User talk:Franamax/Archive 5

Why do you keep reverting changes to Jason Kenney's page?

?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.92.135.204 (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Apology regarding inadvertent revert

Hello, Franamax. You have new messages at Dan Dassow's talk page.
Message added 19:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

New Section

I am New Sectioning you - and hoping you are well with the season. I enjoyed our Ghadaffi discussion, and the article was improved. xx Wizzy…☎ 21:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Battery Clocks

Couldn't agree more about the cruelty of 'battery clocks'. I don't like the idea of having them tied to the wall by a cable either.
Free range clocks I say! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 04:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Not only that, I've read on some blogs that those cables are used to deliver ELECTRIC SHOCKS! Franamax (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Aha! That explains why those funny cylindrical clock eggs are always so hard, they've been internally hard boiled!. They taste awful anyway!--220.101.28.25 (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm torn between responding that I always found those eggs too hard to peel or "Eat them? I thought they were suppositories!!". Franamax (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Southern ocean

Thanks for your involvement - it is appreciated - it seems the talk page of the article has been long a place for some very odd opinions to be voiced - at least catz and bazonka seem to be working it out - and yes being an Australian I can see why and how you outsiders might wonder :) SatuSuro 11:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

IP 65.25.179.39

You done real good. IP appears to be single-handely trying to create an entertainment background for Vanessa Bell-Gentles, and to a lessor extent, Curtis Blake. Considering the "insistance" of the vandalism, it might continue after the block expires. Worth watching. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Have performed more cleanup. For Ms Bell-Gentles, if she even exists, the IP seemed to include "Anaclair" as part of her character name in dozens of projects. I think I got 'em all. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the work. The block expires 19:12 14Jan10 UTC. Any further edits of this kind should be met with one request for explanation and if the edits happen again beyond reasonable time after the time of your warning (the second edit after the warning if in close proximity) - request a further block please, AIV, ANI or here. Again, thanks! Franamax (talk) 05:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:Related information

I think I have now responded to all the objections (even the silly ones). I would appreciate you taking a look at it with a fresh eye and changing whatever you believe should be changed to make the essay more effective. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits on Ludwig Wenzel Lachnith

Dear user Franamax, Thank you for reviewing the Lachnith page created by me. I do concur with some of your edits, but not with all of them. I stated my case on the Lachnith talk page. Cheers! Thomas W. Jefferson (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

RFC/U

Hi Franamax. All to angst has become moot since Michael H 34 has returned to editing. I have posted the RFC/U here [1], in case you care to comment.--Slp1 (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

National Ignition Facility

I would like to further discuss the deletion of what I know to be untrue material that is considered to be confidential. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsure (talk • contribs) 20:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Added heading, replied at article talk page. Franamax (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Feedback requested

Hi. :) I'm working on the Craigy144 cleanup, and I need opinions on whether or not the paraphrasing at Elizabeth Seymour, Duchess of Somerset rises to the level of copyright concern (no doubt it's plagiarism, but as you know copyvio requires different and somewhat more aggressive treatment). Would you mind taking a look? I'm also asking User:Tagishsimon and User:Charles Matthews their thoughts. Some of mine are at that article's talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Fitznells Manor

Thanks for the help with this. Would using gallery tags for the diagrams work better than the existing code? I haven't tried it, but it would make the diagrams a little bigger and easier to see. BTW I have nominated this for a DYK, see Template talk:Did you know#Fitznells Manor. – ukexpat (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Let me know what you find out from that user about that weird edit on ANI. I'm starting to think that these two are just trolling and aren't actually here to be productive. See User talk:Neptunerover for more insight on these two. Frmatt (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see a connection. Beyond looks productive, though quite possibly a fresh-start or maybe an incredibly quick learner. For instance they wikilinked the "illegitimati non carborundum" phrase, then evidently looked at the article and went on an edit-spree to fix it up. That's what I do too, link an article to answer a question, then read the article, fix some typos, then find the big problems and start working on them too. Looks pretty standard to me and their advice to Neptune is good. The gibberish thing, yeah needs to be fixed. Is there a further connection between these account edits I'm not seeing? Franamax (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm kinda going back and forth (in my own mind) about whether they're working together with Beyond enabling Neptune, but then Beyond goes and makes a productive comment that makes everything I've thought redundant...don't worry about it, I was concerned because of the weird edit but I'm going to AGF and mark it as a computer glitch of some type! I'm not seeing much of a connection either, was just the talk page interaction that made me wonder, so no biggie. (but I am still curious about that weird edit if you find anything out!) Frmatt (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well if it's just the latest bit, no, not a problem. I tried to interact with Neptune in a positive way, he mentioned a phrase from a U2 album which I'm quite familiar with, I tracked it down within all of 5 minutes and poked Neptune because he could have spent those 5 mins instead of me. Editing tends to occur in flurries on Wikipedia, Beyond pointed out the origin of the phrase (which ranks up there with "semper ubi sub ubi" as a not-really-Latin phrase) and seems to be the origin of the U2 lyrics. Sometimes you can reach an editor by being light-hearted, sometimes not. Sometimes you can reach an editor by demonstrating that the soul of Wikipedia is sources, sometimes not. IMO it's always worth a try to reach out and include people in the group, so long as they accept what it means to work within a group. 'Tis all good from what I see. If the ANI edit was vandalism, man that was pretty painstaking vandalism!! It was much more likely incompatibility between character sets on the browser, a burp in the transmission, perhaps cosmic rays, several million of which have passed through my CPU since I started typing this. No big issue, though I've asked Beyond to keep track of garbly edit results for future resolution. Franamax (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

pardon me

Well excuse me if I didn't curtsy before the Queen. She was begging the question. There's a very intricate web here of people practicing to deceive. --Neptunerover (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Franamax. You have new messages at Wdl1961's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

note

I answered your e-mail, twice yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent Edits.

Apologies for the mistake in removing the coprighted info in the article Big Dee Irwwin. I have been quite tired recently, and probably picked up on my mistakes when editing, my bad. Anyway, i try help out as much as possible, i guess a little of my inexpirance is showing through. I'll try and do some more when i get the time. Been quite busy recently. Nath1991 (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:Alternative outlets

Hi Franamax - re. your recent comments on the Help Desk, you might be interested in WP:Alternative outlets. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! That's a typically bloated wiki-page but it does have a subset there of external projects. Franamax (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

computer-colored snow crystals, magnified by a low-temperature scanning electron microscope.

Sometimes, copyright stuff can feel overwhelming to me, and things get pretty dark in the land of WP:CCI. This morning, I've been feeling very close to burnout. But as I am pausing in reviewing an older one to check my watchlist, I happened to notice you busily at work on a newer one...thereby reminding me that I am not alone and all is not dark and horrible. So, thanks. Light in the darkness and all that. (And I think I might not be able to bear it were it to prove that HECTOP MAXHO did not create this image. Talk about a raspberry from the universe....) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know which portent is more ominous, that as I brought up my first article of the day for investigation it had an orange bar indicating your message, or that when I clicked to respond here apparently my computer and my internet connection and the Wikipedia site seemed to all stop working, each with different symptoms. Let's try this all over again shall we?

I can't say I'm "happy" to help, but I'm determined to help. :) And I get to read all kinds of neat stuff, sooner or later someone will ask at the Reference Desk about "who was that songstress from the 40's or 50's who had a smoky voice and lived somewhere in New York State?" and I'll be able to say "Oh that was [Rose Shannon], we have an article on her...well, we -had- an article on her...". ;)

Thanks for the candle, but what we really need here in Vancouver are images of snow! Anything to give some possible indication that there is an actual winter in the Winter Games. Franamax (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, happy or determined, I'm glad to have you. :D And I will gladly remove the candle, which might warm things up, and drop an inspirational image for your weather. Ooooh! Snow! Glad your technology is not dead. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was nice

Thanks for this:

"Absolutely, those are valid concerns. I would personally trust Ikip to treat those 100 names with due care and respect and would of course be willing to stand or fall based on whether my trust was misplaced. This is a named editor whose work I'm somewhat familiar with, I wouldn't necessarily respond the same way to someone who just got off the bus"

Just saw it, appreciate your time and efforts ;-) Okip (formerly Ikip) 10:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

THanks for the block

I was in the midst of building the 3RR case for the edits on Marriage when you got it taken care of. Thanks. (It always takes me soo long to get all the diffs and such.) - Nat Gertler (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well you really could have just submitted every single edit the user made with a link to Special:Contributions. :) There doesn't seem to be an FAQ on the topic at Talk:Marriage, maybe it would be handy to have one? Franamax (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Prob'ly. But that would mean me learning to do something else! I promised myself that the thing I'd learn this week is adding photos to a page. (And I'm dubious that it would do any good; I would not assume that the new named SPA editor is not the same editor as was working under IP addresses on earlier occasions.) - Nat Gertler (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

78.32.143.113 yet again...

Hi there - I'm the one who raised the WQA about 78.32.143.113 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) recently (WP:Wikiquette alerts/archive80#More_problems_with_78.32.143.113). It looks like after lying low for a week or so, this user is continuing to revert edits without any attempt at discussion first... see here, here, here or here. I haven't a great deal of response to my requests for comment (only this), so I'm not sure where to go next with this. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks, Letdorf (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC).

