User talk:Risker/Archive 5

Start of archive 5

Hi

Hi Risker, can you move The Offspring: Complete Music Video Collection to Complete Music Video Collection?

See the history of The Offspring: Complete Music Video Collection, is more relevant. And the correct is only Complete Music Video Collection

Thanks.

OffsBlink (talk) 05:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ordinarily, I would probably say yes. However, moving it back to that very generic name doesn't really appear to be the best idea. Complete Music Video Collection (The Offspring) would make more sense; there are other artists with similarly titled collections, I suspect. It's been moved back and forth a few times now. I suggest you take this to Wikipedia:Requested moves, and that you also start a discussion on the talk page of the article, so that other editors can weigh in on the best choice. Keep in mind that article titles do not always match the "preferred" title of the subject. Risker (talk) 05:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Waste of time and bandwidth

Could this have been perhaps the single biggest waste of time and bandwidth in the history of the project? Check out the talkpage for some ... "interesting" reading. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 18:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, he didn't exactly get a lot of support for his practices back at the time. Being from Canada, I had to think for a minute to realise the "8.11.08" date meant August 11, not November 8! Ignoring seems to be the best tactic here, especially with so much water under the bridge. Risker (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

True enough. My favorite part, though, is where he claims to divine "consensus" from having a conversation that was (basically) with himself. BTW, I noticed your exchange with George. That was just a bit of a joke, I think. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 18:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say it is cumbersome, not a waste of time. Certainly this talk page thread (particularly the way it was started) has hardly been the most productive thing ever. Abd has an decidedly eccentric and unusual approach, but he sometimes says very cogent things. And talking to yourself is under-rated anyway. I'm doing that here. Carcharoth (talk) 02:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This thread was begun as a note left to a friend. As such, I'll not challenge your assertion that Abd sometimes says "cogent" things, as I don't feel like wading through the morass to find those elusive moments of cogency. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 15:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

McCain

Thanks Risker. Could you please do the wikilinks too?

"McCain's family tree includes Scots-Irish and English ancestors."

Ferrylodge (talk) 03:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Argh! Sorry. Done. Risker (talk) 03:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem, thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Blatant?

You've never heard that word used in a reasonable discussion? Hmm... this brings a certain word to my mind... _________ false. Fill in the blank?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Link please? Risker (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Blatant mistake on my part.. was part of a discussion with another editor. Need coffee. Very sorry. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Clarify

Could you clarify the AE sanctions imposed on The Thunderer, Domer48 and myself. If I am not mistaken it is 1RR on all articles that are troubles releated. And if that is the case then how many reverts has the Thunderer done on the USC article? I can count more than one. BigDunc^Talk 19:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

appreciate the assistance Enigma ^message 05:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thomas M. Cooley

I will give it a look right now. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Non Curat Lex (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit perplexed. I want to commend and not discourage the anon for adding a lot of true and, as far as I know, accurate content. However, the presentation does create an undue weight issue. Even though this is not BLP article, the thing is, Cooley, though venerated, is known for some fringey, quacky ideas, few of which are followed today, and are not widely cited in national sources, and frankly, I'm not sure even how often Michigan jurists pay any attention. (That's my own opinion/OR though -- rely on it at your own risk).

I think the article should be... trimmed a little, but I don't want to eliminate wholesale, the additions by the anon editor. Thoughts? Non Curat Lex (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a talk page post commenting on how impressive the work is, particularly that it is fully referenced, and that you'd like to encourage the editor to continue his/her work, might be a positive way to start out. Then suggest some additional areas to be covered; for example, whether decisions cited have subsequently been overturned or remain the standard today; the Cooley legacy, in particular how his writings affected thought over years. These things would help to put Cooley's work in perspective, and if included could significantly change the balance of the article.

I've had my fill of COI editors in articles related to law in the last few weeks, so I am hoping this isn't another one with a POV heading toward some form of "property rights" statement. Or maybe I'm just seeing shadows. Thanks a lot for taking a look at the article. Risker (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I will follow up and monitor the article. I think there could be a hidden agenda, but I think it's run-of-the-mill hagiography, rather than the creeping fringe legal theory that you've been fighting. Non Curat Lex (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't discourage others from dealing with CIV violations

As a user who has started the ANI:Request for intervention, I certainly appreciate George willing to defend WP:CIV/WP:NPA. On the other hand, I find your criticism of him surprising: he is enforcing our policies, dealing with battleground creation by handing warnings to user engaged in creating them, and you are chiding him for that? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, here is my position. If you are going to warn one person, warn them all. And don't do it a day after the fact. Warnings that far after the fact are more likely to reignite a damped-out flame and dramatically increase the risk of poor behaviour, particularly when they are one-sided. They perpetuate the battles to other pages and longer periods. There were other editors in that thread who crossed even my threshhold of incivility (which I admit is significantly higher than that of many admins), and not a peep from George. Bottom line, Piotrus, if I happened to see a similar warning on your page, about an edit you had made more than a day before in a thread where others behaved even worse, and which had been observed by a significant portion of the administrative community with no action against anyone, I would have said the same thing to whoever warned you. Risker (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Please discourage others from making CIV accusations

Georgewilliamherbert, who, I believe, has something of a bad history with anger and accusations and threats, actually got a fair amount of warning about that before, so it would be wonderful if someone were encouraging him to investigate, investigate, and investigate some more and then to be moderate. As for Piotrus, his credibility about "civility" with regard to any editor who has ever, even in the slightest way, edited any topic that might in some smallest of ways relate to anything that Poland, Poles, or Polish patriots were involved in is low. All of which is to say, "Piotrus, please don't go around telling administrators what to do" and "Risker, you're right: everyone can be accused of a violation of CIV, and CIV has no meaning in terms of criminal charge anyway, any more than AGF does." Short version: Good for you. Geogre (talk) 10:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

AE

Thanks Risker, I'm replying here as I really don't want my name appearing on AE for quite some time, if not never again. Thanks also for reading the talk page first, before reacting. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Domer, I urge you to propose any significant edits on the talk page of the article prior to inserting them. That is a usual practice in highly contentious subjects, particularly those under arbitration sanctions. And I do urge you, and all other editors in this topic area, to make more use of content dispute resolution. It is very easy to develop a form of tunnel vision when one's edits are largely in one particular area, and editing interactions are within the same small group of editors. Actively inviting other editors with different backgrounds to participate in the content discussions will, I believe, help bring articles within this topic area back into the mainstream of the encyclopedia. To be honest, I think all of you would benefit from doing at least 10% of your edits outside of this topic area, just to become more familiar with the encyclopedia as a whole. Consider spending some time doing new page patrol, or even just hitting "random article" and cleaning up something you find there. It is a great way to reduce editing stress, as well. Risker (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(indent) Risker, would your advice offered above apply to all editors i.e. propose any significant edits on the talk page of the article prior to inserting them? --Domer48_'fenian' 14:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your timely intervention on the UDR article. You can clearly see who the cause of that spat was and I think he should be taken to task for it. Ref your comments above - please see my contribs history and note extensive input on articles like; 8th King's Royal Irish Hussars, Queen's Royal Irish Hussars, Queen's Royal Hussars, Princess Victoria Disaster, Infantry Tactics, General Sir John Hackett, The Desert War, Portadown, Martin O'Hagan, St Angelo Airfield and more. I am not restricted to working on troubles related articles. Most of my time is spent on military history. The UDR was a military unit, so effectively was the USC. That's my justification for being there. David Underwood is the same. We are not interested per se in the Irish Troubles. Can the same be said for Domer & BigDunc? Not that that makes them bad editors, it just means I (in particular) am not fixated on scoring some victory for an Irish faction by being able to transmit information through the wiki that the forces of the crown were corrupt and anti-Catholic/Nationalist/Republican/Loyalist/Unionist/Orange/Green or whatever. Thunderer (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have contributed to 3403 distinct pages on wikipedia doesn't sound like an editor who just sticks to troubles articles. You on the other hand have made 1527 of your 3184 edits to the UDR/USC pages so who is the one here stuck on an article because it is certainly not me. BigDunc^Talk 21:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Also as regard to the latest sanction breach report being dsecribed as frivolous waste of admin time when an editor is on 0RR and they revert and 1RR and revert twice it is far from a waste of time and I have never been severely warned about my behaviour. BigDunc^Talk 22:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay folks, enough of this. I will not tolerate this petty argumentation on my talk page. Assuming good faith is expected here. I am not your mother or your teacher, and I do not have a favourite, so there's no point continuing. It is precisely this whiny behaviour ("Mo-o-o-om, he's looking at me!") that annoys administrators to the point that they wash their hands of people and topics. You're stuck with me for a while, so you might just as well get used to having to communicate in a mature manner. Thank you. Risker (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a mediation case going on which was started by User:BigDunc. I have asked him on several occasions to move it forward and to allow us all to bebfit from the advice sought. This spat started during that time and was caused by Dunc wading in and removing content without discussion. I don't need my mammy on this one. All I need is admins to look at the problem objectively but I realise that in your case you can't interfere with other procedures which are ongoing - except to offer opinion. I appreciate any opinions you may have formed as a result of your contact with all the editors involved. If you're too busy to committ yourself then I understand that too. This is not an easy situation and it has caused admins so much grief already. I can see a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel - I hope. Thank you. Thunderer (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Advice if you can

