User talk:Thryduulf/archive4

Meetup

Heya,

Just a quick note to remind you of the London Meetup this coming Sunday (the 11th of September) that you signed up for (as 'definite', but it's always good to check ;-)). It's at the Archery Tavern, just next to Lancaster Gate tube station, from 13:00 (BST) onwards.

Looking forward to seeing you there.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:New_Orleans_Fire_2005-09-02.jpg

I've posted a comment regarding licensing concerns. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:25, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Dual-licensing England & Wales

Hi Thryduulf,

could you explain to me why you dual-license your uploads to the Commons with CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-SA England&Wales? By default, using any recent Creative Commons license means that you are also multi-licensing it in all international versions (the "iCommons" licenses), so there should be no need to dual-license "manually". Am I missing something?--Eloquence* 16:43, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Creative Commons as of 2.0 allows later versions of the same license or any international version with the same "elements" (e.g. BY, SA) to be used. So when you license something as 2.0 Generic, you are effectively saying: 2.0 Generic, 2.5 Generic, any future versions, or any international license (strangely, while the license explicitly says "later versions" for the generic versions, it seems to be OK to use earlier versions for the iCommons versions).

Multi-licensing still makes a certain amount of sense, as 1.0 didn't have the "later version" provision, and using 2.5 doesn't make the inclusion of content under earlier versions possible without relicensing it. Still, personally, I think this is going overboard, as it only affects 1.0 content. Content under later versions can be freely relicensed under any later version to combine it with Commons content under that version. It would be much better to get creators still using 1.0 to upgrade their license of choice.

On the Commons, there is Template:cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0, and also Template:Self GFDL and cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0. As I explained, multi-licensing with iCommons should never be necessary as it is the default.--Eloquence* 22:28, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Your monobook.js

You haven't quite correctly pasted the code: the penultimate line is missing the last 3 characters,

');

The line should read

 + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');

Thanks for (trying to) try the script out! Lupin 22:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Heya

I just stole this since you weren't using it. And, by the way, you somehow managed to mispell your own name, so it wasn't even in your userspace! (Yes that was irony, and if you didn't see what I'm talking about you really need to brush up on your spelling.) Thanks for supporting my RFA (is that the only thing you created it for, wow). What do you mean that was months ago? Anyway, thank you muchly for signing my user page. Quite a club I've got going now. Nice to see someone I know and respect. Oh, and I thought you should know that when I see your name it sometimes makes me think of Theodoric; though it would probably make more sense if I thought of Theodulf... (are there any notable Thryduulfs? We don't have an article...) Ramble, ramble, well, hapy editing. Dmcdevit·t 07:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Is it possible for you to stop naming any sockpuppet you discover around as my sockpuppet?

In case its IP profile matches mine, it is probably User:Faethon and his friends. Please stop false accusations. thank you. -- Iasson.

Pictures message

Hello, you recently left me a message about copywrites on pictures I have posted. I am currently in the process of acquiring those permissions. I guess I didn't read into the rules as much as I should have. Hopefully, I'll have the permissions of usage within the next couple of days. Thanks. ClintFord 20:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

My RfA

Thryduulf-- Thank you for your kind words and your support in my RfA. At this point in time, it looks as if it is headed for "no consensus", but that's okay. I appreciate your support very much. I don't ever recall running into you around here (I've seen your name, but never interacted), so the fact that people like you support me makes me feel great. See you around, Oh-Not-Scandinavian-One. Thanks again. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Reverting the "Cartoon Vandal"

Many Thanks and Well Done for reverting the vandalism edits of 209.80.142.210 on Thomas the Tank Engine characters. Glad to see you blocked him as well. I would have started reverting them myself but I'm on a training course and had to be in bed early :o(

-=# Amos E Wolfe ^talk #=- 17:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

==Who's RfA== Thank you for supporting my masters RfA. He appreciates your support and comments and looks forward to better serving Wikipedia the best he can. Of course I will be doing all of the real work. He would have responded to you directly, but he is currently out of town, and wanted to thank you asap. Thanks again. --Who's mop?¿? 20:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

re: Certifying RfCs

Thanks. I wasn't sure, as I was the writer. I've changed it now. --Blackcap | talk 16:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:JETFA

