpost

Best of WikiWorld: "The Rutles"	News and notes: Single-user login, election commission, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Changes at peer review
WikiProject Report: Tropical cyclones	Tutorial: Editing Monobook, installing scripts
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

For your help with that pesky vandal. Benjiboi 01:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

comment and suggest refactoring

I've replied to your comment and I incidentally suggest you refactor certain aspects of your remark. Expect an email shortly. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Expect a likely on-wiki reply to your email. Again, I will not refactor any direct reference to factual true information. I will not stroke egos for anyone. Egos do not an encyclopedia make. Lawrence § t/e 17:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

In regards to your email, you have my sympathies, and I hope those allegations get cleared up. I'm not a Checkuser or Arbiter (and wouldn't want to be either, probably ever) and I don't care for any secret evidence. My post on the Brandt DRV remains accurate based on available information: you're on thin ice, and need to tread lightly. In regards to this case I'd prefer if our responses are on the DRV page. My stance from having read what is sadly probably only 1/10th of the history of this today (mostly the DRVs for the Readers Digest versions) is that we honestly don't need this shit. Again, replies to this Brandt stuff should go to the DRV. The only thing I hate more than obstructionism for the sake of policy masturbation is all those weird fragmented discussions across ten pages. Lawrence § t/e 17:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry man

I tried to make it humorous, at least. You two were certainly drowning out the rest of the DRV. Apologies if I came off smarmy. SirFozzie (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, I laughed. I needed that laugh, in fact. Lawrence § t/e 20:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 13	24 March 2008	About the Signpost

Single User Login enabled for administrators	Best of WikiWorld: "Clabbers"
News and notes: $3,000,000 grant, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Banner shells tame talk page clutter	WikiProject Report: Video games
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

A message from WarthogDemon.

Korean Fir I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, was unsuccessful with 61 support, 25 oppose, and 4 neutral. I've been taking the advice of the Opposes into practice and hopefully I can improve myself. Once again, thank you. ^_^

My RfA

I can has mop?

Hi Lawrence Cohen/Archive 2! Thank you for your support in my RfA (87/3/3). I truely appreciate the many votes of confidence, and I will exert myself to live up to those expectations. Thanks again! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Bezhin Meadow

Hey Lawrence, I like what you've done with Bezhin Meadow. I may add some information in the next few weeks if you don't mind. I have a copy of Jay Leyda's Kino [16] which would make a good additional source for the article. One recommendation I would make on the way to FA is to expand the refs from Christie, Taylor to include page numbers and bibliographic information from the source documents that compose their book.* By the way, by some of the articles you've written it looks like you live in Seattle, I used to live there too and am in the city a few days a week, I live in a suburb currently. I've been reading about and watching Russian films lately and am fact checking and adding refs to Sergei Eisenstein this weekend which is bringing me to the UW libraries soon to verify in print what I've found on the web. Maybe you can help with bringing the Eisenstein article up to FA, by adding some refs from Christie, Taylor; which it seems you have a copy of or access to, which I myself will get around to after I add some refs from the Seton biography and Geruld, Gottesman; which the author who wrote the article as is was apparently drawing from. Regards, David. dvdrw 23:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

*Actually that info is there, I just overlooked it, oops, nevermind that, sorry. dvdrw 00:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I need to get back to that article asap. Looking back I think it'll sail through now to GA status, and we can work it up the rest of the way to FA. I've been putting it off since going through the older books on Google is a big chore. Lawrence § t/e 21:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Technical difficulties

Too fucking right, somebody broke in to the office (on my property) and stole my computer last night. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yow, that is shitty. Hopefully nothing lost beyond the monetary value and annoyance factor--as in, no financial information on the system or intellectual property, or unreplaceables? Lawrence § t/e 19:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully not, the computer was password protected so hopefully the data is not accessible and not particularly intelligible (xml files, management tool links) butincludes my password here, of course, everything was backed up, its the fall out and the fear that are what are at issue (I live in a poor, crime-ridden Latin country). They only took my computer, the 3 staff computers next door weren't touched. Anyway, sigh. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Barneca/Requests for Jimboship/Barneca

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Barneca/Requests for Jimboship/Barneca, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Barneca/Requests for Jimboship/Barneca and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Barneca/Requests for Jimboship/Barneca during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Hut 8.5 20:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

How long until someone flogs the poor horse by MFDing the MFD of the MFD? Lawrence § t/e 21:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Spoke too soon... Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Barneca/Requests for Jimboship/Barneca Lawrence § t/e 21:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 14	31 March 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimania 2009 to be held in Buenos Aires	Sister Projects Interview: Wikisource
WikiWorld: "Hammerspace"	News and notes: 10M articles, $500k donation, milestones
Dispatches: Featured content overview	WikiProject Report: Australia
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent post to AN/I

Actually I'd suggest you alert Alison to that post. I have a feeling it is likely someone else. Risker (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Lawrence § t/e 19:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA

I saw your comment to Lar and am currently reviewing your history. I am strongly considering nomming' you later tonight (my time) if there are no major skeletons. MBisanz ^talk 21:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Lawrence § t/e 21:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I had no idea. I would nom you but you would be better off with someone a little less controversial. Good luck. Viridae^Talk 21:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Viridae. Lawrence § t/e 21:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This was something I saw coming long time ago:-) Jehochman ^Talk 23:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as your not on and I won't be on when your on, remember to Accept, answer questions, transclude, and update end date. MBisanz ^talk 05:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone... I've accepted... Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lawrence Cohen. Lawrence § t/e 14:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Wishing you the very best of luck. Rudget (review) 14:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Just switched to support, as Rudget says, the best of luck to you. Sadly I don't see it passing this time, but I will definitely be there to support if this fails and you should choose to run again. -- Naerii 19:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

So I've been at a convention all day and just got to !vote right now. 26/17 isn't a great number to be at, but of course it could be worse. I know some nominators discuss things with Oppose and Neutral (and sometimes Supports). I don't mind it, and certainly encourage candidates to answer or provide supporting evidence, but on a personal philosophy level, I probably won't ever add a comment to an Oppose or Neutral vote of an RFA I nom, unless it pretty much goes beyond WP:NPA. Good luck again and I'll be watching. MBisanz ^talk 03:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

My talk page

Lawrence, I have responded to your email . I have never posted anyone's personal information. If anyone feels like that , I request WP admin to revise those edits as per WP policy -Bharatveer (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Modernista template

Sorry for any confusion I may have caused with the speedy deletion. I didn't bother to check the original nomination date; I assumed it was old by the number of votes. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 17:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Rfa question

I just posted this to The Fat Man. Thought I'd let you know not only cos it is your Rfa but as a copmment on you chameleon comment, Fat Man's seems like a kind of differnet aproach and is a more useful questiont han the 3 standard ones, IMO. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, his question was great. I hope my chameleon comment is not accurate, because if going out of your way to not weigh in substantially on anything controversial is key to passing... thats kind of scary. How would you know how someone is going to act as admin, if they don't weigh in on the types of things admins often weigh in on? The types of opinions on matters and policy matters likely won't change fast over time, but it does change, in all of us (if it doesn't, something is very wrong). In the end, though, thoughts and opinions are distinct from adminship and use of tools. The logic behind a quiet person that we have no material on their "nature" on sailing through is confounding to me, I guess. Lawrence § t/e 23:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

GA/FA feedback, if you get a chance

Hey Cla... if you get a chance, mind taking a gander at Bezhin Meadow? It's the one I'm working on now--I've got a ton of sources at User:Lawrence Cohen/work/Bezhin Meadow that I still need to go through. Any early feedback would be appreciated, as in the past. I've got it in for a GA nom, I think it's probably 6-8 weeks from an FA nom, if I can keep up the pace from the past few days and not get sidetracked. Thanks! Lawrence § t/e 02:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me. I don't work much on film articles, but doesn't the film plot section come before the production section? If not, no big deal. Also, you might try to explain in greater detail why the Soviet authorities didn't like the film. After reading their rationale, I still don't understand why they didn't like it. But, perhaps that's the point. Maybe their reasoning was contradictory and didn't make much sense. Also, what was the critical reaction to the film after it was finally released? And, what type of cinematographic style did it use, surrealism, noir, hyper-realism, etc.? And whatever style it used, was it the same kind of style used by most Russian film makers of that time? Anyway, looks like a good start. Cla68 (talk) 02:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! The reason the Soviet authorities sank it is absurdly contradictory, added in by the fact the man mainly responsible may or may not have been an English spy--as far as I can tell, about 1/4 through the sources, a mystery. I put the production before the summary, since it seems like the production itself is more notable than the film. It seems odd to me, as well--the story being the filming of the film, rather than the film itself. I'll look into expanding the other bits based on your suggestions. The sources are rich, but a bear to get through. The reaction/legacy section I think will end up the largest in the end... Lawrence § t/e 03:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA.