Hi Risker, I have recently returned to this article after a considerable absence. I would be correct to say that the article has stagnated with no real improvements suggested or initiated. This was noted by Angus recently, and I took it on board. Since my return, two editors have now focused their attention. One, I’ve had dealings with in the past, the other completely new. There comments thus far do not appear to be the positive start I hoped for, here. Having introduced text with references, I asked them to support the first of them here. They used Ross as a source, one I’m very familiar with, so I know it’s not correct, and I got this reply here. How should I proceed? They have since ammended the text, again using the same source, having already said they don't know who the source is? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it helps any, Domer48, I note that a couple of the editors involved in that page have now been blocked as sockpuppets of an account that, as far as I can tell, never edited in this area before. It does add an element of peculiarity to the situation. I see that you have been proposing a very different perspective on the article. Take your time and build support for the different perspective on the talk page. It's an article where you've run into difficulties before. Remember that there is no deadline. What is there now may not be the article you envision, but it does provide basic information; ensure you are able to support your edits with appropriate references that are unambiguous in their interpretation. Risker (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Risker, I play it safe and slow on the article.--Domer48_'fenian' 17:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

About copyright

Over the years, Wikipedia has been obsessively trying to get rid of any content that's allegedly violating copyright. But behind all those removals, I wonder why there were never disputes from copyright holders? Because of that, I'm starting to think that some of those copyvio allegations are not true but merely lame excuses for a user's personal dislike of a particular content. Also, if those owners are going to remain being lazy and won't bother to protect their own copyrights, I don't think we're responsible if any of their works get added here. 122.3.107.65 (talk) 23:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you. First off, there is the philosophical foundation on which Wikipedia is founded: content that is free (as in libre) as well as free (as in beer). Most copyrighted content is not free in either sense, unless licensed in very particular ways. Second, there is the ethical issue. It is still wrong for me to steal my neighbour's tomatoes (or borrow his car without permission), whether or not he knows I have done so. The same thing applies to content. Finally, removing copyright violations proactively reduces the time, energy and cost of having to address a problem should the copyright holder choose to prosecute. Fair use is a rather limited concept, but is the only authorised way in which to keep copyright-violating material on Wikipedia, and I do not foresee that changing in the future. Risker (talk) 03:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to pile on, but from my own experience, I think that our copyright requirements are excessive on one issue. We are taking it over the top in insisting on the image's license to allow alterations. I had a lot of correspondence with photographers whose images I want to use and was successful many times in trying to convince them to allow GFDL or CC-BY-SA but this particular type of the derivative work is the most sticking point. They are generally comfortable to allow reuse required by GFDL or CC-BY(-SA) (even for commercial purposes) but alterations is a different matter. I can understand this position of an artist who has no problem if his images is used and reused by people but is unhappy with an idea that some would alter his work. Also, with ridding us from the alterations allowed requirement we would easily get thousands of high quality press-kit images of public figures. But the idea that the images may be altered certainly makes them uncomfortable. It is hard for me to see, why the riddance of the freedom to alter requirement would undermine the ideas of the project while it certainly would enrich the encyclopedia by giving it access to much beautiful work that would enrich my articles. Just my opinion. --Irpen 04:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The most common kind of alteration done is cropping. Then there are some that are rotated to improve their aspect, cleaned up, lightened, have contrast improved, and so on. I'm looking for someone who's interested in taking my single uploaded image (Image:Risker moon.jpg) and airbrush out the electrical wire that runs through it - another alteration. Given that the majority of featured images have undergone some form of alteration, I'd be hard pressed to suggest we accept non-alterable images. I do see your point, however; no doubt, we could get a lot more images without that constraint. Risker (talk) 04:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

My main point is not just that we would have images but that I don't see how this could negatively affect the goals of the project in any significant way. You would still have released Image:Risker moon.jpg under GFDL and anyone with time, skill and software would have airbrushed it while the press agents of the sports stars, supermodels and movie stars would happily give us images that would greatly enhance our articles. --Irpen 04:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The Troubles

A total headache trying to work on this article, and it only gets worse. Is there any chance we can resolve this one on that particular article so we can all move to more productive items in our lives?[1] Thanks.Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've deliberately not addressed that issue as I have already closed 2 threads on the page in the last 24 hours; right now I am watching US election-related pages. I expect that another admin will probably be along tomorrow. In the interim, it would probably be a good idea for both of you to consider that the longer the thread is, the less appealing it is to others to weigh in, particularly when the same thing is being said repeatedly. If nobody else has addressed it by tomorrow evening EST, I will look into it then. Risker (talk) 05:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I shall avoid it like the plague, as you are correct in that both parties have placed their position forward numerous times. I appreciate your recommendation and attention to this matter.Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've spoken with another admin offline who plans to review the thread sometime tomorrow. You shouldn't have to wait too terribly long. Risker (talk) 05:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

hits/min

You mentioned on Talk:Barack Obama something about 500hits/min. Out of curiosity, where is that figure from? Everyme 15:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's from Template:Popular_articles. Since the page can't be fully protected (the info is generated by a bot), I figured it would be a bit WP:BEANS to put the link directly on the talk page of the article, but there is also a link to it in the WP:AN thread about watchlisting candidate articles. Risker (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and good thinking re: beans. Everyme 16:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

New hourly stat - 623 hits/min. Remember that redirects will be listed separately, and in this case Barack Obama and Obama(the redirect) are both in the top 15. Risker (talk) 16:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The Main Page is about 4000 per min. It has happened (at least once) that an article got more traffic than that on an hourly basis. I don't think we'll get there today, but who knows. Dragons flight (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about that; I was laughed at when I said the page would get 1000 hits/min at the peak of interest, but at the rate we're going it will be that high before results even start coming in. Risker (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

By this measure, Obama passes his RFA, but he can't be on ArbCom until Jimbo asks the former arbs on their mailing list if they trust him not to make any changes. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

LOOOL!! Scary, actually. A very similar joke just occured to me. Everyme 16:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah Utgard! How are you? Such wise words from such an adorable and charming fellow. Risker (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I am bleary. I could not sleep last night. I knew that I could not stay awake for election results, and if I heard a single news clown go about to find some hyped up teen and then some Lethe-dipped redneck to interview (this is "balance," you see) and then go on and on and on and on about favorite theories, conspiracies, histories, and non sequiturs, I'd go insane, so I tried to sleep. It was not possible. Even now, right wingers in blackface are on the radio attempting to pass as moderates and analysts. There is no Valium large enough.