Yuck, this is a bit messy. I've seconded your request for where the third opinion came from. Could you put together a short list of where the VWAG naming thing has been discussed before? Some of it I think was on the user's talk page, which isn't archived, and I think on one article talk or another. Same for the "conglomerate" discussion, I know I saw it somewhere or three. The {{cite web}} usage I read the same way you do, except I'm not sure about the publisher= name used with worldcarfans.com, publisher would be Black Falcon Media Group if anything. I'm not sure how to proceed with a productive but stubbotn editor, possibly mediation or filing a WP:3O of your own, I'll ask around for advice. Pointers to where the main discussion (such as it is) occurred would be helpful though. Franamax (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"VWAG": I first expressed my doubts about the usefulness of using this here, which received no reply. I later tried again, which resulted in this debate which in turn spawned a discussion on WP:RSN in which 78.32.143.113 admitted to "drawing a blank" trying to find reliable sources to support his opinion. Another editor raised a similar issue on Talk:Volkswagen Group here. I also tried to explain the distinction between Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen Group here, which got no response.

Conglomerate: My attempt to discuss this was archived to /dev/null the following day.

The worldcarfans.com citations are slightly tricky as they are mostly official VW or Audi press releases reproduced verbatim on that website, so I guess it could be argued that the "publisher" is the original issuer of the PR. I would agree though, that that's not quite following the documentation to the letter.

Thanks again, Letdorf (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for the links. I didn't realize those were official press releases (I don't actually look at things before spouting off about them, it ruins the mystery :). Perhaps {{cite press release}} would be the better choice for those? I notice the IP is back editing and apparently chooses to ignore the attempted dialogue, still pondering the next step... Franamax (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, {{cite press release}} would be more appropriate for these - and linking to the PR on the issuer's official website (if it can be found there) would probably be better too. But there's no point trying to improve these citations if they're just going to get reverted again... Letdorf (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC).

So... as there's been no response to my attempt to discuss, I tried reverting the "conglomerate" description in a couple of articles, and they got reverted right back again without any prior discussion. [2] [3]. I've now posted a request to WP:3O regarding one of these articles, as the user is still not telling me the whereabouts of this alleged third opinion that supports his edits. Letdorf (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

Just a quick update... we now have a 3O which appears to agree with my reasoning, but this still isn't enough to stop the reverts... [4]. Letdorf (talk) 13:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

Still reverting: [5] [6] [7] . I'm thinking it might be time for WP:ANI now? Letdorf (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC).

My ANI report was archived before anyone responded to it... would you be willing to certify an RfC/U? Letdorf (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC).

Gah, I didn't even see it pass by! Did you title it "Clubs baby seals"? If there's not enough potential drama, it's hard to get the people at ANI pay attention. :( Yes I will certify an RFC/U, but maybe give me a day or two. I'm thinking of maybe just taking some direct action. Franamax (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

AN/I archive ref for me poor brain. Franamax (talk) 02:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)</msall>

Convenience link to warning. Franamax (talk) 03:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Caro 08

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		The way you handle that situation was even and fair handed ..my hats off to you!!! Buzzzsherman (talk) 05:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Caro's editing

Hello, I would like to point you to this edit from Caro which changed my comment on the talk page, making it seem like I agree with him, and then he went ahead and changed the Canada page. It's hard to assume good faith with such edits. Regards -- Jeff3000 (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought that talk page looked different when I checked it! Then I was left wondering how all you guys cut the legs out from under me. :) That's very illuminating. Franamax (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Resource request

A bit late, but your request was filled.--droptone (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Greetings from Russia!

Thanks for your help offer in subjects concerning Canada:) As for me, I have some questions that only a Canadian could answer. As you live in Vancouver, you might know a former deputy for Burnaby el.district such as Svend Robinson. The question is how his first name is pronounced: with "d" or without it (as in Danish - as his first name is Danish).

And in general, many people of different nationalities live in Canada and become well-known as politicians, so do their names pronounced in English manner or in their original language's one (eg Italian (Iacobucci), German (Strahl) etc)?

The last question is about French geographic names in Quebec. There are some town or cities in Quebec which have English/or Iroquois/ names (such as Montreal neighbourhoods Ahuntsic, Hochelaga, or Chisasibi). So do they are pronounced by Quebecois in French or in English (some of them can hardly be read in French I suppose - eg Ahuntsic)? And how is "Burnaby" itself pronounced: as "Barnaby" or somehow as "burn"?

So if my questions haven't yet discouraged you from helping, I would be glad to receive your 'expert' answer ☺ But they don't matter very much, only spelling in ru:wiki. Best regards, 1450 (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I checked Svend Robinson with my Danish/long-time Canadian mom, in Danish she says Sven and Svend sound exactly the same. We agree that if a Canadian news presenter said it, it would have a slightly longer "n" sound but no "d" sound. Name pronunciation usually goes by the rule of asking people how to pronounce their name, so generally pronunciations are preserved, but not always the sounds that are hard for English-speakers to make. I don't know IPA very well, is that what you use at ru:wiki for notation? If so I will try to go through it, though I might ask for help at WT:CWNB. :)

Native-derived names I'm not sure on. I know that English-language tends to pur most emphasis on the first syllable and let the word trail off and I think French puts a little more emphasis on the last syllable.

Burnaby is easy: "burn" - "a" (soft-a) - "bee" (hard-e). These are hard questions! :) But I'll try to get you the answers. Do you use IPA notation? Franamax (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as IPA is an international system. Thanks for some explanations! 1450 (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

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

The missing manual

Looks like it will go missing again: Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual. Pcap ping 04:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Non-portable IP addresses

Just out of interest, I see in your conversation on User talk:209.129.85.4 that you said: The WHOIS information states that addresses within the block are "non-portable", which indicates to me that the same physical computer keeps the IP address. That's not what it means, in fact. "Non-portable" in this context means that the person or organisation leasing the IP address (or block of addresses) cannot keep the same IP address(es) if they change ISP (i.e. the address(es) are not "portable" to another ISP). This explains it. How CSUNet allocates the addresses they have is not determinable from whois output. What may be germane is the XFF header (if any) - there's more on that here. Those clever checkuser guys are aware of all this stuff, if you need to determine whether a banned user is editing despite their ban. Regards, Tonywalton ^Talk 23:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Deblock me

Hi Franamax,i'm writing to you,because i would like to be unblocked(from editing semi protected page.The mistake i did is that i was blocked on an other account,but i created an other account,during i was blocked to edit pages on my first account.I wont make this again,i promise you.Thank you very much for deblocking me.74.57.42.118 (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to unblock you. You can log in as Caro 08 and put an unblock request there, another administrator will consider your request. Put {{unblock|My reason}} at the bottom of your talk page, and change "My reason" to your explanation of why you think you should be unblocked. Someone uninvolved can make the decision. Do not change anything else on the page to make it look better for you. Franamax (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Just as a note, instead of bothering with all that, she's come up again as User:Caro100. I've filed an SPI to see if she's got any more puppets in her drawer. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

CU might be good, there are an awful lot of usernames starting with Caro! :) I think I spotted about 5 yesterday with no edits but created recently. Franamax (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship

Franamax -- I reach out to you because I read your comments at User talk:Roux/Archives/2010/February#Random placement of comment... , especially because of these words:

"Just think about if you got into an ArbCase, would you want to be someone arguing that you should be pardoned 'cause the other guy was worse or would you want to be the person who everyone can see took a calm and rational approach through the whole dispute? Which way would the decision come more quickly, and which way is more likely to resolve in your favour?"

In the context your words create, I write to invite you to join others as a co-mentor for me.

Core policies are the tools at hand; and if you agree to help connect the dots, it could benefit more than me. I cite Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unintended consequences as a plausible context for discussing what I have in mind.

Your decision-making may be affected by reading WP:A/R/C#Statement by Tenmei, especially

A. Response to Steven Smith

B. Response to Coren

C. Response to Roger Davies

The Latin axiom qui tacet consentire videtur is mirrored in WP:Silence + WP:Consensus. Like Roux, I struggle in finding ways to construe pacifist non-confrontation ≠ WP:Silence. As I try to work through contradictions like these, I perceive your point-of-view as simultaneously harsh and hopeful and helpful. You imply that you have more to say. Perhaps I would be wise to place myself among those who make it a point to listen?

If you please, contact me by e-mail or on my talk page. --Tenmei (talk) 05:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and consideration. As a gesture, may I share a rhetorical question from the Analects of Confucius: "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?" --Tenmei (talk) 03:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Vranak

Refactored to, and replied at, originating user talk. Franamax (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Will you be having the dynamic or the kinematic this evening, sir?

[8] Wondered if anyone else would pick up on that. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Pouncing on other people's GF goofies is actually a bad habit. When it's a straight-line like that, I can't resist. Once, at a business dinner with visitors from head office, a visitor framed his question with "Forgive me if I show my ignorance with this question, but <question>" and my response was "That's OK Eddie, you show your ignorance every time you speak + <answer>". It was not received well, I suppose not everyone watches Three Stooges... Franamax (talk) 04:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Friend's mom was from eastern Europe and was locally famous for mixing up folk sayings. Talking about something that had happened a few years back, she said "a lot of water has been passed under the bridge since then." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you help ?