The numbers do not tell an accurate story. You are doing quite well because you have received support from a substantial number of highly trusted users. If you do not pass this time, I recommend that you avoid WP:ANI and instead involve yourself in WP:3O, WP:EAR, WP:MEDCAB, WP:MEDCOM, WP:COIN, WP:SSP or any of the other numerous places where help is needed. This, I think, will resolve the concerns of those who think you are involved in too many dramas. Jehochman ^Talk 14:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Fingers crossed... EAR, I'll admit I'd never looked at too much, but that caught my eye and I watched it--thats the sort of thing I enjoy doing. SSP--how different or similar is the research there typically to the stuff we ran across the BFP/WB mess? Lawrence § t/e 16:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

SSP requires a lot of due dilligence. The evidence cited needs to be checked. If you find cases where the evidence does not indicate sock puppetry (as is often the case), or where the problematic editing is stale because the parties simply gave up on whatever trouble they were causing, you can close the cases (add a note at the bottom and {{SSPa}} at the top). I seem to close at least half of cases with no action. By removing frivolous or stale cases, you can help cut the backlog. By confirming the real cases, you can give administrators greater confidence to place a block. If you find cases where there is substantial evidence, but some doubts, you can file a request for checkuser, which often resolves the matter. Jehochman ^Talk 16:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:EAR maybe good. It is nice to have a balanced approach to Wikipedia, some helping, some article writing, and some policing. Jehochman ^Talk 16:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I wish and think the vote should be going better. But considering almost all the opposes are on the same single issue, while most of the supports cover multiple good things about you, I'd say its not that bad of a week. MBisanz ^talk 17:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think its actually going better now than it has been before this point - there is still a good chance that it will pass, particularly with support from arbs and former arbs etc just coming in. Some of the opposes went in a direction I don't agree with, and even my oppose is partially ameliorated by the recall pledge. Being involved in drama isn't a problem - any problem would derive from your role in the drama. I have 500 or so or more edits to AN and AN/I myself, as well as the IRC and Mantanmoreland RfAr, so I wouldn't have opposed on that basis. I need to, I think, review my intentions as far as your RfA and consider if moving my oppose to neutral wouldn't be more appropriate based on the recall pledge. Avruch ^T 17:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Avruch, thank you for the thoughtful consideration. Lawrence § t/e 19:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

And we're back into the discretionary range! MBisanz ^talk 22:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that too. Wow, I don't think I've ever seen an RfA recover so well from such a shitty start. -- Naerii 22:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to be detached from it, and focus on other things, but it's kind of nerve wracking...! Up, down, sideways, down, up... was the discretionary 70%? Lawrence § t/e 22:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In theory is 70%-80%, in practice its 61%-7x% and I'd say they'd tend towards 68%-75% in most cases. MBisanz ^talk 22:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>I hope you don't mind my post here, LC. (and I've called you LC for awhile now, please stop me if that is something you prefer I don't do), I just switched from neutral to support myself. I wish you the best in your RfA, as you have contributed more to this zany place than I have (or ever will). I'm assuming good faith here, that you'll refrain from the uber-posting that I've personally witnessed when you "think you're right". Part of being admin, in my admittedly limited experience, is knowing when to let something go. I believe you'll be a good admin. My neutral (which wasn't much better than an oppose, seeing as how I was quoted in the oppose section), did not sit right with me. I think you are a good contributor with the best interests of this place at heart. I just hope I don't have to *sigh* later...best of luck to you, regardless of the outcome of your RfA. I'm glad I'm supporting. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

LC is fine; just don't call me Shirley. And if I ever grumble about screwing up a name, block me--seriously. Go look through my talk archives, I slaughter names on a routine basis. But I've been better, lately. Wait until User:Badagnani shows up here again. I've called him everything from Bagagnani to Bagmanani to Badamagni. After all those--someone on the RFA called it "hyper involved"--overly long discussions, I'd never realized I'd been doing it before. It just was a natural, click-reply-dissect/retort response. I was looking through my contribs on talk: pages by the thousand last night, and I'd see 5, 10, 15 in a row all on one talk page, in one section. Barring some wild circumstance (never say never, because you never know what may come up), I really don't want to do that again. I never realized how annoying and obnoxious it was. Thanks again for your feedback, Keeper. I'm going to make a big effort to take all this to heart. Lawrence § t/e 23:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Your response here just solidified what I've been feeling all along, namely that you have the best interests of this insane place at heart and that when you do post, whether it be in support or opposition of an editor/article/idea/proposition/dispute, that you mean the best for the project. Your RfA is still sketchy, and may not pass. Whatever happens, I'm glad I'm a supporter (despite our differences), and I hope that you'll continue to add your brain to this (sometimes brainless) place. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and your shirley reference sealed it for me. You obviously have sophisticated humor...:-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Kraken botnet

Go for it. Maybe it can be a featured article too. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Bezhin Meadow FAC

I see you have this up on FAC; sounds like an interesting film and a good FA subject. If you receive more comments about copy-editing, I'd be happy to give it a whirl on Friday evening or Saturday. Risker (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm terrible at copy editing in that it takes me about five times as many passes as everyone else to see the obvious. I'm just ok at assembling the material. Any time you can spare would be fantastic--it took me forever to copyedit out the Storm article when it was up. Lawrence § t/e 23:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, it's my belief that fresh eyes unfamiliar with the article can make a big difference. I just finished a marathon copy edit of Kannada literature last night (took about 18 hours - 72K of academic tone *shudder*) so I am going to work on other things for a couple of nights and will start work on Friday if nothing else comes up in the interim. Risker (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Article that might benefit from your approach...

Lawrence, do you have much experience with contentious BLPs? I've been working on one (Giovanni di Stefano) and there is some resistance to issues of appropriate use of references, the balance of the article given the type of coverage out there, etc. I think it could definitely benefit from a few more pairs of eyes, if you feel like it. Avruch ^T 00:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I am on the other side (of whatever content dispute) re this article which is one I give high priority to. Your opinion would certainly be interesting. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll watchlist it and take a look. For the level of clients this guy has, he's got to have a ton more sourcing available to build out the article. Lawrence § t/e 17:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

10 seconds on Google later... How is this article that short? Lawrence § t/e 17:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

di Stefano has very strong feelings about the article. i dont think it is so much he wants shot of it as much as he wants it to be at least neutral, ie not negative towards him. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Because its been deleted a few times, and there is extraordinary scrutiny on anything that could be interpreted as negative (both the subject and the subject's son edit the article and comment on the talkpage). And for some reason, arguably negative coverage (including reliably sourced and seemingly accurate information) is blocked by various editors. Avruch ^T 17:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That is a good summary, but I would argue negative information without a positive balance violates NPOV. Fred Bauder is another regular and Jimbo was involved in editing last year as well. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Negative information can exceed the amount of good information at any time and not be an NPOV violation, even on a BLP. NPOV is never ever expected to be some sort of fixed ratio, like a 1:1. If the body of information on a BLP subject elevates them to practical sainthood, the article will reflect that. If it's 100% in the other direction, an article will make someone look despicable--that's fine too, and does not violate NPOV. 70% good, 30% bad? Fine. 30% bad, 70% good? Fine too. Lawrence § t/e 18:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are we allowing NPOV to take a backseat? Is this a BLP matter, or something to do with the fact he's an attorney? Lawrence § t/e 17:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Bit of both? The implicit threat of a lawsuit (there are reports that he has sued or claimed to have sued several journalists in the past) plus the general caution on a BLP have significantly impacted the atmosphere of this article, which is why I think it could benefit from a significantly larger audience. Avruch ^T 18:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

vandal count

You are getting to be very famous..:) Wait till you become an admin, you will probably make it in the guinness book of records. Mind you, you will have strong competition from User:Barneca. Peace! Igor Berger (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you have a long way to go to beat El C (not that vandalism reverts are a competition). Thanks, SqueakBox 17:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I can always go back and count them up, I guess. I think I was in the 30~ neighborhood altogether. Sort of feels bush league (not that I'm complaining). Lawrence § t/e 17:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I recommend imploring an exorcist with some holly water! A few sprinkles a day, will keep the bug infestation away..:) Igor Berger (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