As for the parallels here, I am told that we have a "monarchical tradition." Seems that's what GNU, Linux, open source, and open content are actually all about: monarchies. A watery tart apparently lobbed a scimitar at someone, and that person now has imbued wisdom. Doubt the wisdom? Look at the success of the project. How else could we have had this success, except the wise and powerful leadership of a single figure? Utgard Loki (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Job well done

Risker, thanks for your excellent attention and adminship during the double TFA ! We've started gathering the pieces for a Signpost Dispatch at WP:FCDW/ElectionTFA. Jbmurray is going to get some of the basics in place, but we probably have at least a week. Just in case you want to watchlist. Pieces are on the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FCDW/November 10, 2008 ready to publish, never heard from Henrik on stats, Jbmurray didn't copyedit and my prose sucks, no idea if the current stats line up with Henrik's, feel free to dip your hand in the pot as needed. 'Night, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion requested

Hello Risker. In an attempt to avoid more drama and animosity, I thought I would ask you to look at this, rather that go back to AE or take action myself. Rockpocket 19:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Aye, you are all for avoiding "drama and animosity" - jesus christ almighty!--Vintagekits (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Good day, gentlemen, fancy meeting you here. Vintagekits, I recommend you moderate your language on Talk:ETA. People tend to get distracted by profane language, and it gives them an excuse to ignore the point you are trying to get across, and to paint you as a bully. You've got a FA star on your page, plus a ton of above average boxing articles, so you know you have the ability to write well enough to establish your position. Rockpocket, nowhere at any time was there a proposal for Vintagekits to be topic-banned from this subject, or the general topics of nationalism, geo-political conflicts or terrorism; it was always specific to Irish/British issues and baronetcies. I'm not entirely sure where you would have gotten that idea; it wasn't discussed as part of his editing return back in the Spring, and has never come up before or since as far as I can tell. Risker (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That is not the case, Risker. There was discussion about nationalism, geo-political conflicts or terrorism and I believe Basque Separatism was a case in point. I'm too busy to trawl through the history at the moment, but I'll find you the diffs later. Rockpocket 23:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I found it quicker than I thought:

As much for Vk's own benefit as anything else, I would propose adding baronets and British aristocracy, Irish/British geo-politics (and those of other separatists: Basque, Gibraltar etc) and The Old Firm to the list of (semi)-permanent topic bans that remain after 3 months. While not directly related to the Troubles, they are controversial (have a look at the current discussion over at The British Isles, for example). They are also the subjects over which Vk has got into trouble in the past, mainly because he and others have used them as a proxy to carry-on their geo-political wrangling. Should he edit in these areas he will run into those he has shown he cannot edit with, and he will end up clashing with them (as has past record shows). If this is about keeping Vk out of trouble while using his expertise, then he should recognize that these subjects are like touch paper for him and remove the temptation of getting involved. Rockpocket 17:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I tend to agree with you. How long would you suggest a topic ban last on these subjects for? Giano (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It was on this basis that I drafted the "uninvolved editor notification" clause with Giano's agreement. Vk uses exactly the same aggressive, well poisoning, accusatory tactics on these pages as he does on the Irish separatism pages, our goal here is to stop that, then why on earth wouldn't we include ETA/Gibraltar? This is where I got the idea from, Risker, because it was discussed back in the spring and myself and Giano - the two principal editors who formed these guidelines, "tended to agree". Rockpocket 23:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Rockpocket, at the end of the day, this is what was said in the terms for unblocking:

He has acknowledged these terms publicly, and has them posted for public access. After three months (90 days) he is allowed to edit fully and normally, with the exception of a project wide topic ban on The Troubles, which will remain in place for one year. Should he find a page he is editing is notably connected to the Troubles, or be informed as such by an uninvolved editor in good standing, he will withdraw completely from that page.[2][3] (original terms and current version updated by Rockpocket 20 October 2008, respectively))

This is what the Wikipedia community agreed to and everyone accepted. The 90-day probation period is past. He can be blocked like anyone else for "run of the mill" infractions, but the permablock related to this editing probation is reserved for editing against the topic ban on The Troubles (including baronets and Irish/British geopolitical disputes). I know that you and Giano talked about including it, but not everything that was recommended made it to the final document. I can see stretching the definition of The Troubles to include, for example, Falkland Islands (which could easily be seen as a very close parallel), but to include other controversial articles that aren't even peripherally related to the core issues for which Vintagekits was blocked on various occasions is more than anyone (except perhaps for you) bargained for. I know that a lot of effort went into designing those terms, and it was not possible to foresee minor loopholes that appeared (such as the redirect in June). I do, however, think that the post-90-day terms under which VK is now operating are far less ambiguous; it's about The Troubles now. Risker (talk) 05:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Good advice Risker, but I'm astonished Rock is making an issue of this. Sarah777 (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough Risker, I will try and moderate my language - but its not easy sometimes it just slips out.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Risker.--Tznkai (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

One must be careful Vk. Breathing fire, tends to scorch others (i.e. hold back certain words). GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Redirect stats

Hi.

After noticing your remarks at Wikipedia talk:FCDW/November 10, 2008, I started trying to adjust my data to take account of inbound redirects. I'm guessing you have more understanding of the issues here than I do - is it right to assume that a hit to "Pagename A", which redirects the user to "Pagename B", is counted by the stats as 1 visitor for A and 0 visitors for B? (This doesn't seem to work for spelling redirects - Pagename A and Pagename a - which return the same hitcount.)

My initial check suggests that maybe 10% of Obama's inbound hits come from redirect pages, and the vast majority of those are simple spelling errors. I wonder how many school classes are adding it to their spelling lessons this week... :-) Shimgray | talk |

A slightly more refined analysis, now I've tallied hits for every redirect I could identify - looking solely at October, 20% (near as perfect) of inbound hits to Barack Obama were from the ninety-odd redirects, dropping to 15% on November 4th and 13.5% on November 5th. Of those redirects, in October, 65% were from Obama, 12% from Barak Obama & 8% from Barrack Obama, which takes us to 85% from the top three. (For McCain, 11.5% were redirects.) Not sure if you actually wanted to know this or not, but it gives us an idea of the scale... Shimgray | talk | 22:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that, Shimgray! Brilliant work. I was genuinely surprised at how many redirects there are to this single article, but perhaps less surprised at how frequently his name is misspelled, especially in the early days. Now that more people are seeing it in print and on television on a daily basis, it makes sense that the misspellings are less frequent. I've certainly learned something from this exercise. Risker (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem - I'm glad someone was interested to see them. (I'd love to know what Google's alternate-spellings database for him looks like...) Shimgray | talk | 13:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Glenn Stokowski

Hey Risker - Hope you don't mind, but I extended Glenn Stokowski's block to indef for pro-pedophile activism. He's clearly here to push an agenda. If you have any problem with that, please let me know. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

No problems at all, Ryan. I had considered doing that at the time I blocked, but there weren't a lot of other voices around and I preferred to have a broader consensus before taking things that extra step. Thanks for proceeding. Risker (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Attention requested, if you have time.

I've been doing some work on the Katherine Paterson article, and created Bibliography of Katherine Paterson. The former is in serious need of copyediting, and the latter needs some research/expansion for the adaptations section. Any help you might be able to offer would be appreciated. Best, ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 18:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Will take a look. Nice to see you around. Risker (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Any interest in commenting about this?