I am aiming to write a new article on Nick Moss, an American Chicago blues musician. However User:Jmlk17 had posted an A7 (bio) notice on 12 March 2008, when a similar (I assume) page had been created. So, I wrote to Jmlk17 asking permission to proceed, but notice that he/she does not seem to have been active on Wikipedia for some time. I do not wish to be rude, but it is possible you can comment in his/her's stead ? You may care to refer to my message on Jmlk17's talk page. Gosh, I have not worded this very well, but trust you can follow my ramblings. Many thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hope you can help

I was reading an Archived Village Pump software update about a script or something for hiding the "Rollback" buttons Here. I can't find any info on installing it, can you help ? Thanks Mlpearc MESSAGE 16:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You need to put those lines into your CSS page, assuming you use the Monobook skin, in User:Mlpearc/monobook.css. Take out that {{clear}} you put in there a few weeks ago, it won't likely be doing anything anyway since it doesn't look like valid CSS. You can look in my monobook.css for comparison where I hide the help link beside "This is a minor edit". Remember to bypass your cache to get the changes recognized. Franamax (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Thank you Mlpearc MESSAGE 18:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Have you heard anything on the script on that page just below the others, for the contribution page ? I copied it with the others and it don't work. Mlpearc MESSAGE 21:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah I see, it only works for some ways. If I pick "contribs" from the popups menu it works fine [9] but if I do it with Special:Contributions/Franamax it doesn't. This would take a bit of extra Javascript to fix (btw, CSS is not a "script", it's a "style sheet") and I'm busy/away for a few days. If you just want to hide every rollback link, for instance if you only want it for Huggle, then just use ".mw-rollback-link {display:none;}" and they should all be gone, regardless of the page name. Franamax (talk) 06:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Want a laugh ?

Try reading Heimathaus Twist. Most of the article made me giggle, but 'Blues Mecca in the bog' was the real clincher. Just when I thought Wikipedia only gave me grief.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Christian Metal Dispute

Thank you for your intervention. Sorry for anything I did that was incorrect. I have been a major contributor to the Christian Metal Radio section of the page. I saw that other radio shows had been adding to the list. We disscussed cleaning some of the radio stations and shows without WP:RS. New users flagged for WP:VAN. Returned under NEW username flagged again. disputed content removed. Should be all good now. We just need to keep "Everyone and thier brother who does a podcast from addin gthier it to the article now. TY Armorbearer777 (talk) 09:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

NORAD Tracks Santa

Now, I seem to recall saying something to the effect of "this article is going to get hit, keep an eye on it", somewhere around December 20th. And now look what's happened.[10] It's ten times the size of what it was at Christmas! So, umm...here's your chance to diplomatically work with a newbie or two to help them understand about excess. What say you? Risker (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's the peril of the watchlist, I use popups to check the diff I see and if it looks good I let it go. If it's bad or a newish user reverting vandalism or various other clues, I scrutinize back to "last good version". Maybe I should try that "extended watchlist" or whatever it is again. However, you said watch for vandalism, not watch for unimaginable bloat. ;) I'll have a look when I get back home tomorrow and settled in. There sure are a lot of edits there... Franamax (talk) 09:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hehe

You nasty person you, for this :-). I was watching something on the local TV news tonight about the popularity of pet piglets and, nasty as I am, I kept thinking "there'll be good eating on those cute little guys in 6 months". Cheers, Tonywalton ^Talk 01:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Christian Metal Dispute

Franamax, I appreciate your response, however there has been an error. This dispute began when Metal Pulse Radio was added to the list. It was first accused of self-promotion, however, if you view the history you will see it was edited several times because it kept being removed by Armorbearer777 (Promoter of The Full Armor of God Broadcast). There was nothing on there that was self promoting and it clearly met WP guidelines. Nevertheless, after more changes were made, it was then decided by Armorbearer777 that Metal Pulse was not notable enough to be listed. Who decides those thing and what defines notable? Metal Pulse Radio sponsors it's own highlight concert at Cornerstone Festival, one of the Biggest Christian Metal Festivals and is well noted by major Christian Metal and Rock Ministries and Organizations. To make matters more complicated, the real issue began OUTSIDE of Wikipedia. The background deals with a dispute concerning time slots of one of Full Armor Of God Broadcast supported bands from a festival back in the summer of '09. Amorbearer777 even sent an email to the owner of Metal Pulse radio yesterday, telling him this was revenge for said previous event dispute and further threatened to remove other content pertaining to MPR's associations. We have saved the emails for proof. Please look into this matter more.. You will also find previous issues with Armorbearer777 and other people. He's manipulating this section and it needs to stop. Please help set things in order. Thank You. Ihopeican143 (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to launch a personal attack since it is my past disscussions here on WIkipedia that helped achieve a Christian Metal Radio section for you to even pimp your show on.. Pulse Radio is a regular show on one internet station, that primarliy promotes the record label that runs the station. this show can hardly stand next to pioneers who have been doing Christian Metal Radio for over a decade and have established syndication on many fecets of radio. I agree that it is a cool show, but there are lots of cool shows. We did ad Blabber Jesus Radio and Necro-Shock Radio which has more of a history in radio than Pulse does. You are taking matters far too persoanl. You should have written the post, submitted it and than it may have been added. Very newbie mistake.Armorbearer777 (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You both should be working on defining what is notable for the topic. Not everything can go in, but what does go in is not under the control of any single editor. For each of the examples the two of you are mentioning, what makes them notable? Things like mentions in written work, web reviews by experts in the genre, that kind of thing. It can't just be personal opinion and if anyone has a conflist of interest they had better be very very careful in how they edit the subject. At the very least, discussion on the talk page before making edits is strongly encouraged. Franamax (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Climate change probation

So we've sucked yet another innocent victim into attracted another uninvolved admin to the climate change probation? Welcome, and please do hang around if you can. The discussions can get a bit samey with just the usual admins, and the more admins watch the topic area the better. --TS 23:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I said at my RFA that I wanted to get into the more mind-twisting bits of the apparatus. I'm just keepin' my word. :) I'm sure there will be buyer's remorse at some point... Franamax (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Would you please read and respond to my comments at the CC complaints page? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Christian Metal

Just want to get your feelings on the situation, I personally think we are getting to the point where it is clear that the section needs to be removed. They have repeatedly stated that there are no sources for the information and side step the issue whenever asked for sources. Ridernyc (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've asked someone else if they can help and waiting to see if they want to get involved. I do find it hard to believe that there exists not one single source that discusses radio stations or shows. I'd suggest maybe asking at WP:RADIO or WP:CHRISTIANITY for help in finding sources before moving to outright removal, or rather I would suggest the proponents should do so. You're doing a fairly good job shepherding the discussion, give it a few more days and see what they come up with. Franamax (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks I'm trying to jsut keep it stuck to the issue. Not sure if you've read everything. There are major COI issues, this whole started because an article got deleted, apparently there has been off wiki fighting as well. It's a real mess. Ridernyc (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh by gosh, I have been reading. :) I made a comment on COI not far above here, so far it seems manageable, or at least I see no reason to intervene on that ground. It's been openly acknowledged, which is the main thing. Franamax (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the AFD, because I think that might directly answer our questions about sourcing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Full_Armor_of_God_Broadcasteven with all that activity and canvassing no one provided a single source, then the article is recreated and this happens Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Full_Armor_of_God_Broadcast_(2nd_nomination). That's where the current problem starts because in that AFD they decide to take the unreferenced non-notable information and create a coatrack in the Christian Metal article. Ridernyc (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh gee thanks, more reading. :) The first one sure brought a bunch of new editors to Wikipedia. ;) Those AFDs generally support my prior impressions, which are "yes, this is a mess". All we can do is work it through and get as much comment as possible before making a determination. Franamax (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Based on what you wrote on my talk page I can only assume that you have not been a contributor to the article in question. The only point I'll address is that while I offered the editor a place to add the information, I certainly didn't grant any rights to the editor. That would imply ownership of the article. I no more own the article than you do. As such, if you were left with a false impression, I'm sorry for that. I'll ask you to please address your concerns about the article on the article's talk page, not mine. I will not address the article-specific comments here or on my talk page. If you care to bring them up on the article's talk page, I'll address them there. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes Walter, I will confirm that I have never edited the article, and I don't have any particular interest in it. I'm working solely as an administrator trying to help get a dispute resolved and watching for any misbehaviour while that happens. Franamax (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

And since you've removed my comment from your talk page, I will just ask here: what possible wording do you find within it that relates to concerns about the article itself? I only addressed aspects of editing Wikipedia and didn't discuss the article content at all. Are we reading the same thing? Franamax (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Armorbearer777

So after giving Armorbearer777 a second warning for continuing the personal attacks he left these on my talk page [11]. Things are starting to get silly. Ridernyc (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

and now he has left another one. Ridernyc (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well here is what I was gonna save when I got the edit conflict. :) Later developments may be changing things, but this is what I was going to say:

Newish editor getting point-y, relax. They are very frustrated and feeling set upon right now. I've always found that it's better to just write a note in my own words rather than use a template, so to some extent, looks good on ya to get a couple back. :) Keep focussing on the content. I'll straighten out the conduct if it becomes excessive.