I am starting to feel JETFA was a bad idea. It seems to be causing some deal of animosity around here, so I have made a push to disband it. If you still want to be a part of it, go right ahead, but as a card-carrying Esperanzian, I can no longer, in good faith, be a part of the WikiProject. Please see my feelings further at the JETFA page. See you around. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)|My RfA} 16:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

List of songs whose title includes geographical names

Well, the started a vote against this list. Maybe you're interested. Bye, -DePiep 20:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:CP

Hi, you've reported copyright infringements to WP:CP in the last week, a new measure was recently passed to allow the speedy deltion of new pages that are cut and paste copyvios. Please follow these instructions if you come across this type of copyvio. Thanks. --nixie 00:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Blatant copyright infringements may now be "speedied" If an article and all its revisions are unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider and there is no assertion of permission, ownership or fair use and none seems likely, and the article is less than 48 hours old, it may be speedily deleted. See CSD A8 for full conditions. After notifying the uploading editor by using wording similar to: {{nothanks-sd|pg=page name|url=url of source}} -- ~~~~ Blank the page and replace the text with {{db-copyvio|url=url of source}} to the article in question, leaving the content visible. An administrator will examine the article and decide whether to speedily delete it or not.

Thanks for your support

Thank you very much for your support on my nomination for adminship. Now that I have been made an admin, I will do my best to live up to the truest you and the community have placed in me. If you ever see my doing something you think is incorrect or questionable, or does not live up to the standards that should be expected of an admin, please let me know. DES ^(talk) 15:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

List of companies in the PRC

Ever since the article was unprotected, the have been contests on which of the two disputed versions should be displayed [1]. The displayed version throughout the protection period was chosen based on what the old title of the list and what the list was intended for before all those disputes [2] [3]. User:SchmuckyTheCat and user:Huaiwei have refused to keep that version displayed, and have insisted to display the version that they prefers [4] [5] [6]. I'd like to hear from your advice on what I should do. Thanks. — Instantnood 16:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I would just like to take this opportunity to point out, that moments after Instantnood was nominated for a 3RR violation [7], he has taken to re-igniting past disputes through a variety of pages, most of which he listed above for your reference. Most of these pages will show that he was the first editor who triggered the latest rounds of edit warring, and even after the rounds of reverts, he has not seen it neccesary to conduct any form of discussion on them. I certainly do hope that he would accept your suggestions for conducting proper dispute resolution, instead of habitually relying on edit warring.--Huaiwei 17:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Thanks. So far nobody has violate the 3RR policy, but the spirit and aims of the twoversions tag was not observed. It is intended to cool down edit warring, and to tell readers the displayed version is not endorsed without objections. It's never right to choose a version to display according to anybody's preference, and that was the reason why I chose a version based on what the list was like before the disputes and contentious edits ([8] [9] [10]). Yet they don't agree, and have insisted to enforce their own point of view and display their preferred version.

I've put up a request at WP:RFC, and I'd like to request to protect the list protected. The same thing happened with the list of airports, and even worse, Huaiwei has disregarded the recent changes, and inserted the id of a far older version to the twoversions template.
(The id Huaiwei inserted to the template belongs to a August 23 version, i.e. he has disregarded the changes made August 23 and the latest version on October 7.) — Instantnood 15:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC) (modified 18:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC))

Thryduulf, while I believe you will be able to exercise good judgement in this situation, I do hope you may consider dropping a line in the talk pages of those who are involved before enforcing any of his requests. Thanks so much for your understanding. --Huaiwei 17:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious that in order to get his POV he plays revert games to attract admin attention, then asks for page protection on some ancient version (half a dozen other editors have touched this article since his preference)? When does it end? When does he give up and say "gosh, maybe this wikipedia thing doesn't operate by a single persons POV?" 65.102.149.188 19:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Nobody is asking for protection on some ancient version. What I requested is to display version following the lines what these articles were like and were intended for before the contentious edits and the disputes. — Instantnood 20:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Which, ie, is an ancient version.--Huaiwei 21:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