Have you any interest in making a comment about this case? I'll take a simple reversion of this question as a no. If so, I think that your opinion might carry some weight here, as you've been both friend and critic of the central party. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 14:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Note to the TPWs

Some additional eyes (both admin and non-admin) would be useful at Fathers' rights movement‎. It's one of those articles that has gone through some pretty rapid swings in POV and has some sourcing issues, so it would benefit from outside opinions. Risker (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Musing

(No, not that kind of musing). I've had an odd notion and I'd like your view on whether it would be appropriate. I don't have any intention of standing for the Arbitration Committee, but I think it might be an interesting and useful exercise to take questions like a candidate, without the partisan pressures accompanying an actual candidacy. I think there's potential for useful dialogue but I can see where it would be a distraction. Your thoughts? Mackensen (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It might well be an interesting and useful experiment. It will no doubt trigger the next experiment, which would be write-in candidacy. Go for it. ;-) Seriously, you should run. Risker (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Heavens no, I've been there and done that ;). I'll think on this another day. I'm trying to figure out a way to do this without disrupting the process yet still attracting attention. Mackensen (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It is an interesting point, to take the opportunity to answer the questions (you know there are over 150 now, right?) from the perspective of someone who has been there, done that, and has no desire to go back. Perhaps your voice of experience might temper some of the more grandiose proposals of the candidates, or alternately breathe hope into their ideas. You do know where the fault lines are, but would you be willing to help fix them, even if not part of the committee? Risker (talk) 01:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be my hope--to indicate what I think is possible and what the very real limits are. As an arbitration candidate (back in 05-06) I was as ignorant as anyone else and could have used a dose of realism, not that I'd have listened. I'm always interested in the potential of reform; my often-neglected hobby horse is still banned user appeal. Something needs to be done about that, and I'm planning to lobby the new committee. Mackensen (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

ack stop stop stop

You're answering on the wrong page! You're on the general questions page, not YOUR page! SirFozzie (talk) 05:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I undid your edits and moved them over to your own page. Oops?  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 05:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, SirFozzie, for hunting me down and being so gentle with the trout. And Coren, I really appreciate your help. Risker (talk) 05:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

;-)

;-) FloNight♥♥♥ 18:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Selling out to The Man? This should be an interesting couple of weeks.

Oh dear, are you going to be our new boss? Maybe I shouldn't have opposed you… BTW, all I ever get in my email is "why did u delet my artical???". You obviously get a better class of enemy than me. Incidentally, if you want a dress rehearsal, go arbitrate [user] (see also what feels like every other thread on my talkpage) who – despite apparently being a good-faith user with a wildly inaccurate idea of how WP works, rather than an outright troll – is very rapidly emptying my good-faith tank… – iridescent 23:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, if memory serves, there was this one editor who started out opposing, then decided to be neutral, then was finally completely won over by my great charm. Trust me, you're probably much happier not receiving the slash porn. There was a milder-than-the-emails version he left on my userpage back in August '07, if I remember correctly. At least it didn't come with illustrations. I popped over to see what your friend was up to, and it seems he has become a little less active. I will admit to having a limited tolerance for similar behaviour. Maybe send him on New Page Patrol? That will at least force him to look at content a bit. Oh, and I am NOT selling out! I just hope I don't come out dead last. Risker (talk) 07:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Numb3rs/Tv.com copyvio

Hey there, I just spotted the note you left an entire year ago. Nobody ever replied, and -- big surprise -- the copyvios are continuing. So I was wondering, did you ever post a copyvio notice on the article page? Cgingold (talk) 07:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh my, was that a year ago? I can't find anything in my contrib history to show that I made the edit, so I guess I did not. I should do that now. Thanks for reminding me. Risker (talk) 06:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom questions

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article this week, and your response is requested.

1. What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?

2. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

3. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

4. How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?

5. What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?

6. Why do you think users should vote for you?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press on Tuesday, but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page, thanks. Risker (talk) 10:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Could use your input

Hi, if memory serves correct you’re, ahem, pretty hot on personal attacks :~) . (I mean policing them not making them.) Please take a look at this:

WP:ANI#Blanket personal attack by User:Cosand

If calling a WP contributor a "tag teamster" warrants a block, what’s the correct response to labelling a whole bunch of contributors, who are discussing a difficult subject with sensitivity and in self-evident good faith, as "racists" and "bigots" just because they have the temerity to discuss it?

At the time of writing this to you, my request for input at WP:ANI has only attracted two comedians. I’d appreciate a serious view that demonstrates a little more in the way of intellectual rigor. Thanks. — Writegeist (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No need. It was a newbie, apparently, who didn't know any better. — Writegeist (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

What the hell is going on?

Could you explain what is going on with this situation? Particularly the oversighting issue, which I find very disconcerting. Feel free to inform me privately if you prefer, or not at all, if you're not comfortable with it. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 21:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't take this as an unkind comment, SDJ, but, well...see that notice at the top of the page? Do you think it would be there when I am in the middle of a campaign for a position on Arbcom if it was not absolutely necessary? I've temporarily opted out of any wikidrama for the next few days so I cannot honestly say what is going on. I find my best option when I don't know what is going on is to say little and gather information. Just a suggestion. I've got a bit more time online now, but I'm going to have to focus on other things right now. Sorry. Risker (talk) 04:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Hey, no problem. It was silly of me to ask in the first place. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 12:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom vote

Jeez. I have NO idea how that happened.....thanks for letting me know!GJC 03:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Can I vote twice too? I hear all the cool kids are doing that. ++Lar: t/c 19:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I voted for you, and so did all my sockpuppets. – iridescent 19:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Why thank you, but I'm not even running! Now go vote for Bishzilla. (That'll serve you right for not reindenting your comment or doing a "To Risker" or whatever so it was clear who you were talking to :) ) ++Lar: t/c 20:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Defending ownership of articles and entrenched interests at Wikipedia

I find it hard to understand why you defend the ownership of articles by long time editors at the expense of newer editors, as you did today for Giano's Buckingham Palace article. Does this position not harm Wikipedia by supporting entrenched interests at the expense of newer editors. Do you think this position is in the best interests of Wikipedia and do you think defending the ownership of articles furthers Wikipedia's goals? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Addendum - I notice above that on November 25 you said you would not do this any more for Giano, yet you did it again today. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse, we are all waiting upon you here [4], you can chose which ever pretty picture you like. Is that a problem for you? Giano (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

For my own response to Mattisse, please see my responses to her questions on this page. Risker (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hockey, Canada and Arbcom

I voted for you for Arbcom, and as payment for my loyal support, I expect that you will allow me to run amok on the Los Angeles Kings article, placing information about how the Kings actually beat Les Habs in 1993 to win the Stanley Cup. This is the least you can do. BTW, the kerfuffle in your parliament is quite fascinating. The Governor General of Canada actually has all the power right now. For a political science weenie like me, this is an interesting application of Reserve power of the monarchy. Exactly who does she go for advice if the current government falls? Does she call a new election or accept the coalition government? I can't wait to see what happens. Of course, maybe this all bores you. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Now, now...no historical revision please. I very much appreciate your support (and that of everyone else, and even the opposes for that matter), but I would not be doing justice to the encyclopedia...(insert appropriate politically correct blather here)...