Now let's assess the latest... Franamax (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Negetive You are being mis-informed by Ridernyc with a jaundice account of the situation. Posted warnings on my talk page that did not aford me good faith so I posted infomation about good faith on his talk page. I reverted nothing. Armorbearer777 (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied at Armor's talk page. Franamax (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No games here, like your pal Ridernyc you are not affording me much WP:GOODFAITH either, are you? I accidentally posted 2 info templates just as Ridernyc must have been disputing something about another matter with Harshmustard and I got confused. So I went back and re-posted (not reverted) the first WP:GOODFAITH template. That is all this was so, lets leave it at that, shall we? Because, I have to admit that even though I am a "newish" wiki-user, your association with eachother is beginning to look a little bit like Stealth WP:Canvassing though I may be wrong, I am tired tonight. My apology to you and Ridernyc. I am going to be off Wiki until next week. Shall we just let things cool down, yes?? Armorbearer777 (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armorbearer777 (talk • contribs)

User:Derek R Bullamore/Johnnie Bassett

As you suggested on 19 February, I placed my previously new, but allegedly copyvio article, at WP:Feed well over a fortnight ago. No response has been forthcoming and whilst I am perhaps being impatient, I do not know where to go next. Not your fault at all, and obviously there are thousands of articles already in situ to be scrutinised and accessed, but .... Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 01:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Take one more look at the lead, run it by Ttonyb1 for a day or two to see if he has comments or suggestions, then move it back to mainspace (or I will for you). Then ask someone like Mlauba or MER-C to take a look at it. It makes me feel bad to look at the Feedback page, people try to use our processes and get caught in huge backlogs, so they have no idea where we stand. Maybe you could run through 5 or so articles there? And yeah, I know, I should do the same. :) Franamax (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. User:Ttonyb1 has improved various aspects, so could I ask you to effect the move to mainspace. I have never done this before, so I am nervous about making an arse of it. Do you know if I can now try for a DYK, or will I be infringing the timescale rules, as I did submit the previous version before the 'copyvio deletion' ? Mind you, I can't remember what the hell the hook was ! I did take a look at the Feedback page and gave an opinion or two, but most subject matter was a long way from my interests, and I could not understand what half of the proposed articles were about. To tell the truth, in some cases, I do not think the contributors could either ! Many thanks (again).

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. I'd say submit it for DYK anyway and explain the circumstances. The worst that can happen is they say no. Franamax (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you assist me?

I'm not sure why I got a notice on my front user page for a 'Speedy Deletion' by Editor 410. {{db-g6}} Sigh... What is this now? thanks Ihopeican143 (talk) 05:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I changed your post around to use the "{{tl}}" template, that way someone won't come along and speedy-delete my talk page. ;) That looks like a boo-boo to me, I've blanked it for now and asked for comment. We'll see what the reply is. Franamax (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

oops sorry about that. lol.. good idea to remove it from your page.. I just wasn't sure how to explain it otherwise so I thought posting would make it easier. Ok.. Well, thanks for the help. I have a clue what that even is or what it means. Ihopeican143 (talk) 06:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Concerned

[12] ---Sluzzelin talk 22:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Thanks for the tip. The suggestion that a young girl was handling nitroglycerin or cordite is a good example of non-useful RD'ing. Franamax (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Armorbearer777 Again

He has now moved on to doing what in my eyes is pure coatrack promotion [13] which I reverted and gave a warning for, and this [14], and this [15]. I'm sutre he will keep going adding to every article he can manag to shoe horn anything about the podcast he works for into. Ridernyc (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

So he then started reverting changes and once again harrassing me on my talk page with templates so now it's at COI notice board [16], tired of this crap. Ridernyc (talk) 11:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like an ongoing problem. You could help a bit maybe by not using templates on him and just write your own messages instead. That way the whole retaliatory templating thing would be avoided and maybe he'll calm down enough and discuss nicely. Franamax (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I'm not really that interested in things ending nicely anymore. He has spent six weeks pushing things to the brink of good faith and I'm now pretty sure his only interest in the project is in promoting his own interest. I'm not going to take the time to write him a nice little hand holding message every time he adds something about his podcast to an article. He has been warned by at least 4 editors about his COI and seems to think WP:SOURCES is some magic bullet that will let him do whatever he wants. Ridernyc (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Well that's your own decision of course. I've made over 2000 user talk edits and I'm pretty sure I've never once used a warning template, so we have different philosophies there. I try to keep in mind that this is an enthusiastic newcomer who doesn't really grasp how to interpret site policy (as you note) and who may have been misled a bit by someone who really should know better. Also I keep a cage of bunny rabbits to strangle off-line when I get stressed on-wiki, that helps a lot. ;) Franamax (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I will definitely agree with your mislead comment. And if this was the first 20 times I had explained the same few points about policy during this whole incident I would agree about the templates, but seriously I can not keep explaining the same 3-4 things over and over again. People have been explaining this to him for over 3 months now [17] there's a point where even if his intentions are good they are still disruptive and need to end. Ridernyc (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There looks to be some level of chronnyism involved here, if not full fledged Slealth Canvassing on some level. The agreesiveness in which my integrity is being pursued by Ridernyc seems more like harrassment to me than good faith Wikipedia preservation. This cat is tired of being kicked! Please go find someon else to badger and please leave me alone. Armorbearer777 (talk) 05:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Armorbearer, the only editor misbehaving here is you. Several experienced editors have been trying to help you understand and conform with site policies in a polite and helpful way and you have been responding with nothing but accusations. Making accusations of cronyism, harassment and stealth canvassing are not civil. Either substantiate them or stop making them. You declared a conflict of interest and then went right off and made more COI edits. You don't seem to understand the damage that can result for real-world organizations if public allegations arise that their members may be manipulating Wikipedia articles, whether it's authorized or not. You wiki-linked an article on a British actor as a reference for a swordsmanship article. Clearly your edits need to be monitored at this time, that is not badgering. We have a high tolerance for mistakes made by new editors, but we do expect them to learn from their own mistakes. You seem to think it is all other people making the mistakes. It is becoming disruptive and my patience is wearing thin. Franamax (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

And to prove my points once again he blanks his page, totally ignores what has been said to him and cries about conspiracies. Ridernyc (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen this

User_talk:Rubbersocks that warning seems to have come out of nowhere. I think it's time we start talking block. Ridernyc (talk) 11:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

If I could figure out who the puppetmaster of Rubbersocks is, I would definitely go for a checkuser. If I can pin down anyone trying to bait or bother Armor, I will nail them as best I can. I looked at that earlier today, it's an account jumping out of the closet. Armor should have just ignored it, but I don't expect anywhere near that savvy out of them yet. What, tenth edit [18] is to suggest another editor go elsewhere? Gimme a break. No foul on that one, not great, but mehh. Franamax (talk) 11:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"Need Your Love So Bad"

I have been researching “Need Your Love So Bad” (Fleetwood Mac et al). The song writing credit has me going round in circles. Some sources cite Little Willie John, some his brother (?) Mertis John Jr., and yet others name both of them. This might not be a reliable source but … [19]. I am asking a few Wikipedians, but have you any thoughts, before I go completely insane. No comments on that latter point please ! Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

An other discussion at the Dutch Auteursrechtencafé

Hi Canada, who are you? There is an other discussion at the Dutch Auteursrechtencafé copyright on designobjects, see here. Do you happen to know if there is an expert in English/American/Canadian copyright on designobjects, whom I can ask a couple of questions concering those images on wikipedia and commons? There is an Italian administrator on commons, who seems to have very specific ideas about (no) copyright on designobjects, see also here. I hope you can give me name or so. Thanks. -- Mdd (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dutch, things are well here since we won all the gold medals. :) I think it might be a good idea to ask at copyright questions or read through there to find a good contributor to approach. Images are not really my specialty. Google translates the nl:wiki discussion pretty well and nl:wiki is tolerant of English-speakers so people at MCQ may be willing to help. My own thought was that anything on commons is free in all countries, so it would only have images taken in countries where the image was permitted and was also permitted under US law. But if it's to be viewed on a language-specific wiki in a third country where the use is not permitted, I'm not sure at all. And your servers are in Germany I think, so Deutsche (and EU) law may apply too. Does nl:wiki have a separate foundation? Maybe they could be asked also. Franamax (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, all that gold. Many congratulations...!! In the Netherlands this was an Olympics many people will regret untill their graves. Anywas thanks for the WP:MCQ tip. I guess I will just start a discussion their soon myself. A discussion about this started on commons in the mean time here. One more thing. I was under the impression that the servers are in Amsterdam, in your favorite city. -- Mdd (talk) 11:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course the servers are in Amsterdam, how silly of me. I'm sorry if the Dutch athletes did not do as well as hoped. Every other Olympics I can remember, the story in Canada has been "why aren't we winning medals?" so this was the first time I didn't have to listen to all that complaining. Franamax (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Why do you keep reverting changes to Jason Kenney's page?

?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.92.135.204 (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Because the wording in the text that keeps getting put in is prejudicial and written from one POV. I've already opened a discussion on the talk page and invited suggestions on how to properly incorporate the material, perhaps you can comment there. Just blindly reverting to keep a preferred version is not good enough. When the text is properly written, it can go in the article. Franamax (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Mentoring

Franamax -- I hope you are willing to help me with what appears to be a non-standard problem-set.

