User talk:Sannse/Archive 6

January 2006 -

Everyking

Hi Sannse, thanks for your note. I would appreciate it if you would not undo that block. Everyking must not comment on any situation Snowspinner is involved in, and the onus is on him to check whether Snowspinner's involved in something, and if he is, to withdraw from it. However, he knows very well that the block that stands is Snowspinner's. The editor he's defending on Bishonen's talk page (to the point where Bish has had to approach the arbcom for an injunction asking him to stop) was a rotten editor and highly disruptive, so the chances are high that he's making this fuss only because of Snowspinner's involvement. He is asking Bishonen to unblock, and is therefore by definition asking that Snowspinner's block be undone. His not mentioning Phil by name is just an example of system gaming and boundary testing. Please see the warnings I've left for him prior to this, which I've listed on WP:RfAr. Everyking needs consistency in the way the ruling is enforced, because he will exploit every loophole and every disagreement between admins. He therefore needs to understand that there are no loopholes and that no admin will tolerate this kind of prolonged harassment of another editor. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh I certainly know that Everyking is the master at gaming rules, but I think that we occasionally think he is doing so when he isn't - simply because he has done so so many times in the past. In this case, I think he is being annoying, and I sympathise with Bishonen having to deal with him, but I think his issue is with the original block and not with Snowspinner. Snowspinner is (as far as I can see) a silent participant in this and I don't think a criticism of Bishonen's block is also a criticism of Snowspinner. I had already taken off the block but will not under any circumstances fight over this. Maybe the solution is to get another (non-involved) admin to look at the situation and to re-block if they feel that is appropriate? I am happy to stand by their decision -- sannse (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, it's hard for me to believe that he didn't know this was Snowspinner's block right from the start, but even if he didn't, once he'd been told it was, the onus was on him to back off at that point. But still he kept on, knowing he was arguably violating the ruling. Look, the ruling was very, very clear: "Everyking shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Snowspinner, on any page in Wikipedia." Even so, Everyking asked for clarification, which shows he was trying to determine exactly where the limits were so he could nudge right up against them. Raul654 reiterated the ruling in terms that made it clear no boundary testing would be tolerated: "Everyking is not to mention, gesture, indicate, or gesticulate in any way that implies Snowspinner or any action taken by Snowspinner (including, but not limited, to Snowspinner's edits)."

Despite this, he starts to question an indefinite block imposed by Snowspinner by questioning an earlier block of the same editor by another admin, and does so to the point where Bish is asking for an injunction against him. In my view, he knows exactly what he's doing, and now he's got admins arguing over him, and the blocking admin having to defend the block on various talk pages. It's playing right into his hands. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

In this case I disagree. Snowspinner being involved on the periphery does not, in my opinion, stop Everyking questioning Bishonen's reasons for blocking. I don't regard that as commenting on Snowspinner (even indirectly). Which is why I'm suggesting we ask an un-involved admin to look at the situation. I did discuss this with another admin before unblocking, and Bishonen herself feels the block should not stand, but I'm still happy for a non-involved admin to be consulted. We have different opinions, why not let someone else give input to help in this situation? -- sannse (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I admit to being at a loss here. Everyking is asking that HW be unblocked. That means he is asking that Snowspinner's indefinite block be overturned. Your argument is that he was not aware of those facts from the start. I disagree with you, but fine, let's assume you're right. He was eventually told that the standing block was Snowspinner's. Learning this made no difference to his behavior. He therefore continued knowing he was hovering around the limits of the arbcom ruling. Let's stretch the assumption of good faith even further and assume he didn't realize this. I then posted to his talk page warning him that I saw his behavior as a violation. I had previously posted that I would enforce the ruling against him. Still, he continues. It would be incredibly naive to imagine he didn't know what he was doing by this stage at the latest. In fact, to assume he didn't realize is to assume he's remarkably unintelligent.

I'm willing to reduce the block to 24 hours in light of your concerns, but I think it should stand, and I'd really appreciate it in future if you'd approach me first with concerns about any of my blocks, rather than undoing them. We seem to have a situation at the moment where wheel wars break out over just about any block made by any admin for any reason. All that will happen now with Everyking is that he'll carry on pushing against the limits, thinking he can involve another admin and cause a fight, whereas had this stood, he might at last have understood it has to stop. If you want to ask another admin to review the block, you're very welcome to do so. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider this a wheel war, I have said clearly that I will not unblock if the block is reinstated. But I unblocked immediately as I felt that was the fairest thing to do having looked at the situation. I sorry you find this inappropriate, but I would do the same in a similar situation. I will post on AN/I to ask for the opinion of another admin in this. -- sannse (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[Offtopic pause] It's been a while since I've seen ,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ — that brings me back! El_C 21:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I could always make it my sig if it will help with your nostalgia ;) -- sannse (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

That would be pretty hysterical, actually! No pressure, though! El_C 21:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah the temptation... must... not... use... ugly ... sig... --sannse (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

OTRS

Go right ahead. Based on the history I could see, I unlocked it, but I don't think I can give it back to the root (as owner), can I? - Mgm|^(talk) 05:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It is possible to pass back to root ("zoom", and then "owner" - root is on the list). But don't worry in this case, I've got it in my queue. Thanks! -- sannse (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Fred's vote

Sure thing. It is rather different, and yet the bottom line is the same — Fred gave a supporting vote (implying that the target would be good aboard the ArbCom) and not an opposing one! Everyone should vote their consciousness, yet I was just trying to get some of the voters into more contemplative mode before jumping onto the Oppose bandwagon. --BACbKA 22:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Translation

First, I thought you meant from Portuguese, now I'm guessing you mean to Portuguese. I have a long weekend starting tomorrow, so I'll work on it then. Jim62sch 17:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Jim, I'm really sorry - I edited my sandbox while logged out to add the text I needed in Portuguese. Someone thought it was vandalism and reverted to some old random text I had there. It's the very short letter that I need help with, and not the stuff about dogs. I'm really sorry for the confusion and what must have seemed like a horribly big request! Thanks again -- sannse (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It's out there now. That dog one had me concerned.  ;) Jim62sch 22:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks that's just great -- sannse (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Gmaxwell

[1]