CE of Bezhin Meadow

As promised, I am working on it now. I've finished the lede and the first section; could you take a look at it and let me know if you're comfortable with what I have done? It is still very much your work, and I don't want to take away your "editing personality" in the copy-edit. I've left a couple of questions on the FAC page as well; better to have those questions in that review so that it is clear the issues have been identified and addressed. Risker (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No no--change whats needed, I can get too flowery in language. I was just drafting my first reply to you. :) Lawrence § t/e 01:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, only one last sentence in the film summary section, and then the last section and it will be done. I've left another question on the FAC page, though. :-) --Risker (talk) 03:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

And answered, the rewrite is fantastic!! Lawrence § t/e 03:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Really glad you approve of my changes; one more question on the FAC page, and it's done, I think. You can ask the other commenting editors to review the copy edit and see if it merits their support now. (Yes, do this now, I know you're chewing your nails waiting to see how the RfA turns out. Why do you think I timed it this way? ;-)) --Risker (talk) 03:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Distractions are grand! :) I've tried to avoid the site tonight... I'll get that last question adjusted and post back to the first guy in the FAC. :) Lawrence § t/e 05:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the 'crats have taken the evening off anyway, or are all avoiding your RfA, or maybe they're too busy reading today's feature article (a turnpike?!?!?!). Good idea to get away from the 'pedia tonight - have a beer on me. (That's free as in beer, not free as in....) Good luck on both the RfA and the FAC! Risker (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the correct end time was 14:04 Apr 12, 7 days after it was listed on RfA. :) The end time just never got updated. - Taxman ^Talk 15:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

D'oh, that was my mistake, then, from when I accepted. Oops. Lawrence § t/e 17:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad to have helped with this article, feel free to call on me anytime. It's better for the project if we all play to our strengths, and copy editing just seems to be in my DNA; I do it at work all the time too. I appreciated your notes on various subjects today. Risker (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Lawerence

I'm sorry about the candidacy. When we are all done with this encyclopedia, the content, the finished product is all that really matters. That some day I may be able to give my children a compact disc and say "Here, is an encyclopedia" (that I did not have to pay to purchase(free content)) You do good things here with the articles, I want you to be reminded of that. Keep your head up, you do good things. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Scream. Again--I'm so sorry for the crap that got stirred up offsite by my questioning. Lawrence § t/e 17:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Your RfA

While there was not consensus to promote you at this time, your RfA was valuable in that a lot of good comments and suggestions were given. Take what you can from it to the extent that you can improve, have more fun, and help make this a better project. One thing I wanted to point out is I absolutely disagree with the idea that you need to stay out of disputes or controversial areas in order to be able to be successful at RfA or whatever. That's not the case at all, there are many multitudes of counterexamples. What is does take is an extra effort to maintain composure and not get dragged down. Despite popular opinion, it is possible to behave in a way you can be proud of even when no one else around you is. On Wikipedia, all it typically takes is a step back to think about how what we write may come across, and when we think of how it may come across more negatively than we hope, pause and either re-write it or don't write anything at all. In any case, based on what people have said about your article contributions, perhaps the encyclopedia would be better off if you did only that! :) Either way, de-escalating conflicts is a very valuable skill. - Taxman ^Talk 15:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Taxman. The close was totally fair, and this is sound advice. Mop or pen, I just want to help out. Thanks again, sir. Lawrence § t/e 17:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

What a bugger! Do you think if I had been campaign manager it may have helped? Giano (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Spumoni always helps! Lawrence § t/e 17:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

We are in The twilight zone, so do not lose hope! Igor Berger (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it didn't pass, LC. 72% is a solid feat though, considering the start you got. My conscience is clear, glad I switched to support. I personally thought you were in the discretionary range enough to get closed as success, but meh, that's why I'm not a 'crat I suppose. Keep building the encyc. I have the buttons myself, you deserve them more than me based on article building for sure. I've got your back from now on. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes well you certainly got a lot of support. One can still be an effective player without the admin tools, being well known helps, plus we all have to work all the time on being better editors and getting on with our fellow editors better. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it didn't work out. Taxman is right; you don't need to stay out of controversy if you are in it for the right reasons. You got a lot of support and even though 72% wasn't quite enough it still shows that a great number of people here still appreciate those who dare to care - and the fact that you do just that earns you more respect with me than any sysop bit could ever do. Take the advice from Taxman and try again in a few months. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

While I am more than a bit disappointed that you didn't get approved, I can say one thing. Not being an admin gives you more time to actually write articles. Believe it or not, having been made an admin only a few months ago, I can still, at least vaguely, remember what that felt like. There are certainly other, dare I say possibly more important?, things to do than being an admin. Maybe it's kind of like graduating high school and being subsequently thrown out of the house to fend on your own. While you're still at home, you can't think of anything you want more than your "own place", and once you have to get it you keep remembering how much easier and more fun it was having Mom and Dad paying the rent and washing the clothes and dishes. Speaking as one of the least productive content developers we have, I to a degree envy you the opportunity to keep writing articles, and have honestly thought of regularly using "colorful" language for a few days to lose the bit myself. I would welcome seeing you become an admin in the future, and would support your run, but that doesn't mean that you might not be even more productive in a sense without it. In any event, I look forward to supporting you again should you decide to run again, and hope you still can enjoy the greater freedom not being an admin gives you for as long as you stay in that situation. John Carter (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't sweat it too much; some of the opposals bordered on double standards re conduct... you should be an admin. Ironically those candidates who don't appear to play politics suffer... 18:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minkythecat (talk • contribs)

• Lawrence, if you take to heart the well-intentioned opposes then I think you will be a shoo-in next time round. Let me know whern that is, in case I miss it. Guy (Help!) 18:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Good try LC. I of course will be there to support version 2, and I think version 1 proves its highly likely to succeed. MBisanz ^talk 18:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

What Guy said. Mine was definitely well intentioned (I hope!), and I would like to support in the future. Best regards, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: RfA Thanks

You're very welcome, and I'm sorry to see that you didn't succeed. But I admire the attitude you are taking in the wake of the result of your RfA - yes, providing you take note of the pointers left for you, you will shine in the future. Keep up the excellent work! :-) Lradrama 18:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't hesitate to try again someday, you're still a great contributor! So get out there and keep up the good work. NO hard feelings, VanTucky 19:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hope you won't let it get you down. People opposing find that you get too riled up too often and I suppose your next RfA will sail through if you tone it down a bit. Thankfully, I don't think you're the kind of person to tone it down solely with that objective in mind, but keeping cool is just an easy way to make the Wikipedia experience more fun. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

yes, don't read my advice there to avoid concentrating only on controversial policy changes as meaning you should stop--just that you should not do that exclusively. Adminship is mainly coping with the duller side of things, article by article. I look forward to supporting you. DGG (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence, just some friendly advise. The behavior that you are demonstrating canvassing the !votes at your last RFA on your possible next RFA, is exactly why it failed. And I do use the word failed, not any crap about "not achieving consensus to promote". Sharpen your pencil and edit the articles, you are the drama at the wiki that is making good editors quit. 195.24.77.135 (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I do not know about the drama that makes good editor quit, but the canvasing also caught my eye. I did not want to say it out of respect for a good faith editor, but yes this could be the problem. Thanking the editors who voted in your RFA is very good, but posting the same same message on alll their pages one after another is not. It is mechanical. I would have notified them one at a time and talked to them, of course thanking them for their vote. Please take my comments not as a crticism but as advice of a friend. Regards, Igor Berger (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's standard practice to thank those who took the time to participate in your RfA. Doing so with a standardized message is quite normal too. Calling that canvassing is rather rude. EconomicsGuy (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree. This is purely standard stuff - I receive them every second RfA I vote on. I'd note that even successful and unsuccessful candidates for RfB, who are well aware of relevant policies, did the same, and I think it's a nice touch. Please assume good faith. Orderinchaos 02:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I would love to write a custom reply to all the opposers, but given that 99% of them had functionally the same concern (which I acknowledge, and have acknowledged) I'd be a complete idiot if I didn't "get it". I wanted to get back to work on what matters (like this head scratcher) in lieu of spending two weeks writing out each response. I know what I need to do, if I ever end up at RFA again someday. If there is a legitimate problem with my posts to the opposers and neutrals I would be more than happy to apologize and RV them out. Lawrence § t/e 21:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It could not be the problem. Something that happened in the future is not a reason for something that happened in the present. Neal (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