I've been trying to keep up with all the excitement on our local political scene. Our GG can seek the advice of a lot of people, including a long line of constitutional experts (who right now are disagreeing like crazy), members of the Privy Council (whose membership included the late Maurice Richard), even The Queen herself. Several of the lieutenant governors and governors general who had to consider similar situations during their tenure are still alive and will probably be amongst her advisors. A good place to get relatively non-partisan and decently researched information is www.cbc.ca/news which now has video of tonight's televised address by the Prime Minister available for online viewing. Speaking as someone who has seen what Canadian elections in January are like, that alone is enough for me to suggest either proroguing or going for the coalition is preferable. Risker (talk) 05:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I was never blocked, per your comment here. Just thought I'd get the facts straight for you. Rocket Richard on the Privy Council? Cool!!!! The Great One should also be on it, but it appears these days, they're all politicians of some sort. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for your correction; I shall make the change, as I don't want to cast any unnecessary aspersions on any party in that mess. Wayne probably wouldn't qualify, as he lives pretty well full time in the U.S. now, but he is an Officer of the Order of Canada. If he lived up here, I'm pretty sure he would have made it to Member of the OC by now, at least. Risker (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom

When cases are considered by the United States Supreme Court, the public can find out every case that was submitted. That Court only hears a small number of cases that they pick.

Would you be in support of public disclosure of all cases and e-mails that ArbCom receives? This would eliminate the charge that ArbCom is secretive, would let the public know how busy ArbCom is and could help ArbCom's image. If you don't like this idea, why? If you do like this idea, why and how would you implement it?

I'm not picking on you but simply picked you to ask this question because you have a lot of popular support. Good luck! Chergles (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your question, Chergles. My first reaction is that it's a considerable exaggeration of the importance of the Arbitration Committee to compare it to the Supreme Court of the United States. I can say quite honestly that I do not support public disclosure of all emails to the Committee; during the summer, I submitted private evidence via email to the committee that contained some very sensitive personal information about certain wikipedians and involved oversighted edits. It would have defeated the purpose to submit this sensitive information to the list only to have it published, and I believe that some useful and important evidence would never be submitted directly to the mailing list if everything was to be open. I also suspect that sometimes information that requires Arbcom-level attention is submitted via email in order to reduce the drama levels and allow a degree of face-saving.

It is a bit difficult to answer this question fully as I don't know the range of communication sent to the Arbcom mailing list, nor do I know how many cases have been handled in a non-public way. Without that information, any further response I give would simply be an uninformed opinion. Risker (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I consider your answer quite reasonable as far as secret evidence. About a year ago, I wrote to ArbCom about opening an arbitration case. (I've seen others revert/remove requests for arbitration so writing would be the guaranteed way of ArbCom receiving requests but maybe a guaranteed way of being ignored) Nobody ever responded. If all cases for arbitration were released, then maybe it wouldn't have been ignored. Without any transparency or public review, who knows if ArbCom is ignoring 97% of cases or 15% of cases? Are you willing to open up ArbCom in this way? If not, why not? Chergles (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

As I indicated, Chergles, I am really not sure what goes on with the ArbCom mailing list at this point, so I'm not really in a position to answer the question fully. If nothing else, I would like to see that every email gets a response, even if it is "no thanks". I'm not sure that writing to Arbcom to request a case is really the best option; posting on-wiki has a greater tendency to bring other editors to the subject and increases the likelihood that the committee will see there is an issue that the community has identified as requiring resolution. I think this is as far as I am willing to go with this question when I am blind to the nature of communications received by the committee. Risker (talk) 07:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The mailing list is a rather toxic subject and a seriously pernicious fact. First, it doesn't appear to have archives, doesn't appear to have Wikipedia- or Wikimedia-determined rules for inclusion/exclusion, and it has no repercussions for misuse. "Trusted" and "former arbs" have full access to it. Some of those "former arbs" are fine, but some are "former" for clear reasons, whereby they lost the trust of the community, and trust is the only currency a person has with which to arbitrate. Appealing to the mailing list is, I think, a bad idea because of its lack of permanence (no records, no transparency). Wikipedia's and wiki's strength/promise is that it keeps eternal memory: mailing lists can be different. Additionally, though, the fact that such a mailing list exists in parallel to the regular process pages sends a mixed signal to users. "Where do I request arbitration," they may ask, "here at RfAr or at the mailing list?" There should be no ambiguity. In the past, reform or change of the mailing list has been a third rail for members of ArbCom precisely because former and "trusted" people had access to the mailing list and did not agree to losing access. In general, the mailing list seems like a necessary evil, and, like all necessary evils, it should be employed and tolerated only to the least degree possible. (Sorry for butting in, Risker.) Geogre (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I would note that mailman does keep archives, so there is a complete, albeit private, archive of arbcom-l. Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me tell you why this concerns me. Over a year and a half ago, I was wrongly blocked. The two administrators which were handling the dispute acknowledge this (neither did the block). The matter was happily settled but only months later. However, I did write a polite e-mail to ArbCom while blocked and it was ignored. A possible solution is that e-mails must be published if requested by the sender or unblock requests to ArbCom must be answered. The way it is now is everything is secret and ArbCom has no incentive to consider unblock requests. As I understand it, your current position is that you wish the situation to remain as it is, frustrating to those in need. I would really strongly support an ArbCom member who can fix this issue and supports transparency.

I do the same. When people write to me about articles that I edit a lot, I always address their concern promptly. Chergles (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Chergles, based on your description above, whether or not Arbcom responded to your email, everything would still now be secret; it sounds like it was your choice to use email to attempt to start this discussion instead of openly discussing on-wiki. Please correct me if I am wrong. I do not see any bar for you to post your own email to Arbcom on-wiki today. In general, I would like to see some significant changes in the manner in which requests for block/ban reviews are carried out, devolving it from direct Arbcom responsibility to a community-based decision-making group with greater transparency, and that group could receive requests directly and also accept referrals from Arbcom and from interested community members. But since I can't speak to the nature and volume of emails currently being received on the Arbcom list, I am not prepared to say that all emails to/from the committee should be published on-wiki. Does that help to illustrate my position a little better? Risker (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. The problem is unresolved. Someone wrongly blocked cannnot get unblocked unless they are lucky. Write to ArbCom and they will ignore you (at least in my case). I was lucky because a helpful administrator was there from the beginning but it still required months of agony. I've seen other cases of agony but I dare not help or even comment because Wikipedia culture is such that if one helps and is not an administrator, there's a chance that another administrator will block you as a sock (assuming that only a sock defends another user). It's really too bad. Chergles (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Boxing article help

[5] Enigma ^message 06:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I marked the requests as done at RfPP. Enigma ^message 06:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No problems, appreciate your notation at RfPP. I probably won't be online 24 hours from now, hopefully that will be long enough for the IP stuff to die down. Risker (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Your candidacy

Please note I've posted further questions - if you could answer them within the next couple of days, that'd be great. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, Ncmvocalist. I will try to get to them this evening or tomorrow; there are a few from Tony1 as well that I need to complete. Risker (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

And responded last night. Risker (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This update, and your prompt answers are appreciated. 24 hours from now, I will be reviewing each candidate and preparing final votes. Thank you for your time, Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

68
39
174
238

Ah well, they'll just know 76 instead! Although I admit I liked my old IP better, it had a certain correctness and rounded feeling to it... 76.117.247.55 (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The Move

It just didn't seem right to have the name of Wikipedia:List of administrators with a lowercase A. That is why I moved it. When you are ready to respond, just answer on my talkpage. Carabera (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Attention talk page watchers

Lots of hardworking editors have dropped by my page asking for assistance in improving the quality of the encyclopedia. It doesn't look like I am going to get very far into the list below for a while, but you (yes, you!) can help, even if it is grammar correction, cleaning up typos, fixing refs, or simply giving some feedback to the editors. Here's the list of requests I've received in the last little bit that I've not yet addressed. There's not much doubt our colleagues will appreciate any support you can provide.