FYI, Thryduulf, take the list of airports in the People's Republic of China as an example. This is the version prior to the contentious edits ([11] [12] [13]) by Huaiwei and SchmuckyTheCat, and this is the version that was chosen to be displayed, according to my policy (compare). Another example, the list of railways in China, this is the version prior to the edits ([14]) that I've made and Huaiwei and SchmuckyTheCat doesn't agree, and this is the version that I've displayed (compare).

Both articles involve the inclusion of the items of Hong Kong. The airport list started under the title "list of airports in Mainland China", and included airports in mainland China only ([15] [16] [17]). The railway lists started under the title "list of railways in China", with Hong Kong included ([18]). For the first list I didn't include Hong Kong in the displayed version, and for the second one I kept Hong Kong.

I believe I've done all these firmly according to my policy, and have done more than enough to showing impartialness when choosing a version to be displayed. I don't have to do what I have done with the list of railways in China, national dish and Electronic Road Pricing if I were insisting to display my preferred versions like they do.

And, for your information, I have also approached user:Dmcdevit, who was responsible for unprotecting the lists of companies and airports last time. — Instantnood 21:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC) (modified 22:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC))

Ah, the status quo ante bellum. It's a good thing this is wikipedia and not a tort court. SchmuckyTheCat 22:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a stitch up!

Hi mate,

Could you go to user:Chowells' site here and scroll down to the file called "dscf0966.jpg".

Could you stitch those photos together in a meaningful way to create a panorama of the Great Hall at the NRM? GFDL on them all.

Cheers, Dunc|☺ 15:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

How's this coming along? Dunc|☺ 17:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I've actually tried that and failed due to the perspective problems. Can't rememeber the name of the software I was using but I googled it. If you can do it successfully I'd love to see it -- it's the first panorama I tried to make and possibly not the easiest. chowells 18:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I've now managed to produce three different panoramas, none of them perfect though.

• 
• 
• 

The software that I use is Canon PhotoStitch that came with my old PowerShot A20. I find it much better than the software that came with my Panasonic Lumix FZ20. The way I managed to get the panoramas to work was not to try and use all the images - the overlaps are way too small for this - the maximum the software can manage with is about a third, the minimum you need is about an eighth. Merges 1 and 3 are each 3 images, and merge 2 is just two images. As you can see above I have uploaded the images to the commons with a GFDL license. They still need categorising and I haven't linked them from anywhere except here. Thryduulf 20:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Well done

You beat me by 9 minutes adding the Merseyrail crash to List of rail accidents :) chowells 18:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

United States Declaration of Independence

Back on 18 July 2005, you protected the article on al-Qaeda in order to let the sides calm down so that we could resolve an NPOV dispute that had become an issue of ego. As a result, all sides were able to work out their dispute and the article has been edited with consensus ever since.

Today, the same situation has arisen on the US Declaration of Independence article. Would you be so kind as to protect it while the parties talk about the dispute in order to reach a consensus in discussion? I have asked JW1805 several times to talk about his POV additions and changes to original article, but he keeps making changes and deletions to things that have been there for months without discussing why. When I try to work with his edits, but reduce the POV, he reverts all of my annotated edits without giving any explanation. I feel confident that if you would protect the edits that User:Nunh-huh and I made for a few days or so, we could resolve this in the same way that we did the Al-Qaeda article. Thanks for what you can do, in advance. --Zephram Stark 03:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Thryduulf, I don't know if you have had experience with Zephram Stark before, but this user is a constant source of disruption on many articles. Have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zephram Stark, as well as the Talk pages of Talk:Inalienable rights, Talk:Inalienable rights/Archive01, Talk:United States Declaration of Independence, and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unalienable rights. He constantly tries to insert POV and original research based on his own philosophical and political views, and will not accept that a consensus is against him. His statment above is completly missleading, as usual. His edits removed some information that I had added, and at this point, I'm just going to rvt his work, and I'm sure the other editors of this article will agree. --JW1805 05:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Thryduulf, thank you for taking further interest in promoting consensus and NPOV articles. I appreciate your statement in USDOI talk that requests for unprotection should be made at WP:RFPP. I have no desire for the article to be unprotected for the reason that the reverting has apparently now become ego driven. As you can tell by the way JW1805 follows me here and to other pages, this has obviously become personal for him. I have shown good faith in trying to work with JW1805's edits to find a compromise since consensus seemed unlikely, but he just reverts large blocks of my edits and the edits of other editors out of hand. Hence, I don't think that protecting JW1805's highly POV radical changes to the article that we've had for months is going to produce the same result as protecting the original article at al-Qaeda. I realize that you can't show favoritism, so I ask that you protect any one of the stable versions before JW1805 started his massive POV edits to the article on 30 October 2005:

• 01:56, 29 October 2005 203.205.63.81 (→Popular culture)
• 01:32, 27 October 2005 Bryan Nguyen (→Principles)
• 21 October 2005 Pmanderson (restore deletion test)
• 02:30, 11 October 2005 66.91.242.235 (→Signatories of the declaration)
• 23:30, 10 October 2005 Stilltim m (→Signatories of the declaration)
• 10:02, 29 September 2005 Mel Etitis m (Reverted edits by 24.18.80.84 to last version by FRCP11)
• 03:27, 29 September 2005 FRCP11 (→Differences between draft and final versions - Resolution of mountainous molehill)

Thank you again for your consideration, time and effort. --Zephram Stark 15:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Thryduulf, I'm not going to clutter up your talk page with responses to Zephram Stark's usual nonsense. I'll let you or anyone else be the judge whether adding a quote by Thomas Jefferson about the Declaration of Independence to the Declaration of Independence article [19] is a "highly POV radical change". --JW1805 17:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

ALL PARTIES PLEASE NOTE - My talk page is not the place to discuss this. These comments belong on the article talk page and/or and RfC/RfAr. I will move or remove any more discussion that does not belong here. Thryduulf 17:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zephram Stark/Evidence

I think you did not mean to include this link in your entry for today. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I think 'turgid manhood' describes my situation very well, thank you. --Zephram Stark 01:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Adams' Grammar School

Thanks for your assistance with Adams' Grammar School earlier this year. Sadly, once term started again, so did the silliness. We still have a problem with inappropriate edits, albeit only on the talk page now - see Talk:Adams' Grammar School. I am not sure what to do, and don't want to start a revert war. Your advice and/or intervention would be welcomed. Naturenet | Talk 20:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll see what can be done. Naturenet | Talk 18:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Jmusic -> JMusic

The person is now making the article at JMusic instead of at Jmusic. Thought you'd want to know. :P --Locke Cole 15:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Page deletion

I page which is part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-war (of which you are listed as a member) is up for deletion. It is The Left and Opposition to War, you can see its entry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Left and Opposition to War. It would be helpfull if you could add your opinion.--JK the unwise 12:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Thomas the Tank Engine articles

On some (quite a few?) TTE-related articles you have put a tag to merge into a new article "Railway engines (Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends)". There is a problem. Your title really rather strongly implies the TV series but many of these characters also appear in The Railway Series. The authors of that article seem to have been very careful to list only the characters that appear in the books, not the extras brought in for TV. I suspect the book readers might not like your proposed article title though I expect an acceptable title could be found, maybe a rediect would help. Each character would probably need to be designated according to its provenance (this ought to be case now but it has often been done incorrectly). I've commented to you here because otherwise the discussion would be very distributed! Thincat 13:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

List of Jewish lawyers

Though someone first placed an AfD, I believe the page is eligible for speedy deletion, or at least the matter should be evaluated by an admin rather than simply remove the tag. Your edit comment on removing the speedy tag does not appear to be a proper reason for removal. But please clarify to convince me. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Duncharris