Replying to the votes at Lawrence's last RfA on his possible next RFA is not exactly why it failed. The reason it is not why it failed, is because he commented on everyone's talk after it had failed. The closing bueracrat could not have known Lawrence will comment on everyone's talk - and therefore, could not have closed it because of something he could not foresee. Clear? Neal (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

The pen is mightier than the mop. - Very true. :-) miranda 21:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you have no hard feelings. Because with a few more months of editing and learning behind you, i will be proud to support your second RfA. Have a nice night :-) TheProf - T / C 21:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Your Welcome and im sorry that you didnt succeed even though it had alot of support, One day you will be a admin.--Pookeo9 (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone... the amount of support I got surprised me, since I really didn't expect that. I will do my best to not disappoint anyone going forward. Lawrence § t/e 21:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You have my views, as everyone's, and if you do continue engaging in controversial areas, I'd be more than happy to act as a sounding board on them to double check for sanity if you like. I think it'd be a good investment of time..... people who care usually are :)

Best! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you were unsuccessful, you've been on my "what, he isn't already?" list for a while now and was (and will continue to be) happy to support you based on everything I've seen over the last four months or so. Orderinchaos 02:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Add me to the list of those who hope you'll go for it again and who could use a reminder next time. Noroton (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Just what Orderinchaos said! Keep up the good work, and I hope you'll get the guts to try again in a few months :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lawrence. I am sorry I couldn't support this time, as I do agree with a lot of your views and think you'd do well as an admin with a little more circumspection. I have little doubt that if you avoid the drama for a few months (basically, show that you've learned from the constructive criticism, and avoided rising to the unsconstructive criticism) and try again that you'll sail through; I know I would support if that were the case. I notice tons of people have already offered you support etc, so this offer's probably superfluous, but if you ever want a 27th opinion on anything, do let me know. Neıl ☎ 15:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Flag icons

Their use seems to have be controversial with advocatates on both sides. Regardless of the ongoing debate the guideline currently says not to use them to denote places of birth and death. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags)#Not for use in locations of birth and death. I don't care much one way or the other either. I just happened to see flag iconss being added to an article on my watchlist and cleaned it up (along with another article the same user 'flagged'). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Thanks for your note. I hope you continue to contribute, as you are a valued editor on this project, which was clearly shown at the RfA. Good luck on your future endeavors, and I hope that you are up at RfA sometime in the not too distant future. Cirt (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA

Why is it that you didn't succeed? You had 73 more support votes, i dont get it. Where does it say on this page that you weren't successful? Was there not a discussion between the Bureaucrats and didn't they give you the reasons why you were not sucessful? Can you help me out, im sorry i didn't get to vote i dont really visit that page much but it looks like it wouldn't have mattered. Better luck next time. Thanks Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 05:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well gee, do the math. The closing bureaucrat clearly said there was a consensus for no adminship, even though there was a 120/167 vote, which is a 71.856287% pass. I'm guessing no where does it say how that passes - but it probably has to do with how many ArbCom admins voted on both sides or so. As well as stewards, bureaucrats, etc. The vothing side could have had a higher non-admin percentage. Neal (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

Pretty much what Neal said. It's a judgment call, and I have no complaints. Lawrence § t/e 18:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I just see it as bad timing, the "sekrit council"  ;) still was hurting from their last encounter with Lawrence. As for the votes thing: Some people have become admins with less votes (%-wise), it really depends on certain admins/arbies that vote, the whole community thing is just so they can call it a vote ;) I appreciate you going through with this Lawrence, you'd have made a great admin (imo :) ) Although my opinion doesn't count for much Jacina (talk) 13:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to back up the stats bit:
Ryulong 3 passed with ~69%, Sean Black ~71%, Carnildo ~62%(!), Elonka 3 ~70%
Better luck next time :)

Jacina (talk) 07:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

RfA

Id happily support you in 6 months time, if you keep contributing as well as you currently are and can cool it down a bit. Thanks. Five Years 11:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Breaking out the champagne!

Congratulations on another featured article, the impeccably researched Bezhin Meadow! I was very happy to pitch in a bit, but the work was all yours, and you should be talking proud here, my friend! I'll bet you start your week with a smile on your face. Take a break for a day or two, so you'll be refreshed and ready for your next FA drive. Best, Risker (talk) 04:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Cryptovirology Naruto Zombie computer Education in Botswana Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Peters Ice Cream Pike National Forest MSN Search John Monash Softimage Montreal hot dog New Times Media Gabriel Williams Downtime Midget Plicatic acid Wikitext Wu (linguistics) Peter Pike

Cleanup E-meter Schutzhund Science of Survival Merge AOL Steve Gibson Water cure Add Sources List of the most popular names in the 1890s in the United States John E. Pike Nicholas Eliot, 9th Earl of St Germans Wikify Great Assembly Candirú Defensive programming Expand Scanimate KFC Open Text Corporation

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Pomosexual

Well done on the find of more sources! I had searched google, but not google news specifically, and that made a big difference. Aleta ^Sing 23:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Google news is an amazing tool for quick reference searches to start out. Make sure to always use the "all dates" option, and you can find sourcing on (it's scary) about anything. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.

Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 08:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 15	7 April 2008	About the Signpost

April Fools' pranks result in temporary blocks for six admins	WikiWorld: "Apples and oranges"
News and notes: 100 x 5,000, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Reviewers achieving excellence	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 16	14 April 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Interview with the team behind one of the 2,000th featured articles	Image placeholders debated
WikiWorld: "Pet skunk"	News and notes: Board meeting, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Featured article milestone
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vereniging Basisinkomen

Hi Lawrence,

Regards your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vereniging Basisinkomen, in my opinion the problem isn't the number of sources, its how they relate to the topic. Based on looking over the sources (here is my analysis), none really establish notability - there's no extensive, independent coverage, and many serve to justify text that really isn't about the topic itself.

Consider, however, that I've a very strict interpretation of policy and guidelines; just 'cause I think they're not good sources doesn't mean anyone else will agree. In fact, they rarely do :*(

Thanks, WLU (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that's fine, for that kind of interpretation. I'm strict on some things, median on others. I'll look again at the AFD and had already looked at the source analysis. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

'Kay, thanks. I'm considering talking to the nominator to make the nomination a bit clearer. Should basically be "No assertion of notability" since that's the real reason it will or won't get deleted. WLU (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

GDS

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		And others. Sceptre (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

blp

Not remotely. everything I mentioned is covered in the article.Geni 23:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You're trolling a BLP subject. Anyone who does that deserves an unpaid vacation. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

are you accuseing me of paid editing to wikipedia? And no I'm not.Geni 23:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I could care less if someone were paid to edit here, I wish people were, for all it matters, if they churn out neutral Featured Articles. Unpaid vacation = block. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm british so I think the term is gardening leave. In any case threats will get you no where. I've gone head to head with everyone to two bit vandales to rouge admins to board memebers. Do you honestly think I can be intimidated by a few threats of blocking? Try logical debate.Geni 23:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Logic falls by the wayside vs not harming others. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just a traveler from the afd page but I think that you are being pretty rough with Geni. You've suggested three times now (included on the afd page for Giovanni di Stefano) that Geni should/would be banned/blocked for not supporting your view on BLP. Furthermore, you have repeatedly claimed, without any justification, that "do no harm" should be the foremost tenet of wikipedia, not NPOV, not notability, not freedom from censorship. Keep in mind that 'do no harm' is NOT the overriding operating principle of wikipedia, nor does 'ignore all rules' dictate that one particular opinion should win out. As a matter of fact, IAR is there so that consensus should not be constrained by wikilawyering. Furthermore you are prepared to threaten or visit harm upon a wiki user in order to assert your feelings about a contentious biography. now I'm not saying that you are going to come around and feel differently than you do. I just wish you would accept that we are going to move forward based on consensus and that consensus might not reflect your personal interpretation of BLP.Protonk (talk) 03:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Andrew J. Moonen

I have nominated Andrew J. Moonen, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew J. Moonen. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I really did just do that. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Doc glasgow/BLP watch