Hi Sannse, thanks for your post. I have nothing personal against Gmaxwell at all, and in fact know nothing about him. All I can see from his contribs is that he's incredibly rude to people in a way that goes beyond being brusque (for example, "instructing" people to stop posting outside the main namespace because he didn't like the way they voted on an RfA, or threatening to block people although he's not an admin, over issues few admins would block them for anyway). It has caused some editors either to leave or to consider leaving the project, and that makes it a problem; my aim is only to persuade him to reconsider the way he interacts with people, and I hope that's an aim you'll support. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of his interactions, and feel that your own opinion is colouring the way you are "hearing" his comments. I appreciate your good intent, but I a very worried that your conflict with him is likely to drive him off Wikipedia - something I really would hate to see. Perhaps you would consider taking a step back from this. If Gmaxwell is out of line, I'm sure others will be keen to let him know. At the moment, this is looking like a vendetta in retaliation for the image issue. Please understand that this is not an accusation in any way, just that this is the impression it is giving. I'm sure you'll agree it is often better to leave things to someone else rather than give the appearance of conflict of interest. -- sannse (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I could equally say that your relationship with him is coloring your own opinion, but where would that get us? As I see it, my experience of him has informed my opinion, not colored it. As for him being driven away, he is the one doing the driving, I'm afraid, which is why I'm intervening, because I want to make sure it doesn't happen to anyone else. All he has to do is stop attacking people and stop pretending to be an admin i.e. edit within policy and as such I'm surprised you don't support that effort. These comments [2] posted to several good users, for example, were described by others as "absurd and petulant," "out of line," and "shocking and inexcusable" [3] and yet he continues to use the same tone, mostly against people who don't know how to stand up to it. It can't be allowed to continue, Sannse. I'm not trying to interfere with whatever work he does on fair-use images, because it's an issue I've never taken an interest in, but it has to be done in a way that doesn't completely alienate everyone he comes into contact with, and he has to stop threatening to block everyone who doesn't immediately kow-tow. Even his attempts to keep discussion of this off his talk page are the actions of a problem user, as I'm sure you know from your own experience. Perhaps instead of discussing it with me, you could use whatever influence you have with him to persuade him to modify the way he interacts with people. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't consider that I have a relationship as such with Gmaxwell, we have had only minor contact (I have had more significant contact with Mindspillage of course). But I have seen his work and been impressed with what he does for the project. You say, "All he has to do is stop attacking people and stop pretending to be an admin i.e. edit within policy and as such I'm surprised you don't support that effort", but the issue is that I don't agree that that is what he is doing. Obviously, if I did I would not be writing this. As for the issue of removing talk page comments - I honestly don't see the problem with that. I have seen wars over it before, and I have always believed it better to allow people to remove text - after all, it means they have read it. I know you have removed text from your own page [4], and I have done the same to mine (although I tend to prefer to keep it all). Anyway, this will be my last message on this. I can see that I am not likely to change your mind, but I do hope you will reconsider and take a step back. Thank you for listening. -- sannse (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I do say, I'm beginning to feel inclined in investigating this dispute, with all the esoteric undercurrents which it entails. Regards, El_C 10:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Feel free of course -- sannse (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I am pleased to announce that our beloved President is considering taking on the case (i.e. is currently licking). El_C 23:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Now he's scratching; this may prove to be an important development. I'll continue reporting, of course. El_C 23:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hummm... this might be the moment to ask, does the President take fish as bribes? The possible species available are listed on my user page -- sannse (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Please deposit payment in Tuna! Thanks in advance. Meow, Kitty 02:00¾, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

TFD: Linkimage

Hi there, you voted to link the image Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg at autofellatio rather than provide it inline. The template used to make the link is now up for deletion, please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Linkimage... Mikkerpikker 15:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Ravin

Hmm. I saw that this was blanked. When I look at the actual article, I see that even the notice has been blanked by an anon user whose contributed to Software maintenance that surely makes me suspect that they have some connection to this company [5]. I've restored the AfD, the AfD notice, and will edited the spam out of the article. If there is more to this story than I'm seeing, please do let me know. (I looked in your contribution history, the history of the AfD, and the talk page of the article but couldn't find anything.)
brenneman^(t)(c) 23:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the notice shouldn't have been blanked - that needs to remain of course. The rest of the story is a request via email to the Wikimedia Foundation. A writer asked that we remove the AfD page, as it is coming up high on search engine results. I explained that we couldn't do this, that we needed to keep a record of the debate, but that I could blank the page as a compromise solution. It's something that comes up as a request every now and then, and blanking has seemed to be a solution that everyone can live with (the full debate is easily accessible via history of course). I'd appreciate the AfD page being restored to the (semi)blank state. It is such a little thing to accommodate someone on this, it causes no harm and prevents conflict. I'm sure you'll agree that's a good solution all round. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. In order to prevent some other busy-body from doing the same thing I did, could we place a note on the talk page? Or would that then simply come up in the web search? Or even a link in the edit summary to somewhere for reference?
brenneman^(t)(c) 00:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a heads up, there now exists Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Ravin 2 which will present the same problems. Actually, a bigger problem because this one contains talk about the blanking and spamming, some by me. There's a certain dynamic tension here between the goals, eh? ^_^
brenneman^(t)(c) 00:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response. I'm not sure exactly what the best way to handle these is. In the past, I've always just blanked as I did, with an explanation that the full discussion is in the history, and that's been fine with everyone. But there is a wider discussion about this starting on the mailing list [6]. Jimbo has obviously got a lot of these requests directly, as well as those we have had on the info address. So he's opened up the discussion on what should be done. It looks as though most people on the mailing list think that blanking, combined with technical means to prevent search engine indexing, are the way to go. On the second AfD, I'd say the same can be done for that once the discussion is over. -- sannse (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with a note on the talk page. I'm not happy, in a more general sense, with discussions on the mailing list being used to support actions on the Wiki. It makes it easy for good-faith edits (like blanking the AfD) to be reversed by equally good-faith edits (like restoring it). That's a much broader topic, and probably for another day! Thanks again,
brenneman^(t)(c) 23:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, that wasn't my intention. The mailing list conversation came after my actions - just a coincidence caused by Jimbo getting the same sort of mail as the info team. I linked it because it may be the start of an overall policy on these pages, which will make it easier for us to know what to do in the future - not as a justification for my actions. Anyway, just wanted to explain that, thanks for your time on this :) -- sannse (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for running off like that. Stuff to do people to see, people trying to take mystuff, normal stuff.--Tznkai 20:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, no problem at all of course. Was good talking to you :) -- sannse (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

User:IAAL

Hi Sannse, just for your information: User:IAAL has also accounts on other wp-projects, e.g. de:Benutzer:IAAL, nl:Gebruiker:IAAL... On de wp he was blocked indefinite for pretending to be a lawyer and menacing with legal actions which werde obviously wrong and discussed times before. He would not stop to spread his FUD and keep on harassing users as well as admins for days. Some say it is the well known troll "Rob Liebwein", well, whoever he is, it seems he likes to do the grand... (just saw I'm also among those 'potentially responsible for damages' lol...) Cheers --C.Löser 21:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, C.Löser -- sannse (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Depression (disambiguation page)

Just to say thanks for your recent revisions here. In my concern not to allow POV warriors easy exploitation of the clinical and everyday uses of the word, I realise the disambiguations had become overly long. Best wishes, David Kernow 21:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I can certainly agree with your concern. Hopefully the sentences we have at the moment will lead people clearly to the right meaning. Thanks for your message -- sannse (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Watermarked image

I am proposing a change to the image use policy to forbid user-created watermarked images. Please voice an opinion at Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy#User-created_images -Thanks -Nv8200p talk 19:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Last nights IRC

Me editing wikipedia is a rather difficult process. I for example have to deal with power faliures as well as net connection dieing after 1 AM due to ISP mainatance. That is why I vanished yesterday night.