Crown Fountain (Torsodog)
Dredg (Ars Sycro)
McGill University (Sunsetsunrise)
Sideshow Bob (Scorpion)
Belldandy (Bilby)
The World Ends with You (MASEM)
Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 3) (Parent5446)
Literature in the Hoysala Empire (Dineshkannambadi)
Pilot (30 Rock) (User:Jamie jca)
Félix Houphouët-Boigny (Nishkid64)
Bone Wars (David Fuchs)

So...what are you waiting for? Click on a link and go for it! There's a bit of everything here, from history to literature, places, people, television shows, video games, and even a band. Give it a whirl. And thanks. Risker (talk) 05:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Photo of dead combatants

I posted a notice at MILHIST about the discussion [6]. In my opinion, using photos of dead combatants is fine. Reliable source is the aplicable policy relevant to whether a photo should be included. Bottom line, war is about achieving goals by killing people and breaking things. So, such images are appropriate for war articles. I've used several such images in articles I've written. See Battle of the Tenaru, Battle of Edson's Ridge, Actions along the Matanikau, Battle for Henderson Field, and here (don't look if you're real squeamish). I'll post this comment in the discussion somewhere also. Cla68 (talk) 02:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, friend

I'm do glad you changed your mind and ran. We need minds like yours on the committee. Looking forward to seeing the job you do on the committee. SDJ 04:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats. :) Good luck on the Committee. GlassCobra 20:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Risker/Archive 5's Day!

User:Risker/Archive 5 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Risker/Archive 5's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Risker/Archive 5! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Is Google Making Us Stupid?

Hi: Thanks for the compliments. I'm fixing it up right now based on a GA review from Skomorokh. I hope you enjoy reading the article and if you see any way to improve it please let me know.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Risker

It seems our illustrious arbs must take an age to decide the simplest of things. Quite why contributors in general are held with such contempt around here, rather than supported and defended is an absolute mystery to me - too many kids running around suddenly feeling empowered with positions way above what they might achieve in real life, but still harbouring their adolescent anti-authoritarian rebellion - it might be ok for Britney Spears articles but makes for a pretty poor environment for serious academics. Oh look - Giano's just been blocked again by his tormentors! FFS.......--Joopercoopers (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• I think they're really trying to chase him off now. Sometimes the paranoid are actually being persecuted. SDJ 17:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, gentlemen...what would the holiday season be without a bit of pageantry, and the attendant excellent editing that seems to attend with it? This time last year, Queluz National Palace was the article so graced - and a fine article it is. As I recall, it was the epitome of collaborative writing, with over 20 editors participating in its final form, not to mention the brilliant photographs, and the technical expertise required to best organise them with the text into a coherent whole. It's a bit more complex this time because of the editing locale, of course. Risker (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You should take a look

I noticed you on JW's page, and I thought you might find this very interesting. It was posted after your last there, so I wasn't sure you had seen it yet. SDJ 20:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your appointment to arbcom

It is apparently official. Viridae^Talk 21:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ermm...nothing official at this stage, Viridae, but thank you for your good wishes. That just means I identified to the Foundation. I am sure that something a bit more official than that will show up in the next day or so, provided Jimbo hasn't been stranded in some airport with the nasty weather we're having in the Northeast. :-) Risker (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The essence of judgment

Precepts on the secret of success in life drafted by Tokugawa Ieyasu from the collection of Nikkō Tōshō-gū.

In this interval between the close of Arbcom voting and whatever comes next, this could be a timely opportunity to share a bit of wisdom attributed to Tokugawa Ieyasu, the founder of Japan's Tokugawa shogunate. I modestly offer a translation of the calligraphy -- with an emphasis not in the original:

Life is like walking along a long road shouldering a heavy load; there is no need to hurry.

One who treats difficulties as the normal state of affairs will never be discontented.

Patience is the source of eternal peace; treat anger as an enemy.

Harm will befall one who knows only success and has never experienced failure.

Blame yourself rather than others.

It is better not to reach than to go too far. --Tokugawa Ieayasu, 1604

I hope this becomes helpful in the year ahead. --Tenmei (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright. NOW I can say "Congrats, Madame Arbitrator!" (ducks just in case you throw something at me) :D SirFozzie (talk) 12:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

For reals this time!

Now it's really official! Huzzah! At first, I wasn't sure you were electable, but I was enthusiastic to vote for you anyway. I'm glad it turned out my doubts about your ability to win proved completely groundless. Do us proud, Risker. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Random Congratulations

congratulations - hope you didn't need your free time for rest or excersise....--Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

"editprotected"

Regarding WP:VPP#New individual access level: editprotected: I generally carefully avoid "badgering the opposes", and I practice DGAFism religiously, but because I'm aware of how many people are deeply affected in one way or another by RfA, this is one issue where I do GAF, and if it's okay, I'd like to talk about that. I'm concerned that an oppose by the guy who just came in 2nd in the Arbcom elections might have a chilling effect ... which is fine if we need to be chilled, but I'm not convinced that there's no safe way forward.

When I see things like "Strong Support - I could use this tool now and then, though due to the immense hostility at RFA I'd be unlikely to pass. ~the editorofthewiki", it makes me sad. We don't need all that many admins on Wikipedia, so we can afford to be choosy, and people are choosy at RfA ... nothing wrong with that ... exactly. But this leaves us with a big pile of very earnest people who probably can't pass RfA yet who would like to contribute, who deserve a community "thumbs up" for the work they've done so far, who are left with the feeling that RfA people are hostile and don't appreciate them. In theory, it would be a win-win if we could break off one or two less-dangerous admin tools for these guys. For them, the experience of trying to convince an admin to grant the tools, and trying to use them correctly, could be a very useful baby-step towards adminship. (I think people are leaning towards relying on individual admins to grant the mini-tools, but if so, we need to get medieval on any admin who doesn't train and watch the people they give the tools to.)

Even if you don't buy any of that, we do have a steady stream of people like User:lustiger seth who need to be able to edit something that's protected (in his case, the spam blacklist), who we (in theory) really need to help us, who probably shouldn't be an admin and doesn't even want to be an admin, he just wants to edit the spam blacklist ... but it looks like we're about to hand him the mop, solely because we need him. It would be nice if we didn't have to twist and warp RfA to try to get it to fit this purpose.

You make a very good point that this tool is currently a dangerous thing to be handing out. I think the supporters are saying that of all the admin tools, this is the one that people most often ask for when they aren't ready for and don't need all the other tools, and the one tool that we most often want to give people so that they can do us a favor. It seems to me, in theory, we could select out the set of protected pages that wouldn't break the wiki if someone screwed around with them, only give access to these, and, as I say, get medieval with any admin who doesn't pay attention to whether the tool-user is misbehaving or not.

A couple of people have said "Nice idea, but the ability to edit protected pages isn't going to be so incredibly useful that it's worth the extra process and the extra headache." If this idea is persuasive, then I think we should throw in one or two other admin tools that aren't going to break the wiki, such as the ability to semi-protect pages. Watching how someone does with that job would be a great way to figure out whether they'll make a good admin or not.

Thoughts? (I'm watchlisting for a few days.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dank55. I appreciate your popping over here to discuss this, because you have some good points too. I share your frustration with the RfA process; in fact, after I read the discussion on the Village Pump, I went right over and read the RfA for lustiger seth, and supported his nomination, just as I have done for other editors who have specialised skills and needs for the tools. My main concern with respect to handing out editprotected access is in the article space, where I can foresee editors simply editing through protection to carry on an edit war; and in template space, where an ill-considered edit through protection can affect thousands of pages at once. Having individual administrators hand out this tool worries me; there will be no agreed-upon standard (just look at rollback, where some admins hand it out after as few as 20 edits), and it could lead to admin-shopping or worse.