1st try -- message was plausibly "puzzling" or too complicated

At best, this enquiry will serve as a tipping point which reminds you of favorable first impressions. At worst, this diff becomes the sound of one hand clapping. The topic needing resolution is something to do with organizing? or structural planning? This is a draft effort to use graphics as a tool in crafting a non-verbose response to Carcharoth's diffs here and here. Please help me improve this with constructive criticism. What I construe as Carcharoth's main points are highlighted in yellow. Your WP:Escalating alphabeticals has been featured in a section highlighted in pink. I plan to post the following in an ArbCom thread. Can it be made clearer? shorter? better? If you please, I hope you will help resolve this situation by making a thoughtful comment at active ArbCom thread. Note: The text highlighted in beige is already posted in the thread. Arbitrator views and discussion I note the comments of a few of the editors approached to act as mentors. I would like to know (a) how you will address differences amongst yourselves (a situation we have encountered in other mentoring situations); (b) what range of actions you are willing to undertake as individuals and as a group; (c) how the "group" will work when Tenmei is also receiving private advice from individuals not specifically included in the group of mentors. In answer to the question above, Tenmei's six-month topic ban on the subject of Tang Dynasty begins once the mentorship is approved. Risker (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC) This can't move forward until Risker's questions above are answered. Could a clerk please notify the editors who need to comment here. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Tenmei, if you want DGG to comment here, by all means invite him to do so. As for your comments about "raising the bar", it is not unreasonable for us to ask the possible mentors to lay out here what they see as their role in all this. I count, so far, Doc James and Kraftlos (of those you list) and in addition to this, Nihonjoe and Coppertwig. The layout at User talk:Tenmei/Sub-page Alerts is impressive, but there needs to be some indication of how this will work, otherwise this risks becoming a time sink if it goes wrong. Carcharoth (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Tenmei, I'm supportive of you resuming editing with mentors, but please be patient and wait for other arbitrators and those willing to mentor you to respond here. I realise it must be frustrating for you, but if you wait just a little bit longer and let others speak, then we may finally get something workable set up here. We want this to work, not collapse because it was not set up properly. Carcharoth (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC) GOOD — yes, of course "...it is not unreasonable for us to ask the possible mentors to lay out here what they see as their role in all this"Carcharoth NO -- it is unreasonable to pose ill-defined hypotheticals. Unreasonable to expect anyone to formulate crisp analysis or "answers" given that parameters of prospective mentoring issues are non-specific. The flexible role of mentors exists to address unforeseen problematic circumstances which can only happen as the future unfolds. Establishing tentative framework of organization and plan for mentoring task force is accomplished; but it was and continues to be a time sink in relation to primary mentoring objectives, e.g., addressing express WP:TLDR problems. --Tenmei (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC) WRONG "...there needs to be some indication of how this will work, otherwise this risks becoming a time sink if it goes wrong."Carcharoth NO -- No one can predict how this is going to work. The only thing to be done is to see how the teamwork relationships evolve across coming weeks and months. NO -- this is already a time sink with no observable rewards/outcomes, no difference in non-contextualized speculations, no way to distinguish "right" or "wrong", and no apparent linkages with •cohort of allegations in record •principles adduced in record •findings-of-fact adduced in record •remedies adduced in record •record of ArbCom uninvolved inaction. --Tenmei (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC) DISCONNECT? or DISJUNCTION? Further speculative planning is unproductive. Conventions of law of diminishing returns inform prudent decision to terminate pre-planning. The exercise is nothing other than a discouraging time sink. --Tenmei (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC) "...please be patient and wait for other arbitrators and those willing to mentor you to respond here. I realise it must be frustrating for you, but if you wait just a little bit longer and let others speak" Carcharoth NO -- Frustration? Frustration of purpose? I have now waited for NINE MONTHS for responses to questions about what happened in the ArbCom case. •Sept 09, waiting 3 months -- Carcharoth e-mail postpones questions with delay •Dec 09, waiting 6 months -- complaint-driven ArbCom adopts to conclusory allegations without scrutiny or discussion, ArbCom requires delay until mentors can be located •Mar 10, waiting 9 months -- ArbCom exacerbates time sink with delay NO -- Frustration = Aggravation? Making things worse? And this helps to mitigate WP:TLDR in what way? --Tenmei (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC) "...then we may finally get something workable set up here. We want this to work, not collapse because it was not set up properly."Carcharoth NO -- the notion that ArbCom has anything to do with "setting something up" is an illustration of The Emperors New Clothes which entails adverse consequences of pointless delay. NO -- collapse or failure has little or nothing to do with ArbCom except •avoiding time sink of parsing theories and hypotheticals •ensuring that volunteer mentors receive ArbCom's support and encouragement and thanks in addition to mine •determining parameters for decision-making which leads to ending involuntary mentorship. --Tenmei (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Involuntary mentorship is defined as punitive. •NINE MONTHS of punishment for what? teaches constructive lessons in what way? •THREE MONTHS blocked editing for what? expands comprehension or understanding in what manner? And this helps to mitigate WP:TLDR as predictable sequelae from what methods? Summarizing this record: Escalating alphabeticals, catchwords, catch phrases, etc. have overwhelmed coherent discussion with references to policy acronyms and loaded language. My seriatim responses were derided as WP:TLDR ... and delay muddied an already complicated array of facts, factoids and factors. --Tenmei (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Hypotheticals In theory, it is not unreasonable to ask hypothetical questions; but in practice, the attempt can easily devolve into a time sink. Illustrating the point with a timely issue: Is there a constructive value in examining failures attributable to ArbCom — serial incidents in which ArbCom snatched defeat from the jaws of victory? Can you suggest a better way to solicit your help in a specific context? Please contact me by e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

My initial message is now collapsed. A couple of mentors offered suggestions about how I could have written differently:

• diff "I would suggest writing shorter responses ... and just in general not try to summarize the entire situation ...." -- Kraftlos 19:39, 18 March 2010
• diff "I am learning to give people what they ask for. If they want more info, they'll ask for it ... [which] would be better than being flooded with information that must be sorted through. --McDoobAU93 00:40, 19 March 2010

Let's pretend I didn't send you the "1st try" message. Instead, let's assume this "2nd try" message is the beginning of an unanticipated new thread.

If you please, I want to ask for two things:

Advice. I want to ask for comments about the use of format as a device (a) to focus my comments and (b) to limit the number of words.

Action. Will you post a comment at the active ArbCom thread about a mentoring group for me?

Thank you for your willingness to help me to re-think a style of communication which is a barrier to my working collaboratively with other people in our Wikipedia venue. --19:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Franamax. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Comments by uninvolved editors need to cease.
Message added 20:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NW (Talk) 20:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This is probably just me, but....

Do you get the banner - Live near San Francisco, or in the US, and have an hour to help Wikipedia? on your Wiki screen from time to time ? It is probably cleverly filtered so as to not annoy some editors. Well, it is sending me mad. I tell you, this really is 'Ameripedia'. Can I write to Jim Bob Billy Bob 'Y All Wales and remind him that not everybody lives in Beverly Hills ? Or will it cause a complete collapse of their 'America and we rule the world' philosophy. Sorry for the rant, but if I tried to post a banner stating Live near East Yorkshire, or in the United Kingdom, and watch Coronation Street and have an hour to help Wikipedia?, do you think it would get posted. Bastard Americans. I am going to bed disgruntled, as you can probably tell, and it is absolutely nothing to do with you. Sorry.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it has something to do with "geonotices", let's see if WP:GEONOTICE is blue or red. I've been meaning to ask about it at WP:VPT anyway (geonotice that is) 'cause I suspect it of running slowly and making pages take longer to load. I've noticed it pop up a few times, it's probably a misconfiguration and I believe it's being discussed in other places. It turns out misconfiguration of software is a universal, not a national, trait. :) And seeing has how I live at about 200th Avenue and 0th Avenue is the US border and I've worked and been friends with dozens of Americans and Canada and the US are each others best customers and continental defence allies and all, no, for me they're not bastards. I do frequently disagree with US government policy and US cultural attitudes but Americans themselves turn out to be pretty decent people by and large. Franamax (talk) 01:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, and I am truly sorry for my diatribe. I have a real aversion to the Americanisation of everything, and the fact that their culture seems to perpetuate a belief that they are the centre of the universe. I have lost count of the number of articles that simply state that Oh My God Thompson is a musician (nationality apparently presumed). If you are lucky the article may say that they come from Yankeeville, VA, as if everyone in the world knows exactly where that is. The abbreviation of States took me several years to work out (MI, MS, MO etc.) so the casual, non US, reader is probably left scratching their heads. However, the very worst of it is that I am venting my spleen with a Canadian, who is left trying to defend another nation's people / culture / politics / et al. Apologies old boy; as we silly old buggers in the UK say, my comments were definitely 'not cricket'.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Derek, as a Brit who lives in the US, I sympathise! – ukexpat (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Yes

Regarding this note [20] from you: Yes, please explain, because I find it very troubling. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

About Diff #6

Ref here. I admitted in my statement that it was an attempt to get the pro AGW mockery to stop without opening up sanctions threads on the four prior users who were being quite out of bounds. "In fairness if they are sanctioned for this, I would admit that I should be too." was how I put it. If I'm going to get a ding for this one, are you going to also ding the other four? I don't know if selective prosecution on a rule violation is against the rules of Wikipedia so this is an honest curiosity of how we're supposed to treat that. *Should* I have opened up sanctions threads on the four users instead of the action that I took in trying to turn the conversation away from the content-free mean spirited turn it had? TMLutas (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

A comment that the conversation seemed to be content-free and mean-spirited, with a suggestion as to how it could be refocussed or closed, how about that? Sarcasm is not conducive to discussion; if you think a discussion should end, just say so. And no, opening up sanction threads probably wouldn't have been a good idea, because I don't think you could sustain a thesis of wrongdoing. I didn't assess the conversation as particularly mean-spirited, but in any case, you could have just asked for it to stop and given your reasons in a better-worded way. Franamax (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Afterwriting

I'm sorry thatyou've been sucked into Afterwriting's misunderstanding. He has made personal attacks and that was the warning I placed on his page. It was a template. I was not being uncivil. I commented that he should not make these personal attacks on Talk:The Reverend‎ and then placed a warning template on his talk page. That is not being uncivil. Since he has a history of attacking editors rather than their edits, I feel that an admin should speak to him about that. Once again, thanks for your tireless work on Wikipedia and I'm sorry that you have been sucked-in to this. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is Walter, templates can often be misinterpreted. They carry a guise of officialdom due to their standard formatting style, but unless you're willing to escalate them (in the way vandalism levels 1 through 4 lead to WP:AIV lead to blocking [of someone]), they are just sniping. A template message actually prevents you from resolving the dispute, it conveys an impersonal message without invitation for a rational response. It's basically you making a judgement and stamping it onto someone else, you leave no possibility of a peaceful resolution other than doing what you want to happen. Franamax (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Understood. Will comment on specifics before I place warnings. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

misc.