I am condensing ideas which were prematurely cut yesterday because of my moronic ISP. I would change it if I could but I don't have alternative.

Since you obviously care about me and since I cannot have my RFA anymore I will sumerise how I feel. Note that I had no idea why I started rfa #3, I however decided what to do with it later on and even then I wasnt so sure.

Firstly 3 notable incidents prompted my fury:

1. People banning me from #wikipedia when I give them the option: "ban marmot or me"
   • I dont think I'll join any channel #wikipedia since people cant even hand me op powers there. Too many idiots exist on that channel and the person booting me is one of them. I dont care if he looses his op or not. It would not make me happy if he looses is op. #wikipedia is a loss.
2. People complaining to me for reverting a sockpuppet massively tagging articles with Category:Kurdistan and he supposed to be my mentor. I'd hope among everyone out there he would support RC patrol duty.
   • No one is resiting this wave of "kurdish pov" pushers infesting wikipedia recently but me. There is a double standard there.
   • It is more important fot me that wikipedia is away from bias on articles related to Kurds than perhaps my life. Dont get the wrong idea, I value my life. but I have seen too many people suffer and loose their lives (on few occasions for me even though I am a foreigner) due to such "wrong" ideas. Granted thats my pov which is someting I am not pushing. It is/was very hard for me to stay away from articles related to kurds anyways. I was always watching them degrade to nothing but propoganda pages and did not interfere. At the very least such bias must be presented in a neutral manner which is not happening. And for removing completely malicious tagging of categories my insensative "mentor" talks down on me and threatens to ban me from the topic. I cant be too harsh on him as he at a point standed for me. It really is a dilema.
   • Nothing angers me more when people suggest me to stay away from articles that are this important to me. I obviously am not pov pushing there or at least making a seriosu effort to suppress my pov.
3. People use Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit as an excuse to oppose peoples RFAs (see Adam1213's rfa).
   • I know overal RfA is a broken process. Too many good people are not "promoted" to mop duty. Too many nutcases which adminship is a matter of ego are however adminised. A large portion of admins are adminised strictly because people like them not because people think they would mop. Such people either rarely practice or frequently abuse their admin privilages. But using CVU among everything as an excuse to oppose RfAs... that will certainly mark the ending of my patience. I do not have the training of a vulcan to hold my anger.
   • Please review my previous RFA nominations listed here to get a better idea. Dont bother reading on untill you review those as it has an important role in undertsanding my frame of mind.

Things why I think I might have created such a rethorical RFA (I am certainly not sure):

1. Fury due to 3 of the things mentioned above.
2. Hopes to create a sphere of hostility scaring people away from me.
   • I made quite a number of powerful "enemies". Snowpisnner being one of them these people would not want to see me adminised. Snowspiner angered me during my last RFA nomination by deleting templates CVU logos apeared on and as well as deleting the logos themselves for "suspecyed wikipedia/wikimedia copyright infirgment" (which is no reason to speedy delete them) in the middle of a vandal bot attack. Because of how I treated him on IRC tens of people opposed my rfa. AKA my hours of RC patroling was insignificant in one second.
   • That aside people like adam1213 is getting oppose votes because of CVU and me. A lot of people get harrased strictly because of their closeness to me.
   • So I figured since I wont ever be an admin I can scare away otherwise good editors from me. Being close to me will only win people oppose votes. So scaring them away is good for them. But I cant even do that as my rfa page is locked...
3. RFA is broken.
   • People hold RFA so highly when it is "under attack" and they give a new meaning to "being dicks" when voting on it. There never was a nominator being a dick
   • People are confused as well in general voting oppose for nominee getting stalked and harrased by people like davenbelle. Stalking campaign only ended because davenbelle was bored and karl meier went ahead stalking others. If it wasnt for raul, arbitration comity was considering a year long block on me.
     • But then again they vote oppose for having too many userboxes for some people. I cant really expect logic on RfA

---

If you really care please read all material above, although I can understand if you dont really care. I dont expect anyone to care. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 08:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cool Cat. I'm sorry for the slow reply, I've been off-wiki. I've read all you wrote on my talk page, and I can certainly see why you are feeling fed-up with Wikipedia at the moment. I wish I could help, I really do. Certainly, from what you say about the ban from #wikipedia, I would have protested and probably removed that - but that's not very helpful to say now. As far as I am concerned, you are a welcome member of the channel, and MARMOT is not.

On the categories, I won't second guess your mentor - but I will say this: it's sometimes very, very difficult for us to edit in areas of Wikipedia that we really care about. I know you don't want to hear any suggestion that you should stay away from that subject, but I think it's important to acknowledge that it will always be difficult for you to edit there. There will always be people who feel you are pushing a POV, and you will always have to fight your own preconceptions and firm ideas to find the neutrality needed.

I couldn't find the problem with the CVU and RFA, but I think that this is a wider problem anyway. RfA is certainly not an ideal process - none of our processes are really. How we change that, or even if we can change that, I just don't know. As I was saying on IRC before we got cut off - you have built up your reputation from your troubled early days. You haven't totally overcome them, because Wikipedian have horribly long memories, but you have come a long way. Whether it's possible to totally overcome those initial problems is impossible to say, I don't think I've ever seen it done I'm sad to say.

But that doesn't mean you are not a valued and valuable member of this project. So I really hope that thinks improve for you on Wikipedia and that you get back to enjoying it. And please don't burn your bridges, it's better to take time off and recover your breath than to get angry and make it impossible to return. You do some good work, and are someone I want to see stick around. -- sannse (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Kennel Club

You are invited to participate in the consensus vote on Kennel Club naming policy. Click here to participate.

Page protection

Ok, thanks. My mistake. Didn't realise that a page protected against moves had the same [unprotect] tab. Guettarda 16:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Church of Ouzo

Sannse, in the Procter & Gamble article, links to the Ouzo papers in the discussion section have been blocked. Can you find out who made that decision and why? Thanks.