I agree that we do have to find a way to reduce the pressure at RfA, and if there was a way to do some sort of RFA-lite for individuals who clearly need (or will effectively use) one or two tools, I'd probably support it. I do have some concerns that we place far too much emphasis on the importance of adminship generally, and the RFA process specifically; even in the less than a year since my successful nomination, the toxicity of the RFA process has significantly increased. I don't have a good answer as to why.

It might take me a while to get used to the idea that doing some particularly icky scutwork will mean my opinions could be inflated to something more than that of an experienced editor; please bear with me while I make that transition. My opposition to handing out "editprotected" is based on my experience as an editor and an admin, and is certainly not any kind of "official" position. I've also taken a gander at MBisanz's talk page, and he certainly explains some of the technical points far better than I ever could. Thanks again for touching base, because I appreciate the opportunity to discuss it with you. Best, Risker (talk) 04:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You're the 4th person (including myself) who would prefer RfA-lite to having individual admins hand out a new userright; if we're not getting anywhere with the current proposal, I will try to sell this approach to my cohorts. I have pointed some people to Matthew/MBisanz's reply, which seems really helpful. If not "editprotected", which of the admin userrights would be not too dangerous to hand out, useful for reducing backlogs, and good practice for eventual adminship? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

2 more deletes

Thanks for deleting one of my old archives. I had tagged three total, but it looks like ClueBot remove the tags on these two:

• User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/User talk:Jwy/Archive/Apr. 2006 - May. 2007‎‎
• User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/User talk:Jwy/Archive/Dec. 2005 - Mar. 2006‎‎

Could you delete them as well? Thx (John User:Jwy talk) 05:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help, they've both been deleted now. Risker (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

cool. thx. (John User:Jwy talk) 06:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

NPA

May you want to comment? See Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#Addition. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you please take a look? Your original addition was changed later on to formulation that avoids addressing the reason you added that in the first place. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jossi for the heads-up. I have commented now; however, I will be AFK for several hours so won't be able to follow this discussion further this evening. Risker (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Access granted

Your Checkuser and Oversight access has been granted per request at Meta. I also turned on access to checkuser-l. Thanks and best wishes. ++Lar: t/c 05:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Okay. Thanks for the heads up, Risker. Carabera (talk) 13:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You're joking, right?

After what Seattlehawk94 went through and hundreds if not thousands of falsely attacked editors go through trying to appeal nonsensical blocks based on lies, you actually thought it was proper to remove the fixes to that page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.8.210 (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

On the proposal you told me about...

Am I off-base?

Your mailing list

I trust that you will recuse yourself, as an arbitrator, from arbitrations that involve those to whom you are showering favors upon now. Is you mailing list made up of favorites made up of those that voted for you? I am an editor whose question your chose to ignore and not answer during the recent voting for Arbcom members (thus provoking me to vote against you). Therefore, I will watch with great interest where you come down, not only on the issue of favoritism regarding those editors mentioned in the question you chose to ignore, but in conflicts involving these (many) favorites you choose to bestow holiday greeting to now. Many happy holidays and best wishes for next year and all the years to come. Cheers, —Mattisse (Talk) 04:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually, Mattisse, I was extending a greeting to the people who have come and posted on this page in the past year. Some of them I agreed with, and some of them I didn't, but I appreciated the attempt at dialogue. I was just about done, so you should receive yours very soon. Incidentally, I did not ignore your question; as you repeated it, in greater detail, on the candidate question page, I responded there instead, as I indicated in the thread on this page. Best of the season to you. Risker (talk) 04:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I never saw the reply, nor did another who asked me to post diffs for you, so I am not the only one who perceived your lapse.

As long as you recuse yourself on these issues and others regarding these editors, I will have no problem. Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favorite performance of that video Humm, How Complicated Things Are!, for your holiday amusement. And please, you need not spam my page. I am not the fuzzy wuzzy type. Cheers, —Mattisse (Talk) 04:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, now that you have spammed my talk page, with a meaningless link back to here, where the heck is your answer to the question I asked you during the arbom elections, entitle "Question from Mattisse"? If you answered it somewhere else, where? —Mattisse (Talk) 04:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Erm..that wouldn't be this one, would it? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse, my response on this page is here, and my response to your questions on the candidate page are here, immediately below your questions, as Casliber has pointed out. I have no idea what "issues" you are talking about, and extending a seasonal greeting with another editor does not, in and of itself, constitute sufficient grounds for a mandatory recusal. Thank you for the link to the video of the NYC Wiki Meetup of November 16, 2008; that is an interesting title you chose to add to it. I have also corrected the timestamps on your posts above, as they do not match the revision history of this talk page; I trust you won't mind that. Risker (talk) 04:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I finally found it. Supporting the good old boys would not have done it for me, although I am sorry I missed your answer, as I checked for quite a while and found nothing. And I know some voted against you on the basis of that question. I will also congratulate you on being a grown up in your selection off an Xmas video to spam. One from one of your fellow new Arbcom members, that I happened to see somewhere was surprisingly immature - say aimed at a 10-year-old. I think you will be serving on Arbcom with the first kiddie arcom member! This last year has been deeply disillusioning to me, and I no longer think Wikipedia will survive in any recognizable form. Kids and baby boomers running arbcom. Not hopeful. Cheers! —Mattisse (Talk) 05:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It is always deeply negative when someone starts a comment with "Erm..". But I know that person can be very uncivil anyway. Cheers! —Mattisse (Talk) 05:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Took about 30 seconds to find it Matisse, hence my bemused 'erm'. Do you ever stop to wonder you may be contributing something to the causes these ongoing clashes you have with others? At all? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone with whom I interacted this past year for making 2008 such an interesting and enlightening year for me. I am sure I have missed several people in my greeting-spam; my apologies to you.
Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement.
Best, Risker (talk) 06:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Notes to self

Copy edits to do
The Principal and the Pauper‎ (Scorpion)
Crown Fountain (Torsodog)
The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show (Scorpion)
Dredg (Ars Sycro)
McGill University (Sunsetsunrise)
Sideshow Bob (Scorpion)
Krusty the Clown (Scorpion)
Maurice Richard before GAC (Flibirigit)

Articles to improve
Diamond Rio
Gary Allan
Mary Chapin Carpenter
Kalisha Buckhanon
Hypnodog (iride)
Synthesizer (Wackymacs)

Contributions to review
User:Wilhelmina Will/Creations

Kay on ANI

re Edward Nottingham: [7] Comments on Giano go here

Merry Christmas!

Willking1979 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Willking1979 (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day Of Winter!

Happy First Day of Winter!

A stand of Pine trees beautifully coated in winter snow.

Wishing you a Merry Christmas, Hanukkah, or Kwanzaa!