Feel free to add stuff yourself if it obviously raises issues of provacy, subject's preference, or general decency.--Doc^g 23:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

can't, my RFA didn't pass. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What has that to do with it? Experienced editors do not need to be admins to do whatever does not involve those buttons, please reconsider your argument. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I think I protected it, I'll reduce to semi.--Doc^g 00:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Doc! Squeak, I wasn't arguing that I didn't want to edit it. :) Lawrence Cohen § t/e 00:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks indeed doc, I know I haven't edited the page but nice to know I can. And that Lawrence can too. And thanks for the heads up, Lawrence, I hadn't checked. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

di Stefano deletion

You're not helping your argument by repeating it over and over and over again, you're just looking a little hysterical. Please don't accuse folks of wanting to hurt di Stefano or lacking moral fiber unless you're prepared to back it up with something much more significant than a keep vote on an AfD with IAR as a rationale. Avruch ^T 01:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

While I think it would be easy to back up the assertions Avruch mentions, calmness is always a good strategy. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That is the second or third time today you have insinuated that I have an agenda to harm di Stefano, and for bonus this comment implies I lack moral fiber. If its as easy as you say, I'd very much like to see your assertions backed up. Avruch ^T 01:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

We should do no harm. I certainly have no agenda with you, Avruch, but I do feel that we should have an article about di stefano but the edits Geni and you and DF are making are making this impossible, and I am terribly frustrated by this as a long term editor who broke my wikipedia teeth on Daniel Brandt. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You guys, please give Lawrence a break. If you haven't noticed, his name is on the lawsuit papers filed, along with Avruch. He is probably stressed and is backing his contributions and covering himself. Avruch, I'd be careful what you say too. Everything is logged, and we need to be very careful about this case. Let's all calm down, and wait this out. - ђαίгснгм ^таιќ 05:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ironmanfilmflight.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ironmanfilmflight.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sanchez is evading his block again

After your comments yesterday, Sanchez has decided to attack you on the Matt Sanchez talk page via a sock, and continue editing his article, evading his ban. Here's his new sock handle: [17]. --Tanstaffl (talk) 14:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Tanstaffl looks rather sockish. Jehochman ^Talk 14:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:AE and WP:RFCU. Murky situation with significant chance of a joe job. Durova^Charge! 17:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing personal

I see where you're coming from; I just don't think it will help. Durova^Charge! 17:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I know, I know. Something has to give on this, sooner or later. :( Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The RFAR

Lawrence, my friend - do you think you could, in about 10 minutes and after a walk around the block perhaps, consider tempering your language a bit there? It would be very helpful. You see, the steam coming out of your ears is fogging up my monitor... ;-) Thanks. Risker (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a good idea. But adminship be damned, the right thing is more important. :( Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with adminship, Lawrence. You want your message to be heard and given the respect it deserves; you want to motivate Arbcom to take the case. Given some of the perceptions amongst that group about what is and isn't civil (as inconsistently or conveniently applied as they may be), it works in your favour to present a head-over-heart argument. Risker (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Admins

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Admins have no extra authority in debates, and his closure is contrary to what was understood at the end of the DRV. They have access to tools, that is all. -- Ned Scott 22:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You know I'm the first person to agree with that, and have gone to bat in such matters before. But the closing of debates like this is one of the few priveledges that lay with admins over regular users. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 22:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

His closure is based on the idea that the DRV had the final call in the matter, which isn't the case. And it's just gaming the system. Any admin can come along and force these things, and that forces other users to start a DRV, then the user who starts a DRV is called disruptive. This is wrong. -- Ned Scott 22:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Lets move this over to Thatcher's talk page. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 22:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You could just ask me to do that normally. -- Ned Scott 22:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait, you started that ANI thread in reaction to Brandt throwing an off-wiki hissy fit? Shame on you, I would have expected you to not feed the trolls. -- Ned Scott 22:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No, in response to JoshuaZ's provacations towards a BLP subject. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"I filed the ANI request to topic-ban Josh from Brandt after seeing his RFD end-run and Brandt's outrage as a BLP subject on Wikipedia Review." And it should be painfully clear that Joshua was under the impression that the DRV closing admin as ok with the RFD. We've since cleared that up as not being the case, but Joshua didn't know that when he started the RfD. What the hell are you trying to do to this guy? -- Ned Scott 23:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

He is trying to get him banned from the Daniel brandt topic, a proposal many agree with. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm asking for a preventative measure to get an ex-admin who may have abusively used sockpuppets to stack a Brandt DRV to leave the BLP subject alone on-wiki. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(SqueakBox) It's a proposal that many disagree with as well

(Lawrence) I've never used sockpuppets, I never was an admin, and the matter isn't personal for me. Are you going to propose a topical ban when I take my next step in this? I don't know if he used socks or not, I don't know if it's personal or not, but every rationale he has given in this discussion is completely valid. The deletion of the redirect, the deletion of the article history, the way that well known admins are getting away with gaming the system, is wrong. -- Ned Scott 23:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ned, that is so. But its when a proposal gets universal disagreement that people think, hey maybe this was a completely bad call (as I think they would if someone proposed for a ban on you editing this topic) whereas a proposal as disputed as this one at least has some value to it. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

To echo Thatcher, fuck process and fuck policy wonkery. Our voices are what matter, not the venue, and that is that. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Our voices, our right to make these decisions as a community, have been removed, regardless of venue. -- Ned Scott 23:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you guys had your shot on the DRV and the community obviously doesn't want Daniel Brandt. Is that only valid if they don't want it for rules-based reasons you all can't wriggle out of with process games and nonsense like that? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably the mosst discussed article/redirect the community has ever dealt with. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

With a vast majority of the over-all discussion not supporting anything even close to the situation we have now. What you have is people who were run into the ground, and got tired of the debate and gave up. You have people wanting to delete it not because of the merits of the discussion, but because the word "drama" gets thrown around. -- Ned Scott 23:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Like I said on the other page, "OMG, not again, endorse deletion, DRAMA" bullshit has no value on Wikipedia. It's why we are (normally) not mob ruled. And how dare you accuse me of that crap when I've taken all of the proper steps in this situation, and yet people like WJB and Doc g get away with deleting actions that directly violate AfDs and DRVs. They stack the deck in their favor and get away with it, not because the community supported it, but because they gamed the system. You might be able to interpret Joshua's actions as gaming the system, since now we know that these was confusion regarding his discussion with the DRV closing admin, but how dare you accuse me of that. -- Ned Scott 23:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm saying that I could give a fig about "venue" discussion or process discussion. It's a waste of time. Fuck process. Are we mob ruled? Sometimes, yes, and thats what that is, and thats the way it is. RFA is a mob, AFD is a mob, DRV is a mob, policy discussion is a mob. I'm sick as hell of people dressing things up other than what they are, and I frankly could care less who I annoy by pointing that out anymore. We're a barely organized mob that lurches back and forth. Policy keeps from teetering most days too far. But we are a mob, and it's a waste of time to pretend otherwise. The community has basically decided, and thats that. Take it to RFAR, honestly. Theres not much else left for recourse, unless you file another DRV. Every admin is going to shut down a reopen of the RFD at this point. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ned, if it helps to understand my mindset, you and I are generally on the same page. My probably singular biggest annoyances are gaming of NPOV, and considering process more important than the opinions and ideas themselves that are expressed. The venue is irrelevant, really, to me: the weight of the voice is what matters. And there was simply a shitload more people that endorsed deletion than otherwise. Is the community burned out on Brandt? Apparently, yes. Is this a principle thing for you guys, to keep hammering this? I don't understand. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm stepping away from this for a while. I'm sorry, this situation is bringing out a monster in me that I don't like at all. I shouldn't be treating you like this. I'm really sorry. -- Ned Scott 00:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA

Usually I'd tell you it is a bad idea to get involved in more DRAMA, but I had no idea this Wikilobby issue = CAMERA. When I dealt with this at COIN a month or so ago, I thought they'd agreed not to do this sorta thing. Fully supporting you on the DR process. MBisanz ^talk 16:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I about blew my top when I saw how bad they were aiming to troll NPOV. Not even troll--this is prison sex territory. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Happy Passover

Just want to wish you a happy Passover and I hoped you enjoyed your Seder meals and Matzoh. BuickCenturyDriver (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [18] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Excessively strident rhetoric

Excessively strident rhetoric sets a bad example for other editors. Please tone it down and you will be more effective. Jehochman ^Talk 16:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Along these lines, you just described Gni as "leader of subversive/troll organization from CAMERA." on ANI. This is what I would normally consider a blockable personal attack, and is certainly not helping the situation. Please correct that to a suitably non-judgemental factual comment. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA editors