Hello Thryduulf. I am contacting you regarding a recently filed RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Duncharris. I opened this forum for comment as a means to resolve what I perceive to be serious issues of incivility which have not been resolvable through normal means, such as direct communication through user talk. Seeing as you have also requested that Harris not make personal attacks [20] which was later ignored when he repeated the attack again in the block log [21] I was hoping that you could provide your insight into this discussion at your earliest convenience. Thank you, Silensor 19:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Thryduulf, I just wanted to talk to you regarding this RfC. I noticed that you signed your name twice, once under "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" and once under "Other users who endorse this summary". I'm not very familiar with RfCs, but this does seem rather odd. Did you perhaps make a mistake, or is it just my inexperience with the rules at RfC? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Sean Black RfA

Thank you very much for your support of my RfA. Thanks, in part, to you, I am now an Administrator, and I pledge to use my newfound powers for good rather than evil. Thanks again!--Sean|Black 08:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!

I have decided that thank you notes are appropriate, concerning the support you have shown at my RfA. So Thanks! You comments are appreciated. I would like to offer as an excuse for such light activity in Image categories, that I have had no luck in importing images into WP, so I tend not to worry about that aspect so much. I try to stick with my strengths (whatever they may be), and image manipulation and importation is not one of them. I'm colour-blind anyways! So thanks again for your support, (BTW you have a very nice and info packed user page). See you 'round the wiki! Hamster Sandwich 14:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Anti-war project, push to get a featured article b4 Xmass

February 15, 2003 anti-war protest an article which is part of the WikiProject Anti-war, of which you are listed as a member, has been recently rated A-class by the Version 1.0 Editorial team (see here) This means that it is considered to be of good quality. The Anti-war project has yet to achieve a featured article but with a little pushing I feel we could get this article up to FA standards. To this end I have put the article up for peer review, if you could help make this a brilliant article that would be much appreciated. Please give your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/February 15, 2003 anti-war protest/archive2 or on the articles talk page. Fingers crossed for a FA before Xmass.--JK the unwise 12:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

New user box

Hello Thryduulf, It's Moe Epsilon. Im giving you the user box for your user page called Template:User Member. It's a user box that says your a member of the AWWDMBJ.... Hope you like it! — Moe ε 04:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

my RFA

Just wanted to thank you for your support of my RFA. That first respondent seems to really set the tone. Please let me know if you ever see anything that could use my Wikipedia talents. Tedernst 14:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

commons:image:South Kensington station.jpg

Done. Thanks for the heads up. How do people manage to upload to the commons without putting a licence in? --Tagishsimon (talk)

Dates

Hi and thanks for your message. I'm not sure I understand what linking the year does other than link to the page about that year. I've noticed other editors de-link years when they are linked. Is there any documentation or explanation anywhere? Kind regards. Mrsteviec 11:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks for the link. Mrsteviec 12:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Duncharris2

• Duncharris (talk · contribs · block log)
• Ed_Poor (talk · contribs · block log)

Would you please compare Dunc's contribs to mine, and indicate whether I have a right to better treatment than I've been getting? Uncle Ed 16:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

BD2412's RFA

Although my RfA is not over yet, I figured that since so many people voted before it had been posted, I may as well start thanking people before it wraps up. It'll take me that long to thank everyone who voted anyway! Thank you, Thryduulf, for your support - I swear I was not an admin already, but I'll do my best as an admin to make the reality of Wikipedia rise to the level of the dream. BD2412 T 23:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Rachel Brown's user page

I am reverting your edit. You say that user pages should not be linked to categories in this way. It was never intended to be part of her user page; it was put there by someone else as part of a most unedifying edit war, and should be restored to its proper status as soon as possible. - Poetlister 17:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. My point exactly - Rachel didn't make this move and nor did I; it was someone else, against our will. We don't know how to move it back; could you do it please. - Poetlister 22:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

thanks!