Robert Merlin Evenson/Church of Ouzo

bobevenson@yahoo.com

The blocking is being done by the hosting company for the sites and not by Wikipedia. This is usually done to prevent remote viewing (the embedding of images in one site, into the pages of another site). But it seems this company has decided to stop all incoming links from Wikipedia. I don't know if it also blocks links from other sites. If this is your hosting company, I would suggest contacting their help desk for more information. Hope this helps -- sannse (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

User:PistolPower

Thanks for telling User:PistolPower that his edits to my talk page weren't acceptable. They weren't. He seems to have just removed the whole thing from his talk now, which is probably for the best. AnAn 02:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem -- sannse (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

hello, About your Pyr.pic.

my name is Donna Fulbright and I'm a member of Showdogs and I would like let a banner maker use your picture of your Great Pyrenees. the Banner makers kennel name is Frizzy Files the picture will be used just for Show Dogs. I also am A new member of Wikipedia. I don't really understand it to well but i would be very happy if you would let me use it. thank you so much. Donna

Replied via email -- sannse (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

re STOP

Sannse, you are correct that it needs to cool down a bit, however, I don't think any of us who have dealt with AA of late have any good faith left to assume where she is concerned.

As for harassment, I too could make that claim, and one of lible based on the following, "Jim, it was more than a simple cut and paste cross ref to take the Armstrong quote and post on a different article that I am an AiG employee. A mistake is a mistake, but this is only the latest in a pattern of similar false statements you have made, including the one on the 3RR (that even the 3RR admin, who is not sympathetic to me at all, agreed was false)."

I advised her not to go down that path as in the well over 2000 edits I've made, there were only three cases where I made a mistaken comment. One I struck through and apologized for (that was not on the Sarfati page, ID maybe?), the chess/scientist I retracted when I found out I had screwed up, and the cross-ref was a case of not realizing that the cross-ref was a quote from someone else.

What I find truly maddening though, is that some admins are extending an assumption of good faith toward AA (an assumption that, to me, seems unwarranted?), but not to the rest of us involved in this matter.

OK, I'm done, I just needed to vent. Jim62sch 13:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if it came across that way, I've just edited again to try and make it clear I was talking to both sides. Identity issues are one of my hot-spots, but I agree that there are cases where other considerations come first. It just seems that with the edits I saw today, a cooling off would be wise. I'm not supporting AA's position - I simply don't know enough of the back-story to do that. But my edit was probably not worded well enough to show that I meant that she needs to back off and cool down too. Sorry for that -- sannse (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the reply! However, I wasn't referring to you as "some admins", I don't want to go into who I was referring to, but... Anyway, thanks for your help. Jim62sch 17:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Mailing list

I have sent emails to both you and Mindspillage asking if I can be added to whatever the successor list is to the prematurely-deleted Help Desk mailing list. Neither of you has been so kind as to reply. If you don't want my participation, please be so kind as to let me know. User:Zoe|^(talk) 07:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zoe, I understood that Mindspillage had replied - seemed silly for both of us to tell you the same thing. Let me know if there was a problem somewhere and I'll mail you. Regards -- sannse (talk) 13:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Michael Graham

Reworked text is available for review on the Michael Graham discussion page, as you suggested. I would appreciate it if you could take a look and give your opinion. 151.200.189.62 21:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've replied there -- sannse (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain, but please review the response to your recent post on the Graham talk page. Thank you for your indulgence. 68.48.79.237 02:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for the edit are up on the Graham talk page for your review and comment. THanks, 151.200.189.62 21:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Sannse, If you could, would you please revisit the Michael Graham page to resolve an impasse....I have made minor changes to the reference to the "Islam" controversy section, and I am having challenges trying to get user badlydrawnjeff to work towards a compromise. Please review the comments in the discussion section under "August 2006 editing", with specific reference to the Washington Post article and the reasons for Graham's dismissal from WMAL. Jeff believes that it is an accurate representation to say that Graham was fired due to the discussion of Islam and terrorism. I believe that it would be more accurate to say that Graham was let go for his comments, and his refusal to follow management direction to retract them. I refer you to Michael Graham's own words in an August 9, 2006, article on the firing, (http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A16052) In the article, Graham stated, "One year ago this week, I was fired from my talk radio job by ABC/Disney for saying on the air — and in the pages of this newspaper — that "Islam is a terrorist organization." ....That's what I said. ABC ordered me to apologize for it. They insisted I perform community service as a form of penance for it. I told them I would never apologize for telling the truth, and they fired me."

I offered a compromise wording to jeff, but he refuses to budge or contribute to the compromise. I would appreciate it if you could help settle this dispute. 68.50.149.214 03:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Freedom Party of Ontario

Although I disagree with your decision, I am prepared to abide by it. I would like to have a few points clarified, however:

(i) How was the decision to remove this information reached? (ii) What particular points should not be returned to the article? (iii) If the word "controversy" is omitted from the sections, and issues of balance are addressed, can the material in the second deleted section ("Other Controversies") be permitted to return?

Thank you, CJCurrie 00:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm one of the people responsible for replying to mail to the Wikimedia Foundation. As part of this, I have been told to take this action (deletion of relevant sections) whenever there is a legitimate complaint that may have legal connotations. It is better to have a section removed for a time that to have problem material on view. We can then repair and replace as needed.

I mentioned the main problems, as I understand them, on the talk page - The disproportionate representation of these "controversies", and the implication that gives. If an article on you has two paragraphs about the time you shook hands with a racist, that implies an awful lot about your views - even if the reality is that he was someone you met once and whose views you never knew.

This ties in with our NPOV policy - issues should be included in proportion. So the questions are, are they important, are they relevant, and are they balanced in relation to other information. And, of course, we need to check that they are also fully accurate and properly sourced.

All the above applies to the last section too. Is it in proportion? Are these really significant events? Or are they minor incidents that are thrown up to smear and make implications? This needs to be decided before the section can be put back in.