I inferred you were going to send me an e-mail. Maybe hold off for a day or two, when I'll be a little calmer about things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

My thinking exactly! :) These aren't quick'n'angry issues. Franamax (talk) 05:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The sockpuppet is back

Hey, that sockpuppet seems to have reared its ugly head again. Both Quebec100 and 70.83.236.78 appear to be posting the same kind of image vandalism as Caro 08 and Quebec7440. Just thought I'd bring it to your attention. Cheers, --MTLskyline (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, looks close enough for me. I've blocked Q100 and the IP and also opened another SPI to get it on the record (and reviewed for any mistakes I may have made). Thanks for the tip. Franamax (talk) 05:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --MTLskyline (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Mediation and unrelated question

Thank you for your offer of help in the mediation between BQZip01 and Hammersoft. So far I've got it in hand, but I'll give you a holler if I need help. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

CC enforcement blah etc

Sorry bout that. I had promised myself to stay away from Lar but backslid. As penance for my sins I will go listen to some Celine Dion albums. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well he's not parroting that "we have to all raise our game" thing anymore, that's a good thing. ;) Navigating a space where you form opinions about behaviour amd content but at the same time have to suppress those opinions in the interest of overall positive outcomes - yeah, get's wearisome. And I'm saying this after only hitting the first wall, four months into adminship. No-one warned me that I would actually feel a responsibility to deal with difficult matters. Franamax (talk) 05:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Milhist task forces on Remembrance Day article

Hello Franamax,

The Remembrance Day article is currently sitting in the Category:Military history articles with no associated task force. I notice that this is because of the edit you made removing them from the article talk page: [21]. Can you please clarify why you've removed them and which task force you feel it should be added to? The task forces should be fairly non-controversial but your edit summary seems to indicate that you feel that perhaps it is a controversial issue. From my point of view, as one of the co-ordinators of the Military history project, it should go in at least one task force for the project, so I would like to discuss with you what your perspective is on this matter. Thank you. (Please feel free to reply on this page, as I will watchlist it so the discussion can be kept together). — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It was mostly just a knee-jerk reaction at seeing an article talk page with a vast preamble of projects and a huge post-amble of categories. Very much an emotional response, I can find a cenotaph in most small Canadian towns, but they're not quite so gaudy. The "task force" bit was the most jarring (and the easiest bit to slim the cats) - these people are dead, killed. An endless list of categories just feels wrong, get the task forces over with and let them rest. I'm not that impressed with the "low-importance" cats either, nor the "selected articles" - it's a much more important day than that, at least in Canada pretty much everything stops for 2 minutes. Like I say, emotional response, so I labelled the edit as bold so it could be reverted or amended at will. Franamax (talk) 11:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your position. I think I can understand where you are coming from. It is an emotional topic, however, as a project with thousands of articles, task forces are how we (the Military history project) sort the information we have so that articles can be managed and improved. I do not believe that categorising this information in this way in any way cheapens the actual tragedy of what is contained in the article, or lessens the sacrifice of those that gave their lives. Your point about how much the day means in Canada underlines the point of having the multiple task forces listed. In Australia, Britain, New Zealand and elsewhere it means just as much, hence that was probably why the article was tagged with those task forces also. I will add the task forces back in, however, if you feel strongly about the issue I ask that you start a thread somewhere and invite interested parties to comment, so that the community at large can decide what is best. Thank you for your time. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

No prob, whatever. And I recognize how widespread the observance is too, in a way it's comforting to know that anguish is shared. What tasks are the task forces essaying though? Are the tasks completed? If not, what needs to be done? Franamax (talk) 12:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Good question. The complete list of Milhist task forces can be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Task forces. There are 48 currently (although there is a proposal currently to merge the Australian with the New Zealand task force into one). To be honest, I don't think they will ever be finished. Ultimately, the task force exists to maintain the articles that exist within its domain, not necessarily just to create content that doesn't yet exist. However, each task force does maintain a list of requested articles that currently don't exist, as well as articles that need clean-up, expansion, etc. These can be found by going to the task force page, and scrolling down to the appropriate section. An example is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Canadian military history task force. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

TheClerksWell

Hi, Franamax. Our friend TheClerksWell seemed to be asking for it, so I blocked him for 24 hours for violating WP:3RR. Now, I'm pretty new to this blocking stuff (the only other block I've ever done is to a misbehaving bot), so I'd like you to double-check that what I've done seems appropriate. In particular, I blocked him from editing his own talk page (since that's where the problem lies)—was that too extreme? Please feel free to modify or undo the block if you think it should be changed. Thanks. —Bkell (talk) 05:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh you sly dog, I had an indef block all ready to click! Yeah, looks good. I'm sure that by the time I click back over you will have put in a block template with the email addy for unblock-en-l. Your parameters look OK to me, except you know, we're gonna be back there in 24 hours. :( Good judgement though, you beat me by mere seconds. :) Franamax (talk) 05:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, there's probably a template I'm supposed to put on his talk page, right? Just a second, let me learn about that… —Bkell (talk) 05:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. —Bkell (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I hate putting templates on user talk pages, I don't think I ever did once before I had to figure out those block notice templates. It's so much more effective to talk like a human IMO, but they come in handy to be sure you've observed all the niceties of OMGBlocked!, which is after all a pretty major step to take. Franamax (talk) 05:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm glad there was a template I could use, to make it clear that I am following an established process and not just pursuing a personal vendetta. A template is impersonal, sure, but an impersonal message is exactly what was needed, I think—after all, this is not a personal dispute. —Bkell (talk) 06:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking over my "work," by the way. I appreciate it. I'm sorry I beat you to the punch—I'll let you take care of things in 24 hours. :-) —Bkell (talk) 06:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, in 24 hours I'm hoping to be very well-fed and slightly logy as I digest. I propose general watchfulness. BTW your last two posts here happened to show up while I was still clicking through various windows and both times I saw the orange bar and thought "How the heck did the guy manage to put his prank onto an article history page?" and then managed to piece it together.:) Franamax (talk) 06:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hahahahaha. —Bkell (talk) 06:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BQZip01 and Hammersoft and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BQZip01

You wanted me to make my case regarding this, so here I am.

Hello. This dispute between myself and BQZip01 has been running on for some 15 months now. I want it resolved. Since all other methods of resolving this dispute have so far failed, I felt forced into starting an RfC. If the RfC does not move forward, the dispute will remain. Where I'm right or wrong, or BQZip01 is right or wrong, is immaterial. The dispute itself must end. If it doesn't end at an RfC, it will continue to get worse.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BQZip01 and Hammersoft as you noted was properly certified by Syrthiss and TransporterMan. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BQZip01 has yet to be properly certified, though TransporterMan has. Observing Syrthiss's editing patterns, he stays away from Wikipedia on the weekends. It's unlikely he'll see the request to certify Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BQZip01 before Monday. Yet, both RfCs contain the exact same content in so far as what I've added. I think it's very safe to presume Syrthiss would certify Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BQZip01. Yet, if it's not certified by Sunday, it will be deleted. He won't see it before Sunday. I ask JulianColton to certify it, as he's mentioned in the both RfCs. An oversight on my part resulted in my not asking him to certify the first. I did ask him to certify the second, and it appears he does not want to become involved.

At this stage, the two RfCs are essentially identical. To delete BQZip01's preferred version would be a detriment to the dispute resolution process; the dispute will sustain. If -I- copy Syrthiss's certification, it's likely to not produce the desired results. I want the dispute resolution process to move forward. If the 2nd RfC is deleted for lack of certification that won't happen. If we go back to the 1st RfC, BQZip01 is refusing to participate.

If you copied Syrthiss's cerfication, with an attached note regarding that certification pending Syrthiss's logging back in, and notified Syrthiss as to your actions, I think we could avoid deleting the 2nd RfC and give BQZip01 the platform he is willing to contribute to.

If this isn't possible, I'll prefer to revert back to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BQZip01 and Hammersoft before 21:53 UTC tonight, as it has, as you note, been properly certified.

Policies and guidelines aren't suicide pacts. We need to resolve this dispute once and for all. Failing to resolve it over procedural grounds is not a solution. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Part of the point above is moot now with this edit. I still feel its inappropriate to have two concurrently running RfCs, one for BQZ and one for me. They're deeply intertwined, and will end up referring back and forth to each other. They are not separate disputes. It would be like starting an ArbCom case for every person involved in a dispute. Regardless, I do not want the joint RfC deleted at this time. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Mentoring

Franamax -- My ArbCom mentorship thread still remains in limbo. Perhaps your comment at active ArbCom thread might be helpful?

Let me take this opportunity to thank you for creating WP:Escalating alphabeticals. I can only hope that ArbCom will be perusaded by your words as I have been. I contrived a hyperlink to your essay; and I included it in a message to ArbCom members who commented in the "clarification" thread. I wrote:

Ping.

Now what? Cui bono?

• This whatever-it-is is indistinguishable from punishment; and I'm left wondering what precisely am I being punished for?
• What recidivism is thus prevented?

How are the volunteer mentors and others in the community expected to construe this thread? What are you going to do? --Tenmei 26 April 2010

---> See: [[Wikipedia:Escalating alphabeticals|wondering '''what precisely am I being punished for'''?]]

Thank you for your willingness to help me to re-think a style of communication which is identified as a problem.