Just a quick thank you for sorting out that bit of grammar in my article. I'm always doing stuff like that! PiffPuffPickle 19:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)PiffPuffPickle

Thomas the Tank Engine

hey there... I noticed Sir Topham's butler and Cyril the Fogman whilst stub sorting, and nominated them for deletion. Have just noticed your merge proposals at Talk:Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends which I totally agree with (ie merging all but the best known of characters). Anyhow, just thought I'd leave you a note in case you are interested in the two AfD's: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Topham's butler and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyril the Fogman. I'd be happy to help out with a merge of a number of character articles should there be consensus. _└ ^UkPaolo/_TALK^┐ 09:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Featured Picture

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Tram interior edit1.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

Congratulations, and thank-you for nominating it. Raven4x4x 03:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi

I too am confused by this whole thing. I'll tell you my role in it, so you know.

The start to this was that I went to Village Pump one day (first time ever) and read up about Seigenthaler. See User:Zordrac/Seigenthaler. A bit later, this led me to investigate a person called Daniel Brandt User:Zordrac/Daniel Brandt who at the time I thought was the same person I had talked to on Live Journal (now seems to be a different person, possibly someone impersonating Daniel Brandt for unknown reasons). I thus tried to help him out, as I help out all newbies in trouble.

Incidentally, when looking at RFAs, I ended up looking at User:Linuxbeak's RFB, and, as I had seen him mentioned on Daniel Brandt's http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html page as one of the main causes of the problems (along with User:SlimVirgin), and I had also seen comments on Slashdot by him, as well as a lot of POV pushes against Daniel Brandt, I thought that I should vote "Oppose" on his RFB. Whilst I knew that it made zero difference, I just thought that I should state my case.

To my surprise, Linuxbeak was actually really nice about the whole thing, and, whilst initially quite hostile (understandably really, when you think about it), he talked to me about it, and I went on to explain that I just didn't like people fighting, and I felt that he should have treated Daniel Brandt better. Whether Brandt is a "bad guy" or not, he shouldn't have been treated as badly as he was, and certainly shouldn't have been banned. I don't think that there's any doubt about that.

Linuxbeak talked this over with SlimVirgin, and then, to my absolute amazement, called Daniel Brandt and apologised to him. I was quite astounded by this. (Yes, there's lots of links for this, but I am just explaining this for now). Linuxbeak then went a bit further than I had requested, and basically conceded to Daniel Brandt's demands by making Daniel Brandt a redirect to Public Information Research, which created major problems. SlimVirgin was also involved in this whole thing. Linuxbeak got a lot of hostility in relation to this, and the sad thing is that prior to Linuxbeak's intervention, the article was actually NPOV *FINALLY*, yet afterwards, based on the fact that the article had been wrongly redirected, POV pushing became out of control. However, the general consensus was that, whilst Linuxbeak/SlimVirgin may have broken the rules in doing this, they did so for the right reasons.

Somewhat ironically, SlimVirgin then ended up having an RfC filed against her by a user, citing that SlimVirgin had violated protocol by protecting the Daniel Brandt page.

I posted an "Outside View" stating my support for SlimVirgin which was that, whilst SlimVirgin's earlier efforts may have been wrong in principle, this was actually one of the best things that she had done, and she should not be punished for it.

I then ended up in a discussion with the person who filed the RfC and made it clear that I do not support abusive admins, and that in fact prior to her apologising to Daniel Brandt, I likely would have supported an RfC against SlimVirgin.

Because SlimVirgin was also (very vaguely) involved in the dispute with User:Poetlister, User:RachelBrown and User:Jayjg (SlimVirgin's role was as "back patter" for Lulu of the Lotus Eaters, and IMO should not be included in the dispute, or else should be listed as an accessory only), I ended up getting an e-mail from Poetlister, who thought that I could help.

Now, just to get this in to perspective - I was actually PRO-SlimVirgin, which therefore means that I was ANTI-Poetlister at the time. However, in practise, since I had never met any of them, I was wholly neutral. Also note that Poetlister gave me virtually no references to guide me.