Hi, I saw that you started the arbitration request on this issue. I posted earlier on the ANI subpage, but I think it got lost in the discussion on Dajudem. Based on page 3 of the second set of emails and this edit, it appears that user:Jersmum is also a member of this group. He only has two edits to his name, but the first one is exactly as described in the email. Since you started the RFAR, I'll let you decide whether it's worth adding him as a party. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 16:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

While you are looking around, and as an issue of fairness, you might want to check out this link : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wikiforpalestine/?v=1&t=search&ch=web&pub=groups&sec=group&slk=1 I put up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Israeli_Wiki_Lobbying and at my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dajudem#Wikipedians_for_Palestine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dajudem (talk • contribs) 18:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI - arbitration on Israeli Wiki Lobbying

I have filed an arbitration request in regards to the Israeli Wiki Lobbying and attacks uncovered: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Israeli Wiki Lobbying. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me regarding this dispute. Screen stalker (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Prior steps

I didn't see this listed at the RFAR as a prior DR step Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_23#Edit_warring_on_CAMERA_sourced_to_CAMERA.27s_office , is it related? MBisanz ^talk 21:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, actually, will add it. Thanks! Lawrence Cohen § t/e 21:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

thank spam

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky

A quick question

Hi. In light of recent events, I have been wondering whether you were ever listed on the hivemind page. John Nevard (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 14:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Have a cookie

Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 17	21 April 2008	About the Signpost

BLP deletion rules discussed amidst controversial AFD	Threat made against high school on Wikipedia, student arrested
Global login, blocking features developed	WikiWorld: "Disruptive technology"
News and notes: Wikimania security, German print Wikipedia, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Monthly updates of styleguide and policy changes	WikiProject Report: The Simpsons
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Rfa thanks

Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: FYI

Well, I'd hesitate to say that I had any really specific procedural model in mind when I first wrote the thing; as my edit summary pointed out, this is to some degree more of an attempt at brainstorming (born to a large extent of frustration with my own role in driving—or not driving—policy change) than a polished proposal.

My overriding concern is that there needs to be a practical method by which a proposal may be decided upon (rather than Kim's vision of endlessly debating while people are being lined up against the wall). While my conception probably tended more towards a fully parliamentary model than what other people may want—I have a certain preference for normative decision-making structures—I'm willing to accept just about anything that allows real policy debate and change to occur. Kirill 06:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom

I reverted the title change barring Arbcom decides to change the requested scope. If you are a clerk however and authorized to make the change, please revert me. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews question

I am working on an article for Wikinews about the DOJ IP address. Do you mind if I quote you in the article, from the first post made in the WP:ANI subsection Need admin eyes on US Department of Justice activity, please (CAMERA/lobbying) ? Cirt (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh, sure? I didn't see a good quote there, it's just sort of a summary overview of what happened...? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 22:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI - n:US Dept. of Justice IP address blocked after 'vandalism' edits to Wikipedia. Cirt (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

less talky, more worky!

You're starting another discussion all over. If we're gonna start building, let's start building.

So to make sure we're on the same line first, what do you actually want out of this? That everyone has equal input? That anyone who wants to can provide input? That people can't filibuster?

Those are things I can agree on upfront. :-) Anything else?

If so, name them, if not, fine too. Either way, give me some time to ponder, and let me see if I can create a skeleton for an organization. I've seen several people give it a shot, and hmph, frankly they didn't really know what they were doing. (for one, they didn't create a wiki-page for it, which has been known to help ;-) )

Less talky, more worky.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I added that new subsection thing since the threaded talks were totally flooded and are getting useless... sorry. Point by point...

That everyone has equal input?

In one centrally viewed place, like DRV/RFA/AFD yes. That way, everything is on one literal page, nothing sneaks by, everything and everyone gets the same maximum visibility into policy if they want, without having to watchlist and guard 50+ pages daily or by using anything silly like custom watchlists or the horrible expanded watchlist function for all changes.

That anyone who wants to can provide input?

Yes, and in an easily-accessible format that goes out of it's way to centrally encourage participation and the value of all participants equally without their having to spend 6 months micro-debating point by point--all equal, not some "more equal". My view on a policy should have weight, even if I don't have time to spend days, weeks, or months debating. We should not reward policy wonks for being tenatious.

That people can't filibuster?

Yes. Having a crystal clear format and view like I wrote my understanding does three things. The PolCom "area" provides a seasoned, veteran view of the proposed changes. The "Poll" provides an instant top-level view of what the wider community actually wants--this is the MOST important factor in consensus. The discussion below would provide ample room for people to debate, and sway each other. But by keeping the focus of weight on the poll, it encourages editors who are otherwise active but that can't spend weeks on a policy page to have a fair say/value in what will happen on policy, without having a small band of editors blocking out their value.

Does that make sense? We need to not reward people that sit on policy pages, but rather encourage everyone to weigh in, even if they can't spend days/weeks/months fighting for policy change. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, all of the things you want should be possible, except centralization. I wish I could tell you different, but there are real physical limitations. Centralization would require a prohibitive amount of effort. You could still centralize, if you disenfranchise all participants to an extent, but that's the one thing I'm not really willing to sacrifice.

Can you start thinking of ways to make the system work in a decentralized fashion?

(Sometimes you can think of a trick where you take a central core, and split the work out over multiple pages, in such a way that more pages can be added at will. This is how WP:AFD dug itself out of the deep deep pit it was in at the time when User:Ed Poor deleted the deletion page :-P ... though AFD is still undeniably fugly, so don't do that unless you're desperate. )

--Kim Bruning (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Kim, AFD and DRV are insanely centralized and work fine. How many policy changes do you think we'll have up for discussion at any given time? 4? 5? One central page, slap them in as transclusions, use our standard archive templates when done. One transcluded page that lists historical proposals under Kiril's model, and that's it. An archive Misza bot for the main talk page (I can copy this from any of hundreds of pages). Imagine AFD if it had 10 submissions a month, but each discussion was 3-4 weeks long. THat would be blissfully little work. Can you explain why centralization here would be "a prohibitive amount of effort"? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If you think AFD is centralized, well, it started out that way, yes. But they then use all kinds of tricks to decentralize the system, and split it back out. (including transclusion, templates, and bots). If they didn't, it'd be dead. Admittedly, that's part of what you're proposing, I suppose... it's still horrendously complex. Can you really not imagine a simpler system? I sure can! :-)

In the case of DRV, that's both centralized and utterly utterly irrevocably lost. It's the worst rules-lawyering on all of wikipedia. Possibly that's why it still hasn't collapsed. Rules-lawyering does scale somewhat.

If the current rate of policy change is kept up, there would actually be 10's-100's per day, of which most are resolved instantly.

Of course, your current proposal seriously curtails that kind of maintenance activity in the first place, because it raises the threshold to a point where it's no longer worth the effort to make minor updates.

*sigh*

It's actually quite amazing to see the difference between the discussion pages at Wikipedia talk:Consensus and Wikipedia talk:Governance reform. Also the difference in edit-rate. Which page would you rather be participating at? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Oh! Very darn important point. And before I forget (I don't want to forget, it's important) Especially important when you clash with someone...

<straightens self out> <clears throat>

Despite occasionally disagreeing, I want to point out that I respect your effort and your dedication in this particular area. You have been working really really hard, and you've been thinking hard, and you've been putting up with this hard-ass crazy perfectionistic dutch guy all day..

Even if we disagree, that doesn't mean I think you're stupid, and I'm not intentionally giving you a hard time... it's just, we apparently disagree somewhat strongly on what direction to take.