I hope this answers your questions -- sannse (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• It does, thank you. I may rewrite (and retitle) the "Free Speech Controversy" section in the near future; if so, I will contact you to review the revised version. CJCurrie 00:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Names, I was referring to the names in the article. If the issue is privacy we can just refer to "a Freedom Party executive member" etc. Homey 02:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dmcdevit·t 06:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Please cite policies

Could you please cite/link the policies that support what you and others are doing to my talk page? And give whatever other reason for your action. Thx, "alyosha" (talk) 06:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

PS: Sorry, i guess i missed your comment (for which thx), being tired and thinking that the editing up top was all that had changed on my talk. But i'd still like help understanding this. As a still semi-newbie, i'd thought i had a "right" to information that someone provided me in resp to my request, information that's helpful to me, and merely critical but not defamatory. Note that i reworded the strongly negative comment -- what's wrong with what i changed it to? I want to support wikipedia, but what about my use of my own "inbox"? Thx for your help, "alyosha" (talk) 06:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Although policy is not the be all and end all of actions on Wikipedia, I would say the key one here is civility. It's courteous to Schaefer to allow him to withdraw a comment he is no longer comfortable with, and courteous to the complainant to remove a name (or the entire comment) when he is offended. Of course, there are situations where we can't do this - when there is a complaint about a valid part of an article for example - but where it is a comment like this on a talk page it's often the right thing to do. If you need the comment, why not copy it to an offline storage space? Or simply use the page history when you want to remind yourself of it?

Beyond all this are the possible legal implications. While I think it unlikely that there is a risk here, that's just my non-lawyer opinion. But the risk is to the Wikimedia Foundation, and there is no point in taking that risk for such a minor point -- sannse (talk) 09:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello again; thx for your resp. I do strive to be civil and courteous, and have tried to be so in this case (see User_talk:Schaefer for the latest there), and am always open to feedback. I also, as i've said, have lots to learn about Wikipedia policies/norms/etc, and welcome help on that.

So i'm fine with leaving the info off my page, mostly for the other editor. And oc i don't want to cause trouble for the Foundation (i've only edited to try to be a support), tho i must say i don't understand the risk in publically verifiable information, most of which (eg what you removed) is not even critical of the person in question. Besides, i have so little energy for Wikipedia nowadays...

So while i agree to the removal, i just want to register my confusion (=newbieness?) and concern about the lack of freedom of information/expression that i'm getting from your resp to all this. I'm not feeling all righteous and aggrieved, or that it's the end of the world, and i know i don't know much about things like user talk page norms (tho i have asked...). But at the level of principle, i don't think admin-deletion of well-intentioned factual conversation on user talk pages is a "minor point" or a matter of "courtesy". There's also the precedent of admin stepping in on the side that threatens a frivolous lawsuit, which might not be a good road for the Foundation in the longer run. I could go on, but since i don't want to make a big issue of it -- and because, judging from wiki- and cyberculture, i'd think plenty of more-informed people would raise similar concerns, only better put -- i'll leave it with just this note. I do thank you for all your help with WP/WMF, "alyosha" (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

On talk page norms. There is a level of "ownership" on user pages and user talk pages, although those of us that have been around a long time dislike this trend and prefer to emphasise the wiki nature of all pages. But you will find that people will tend to ask your permission before editing your user page in any significant way. Some, like me, have a permanent permission notice up to try to offset this ownership idea.

Talk pages are slightly different though, because there is also a level of "ownership" over signed comments. It's considered very rude to change someone else's comment without making it clear that you are doing so, why you are doing so, and what you have removed (as you and I both did on your talk page). In most situations, we just don't change other's comments. So although Schaefer's original change was to your talk page, it was to his comment.

In both cases, there are things that you could put in your comments or on your user page that are likely to get them refactored or deleted. So it's not a total freedom in what you say and how you have your personal pages. As always, there is a level of compromise and cooperation with other Wikipedians and what they think should be visible. And policies are not the be all and end all round here - community norms and reputation count too (although this is currently a hot issue).

Where it comes to legal issues, it is a mater of judgement. And those of us answering the mail have to make that first judgement. And what we have to judge is the consequences to the encyclopaedia. If we are asked to remove a vital name from an article, we are very likely to refuse (this has gone as far as the first stages of a court case in Germany). As I said above, in this case I felt it was low risk, but I also felt it was low cost. You could easily save the comment, it was causing someone upset for it to be there, it's even still accessible in the page history - so to stop that upset, and remove all risk, I felt it right to remove the name.

I hope this all explains my thinking some more. -- sannse (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thx very much. I still have lots to learn, but now just a little bit less... [smile] "alyosha" (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

FPO

Please see my statement to the ArbComm [7] regarding Freedom Party of Ontario. Please note, while I am asking for the ArbComm's intervention in this matter I am not accusing you of any wrongdoing or asking for any disciplinary action against you. I'm simply trying to get some clarification and third party view and possible action in the matter. Homey 18:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've added my statement -- sannse (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi - ok, seems the ArbComm has no jurisdiction to review or give a second opinion. I'm wondering if you can be more specific on the talk page re what the actual complaint by (I presume) the FPO was ie what, specifically, did they object to? I still do not see how we can balance things out with facts that may not exist or that, in any case, I do not have access to. Can we address privacy concerns by removing references to names? Homey 20:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello. On jurisdiction the arbcom haven't commented on that opinion yet, I'd suggest giving it some time (if you want to continue). It is an interesting point, where exactly do the Foundation and the community overlap. On the email - if you can give me a couple of days, I'll discuss how much I can add to the talk page. In some cases we can copy parts of the mail (without names of course) to the talk page. In this case I would want a second opinion before doing so. I may not be able to get that until after the weekend. -- sannse (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Idea for Wikicity

I was refered by Coolcat to you on a wikicity (which apparently you are part of its staff) i want to suggest.

I have an idea for a Wikicity called Fanficpedia (An alternative title could be Fandompedia)

The idea is this, why don't we have a wikipedia style enclopeida for fandom. It would contian articles on fanfic series, charathers, and general fandom terms and sites. For example, there could be article on my Morpan fanfic series, complete with seperate articles for its charathers. It will all be non-baised.

The reason behind such a project is that only the most popular and well known fandom articles are allowed on Wikipedia. To prevent having minor fandom based articles from poping up on Wikipedia only to have them being removed due to them being "vanity" pages (which happened before with Wookiepedia, and eventally lead to the creation of such a wikicity to give such articles its place)

So, what do you think, does such a project need to exist? If you have questions, let me know. If you like it and can think you can help create a statment to submit to wikicites, let me know as well. There is also a test area where you can show off some examples, so if you need me to show some examples off, i can create some. -Dynamo_ace Talk

Hi Dynamo ace - yes, I'm Wikicities staff. This sounds like an interesting suggestion. I can't see any directly similar Wikicities, so it's worth applying. Angela will have a closer look and decide whether it fits in with the Wikicities site. The first thing to do is look at Start a new Wikicity and Wikicity creation policy. If you are happy with the content of those, then you can make your request at Wikicities:Request a new wiki (you need to create a Wikicities account to use this form). What you've written here is just the sort of information Angela needs to know, so that's what you can add as your statement. Angela is away most of this week, but she will get the mail, and will reply as son as she can. And if you have any problems you can give me a shout here, on my Wikicities talk page, or by email to the community team at community@wikicities.com (sannse or Lisa Carter will catch my attention there). Good luck! -- sannse (talk) 12:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, i have sent off my request form 2 days ago, i was wondering if you got it. -Dynamo_ace Talk