So I went through the various pages, and looked at every single edit change, including the edit summaries. My conclusions are as follows:

• RachelBrown on many occasions introduced sources that were based on printed media "Book of Jews", which is an established reputatable source that can be used as a valid reference.
• Lulu of the Lotus Eaters repeatedly commented out, and even deleted these references with comments such as "If its not on the web, its not Wikipedic" which in fact is not true. Many articles are based on book references, and this is an established source.
• Lulu of the Lotus Eaters additionally removed sources that were based on such things as being "Judge of the Supreme Court of Israel", suggesting that such a position does not make someone a Jew (in spite of Israel not having any non-Jewish judges).
• Poetlister eventually played a minor role in supporting RachelBrown in this.
• Lulu of the Lotus Eaters thereafter engaged in a violent edit war with RachelBrown, during which both users repeatedly violated 3RR. At one point there were 6 edits by each which were purely reverting each other's edits. Therefore, both should have been blocked. Neither was.
• The temp page that was created by RachelBrown to resolve the dispute was moved to the user page by SlimVirgin.
• SlimVirgin then acted in support of Lulu of the Lotus Eaters in reverting Poetlister's edits, and violating 3RR repeatedly and acting in the same manner, in spite of evidence that had already been put forward that the references are acceptable to Wikipedia.
• SlimVirgin then placed a warning on Poetlister's page about a 3RR violation in an edit war in which she was involved in, and in which SlimVirgin was guilty of violating 3RR herself.
• A number of RfCs and RfArs were filed in relation to this and related Jewish article disputes, the only similarity in all disputes being the involvement of Lulu of the Lotus Eaters. Findings were that Lulu's POV was against the consensus view.
• Poetlister, seemingly unaware of the other RfCs/RfArs, made an RfM on behalf of her friend RachelBrown, to try to resolve the dispute. She stated that she wanted to try to resolve it peacefully before resorting to RfC/RfAr, and wanted it to be done by e-mail.
• SlimVirgin stated that the issue was simply that WP:V was not adhered to, in spite of facts that it was (as verified by Jayjg and others), and suggesting that the RfM be dismissed.
• Lulu stated in the RfM that he did not want a mediation, and suggested that the matter was now closed.
• Poetlister asked for opinion as to whether to take it to an RfC, which, amongst other things, included an e-mail to me asking for my opinion. In effect, she was requesting for my comment, me being a neutral in this situation.
• Less than 1 hour after Poetlister e-mailed me and contacted others with regards to asking for a Request for Comment escalation, her account was permanently banned, citing a suspicion of sock puppetry.
• To date there is no evidence that a CheckUser has in fact been performed.
• There is no existence of an RfAr against RachelBrown et al requesting for a CheckUser to be done.
• The ArbCom has not stated that there was either a CheckUser or an ArbCom decision to ban suspected sock puppets.

That's what's going on there. Also note that Lulu has gone around various places trying to discredit me as part of this, claiming that I am not neutral. Actually, if anything, coming in to this, I was supporting Lulu, but I am pretty much as neutral as they come, having not had anything to do with any of the people involved.

If the sock puppetry ban is not overturned, I think that this will have to escalate to an ArbCom against Lulu, with the other 2 admins as accomplices (not sure how to word that). Ideally, however, there should merely be an RfC initiated in relation to the dispute that the RfM was about. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you please help Commons: User:DavidStern

Hello, as my English is poor it would be very kind if you would help the user DavidStern with the upload of his images. I'm writing you as you are an an administrator of Commons. If you do not have time it would be great if you would ask an other English speaking administrator to help DavidStern. Thanks a lot! —gildemax 11:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

RfD on meta

Since you expressed interest in this: User:Thryduulf/Abolished Police Forces of the United Kingdom, moved it to a sub page of yours so you can use it here. I have deleted it on meta, and put the IP who created it and date in the edit summary. Best. notafish }<';> 14:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi, I just want to say thanks for supporting me on my request for adminship! It passed by a 58/3/0 margin, so I am now an administrator. If you need me to help you out, or you find that I'm doing anything wrong, please don't hesitate to contact me. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)