I hope we can continue to work together and find a solution that's useful to both of us. :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I already replied

I've already replied to your comment, so altering it is not helpful and considered bad form per WP:TALK. Just a heads up. Hiding T 20:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Missed your reply at first, sorry. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No harm done. Hiding T 21:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Fritzl case

Please see the article talk page. There was emerging consensus on the rename, and including the word "incest" in the title was not part of that. HtD (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

votes on Reqests for remedies

There's a straw poll on whether to mark Wikipedia:Requests for Remedies as rejected. You might want either to vote, or at least explain whether you want to carry on on that proposal or start a new one.Ben Standeven (talk) 06:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zordrac/Daniel Brandt

Could you take a look at my close of this and let me know your thoughts? I'd appreciate a second opinion. Cheers, Ryan Postlethwaite 01:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No objections, as nom. It's fine under policy and IAR. :) Lawrence Cohen § t/e 01:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Just seeing the header in my watchlist made me want to run and vote for a speedy. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well that looks like three votes to nill. I should probably get back to the English local elections given all this talk of voting :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 02:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, yes, that does explain your being up at this late hour. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much coverage you get down your neck of the woods, but my party (the tories) are doing bloody well. Current standings are; Conservatives 44%, Lib dems 25%, Labour 24%. That's +124 councillors to the tories, -108 councillors to labour and +1 councillors to the lib dems. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Lawrence for the invasion, but squeak - this is good to catch up on the latest news, although I'm sure you're already up to date. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I get very good coverage, thanks to the internet, and I am a Boris fan myself (my company is in London). Thanks, SqueakBox 02:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've always been a big fan of Boris - it's just a pitty he's not running for prime minister in a couple of years - he'd be great. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Boris? You commies! I kid. You and all your odd powdered wig and ruff wearing politicos! Lawrence Cohen § t/e 03:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Last time I looked our politicos wore the same sober suits as yours. And its the other side that are the "commies", Red Ken and Brown Gordon. But talking of real lefties, Hugo Chávez celebrated today (the day of the workers pretty much everywhere outside America) not merely by nationalising the iron and steel industry but by raising the minimum wage 30%. That really got me going, not because I love poverty in Latin America but because you have to support job creation and not just pander to those who want something for nothing. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately for me, this involves Brandt, or else I would have an objection to it. Don't get me wrong, I do still object to the deletion, but making it an issue won't do me any good, considering people freak out simply because of the attached subject matter. My proposal here sums it up a bit. This should have been discussed at the MfD. Drama is a minor annoyance that quickly passes, even when it involves really recent issues with a highly respected user. We shouldn't quit doing the correct thing simply because it's a bit difficult. -- Ned Scott 05:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:ITALICS LAWRENCE.png

Congratulations...one of the funnier ANI threads in recent memory! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Gina Bold

Hi! Could you take a look at the response that was posted on the talk page of Gina Bold? It seems that this is due to some off-wiki dispute. I cannot deny the suspecions of censorship that were posted there but it needs more eyes. This has the potential to become a real conflict and I don't deal well with those. It requires tact and a calm approach to the situation - in other words someone like you rather than me! Cheers, EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

More Eisenstein

Hello again Lawrence. In case you wanted to work on more Eisenstein film articles after Bezhin Meadow, I just started ¡Qué viva México!‎ with the intentions of filtering the detail about this film from the Eisenstein article to its own. I got sidetracked trying to get this article on the main page as a DYK on Cinco de Mayo but that failed. I'll be at the library researching for it tomorrow, and sourcing an anons contributions- so expect it to be changing over the next few days, to meet DYK standards by May 10th. We'll see what happens from there. Any advice from you or contributions by you would be greatly appreciated, time and interest permitting. Regards,dvdrw 04:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Two random cents of advice for you to consider

DNFT, and, as you do aspire to become an admin, I wouldn't recommend that you in any way express fake empathy as an option (even if you do not advocate it) - it's how some people game the system as it is. Just a thought anyway - Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't advocate fake empathy at all--I'm just dumbfounded that someone who so plainly wants to be "right" as Tango is doing it so horribly. Kudos to him for sticking to his guns, as flawed as they are, I suppose. And as for being an admin, like I said on my RFA, I want/wanted to be an admin so that I can do my fair share of the toilet work, is all. Admins are not entitled to any power. I wield more "power" as a regular editor than as an admin already since I can work in any capacity on any article, something an admin cannot do if they are involved in a situation. Thanks, though... Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops!

Beat you to it by about a second :) - Alison ^❤ 16:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Great minds, etc. :) Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

BLP claims and other issues

BLP 3RR is meant for situations where the is a clear BLP problem, such as negative unsourced content. It does not apply when there is a disagreement in good faith between editors. And frankly Lawrence you still haven't explained what you object to in my compromise form other than what amounts to giving in to <BLP VIOLATION BY JOSHUAZ REFACTORED> at the cost of building a good encyclopedia. Finally, your persistence in engaging in what amount to gratuitous ad hominem attacks that have no bearing on the subject in question is getting a bit tiresome. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"other than what amounts to giving in to terrorism at the cost of building a good encyclopedia"

That mindset and language, clear proof that some people view this Brandt matter as some conflict or battle, is precisely the problem and reason why all those people need to stay the hell away from his issues to let the neutral people handle it. Why are your services in regards to Brandt even needed anymore? What do you have to offer besides calling a BLP subject a terrorist, which is surely a BLP violation? If you do it again I will report you. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing

I'd appreciate you not engaging in canvassing in regards to Talk:Brandt. It's simply going escalate the situation. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I canvassed nothing; Thatcher is a neutral administrator, an Arbcom clerk, and previously involved when users last attempted to game DRV in the Brandt case. I play by the rules of Wikipedia. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Game? QuackGuru 16:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Involved editors do not attempt to game DRV in the Brandt case. QuackGuru 16:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What? The decision was made that there is to be no Daniel Brandt per DRV. There is therefore no authorization for the existence of a piped blue link here nor a red link, which cannot be recreated anyway into an article without a new authorization from DRV. I have no opinion on the plain text version, but I note many other users (Alison, Fozzie, others) are opposed to that as well. Therefore, I do not see how there is any consensus for Daniel Brandt content here on this page. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt is banned. He said he wanted the redirect deleted. Anyone who open proxy edits for a banned user is blockable (IMHO). QuackGuru 17:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of proxy editing for a banned user and that I should be blocked? Does that extend to everyone (100+ people) that agreed with that same viewpoint on the DRV? Rules help us, they don't make us mentally handicapped. Because a banned user wants something, if everyone happens to agree with him, we do it. His "banned" status is meaningless in the grand scheme. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please WP:CHILL. Good luck anyhow. QuackGuru 17:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If there is a lack of consensus for the redirect and when the wikidrama does not benefit the project it may be best to AFD the remaining related articles per WP:IAR. Wikipedia as a whole needs to move on from this. An executive decision can be made by the Wikimedia Foundation to resolve this matter too. QuackGuru 23:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, under its Sec 230 liability protection, the foundation cannot make a binding decision in this matter. It can prevent defamation, slander, etc, but it can't decide on non-violative content, otherwise it loses liability protection. MBisanz ^talk 23:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward an AFD for PIR may be the best decision. QuackGuru 23:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Fritzl incest case. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. You are also on the threshold of 3RR. I gave HtD the same warning. You are both well-established editors that should know better than to engage in this kind of unproductive edit-warring. Jaysweet (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

BLP issues are immune to 3rr. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. I can't just revert whatever I want and say "BLP! BLP!" and that makes it okay. However, if you feel confident that your BLP concerns will be judged as unquestionable by the community, revert away. (My thinking is that if you go beyond three reverts, you are making a bet that whatever admin might review a 3RR report on you will unequivocally agree with your position. If you are confident in that bet, you know, go for it I guess...) --Jaysweet (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, I don't want to edit war or enjoy it, because its stupid. But doing the right thing is more important, if push ever comes to shove. And the right thing is erring in favor of BLP victims. :( Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I respect your position -- if I didn't, I'd be a hypocrite, as I have exceeded three reverts in the past for similar reasons. (and in one case, I actually did get reported to ANI/3RR, which luckily was immediately dismissed as a bad faith report) Best of luck to you if it comes down to that! --Jaysweet (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

After further review, I have to apologize. I was aware there was an ongoing discussion about the address and BLP concerns, but I had not monitored it closely. When HtD asserted there had been a consensus to include, I took what he said at face value. While I understand that in theory BLP overrides consensus, that would have made me very leery about exceeding three reverts (after all, unless you are counting on Foundation intervention, consensus will ultimately determine whether you get blocked/unblocked or not, right?)

But now that I actually look at the section, I actually see the reverse of what HtD said, I see a rapidly-developing consensus against inclusion of the address. So seeing as you had both BLP and consensus on your side, there's absolutely no question about the validity of exceeding three reverts in that case. My apologies for missing that. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely positively no need to apologize, Jaysweet. "Shit happens" is one my mantras. :) Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

3RR Warning

Count the number of your reversion here and compare to the daily limit set forth at WP:3RR. See what I'm getting at? Odd nature (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

2rr, but it's protected now (and this is arguably a BLP issue anyway). I know, though. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So how's the weather?