Hi again, Angela is the only person who can deal with new requests I'm afraid, and she has very limited access for at least the next week (she is away at a conference). So I'm afraid it will be a little while. But I'm sure she will get to it as soon as possible. Sorry for the delay -- sannse (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Photos Page

I went ahead and fixed extra brackets in your User:Sannse/photos (full view) page. I noticed other users have made changes to the page so I guessed you wouldn't mind, but I wanted to nevertheless let you know just in case. --Stux 18:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all! Many thanks for your help. I'm a believer in the wiki way - anyone is welcome to edit any of the pages in this user space :) Thanks again -- sannse (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Love love love

check out this fledgling translation guide. Not comm-specific; but perhaps we could use something like this and a writing style guide for communication (otrs, pr, &c). There are some simple aspects of the Wikipedia style guide which should be clarified elsewhere [the general article, or not the? to Inc. or not to Inc.?], too. Yes, that was a random topic. +sj + 01:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks useful sj. I think that clear guideline documents is something we should develop for all the cc sub-committees. I'll have to work on some for external communications :) -- sannse (talk) 10:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The matter of Dr. James R. Russell's article

Hi Sannse. Perhaps you can help out. I wrote Professor/Dr. James R. Russell's article as he is indeed a world known scholar in his field and very notable. I checked that his colleague, Dr. Wheeler Thackston had an article, which he has since 2004. They are both in the same department at Harvard, and on comparable par. Dr. Russell's opus "Zoroastrianism in Armenia" is a major work published by Harvard University amongst other works of his. The article is not a vanity article and Dr. Russell who occupies the Mashtots Chair in Armenian Studies, at Harvard University, which is a very prestigious chair, is more than noteworthy. As much as Dr. Wheeler Thackston is. Dr. Russell's article is James R. Russell. I have no idea who User_talk:Dsc is and why the person flagged it. The stated objections are not valid. The warning should be removed. I don't know where else to turn to. Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 20:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bob. That seems fair enough, I've removed the notice and commented on the talk page. Hopefully any issues can be worked out there -- sannse (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much Sannse. I couldn't understand it. This is a world known and famous scholar in his field, and holds a highly coveted distinguished chair at Harvard University, and has major works, studied and received his Ph.D. under a hugely important scholar at University of London SOAS, Dr. Mary Boyce, and forgetting all that, his colleague at Harvard, Dr. Wheeler Thackston whose article I checked first for its longeivity on Wikipedia (been there since 2004 -- I did my homework before I wrote Dr. Russell's article) is on level par with Dr. Russell's. It's upsetting when someone does a flag like that on no basis. Thanks again so very much. --- Bob Wikiklrsc 21:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sannse. This is urgent. The person "Dsc" (User:Dsc) has re-introduced the warning on Dr. Russell's article with no discussion and no reply to the points raised after you in a balanced way removed the spurious warning put on a perfectly legitimate article. It looks like vandalism. to me. Might you remove the warning again and possibly some admins take some action on this user who refuses to reasonably discuss the matter ? Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 21:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bob, I've left a message on Dsc's talk page to ask him to discuss this, and I see you have reverted (I'm an ex-member of the arbitration committee by the way :) But the main thing is not to panic, and not to edit-war. It doesn't matter if the banner is there for a day or so, these things will be sorted in time. In fact, it's better to have the banner for a day than to get into a dispute over it. Calm and slow is best :) -- sannse (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sannse for your comments. I just on general principles wouldn't want Professor Dr. Russell's name to be besmirched by having this flag on a perfectly reasonable and accurate and important article when the objector refuses to discuss it at all. It is unreasonable and borders on, if not actually is, vandalism. I have to go do some other things now. I hope the user stays away from the article unless the user has some rational intentions for sensible discussion on the matter. I have quoted my sources. They are impeccable. Dr. James R. Russell's article deserves to be in Wikipedia, just as his colleague Dr. Wheeler Thackston's comparable article has been there since August 2004 unflagged and un-argued. Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 22:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sannse. The person User:Dsc has slapped on the warning again on Dr. James R. Russell's article without any discussion. I do hope this gets resolved but (a) I don't feel the warning is justified and it should not be there (b) the person has taken no time to discuss it as per your suggestion, and (c) I have no easy internet access on this end due to serious outages, and (d) the objection by the person does not stand up to reason and a test. I am writing this from a stand-up kiosk in a library. If you could do something appropriate, I would be appreciative. The person is acting in my opinion, irrationally. Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 20:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bob, Dsc is now talking on the article talk page, which is great. He feels that the subject is not notable enough for an article. I've explained that the route to go if that is his opinion is to take it to Articles for deletion. I know it will worry you if he does that (it involves a much larger and more unpleasant looking banner for about five days) but, if that is his opinion, this is the best way to sort out the question. This may mean a short-term ugliness in the article, but it means the question of notability will be resolved one way or the other in the longer term. -- sannse (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sannse. Thanks for getting back to me. It is upsetting for the effort put into it. I don't have much access to a computer or the internet now, or for the next while, so I hope someone acts responsibly. The website that User:Dsc quotes is a politically non-npov to say the very least. It is something way above my head as a scholar --- the Turkish/Armenian genocide debate. But that is not the essence of the work of Dr. Russell. His erudite work on Zoroastrianism is enough to make him worthy of an article, as his renowned Ph.D. advisor Dr. Mary Boyce has her article, and so does his colleague Dr. Wheeler Thackston. Political arguments about the Armenian genocide, is not germain to Dr. Russell's article. Thanks. If you could keep an eye out for it, since I have really no access now, I'd appreciate it. Thanks ever so much. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 21:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, although I have limited Wikipedia time at the moment (new job) so am not able to keep that close an eye on what's going on -- sannse (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sansse. I understand perfectly well, and best wishes on your new job. I have added additional backing material on Dr. Russell's article's discussion page. Talk:James R. Russell. Have a look when you have a chance. Thanks for your help and many kindnesses. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 23:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sannse. Thanks for your help on the matter. I hope it works out for all concerned in the middle to long run. Much appreciated. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 18:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sannse. I fixed up the references, citations, ISBN numbers and other loose ends. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 02:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff Bob :) -- sannse (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sannse ! Thanks so very much for your kind thoughts as ever. It was a bit arduous getting all the refs and citations, but worth it in the end. I always learn something new, and something old re-newed again ! Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 19:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

IRC

Merry Christmas! :D --Go4o 17:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

And a Happy New Year to you ;) - job done -- sannse (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Freedom Party of Ontario again

I've rewritten the deleted sections in a matter that reflects (I hope) the concerns you've raised. Would you please look over the article again? CJCurrie 06:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Good work! That really seems to cover the problem well. Now we just wait and see if we get any further mail. But from my point of view, this was just what was needed. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments.