Please construe this as a renewed invitation to join the mentorship group. --Tenmei (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Pershing

I think it was probably both that it was less racist and sounded better -- reporters always go for catchy rhyming phrases like "Black Jack". No source for that, though, so I'm not reverting -- besides any sentences with two "eu-" words in it (euphemized and euphonic) probably needs to be trimmed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I can think of two avenues (if it's a free-speculation zone): Blackjack and/or black Jack is a great card-playing reference probably just as current then as now; or Black Jack as in flying a pirate flag/bad-news-if-he-shows-up. Either are plausible reasons for media spin (though at the time it was a single medium wasn't it - the fourth estate?) Nevertheless it seems quite clear that nigger was how it started, and the derivation was mainly to avoid use of the particular term. 'Cause otherwise where did the term "Black Jack" come from? Let's just be clear in our language (and infoboxing). Franamax (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I agree that it started with NJ and mutated (probably deliberately) to BJ. Is "Black Jack" really a name for the pirate flag? I thought it was the "Jolly Roger". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, "blackjack", the card game, was certainly current as of 1916 - I just came across it in a NYT article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

My thinking is fly the "Union Jack" or fly the "Black Jack" if you pledge dis-allegiance. Go back a hundred years or two (before "U.S.A." became a term) and it would make more sense. I'm sure as heck not gonna be showing sources. :) What flag did the privateers fly? Franamax (talk) 03:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm familiar with "jack" as a name for a naval ensign, I just don't recall hearing "black jack" as a name for the pirate flag, although it make perfect sense. I'm not sure what privateers did -- since they were operating under commission from a particular country, perhaps they flew that country's flag? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Didn't they fly a black ensign? And/or a black jack? As opposed to the caricature flag with the skull'n'bones where the subject ship would only know it was not a privateer (where everyone comes out alive and un-raped) until the marauding ship was close enough to not be escaped? Just scattin' here, but now that I think about black jacks... I'm seriously thinking that maybe privateers flew a black jack by obligation. Hmmm. Franamax (talk) 03:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable has some interesting usages for "black jack" -- a large tar-covered leather pouch for beer, a blend of zinc sulphide used by Cornish miners, the American scrub oak, and, of course, the small leather-covered club or cosh used by every gangster in every 1940s film ever made -- but nothing about pirate or privateers' flags. You're thinking that they flew a plain black ensign? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Dunno. I'm wondering how a privateering ship indicates whilst upon the main that they wish another ship to heave-to and stand ready for boarding. A national flag wouldn't be sufficient methinks, even if hoist with whatever stand-to flag was common at the time. Even a shot across the bow would be risking the prixe, what with everyone being given liberal shots of grog at the time. "Oops...OK, next time we'll definitely try not to hit the ship we want to capture". I'm not getting a good sense of how flags were used from our privateer article but I'm relatively sure that flags were extremely important back in the day. Franamax (talk) 04:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how authoritative it is, but this article seems to know what it's talking about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Authority or not, thanks for that link! Seems there was indeed a specific ensign indicating a privateer sailing right toward your own ship, with intent to, umm, privatise? I'll have to study it further, including all zero external links, but it seems to confirm my suspicions from childhood (I haven't thought much about signal flags for quite some years now). You have referenced red jacks and black jacks. Now I'm wondering whether the playing card or the banner came first. Franamax (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Ben Johnson 1988 Olympics - LAC a175370k.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ben Johnson 1988 Olympics - LAC a175370k.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Mosmof (talk) 03:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tim Horton - Toronto Maple Leafs - LAC E002343748.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tim Horton - Toronto Maple Leafs - LAC E002343748.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Evidence filed against you in the current "Climate change" Arbitration case

Here's the evidence I've filed against you in the current "Climate change" Arb case: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence#Jehochman and Franamax, as administrators, violating WP:NPA, WP:AGF and promoting a WP:BATTLEGROUND atmosphere -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Climate change moving to Workshop

This Arbitration case is now moving into the Workshop phase. Please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Workshop to understand the process. Editors should avoid adding to their evidence sections outside of slight tweaks to aid in understanding; large-scale additions should not be made. Many proposals have already been made and there has already been extensive discussion on them, so please keep the Arbitrators' procedures in mind, namely to keep "workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible." Workshop proposals should be relevant and based on already provided evidence; evidence masquerading as proposals will likely be ignored. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just sent you an e-mail

-- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

and a second email. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Grace Kelly at Expo67 - LAC e000996509.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Grace Kelly at Expo67 - LAC e000996509.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, someone moved the image, and didn't link it properly...Cheers and happy Naadam.--kelapstick (talk) 09:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix!! Franamax (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Shadow Android's Pic

How can that NOT be a non-free image? It is featured on the Shadow the Hedgehog site. Shadow Android (talk) 06:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Refactored/replied to user talk page. Franamax (talk) 06:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful input at the PD page

I refer to your comments here. I found them quite insightful. I'm glad to see your participation at the general sanctions page as well. I think it's interesting that you have the perception that I don't see both factions as problematic. Based on recent statements by me that's certainly a supportable perception so I need to do better at articulating that. But I also think that ATren's response was pretty good. If you'd like to discuss further I'm open, here or on my talk... which as you know is a pretty visible page so would get input from others as well if we removed to there. Best. ++Lar: t/c 14:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC and escalating alphabeticals

In the limited context established at Wikipedia:Escalating alphabeticals, please consider adding an outside view at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor. The correspondence between the essay and the RfC is not exact, but I recognize congruence in the tactics of (a) conflating issues and (b) sidetracking.

In my view, your essay presents an arguably useful tool in a process of highlighting the elephant in the room. If not, why not? --Tenmei (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

PIG

Actually the increase in flow of PIG is not intimately bound with global warming. Atmospheric warming almost certainly has absolutely nothing directly to do with flow increases on PIG seeing as the average annual temperature is -25 deg C and the surface never reaches freezing point, but nice attempt at trying to use this editing to prove I am a climate change fanatic. Polargeo (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo, you are bringing a pretty high level of hostility to proceedings. I have never tried to prove you are a "climate change fanatic" in any way. And I was referring to warm ocean water having an effect on PIG, not slightly warmer freezing-cold air. Franamax (talk) 06:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved Party Needed

I remember you did a good job mediating a disagreement at Christian Metal. I will refrain from comment but I hope you have the time to take a look at the conflict at Concept Album which has now devolved into name calling. Ridernyc (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

IP 65.25.178.154 had been blocked for 3 months last April 28.[22] Their very first edit after the block was lifted was to begin repeating that same pattern of vandalism.[23]. My sense is that more than 3 months is merited, as the IP is an assigned Roadrunner static IP from Herndon, Virginia,[24] and being used only by someone who seems determined to continue that same patern of vandalism. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

As the IP began more vandalism after two "only warnings" and after I finished removing the 50-odd edits from July 29 til now,[25] and knowing you were away for a bit, I asked Cirt to block the static IP.[26] We'll see what happens 6 months from now.[27] Thanks for asking me to clean up. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I've opened a request for modification of the prior sanction at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#William_M._Connolley_comment_editing_restriction_modification. ++Lar: t/c 18:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Input please

I'd appreciate your input and feedback regarding my proposed proposed remedy/enforcement found here. Thanks. Minor4th 17:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Castro-Trudeau 1976 - LAC PA136976.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Castro-Trudeau 1976 - LAC PA136976.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Rude IP comments

Previously titled "Communist ass licker!" [also e/c during refactor] Franamax (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, that's what you are being accused of. Please see User talk:217.113.225.18 and its history. Thanks, and have a nice day! Drmies (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, yeah. Don't you know they conspire to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids? –MuZemike 22:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

More admin abuse, clearly, from an unrepentant POV warrior. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Drmies. I changed the heading, just thinking about my talk archives. :) You can just remove that kind of stuff, or bring it to another admin's attention if it's persistent. MuZemike, what a great movie! Still, I'm glad to live in Vancouver where god delivers our water. Lots of water. Lots. :) Franamax (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I know, but I thought that maybe you wanted to exercise your mop a bit more. You are much less vindictive than I might be; kudos. Drmies (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the issue you raised on my talk page

I think you raise some excellent points, however there are some salient issues you seem to have missed. Your feelings on the matter are important to me, and I would like to hear what you have to say in response to my further comments. --Jayron32 05:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Cowed by Elsie?

You're onto something. I could keep a quick postable link or two (on my PC where no one else can touch them) and post them whenever this comes up. That could save a lot of time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

An FYI

Since you've been dealing with this, an ANI thread has been started at WP:ANI#User:Ludwigs2 advocating other users commit rape.. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Assist please?

Seems a few article being held at WP:Incubate's "Category:Article Incubator candidate for articlespace" are not being evaluated. Could you please review THESE as all 4 appear ready, though I can speak knowledgably only about 2... Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Demarco Morgan and Wikipedia:Article Incubator/A Marine Story.

1. the article on Demarco Morgan was sent to Incubator only because it did not have sources when at AFD in order for it to be improved.[28] Since incubation, the article has been cleaned-up, expanded, and properly sourced. It's ready.
2. the article on A Marine Story was sent because the film was not released at the time of AFD. [29] It was incubated to await release and coverage. The film was subsequently released, received many decent reviews, and the article has now been expanded and sourced to reflect its release and coverage. It's ready.

I'd do it myself, but would prefer a second set of eyes. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• A Marine Story looks OK to me and even notable based on my hazy understanding of film notability. I took out the sentence about the type of camera used - did it contribute something of note to artistic quality?