Around here, it's a lovely spring afternoon. Just the ticket for a nice walk - if only I could get away from driving the desk. I see the forsythia are in full bloom; if I could, I'd spend a little time enjoying their fragrance. There is much to be said for keeping things dialed well below 11. Best, Risker (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll go for a walk outside now, the summer sun's calling my name... Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Its high summer here, the height of the dry season and stiflingly hot. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think a walk is just what's needed right now. FWIW, I feel the same way, so I think I'll take a stroll in the beautiful California sunshine :) - Alison ^❤ 19:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I wish I could talk a walk, but I only get paid if I'm sitting at the front desk. MBisanz ^talk 19:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank You! m(__)m (<-japanese bowing symbol)

For some subjective reason, some specific editors are trying to undermine the Adeyto article and if there wouldn't have been the Golden Week days in Japan, I would have been able to keep up with their deletions and with reasearching sources and adding so called "facts". So I want to personally thank you for keeping up the Objectivity of that article and just as you said, Wikipedia doesn't need any citation for every single line written in it. In fact I believe such citations are close to irrelevant for the reason that the citations come from just other websites not from God himself, and those sites in turn might change address, directory, so the once useful "proofs" might move or disappear again and then all starts from scratch in an endless battle of the human kind against human kind... Thanks again! Tsurugaoka (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it's that deep of an issue but it does seem like there is a sour grapes factor which is not acceptable. Anyone who plays game with encyclopedia content for any reason is on the short road to blockville. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

right. and it makes me wonder why pple have nothing better to do with their lives and keep wasting it like this one minute at a time. Tsurugaoka (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

PS. Actually that article had tons of links for references but someone erased them all saying it's too many. And now they erase the article saying it's not enough linked.Tsurugaoka (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What old version had all the references to third party websites (not Adeyto's sites)? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

as far as I remember must be one of the versions BeForE GUY killed it. It had no references at the bottom of the article like now but link references in text, to names, people and organisations.

Tsurugaoka (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Adeyto

Always remember that IMDb is not a reliable source. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Always remember that for utterly trivial things like "did someone appear in a production?" it is generally considered acceptable. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 14:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I've just started an article about one of the sources I've used, I hope it seems reliable enough. Squash Racket (talk) 05:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 18	2 May 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Wikimedia Board to expand, restructure	Arbitrator leaves Wikipedia
Bot approvals group, checkuser nominations briefly held on RfA	WikiWorld: "World domination"
News and notes: Board elections, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Did You Know ...	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 19	9 May 2008	About the Signpost

Sister Projects Interview: Wikiversity	WikiWorld: "They Might Be Giants"
News and notes: Board elections, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured content from schools and universities	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

POV folks NOT WELCOME HERE

from you:

This sort of mindset is completely incompatible with Wikipedia's ethos. People here for an advocacy role are a problem, as we follow WP:NPOV. Pro-Israeli, Pro-Jew (I'm a Jew), Pro-Palestinian, Pro-Arab points of view are garbage and not welcome here. Whomever "infiltrated" this nest of editors did us a great service, unfortunately. I suspect your edits are now going to be reviewed in short order. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC) [19]

Perhaps you want to check out the Noticeboard for Palestine-related topics which is distinctly Pro-Palestinian, has requests for other editors to check out articles, to help create consensus for articles, as well as suggestions to create articles essentially as attack pages. Maybe you will send them a little note of unwelcome. Thank you.Juanita (talk) 05:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Jimbo Wales' talk page: Encryption

Hi there. I have posted a reply to a section in which you have contributed to on Jimbo Wales's talk page. Please see User talk:Jimbo Wales#board privacy resolution and encryption for the discussion. Thank you and happy editing! — E ↗^TCB 08:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Bulbasaur

I'm not going to spend time defending TTN for this one, but I will point out that reference list on Bulbasaur is nearly a hoax. Yes, it has a myriad of references. All of them are to official game guides, graphic novels, official Nintendo publications, etc. So far as I have ever been able to track down, the only mention Bulbasaur has ever received in an independent, third-party publication is a one-liner using him as an example of how Japanese names like Fushigidane ("mysterious bulb") were translated into English. There is a current merge discussion open, and I'm pushing pretty hard to get it back as a redirect.Kww (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The wider community, though, seems to have no problem with the existence of these articles. Only a very small group seems to be offended by them, and goes out of their way to remove them. Are we going to next go after all the fiction articles for characters from Star Wars, Dr. Who, comic books like Iron Man and X-Men, and who knows what else? I simply don't understand the rationale behind this. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

For me, it's a strong desire to see Wikipedia consist of information sourced by independent sources, with the bare minimum of original research and direct sourcing necessary. I spend most of my effort in the pop-culture area, cleaning out gossip and rumours from the celebrity and music side of the encyclopedia. It grew out of vandal-fighting, and I do it for essentially the same reasons. I don't object to Bulbasaur because he's an anime character ... I'm quite happy with characters like Astro Boy and Speed Racer having their own article, because it is possible to write an article about them relying wholly on independent sourcing. I get mixed feelings when I start to see articles that seem well done, but rely on a mix of independent sourcing and primary sourcing. When the article relies 95%-100% on primary sourcing, and there is no reason to believe that independent sources can be found, I think we are better off without having the article at all.Kww (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I suppose I would be in the camp of usefulness to readers outweighing other concerns on fiction articles. Just picking out some random stuff from following links from summer movies this year, I find Rick Jones (comics) and Thunderbolt Ross from Hulk and Pepper Potts from Iron Man. By those standards, all three would be gone. Isn't utility to readers more important in cases of fiction? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 21:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

How is it any more useful to have an article on Rick Jones than it is too have, say, a recipe for strawberry shortcake? Usefulness isn't a criteria to use in judging whether something belongs in an encylopedia.Kww (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

BLP

Alright, I'm going to take a break from BLP now. The kinds of questions I've been asking should have been fairly straightforward, but obviously, they weren't. The fault for that is at least as much with myself as with the people trying to answer them. I should find better ways to approach this kind of query.

I see how BLP and Governance reform are related now. I found it somewhat distressing that you made several assumptions about me that simply weren't true, and I wasn't entirely sure how to reassure you of that fact.

BLP is certainly a strange place, and I can now see why Kirill is pushing governance reform. I think I actually agree less with his solution than before though, because I get the feeling that all policy pages will then end up like BLP, or possibly worse.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 05:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Honestly? That massive pointless to-and-fro on the BLP page today would be completely avoided under Kirill's model. If someone puts up a change that is unneeded or undesired, it will be quickly and efficiently slapped down. If it's a change that is needed, accurate, or desired, it will be raised up quickly and efficiently. How is that not possibly better? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 05:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The Kirill model would make a lot more discussions work like at BLP, I think. Before people who have been trying to work with the prescriptive type model showed up, this kind back-and-forth didn't really happen that often. <scratches head> And I've never seen it this bad before, it's quite amazing.

I'm going to go and ponder on this. --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Kim.. Kiril's model will be the exact opposite of today. 1. Here's my change. 2. Here's what we think of that change/concurrent non-binding discussion below that to sway each other. 3. X days later, based on discussions in #2, we all say I support it/I don't. 4. Consensus is judged on #3, and off we go. How is that not neater and easier? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 06:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, check out editing procedures for say WP:SR (old page, blow off the dust and see editing history), or WP:CONSENSUS :-). Those are actually simpler yet.

The problem I had with WP:BLP is the tremendous backpressure I felt there, like trying to swim upstream towards a fire hydrant. It'd be totally amazing if it wasn't so darn scary to be there. :-/ --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: FYI, governence reform

Well, that'd certainly be interesting to see, although I expect the people against any such reform would show up in force.

If I'm not mistaken, Sarcasticidealist is running for the Board on a platform that includes pushing for effective project governance, incidentally; so perhaps that'll lead to something useful as well. Kirill ^(prof) 13:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 20	12 May 2008	About the Signpost

Explicit sexual content draws fire	Sighted revisions introduced on the German Wikipedia
Foundation receives copyright claim from church	Board to update privacy policy, adopts data retention policy
Update on Citizendium	Board candidacies open through May 22
Two wiki events held in San Francisco Bay Area	New feature enables users to bypass IP blocks
WikiWorld: "Tony Clifton"	News and notes: Autoconfirmed level, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Changes at Featured lists
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

what if

what if an editor inserts wrong information once or twice a week. Is this sneaky vandalism? BVande (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If he keeps it up and is disruptive, he gets blocked eventually. You think we have the manpower or motivation to track this across 2 million articles? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Enjoy your wikibreak, I’ll look forward to working with you again on your return. Best, Risker (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)