The "Paul Blair" sentence may not have fit the section, but it still strikes me as relevant for the article. Can you suggest any way in which it could be returned? CJCurrie 21:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I've now returned the Blair sentence, in a different context. Could you give me your assessment of the current version? CJCurrie 23:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it still seems to me to have little context and read oddly... But it doesn't seem as out of place there as where it was. And at this point, my objections to it are as an editor, and not in my role as part of the info team - and those objections, of course, you are fully welcome to ignore ;) Thanks for letting me know you've replaced it -- sannse (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice photo !

Hi Sannse ! A nice photograph of you popped-up on your page ! I don't think I saw it before. Pretty picture, pretty subject, great smile. Ah, but for the contentment of England ! Bests. :) --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 22:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Bob :) No, it wasn't there before, but now I've put one up over at Wikicities I thought I might as well add one here. --- sannse (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks and well done ! :) --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 09:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

International Women's Day

A traditional carnation for the 8th of March, from Zocky

Thank you Zocky, that's really started my day off with a smile :) -- sannse (talk) 09:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

depression wikicities

hey sannse, thanks for the heads up on the wiki. although i would love to contribute, i'm not sure there's any way I'd manage any sort of non-spiteful NPOV article about anything related to any medical condition I have, so i'm sorta stuck there. but i will try to stop by and flush out an article or two if i can when i have time. Cheers, janey the crazy 11:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I can understand that, it's such a difficult thing to live with that it can be hard to write about. Any bits you can do are great - hopefully you'll see something that you'll feel you want to play around with there :) Thanks again

First off, read the BDSM article. Second, no im not intrested, my problem are my own, thanks anyway. Ley Shade 15:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sadly it doesn't answer my question. I mean, obviously there are male dominants, I knew that naturally. But I understood the –trix suffix to be specifically female - and was confused by the box that said you were male. But, no matter, it was just curiosity, and I see now that you also have a "this user is female box". I apologise if my question and invitation caused offence. Regards -- sannse (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Im a transvestite, to clear up your confusion. And it hasnt caused offence, i simply have no intrest in your project. Good luck with it, however. Ley Shade 17:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough on both counts :) thanks for that, and I hope to bump into you again around here -- sannse (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

New Wiki

In response to your message on my talk page about the new Wikicities project: I am interested in this new Wikicities project that is going on, the one about depression. I might not be able to make major contributions, like writing whole articles, but I would love to help in any way I can. :-) -WikiFiend90 18:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Cool! It will be good to see you there, whatever you can add will be a help -- sannse (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:New Wiki

Hi Sannse! Thanks for the link, I think it's a great idea! Unfortunately I do not have that much time on my hands these days, but I will try and help build up the depression wiki as good as I can! Keep up the good work ;) --NorkNork ^Questions? _fnord? 18:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That's great, every little bit helps :) see you there when you have the time -- sannse (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Michael Graham

Sannse, If you could, would you please revisit the Michael Graham page to resolve an impasse....I have made minor changes to the reference to the "Islam" controversy section, and I am having challenges trying to get user badlydrawnjeff to work towards a compromise. Please review the comments in the discussion section under "August 2006 editing", with specific reference to the Washington Post article and the reasons for Graham's dismissal from WMAL. Jeff believes that it is an accurate representation to say that Graham was fired due to the discussion of Islam and terrorism. I believe that it would be more accurate to say that Graham was let go for his comments, and his refusal to follow management direction to retract them. I refer you to Michael Graham's own words in an August 9, 2006, article on the firing, (http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A16052) In the article, Graham stated, "One year ago this week, I was fired from my talk radio job by ABC/Disney for saying on the air — and in the pages of this newspaper — that "Islam is a terrorist organization." ....That's what I said. ABC ordered me to apologize for it. They insisted I perform community service as a form of penance for it. I told them I would never apologize for telling the truth, and they fired me."

I offered a compromise wording to jeff, but he refuses to budge or contribute to the compromise. I would appreciate it if you could help settle this dispute. 68.50.149.214 03:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Danny

Oh I'm quite certain that Arbcom would back Danny. However by haveing to explain his actions to someone it means that he is able to get informed feedback from others. It also shows at least some level of respect for the community. Currently the statement is that "we don't trust you to deal with these issus in any way shape or form". Once you get arbcom involved for the longer term cases the statement is "we can't let this information go public but we do trust you to elect people we can tell".Geni 21:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Then surely there is no problem with a formal mechanism for consulting with arbcom in those cases that last more than a week. It would hardly be a massive workload.Geni 21:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh no!

It's the end of the world as we know it! Raul654 03:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Bet that would have been a support vote if it had been Category:Dead babies who were cryogenically frozen ;P -- sannse (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

*ding!*

Hello :-p Tomer^talk 08:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hi :) access set -- sannse (talk) 08:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank ya kindly :-) Tomer^talk 10:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You want the proof? You can't handle the proof!

Thanks. Its getting a bit tiring having to revert it every two days or so. --Kiand 17:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

#wikipedia-en-admins

I've been told you are someone to talk to about gaining access to the IRC admins channel - my registered Freenode nickname is the same as my WP username - ESkog. Thanks, (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi ESkog - that's done. If you have problems getting in message me, Talrias, Shanel, JamesF, notafish, Interiot, jacoplane, or mindspillage - one or the other of us will be awake :) -- sannse (talk) 07:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Request

Hi Sannse,

My name is Fernanda Viégas and I have been studying Wikipedia for a while now (you can see a paper I published on the subject here). I would like to ask you a few questions about your activities as a Wikipedia photographer. I am fascinated by the pictorial side of Wikipedia and it would be great to hear about this community from one of its members. Would you be available for an email interview? Thanks, Fernanda.

Sure. My address is sannse@tiscali.co.uk - I can't promise an instant reply, but I'll get to it as soon as I can -- sannse (talk) 06:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Adding Template:sprotected

You forgot to put a Template:sprotect on Handshake when you semi-protected it. Please remember to do so in the future. Thank you,

Lee S. Svoboda tɑk 21:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Facebook

Shultz IV (talk · contribs) has added your portrait here, which struck me as a very odd edit to make. Just thought you should be aware in case you don't want your picture up there. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know ESkog. I can't say I'm overjoyed with the edi. But it's a wiki :) and I can live with it. Thanks again -- sannse (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

OTRS

I understand you to be the contact for OTRS (en), however if I have incorrectly sent you this message, the please accept my apologies.