• Sometimes film equpment used for particular cinemagraphic effect does relate to an artistic quality of completed film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Gave it a few more tweaks for style and tone. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Demarco Morgan also looks OK to me, though I have a style quibble: The sentence about the Ebony list is pretty tortured, I would word it as "was listed" and then "why listed", not the other way around. Now since I usually like to see the actual source, I checked Google Books, Ebony has a deal with Google to put their archives there. The article is here, page 120. So first of all, you should be using that as the source, right? And one more source to support your selection of quotes from the Ebony article.

• I have untwisted the sentence and added the cite. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Crash I'd say not ready yet, maybe never will be. There seems to be no discussion of viewership, critical reaction, significance, etc. and I don't really understand why I or anyone else would ever want to read it. All the links are to stubs, maybe these people are notable in Denmark but I see no "story" to read here. Also whatever arguments would be based on the notability guidelines I guess. :)

• Did not seem ready to me either, but the editor who had been working on it thought it was. Maybe drop him/her a line? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• MULTICUBE I would have thought would be notable of its own right, the EU Framework Programmes are a big deal in the science/technology community, at least in Europe. I see though that Thad declined a move and since then the changes add sources for the project results but not for any third-party discussion. And looking at it again, there still is no demonstration of notability. I spent a while looking and found nothing that wasn't in some way tied back to the project itself. I think my initial reaction was "it's taxpayer money, hell yeah there should be an article, was the money well spent?" but really, that's not good enough. :) Could it be merged somewhere? The FP7 article may be too high-level, I didn't read all that much of it. Maybe [[WP:COMPUTING] could help find a home for the material?

Have a thought to rewording the Morgan article. I'll have one more look at the film one. Franamax (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Been done. Busy day, but finally was able to get to it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Inside and outside

Franamax, I will freely admit (here) that I find your point most compelling. I am, however, extremely wary toward too much WP:ANIsm in our little protected garden of reference dandelions. I think the deskians are basically a very tolerant group. More so, perhaps, than the WP:ANI crowd. Situations like this one, however, can turn us into an angry bunch (all sorts of dynamics are involved here, and it would be a lie to say that SteveBaker's status as a SciDesk luminary has nothing whatsoever to do with it). Being slapped and told that this won't do by someone who has zero history (or awareness of history) is (hopefully) proof, that the RefDesk folks, including our admins, are a lenient and laid back crowd. I want to keep it that way. In the interest of minimizing personalized conflicts, I guess I want WP:ANI to do the dirty work. I never wanted this to turn into a didactic exercise for anyone, but I'm relieved that C3 wasn't blocked by a refdesk regular. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

PS, if I had expected the restriction to work, I might not have oppsed (I still wouldn't have supported). I am convinced, WP:AGF notwithstanding, that C3 would have pushed it this far, restrictions or no restrictions. The only difference would have been that we have a precedent of handcuffing a volunteer at WT:RD. This is perhaps not a very persuasive rationale, but it might help you understand my position. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm certainly alive to the potential for abuse within a walled garden. I didn't see that potential in the discussion in question, since it was widely enough attended and had good views being expressed. Had it gone off into bashing territory, I would have joined you at the barricades. Of course I'm bound to be swayed by my own personal opinion on how to solve the problem, but it really didn't seem like a situation where two or three editors got together to plot an arbitrary course of action. I'll agree with you on having a feeling of relief that the "bad-ness" of the situation was so resoundingly confirmed in such a definitive manner, by a removed party.

I will though stick to my belief that matters should be settled first at as low a level as possible. I think there is a fundamental unfairness to channeling everything through ANI, in particular for editors who know ANI as a distant concept rather than the brutal reality. I'm more familiar with the environment and can handle myself there, that's not always true of each editor - so I feel it's a bit unfair for me to bring conflict to that arena and I'd prefer not to see others get dragged in if they're not up to speed. Nice to have as a safety valve, but wouldn't want to make a habit of it. :)

I really think everyone was participating from genuine motives, hopefully we can craft a welcoming environment when C3 returns too. Side note, I read your "On singling out editors" post at WT:RD with great interest and find it quite valid in large part. I'm still thinking on how to properly implement your ideas. I've certainly had success in the past with private communication (email) as a way of discussing things informally and effecting small changes (or not) in behaviour. It's a fine line though, between communicating transparently and communicating effectively. Thanks for the food for thought! Franamax (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Lol, I tried to type out my thoughts twice, but I can't capture what I want to say. Just letting you know that I appreciate your reply a lot, and that I'm thinking about it and also reconsidering my stance. I'll let you know when I have something relevant to say. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

misc

Speaking of Freudian slips... "busing" multiple accounts? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I had that fixed before you oranged me, I swears it! :) Are you not familiar with the technique of doubling your edit count using typos? Franamax (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

And it's one of the areas where I'd be fine if you fixed it with "presumed typo" in the summary. Even though that violates my policy of never ever encouraging Baseball Bugs. ;) Franamax (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Can ya do me a favor....?

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/$30 Film School: I was a major contributor to that article, and involved in it surviving an earlier AFD... but was never informed that it was sent to AFD a second time, not that I am blaming new editor User:Kindzmarauli. Could you please userfy it for me to the sandbox I have waiting at User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/$30 Film School so that I might look improve it before sending it to incubation for evaluation? I had asked this of the deleting editor,[30] but it appears that User:Tone is on a Wiki-break.[31] Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Done, knock yourself out dude. I see no objectionable content in any of the now-restored article versions, and hopefully I've userfied it properly. I'm pretty confident you won't hang onto it too long if it turns out you can't whip it into shape, Franamax (talk) 05:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure enough, and thanks. All I'll need a several decent reviews of the book, and showing that it is spoken abut in independent reliable sources... and then I'll send it to incubation for evaluation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

And while you're in the neighborhood...

Could you also userfy Michael W. Dean to me at User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Michael W. Dean? He's the author of $30 Film School. While working to improve THAT article,[32] I came across a lot about this guy in multiple reliable sourses. And in wondering why his article was gone, I found the AFD discussion... which led me to believe that the article was unfortunately SO poorly writen by its newb author, that she was unable to convince anyone, even with the sources she offered, that it was salvagable. Her talk page reflects her "warm welcome" to Wikipedia and its processes.[33] Sad. I dropped her a line... just in case... but she seems to have left the project after that. It may require complete rewrite, but I'm hoping the article and its "inline cites" might have enough with which to begin. Pity that she was chased off. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved administrators

The section for uninvolved admins on the Climate Change RFE page is just that - for admins. When a non-admin posts there you don't get in a conversation with them, you remove the comment. Cheers. Weakopedia (talk) 07:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Eh, it's no big deal. I asked a question. WMC answered it with his own opinion, where I'd be sure to see it. I found his terminology confusing and noted that I would do my own research, in a place WMC would probably see it. Someone else clarified the terms, where I would see it. Then someone else moved it out of the admin section, where I could go find it. No biggie, job is done, information is provided, discussion continues, all is (possibly "un") well. Thanks for the note. Franamax (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

Hi. A user has popped by my talk page to see if Central place theory plagiarizes from this pdf. I'm not sure. It does follow the structure of the original very closely,though I don't think we're in {{close paraphrase}} range. Can I trouble you for an opinion? Do you think it follows closely enough to require more specific attribution? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd say "unlikely". Commented at the article talk page. Franamax (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for slogging, and slogging so exellently at that! :D I wouldn't want to let down a class. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, well... I just found an older copy of the pdf, so I've had to change my opinion a little bit. :( I'm going to ask for advice over at WP:Economics. Franamax (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Mainland Mania

I've had to learn the hard way not to get my feelings all bent out of shape in disagreements like this, and to just walk away and not give a fuck. Which was very healthy, as the editor you mention will find out too if he really wants to be a postive contributor. Editors, like children, need to be free to skin their knees and learn therefrom. Nice to hear from another grown-up, though - appreciate ya buddy. Textorus (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hence my note about not having your email set up. Private notes are sometimes very valuable in diffusing tension, you get to exchange swear words and things you would never say (or do) on the wiki and you get the one-to-one dynamic where you both have to find a way of continuing the conversation, or else decide to end it. When you use private methods to coordinate action on-wiki of course, that's double-plus-bad.

I'm rather mystified at how that debate turned into such a maelstrom. Unstoppable force meets immovable object I suppose. Send out for popcorn and enjoy the show.

Oh yes, you really shouldn't compare editors to children. If you really want to get someone to go ballistic, that's a vrey good way to get the job done. Even if your observation is absolutely true - we don't do truth here, just verifiability. ;) Franamax (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ron's RfA questions

The unanswered ones are optional . -- Avi (talk) 03:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, but everything is optional here. If the option is to not bother to answer a Q at your own RFA, or at least provide your reasoning for why you are declining to answer, fine and well - but then I can draw conclusions about the level of diligence you are willing to devote to the role. Wacky admins are one thing, but unresponsive admins? Don't really need 'em. Just me own opinion of course. :) Franamax (talk) 04:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Umm... - warning

Thread moved from my Talk pageCuddlyable3 (talk) 08:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Cuddlyable3, do you realize that almost immediately after a block returning to the behaviour [4] you were (more or less) blocked for is pretty much grounds for an immediate reblock of equal or longer length? Had you attempted serious resolution of whatever problem you see, maybe you could skate by - but you are just making a bald statement, which looks to me like resumption of your previous disruption. I'm ready to block you myself if you do it again. Franamax (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If you wish me to explain the ambiguity in a sentence that was posted at the Ref. Desk, just ask and I shall do my best to provide it. Poster APL has acknowledged[34] the source of the error and so is equally able to explain it. It seems you have a choice between treating the messenger or the message. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)