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Winter 2008! Mifter (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Summer not Winter then I wish you a happy First Day of Summer 2008!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Winter}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Congrats on your appointment to the Arbcom and Best of Luck :)! --Mifter (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For the undelete Risker, and a merry Christmas to you. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The grockles, I'm unreliably informed is a fairly recent term used by the royal family to describe the general public. Originally I think it was a west country word for tourists, which doubtless the young princes picked up at Rock, Cornwall. <you even get a citation - gasp!>. Cheers --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

"For some reason, I imagine a rather awkward, heavyset fellow whose pants are too short." Sounds like I was more or less correct... Risker (talk) 16:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like to characterise the inhabitants of an entire island so, be my guest - I wouldn't disagree with you over David Beckham. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Xmas

• a fine Xmas message for all of us to be mindful of.... hehehe. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 23:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Best of the season

I wish you a very Happy Holidays too, Risker, and a belated congratulations on your impressive ArbCom candidacy. I'm confident you'll do a fine job. Enjoy this week of peace and goodwill from all men, because I fear its the last time you will experience those particular blessings for a while ;) Rockpocket 01:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Same sentiments from me Risker, in an effort to help you prepare to be an arbitrator, I've found a very useful guide to writing ArbCom findings. Hope it helps! :) Late sig by Franamax (talk) 04:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Wishing you a happy Christmas and New year. It's going to be hard to guess what those comments were!!Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Risker. A Happy Holidays to you, your family & friends. Luved the video, the blond was gorgeous (LOL). GoodDay (talk) 02:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

PS- Have ya noticed on YouTube lately, their print is in Chinese. GoodDay (talk) 02:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Have a good holiday. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Risker, same to you. Love the video... that's amazing. Best, Mackan79 (talk) 07:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas Risker, All the best. --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry XMAS from User:Piotrus. 11:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and best wishes for the coming year. Mackensen (talk) 12:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the best wishes and the link to a very funny video, have a quite time until you return to the madhouse! dougweller (talk) 12:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the warm wishes on my talk page. I wish you a merry Xmas and a most joyful 2009. Festive regards, Húsönd 01:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, although of course I did enjoy a nice warm Southern Hemisphere Christmas :) Here's a nice picture of holiday cheer under blue skies, Melbourne-style! --bainer (talk) 05:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding my thanks for the fun video, and best (if slightly belated) wishes for happy holidays and a stellar new year! Congratulations also on your Arbcom candidacy; I cannot think of anyone better suited to the task! Best wishes, Kafka Liz (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Now I have a white Christmas! I enjoyed dialoguing with you as well. Wishing you a happy holiday and the best for the new year, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, Risker. I've enjoyed the conversation as well. I hope your year ahead, especially given the recent and dramatic change in your fortunes, is free of trepidation and circumlocutionary dunderheads. Scrooge decides to keep Christmas all the year round, and, since Christmas means hopefulness about redemption and being freed from death and the law, I would take that to mean being hopeful even when things are dark and knowing that the literalists and bellicose are not really in charge and don't have any power. I hope that I feel like writing here again, soon, but you can always find me, and I hope that you do. Geogre (talk) 14:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Holidays!

MerryChristmas!

--Sallicio^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 16:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas from Promethean

O'Hai there Risker, Merry Christmas!

Risker,
I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year.
Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future.
Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that
Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)

All the Best.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk)

Happy Holidays!

Happy holidays to you too!!! Also, have a good New Year. Cheers! -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Risker, thank you for the delightfully cold outside Christmas card ! I hope you had a Merry Christmas, and that the New Year will be a fun and rewarding one for you (that is, I hope the new assignment is good to you ... I know you'll be good for it :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you take a look at Josiah Leming (singer) for me?

I want it to be moved to Josiah Leming, but that page was protected from creation because of the overanxious (and undersourced) efforts of some folks earlier this year. I'd also appreciate a brief copyedit/ref format, if you have time. I will be expanding this one, hopefully soon. Thanks, SDJ 20:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi SDJ, sorry I missed your request in amongst things on the page; I'm going to have to make sure I read from top to bottom every day. I see someone else beat me to moving the page over the redirect. I gave it a quick readthrough, and it looks not bad at all. Not sure I'll have the time to get much copy editing done over the next week (I have a phenomenal amount of reading to do, plus clearing a couple of projects from work), but I'll see what I can do. Hope you're having a good holiday! Risker (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Can't top "Baby It's Cold Outside" (what could?), but ...

Merry Christmas & Happy Boxing Day! And in the spirit of your superlative greetings, May the following delectate you, none of which I might ever have seen but for Wikipedians, God bless 'em every one! May all your holiday celebrations be appropriate ones. -- Noroton (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• 
  Inappropriate candy consumption
• 
  So inappropriate, they won't let you see
• 
  Inappropriate fridge disposing
• 
  Inappropriate neologizing
• 
  Inappropriate nose covering
• 
  Inappropriate distance from home on X-mas Eve
• 
  Don't even think about what Santa did to get those beads
• Wouldn't be prudent.
  Wouldn't be prudent.

Noroton, thanks for the amazing and hilarious image gallery! I'm now terribly curious about that "too inappropriate to link to" file... Risker (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Now, I warn you, Risker (and now I see how you got that name), you very probably will regret seeing, and then remembering this image, which will probably come to mind when the subject of Mrs. Claus comes up in the future. This will replace images of that dear old woman baking cookies, and it really isn't an improvement on that. Really, what the Clauses do in the privacy of their own North Pole should really be left to them (and the elves -- no, no, mustn't think about that!). So I advise not clicking on this link and drawing back the curtain. Don't bite from this particular apple in the tree of knowledge. I also want to state here, for the record, that I don't approve of this image, which is on WikiCommons, and I don't want anyone blaming me for spreading it around. I'm only linking to it because you asked, but, really, it makes me feel dirty, and it's so very, highly, absolutely inappropriate -- most unChristmaslike. I'm only providing even the link because you specifically asked for it. So don't go blaming me for this if you do click on the link and recoil in shock and horror. Now, here's your last chance, but in order not to shock you too quickly, here's the caption in the original Dutch (pardon my Dutch): foto van kabouter buttplug. Kabouter Buttplug is de Rotterdamse naam van het kunstwerk genaam SantaClaus van de amerikaanse kunstenaar Paul McCarthy. Click on this link at your own risk: [8] But don't do it, Risker. Resist temptation. Look away. Just go on vandal patrol or fix apostrophes or somethng. (I don't even want to know what the Dutch Wikipedia article on Santa looks like. ...) Incidentally, I think that's a bottle in his left hand. I hope it's a bottle. Because if I didn't think it's a bottle, I wouldn't link to it no matter how much you asked. I believe I've covered my ass, now. (Oh, poor choice of words ...) -- Noroton (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh my. Risker (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Holiday greetings

Thank you for your card. I too look forward to working with you over the coming months: we live in interesting times. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Hi: Thanks for the seasons greetings. I hope you have a joyous holiday season too.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 12:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Holiday Greetings

Dear Risker: Thank you for the kind holiday message. It really made my day. I've been a bit wikidetached lately due to work, but I look forward to more editing next year. Happy New Year! Send me an e-mail if ever you need anything. Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

And P.S.: Congrats on your election to the Arbcom!

A bit late

Congratulations Arbitrator!
Remember to tread softly but carry a big stick! - Epousesquecido (talk) 06:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

feedback requested at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Committees

Hi, if you have time, I'd appreciate any feedback on a slightly crazy idea I had at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Committees. It's related to the Arbitration Committee. Thanks! rootology (C)(T) 18:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

'Zilla modestly forced admit Risker speak truth ![9] bishzilla _ROARR!! 21:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC).

SimulTrans page to be deleted?

Hi there

You recently marked a page I've been working on (SimulTrans) as "Unreferenced, reads like advertisement, questionable notability". I'm wondering if you have any advice as to how to improve this page. I've made a few small changes as well as removing this notice since I'll be adding more content in the new year (mainly to do with the various elements of localization) and don't want my current work to be deleted.

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia so I'm still learning my way around. If you could respond on my talk page that would probably be easiest. Though I'll be checking here as well.

Thanks so much for the help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marrim45 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Marrim45, and welcome. I've responded to your questions on your talk page, and I hope you will find the links I have left to be useful in developing the article. Risker (talk) 05:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

:O

* (diff) (hist) . . User talk:Risker‎; 04:26 . . (-437) . . Risker (Talk | contribs | block) (adding stuff)

hahahaaa!!! :D J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you believe that I was just reading Wikipedia:Talk page stalker when the yellow bar alerted me to your message? ;-) Risker (talk) 05:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy new year

Thank you Risker for the nicely designed greeting. I am not so motivated as to create such wiki-boxes, so here's a prosaic "Happy New Year" to you, fellow country(?)person(?:)! –Outriggr § 05:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)