I was wondering if OTS (English version) requires any more volunteers, and if I would be qualified to take such a role. Many thanks. Ian13/talk 12:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ian. Yes, I'm the contact (along with Mindspillage). We always need volunteers, so thanks for putting your name forward. If it's OK, we'll have a look at what you do, and see if your experience and style fit with what we are looking for, and let you know within the next couple of days. Thanks again -- sannse (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

A question

Why did you leave the Arbitration Committee? --HolyRomanEmperor 21:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I've said this publically before... at the time I was particularly ill, and unable to keep up with the large amount of work that arbitration requires. It was as simple as that, I wasn't able to do the job, so I resigned :) -- sannse (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

wazup --Golbez 21:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Justification article

Hi,

I noticed that you appeared in the edit history of the justification (theology) article. I recently made major changes to the article in an effort to move it to NPOV. If you have any suggestions for improvement (style, content, whatever), please leave a comment on the talk page for that article. The goal is to get the article to the point that the POV and cleanup templates can be removed.

Thanks, --jrcagle 20:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this comes across as grumpy, but I changed one link in the article in 2004. That doesn't really make me a major contributor in that area and justify this message. I'm afraid I have nothing to offer on this -- sannse (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

History in For Want of a Nail

Sannse,

I can understand why someone might object to the use of photos of real people to depict fictional characters, and I'm prepared to let that go. However, I do not concede your objection to the "misleading" captions for Jackson and Scott. The article deals with a work of fiction describing alternate versions of these men, and the captions mention highlights of their alternate careers in said work of fiction. Are you afraid someone will stumble upon the article and come away from it thinking that Andrew Jackson really was President of the United States of Mexico for eighteen years? I've restored the captions. If you feel strongly that this is wrong, I suggest arbitration. Johnny Pez 16:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I've replied on the talk page. Arbitration does not look at content issues but rather issues of conduct. -- sannse (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Café Ilusion

• Remember when you were on the café ilusion, you went away to knock up a quick picture, and you could'nt find it? Well you've found it's talk page, so just click on the main page tab on the top of Talk: Café Ilusion, and your'e back on the Café Ilusion. Just ask me if you need any help User Talk: Abyab

--Abyab 18:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, but... umm... If you look around a bit you'll see that my message was originally on the Village Pump and copied to that talk page, that it was three years ago, that it was before that article was written in English, and that I'm an experienced editor who has been here since 2002. Still, I do appreciate the kindness. -- sannse (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sannse...thanks

Thank you! Sannse — Thank you so much for your support on my recent Nomination for Adminship. It succeeded with a final tally of 85/11/6 and I am now an administrator. Let me know how I can slave labor for you Bastique▼parlervoir 22:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello from the Mediation Committee

Dear Mediators Emeriti: I'm writing to all former/inactive mediators (now called "Mediators Emeriti" to emphasize the ability of any mediator to return at will to active participation on the Committee), to encourage each of you to share your wisdom and experience on the Committee by commenting on requests by new individuals to join the Committee. There are five current requests to join the Mediation Committee: Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee#Master_of_Puppets Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee#Wisden17 Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee#Journalist Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee#Cadr Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee#.5Edemon The current Committee respects and appreciates the time you spent on the Committee, and the insight you can provide, and encourages you to take part in these discussions. Additionally, any mediator emeritus who has the time and would like to return to active mediation would be welcomed with great enthusiasm. Yours respectfully, Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC) (I recognize that many of you left the Committee to go on to other responsibilities, particularly Arbitration and the Board, but we still welcome your input on new committee members and encourage your participation. Please don't feel guilty if you cannot participate; we just want to remind everyone that they are welcome to do so.)

Ezza_1989's Personal article

G'day Sannse. I'm a little troubled by Ezza's link to her personal article on "Kelpie-Collies" in the Australian Kelpie page.

OK, I don't own the page, but having looked at the "Kelpie-Collie" page it appears it exists purely for Ezza's ego. I don't want to simply remove the link "just because", but equally I feel it shouldn't be there because it does not fit the needs of an encyclopedia, and it does detract from the Kelpie article. Certainly I wouldn't want to delete Ezza's "Kelpie-Collie" page off my own bat—that is a job for a Committee.

Help!!!!! Gordon | Talk, 20 May 2006 @10:05 UTC

Sorry for the slow reply, I'm not very active at the moment (work commitments).

I think the link is valid - if the article is on Wikipedia then it should be linked to from any other connected pages, and the parent breed is connected. That said, I'm not convinced by the article itself. I don't see that there is any real distinction between Kelpie-Collies and any of the other thousands of cross-breeds. If the article were referenced more fully and showed that there was a specific breeding program to develop this into a breed, then that would be a different story. But at the moment it seems to be unreferenced and not giving good evidence of notability.

There are two options really, either the article is taken to AfD, or it's improved with references to show that it is a valid subject (if there are such references). But while the article exists, it's correct to link it. You could take it to AfD as well as I if that's what you think best. But I would recommend talking to the main author first and asking her to provide more references and evidence of notability. That seems the best starting point.

I hope all that helps - probably not what you wanted from me, but my best advice :) -- sannse (talk) 23:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sannse -- it is exactly what I wanted. And I tto must apologise for slow replies: I've been working 14-hour days for the last two weeks... :-þ Gordon | Talk, 25 May 2006 @13:11 UTC

Images

Hello, those articles should be deleted. As a result of the baiting & harassment of another user I no longer am prepared to vouch for their authenticity or copyright status. Fluffy999 16:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't speedy images that are used in articles. And having made your statement of their status, it's up to the Wikipedia community as to whether they keep them. But that said, is there anything I can help with? If you want to email me about the other user, my address is sannse@tiscali.co.uk -- sannse (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, the copyright notices on those images is showing as wrong. They arent up for the 7 day review by the community by the looks of them.

I've withdrawn my original estimation of their copyright status and they should all be deleted per wikipedia's rules. As I am the original uploader who do I speak to about that? Thanks Fluffy999 21:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Each image is now tagged "no license|month=May|day=25|year=2006". I, the uploader of all those images can no longer vouch for their copyright status. Fluffy999 22:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I take it you delinked them from the articles too? As I said, that was my main problem with deleting them -- sannse (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes that is the next step, perhaps tomorrow when I have 2 hours to devote to it. Fluffy999 23:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

An RFA thank you!

As you wanted to be the first to support, I decided that I'd leave my thanks with you first. Thank you for supporting my nomination, and for the kind comments you made. :-) If you do ever need my help, you know where to find me. Jude (talk) 10:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)