Wikipedia - User contributions [en]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

2007-05-25T06:20:13Z

Testing123Testing: I am user:Wikidudeman Someone please help me.

{{Purge|''Purge the cache to refresh this page''}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 88
|algo = old(48h)
|archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
}}
{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive index|mask=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive<#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}}
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
__TOC__





== [[WP:BLP]] and the deceased ==

I've let this drop for a bit as there was some hot feelings but it is continuing currently and needs clarifying.

The main point of this post is that there seems to be a step to apply [[WP:BLP]] to the dead. It started with the article [[Adrian Adonis]] in which {{user|Burntsauce}} removed most of the article citing [[WP:BLP]]. I reverted the changes citing the fact that BLP does not apply to a person who has been dead for nineteen years, resulting in a rather unneeded full protection that was soon lifted.

During this time wikipedia foundation member {{user|Jimbo Wales}} and myself had a discussion on our talk pages over this article. Most of the postings related to Jimbo stating the articles needing sources which I agreed with however I argued my revert was based not on the lack of sources but the application of BLP to a dead person being entirely out of the scope of BLP leading to this comment: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&diff=130246938&oldid=130236390 "Arguing that the guy is dead, and therefore BLP doesn't apply, is really a stretch."]

I decided to leave it there however it seemed very odd to me at the time that we are now applying BLP to dead people. Thinking it may be over I didn't post here for a time because it seemed like an isolated incident however the same thing has occurred at [[Chris Candido]], [[Orville Brown]] and [[Rodney Anoa'i]]. All of these articles relate to deceased individuals however each has been reverted and full protected under the grounds of violating [[WP:BLP]].

I am not here to debate whether the articles need sourcing, which I believe they do, I am however here to inquire as to whether BLP is being misused or should be re-written to apply to all persons, past or present. –– '''[[User:Lid|Lid]]'''([[User talk:Lid|Talk]]) 00:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
*There should probably be a different set of standards. The articles of the recently deceased frequently get vandalized, especially when they're controversial figures (such as [[Jerry Falwell]] recently). There are different impulses. It's a lot of work, but I think it would be worth the effort to have separate standards for the deceased. [[User:JuJube|JuJube]] 00:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
*BLP does not create new restrictions on content, it just mandates removal, and exempts that removal from 3RR. Unsourced negative information is not allowed ''anywhere'', it's just more imperative that it be removed on BLPs. -[[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]] [[User_talk:Amarkov|moo!]] 00:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
:*The information removed was neither negative or controversial. –– '''[[User:Lid|Lid]]'''([[User talk:Lid|Talk]]) 00:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
::*Then it would be a misapplication of BLP to remove it. Either way, saying "BLP doesn't apply!" is silly. -[[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]] [[User_talk:Amarkov|moo!]] 00:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
:::*I'm trying to figure out why that is, because to me saying "BLP doesn't apply to the dead? that is silly" is... well silly, hence why I brought this here. –– '''[[User:Lid|Lid]]'''([[User talk:Lid|Talk]]) 00:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
::::*I'm not saying that BLP applies to the dead; whether or not it should, it self-evidently doesn't. However, there is ''no'' material which may be removed under BLP that shouldn't be removed anyway. So it doesn't ''matter'' if BLP applies or not. -[[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]] [[User_talk:Amarkov|moo!]] 00:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::*The thing is these particular articles refer to people that could be argued are "recently" deceased, as far back as 20+ years ago. The application here of BLP to me signifies that there are stricter reasons for material removal than for much older deceased persons. As an example I chose [[Chester A. Arthur]] which has been pretty much entirely unsourced since creation and has been tagged since December 2006 however there aren't people currently removing the unsourced information on the page despite six months of tagging resulting in no improvement. It seems like either misapplication or a double standard. –– '''[[User:Lid|Lid]]'''([[User talk:Lid|Talk]]) 00:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
*If WP:BLP can apply to dead people, then up is down, black is white, night is day. It says "living people" in WP:BLP over and over and over. It doesn't say "persons living or dead". However, I'd like to think that Jimbo misspoke and was really just saying that there are ''other'' reasons ''besides'' WP:BLP to remove the offending material, such as that it was unsourced crap. [[User:Wikipediatrix|wikipediatrix]] 00:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

::The first line of the "Rationale" for WP:BLP is: "Wikipedia articles that contain information about living people can affect a subject's life." This is the basis of the policy requirements to edit sensitively and conservatively, etcetera. This rationale clearly does not mean that negative material must be excluded, but it stipulates that unsourced negative material, or non-encyclopaedic material (tabloid allegations, etc.), must be removed. This stipulation is ''not'' only about defamation laws, but rather, as the rationale states, is due to the fact that Wikipedia can affect people's lives. And, even though this rationale states that information can affect the ''subject's'' life, it is also clearly the case that it can affect those people ''close to or surrounding'' the subject. Thus there is a difference between writing about Henry VIII and writing about somebody who has recently died, and who may have a spouse, children, etcetera. Wikipedia editors ought to be sensitive wherever the potential to negatively affect people's lives is clear. Again, this does not mean negative material must be excluded. But this requirement is a very good reason why, in my opinion, WP:BLP continues to apply to those who have died but whose relatives and associates remain alive. There is ''nothing'' to be gained for the encyclopaedia by asserting that this policy does not apply in such situations. [[User:FNMF|FNMF]] 01:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
:::*Where is the line between "recently deceased" and "deceased"? A year ago? Five years ago? 20? A century? Are we meant to be catering these articles until every person that person could've been known or loved by will be dead as well? –– '''[[User:Lid|Lid]]'''([[User talk:Lid|Talk]]) 01:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

::::In my opinion this is an artificial and unnecessary question (this is not meant to sound hostile). Where there are reasonable grounds to think the material can affect someone's life, editors ought to adhere to WP:BLP strictures. A case could be made for including something more explicit about this in WP:BLP. But, until that happens, editors ought to be able to use good sense and judgment about such questions. The fact that editors do ''not'' always use such good sense and judgment is one argument for introducing such a clarification to the policy. [[User:FNMF|FNMF]] 01:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
::::Isn't there a statute of limitations defining a period after which claims against the dead persons estate are not permissible? Six years? While the estate is still active I should think BLP should be applied rigorously. After that period then it is not as urgent (but still important). [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] 21:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::If that is so, and we enforce this position, it still doesn't apply to 3 of the four articles currently locked as BLP as they have been dead for longer than 6 years, up to 4 times as long. –– '''[[User:Lid|Lid]]'''([[User talk:Lid|Talk]]) 05:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

:Maybe I'm being paranoid, but I'm finding it slightly odd that, out of thousands more articles, so far all those that have been "nuked" happen to be pro wreslters'. There are exactly 3 references in [[Rick Rubin]], one in [[Kris Kristofferson]], and none in [[Tom Petty]] or [[Jimmie Rodgers (country singer)]], I wonder what would happen if I nuked everything unsourced over [[WP:ATT]] or [[WP:BLP]] concerns... [[User:Circeus|Circeus]] 03:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
::50-50 you will be blocked for [[WP:POINT]]/vandalism or be held up as a crusader for upholding [[WP:BLP]], every previous discussion on the focus on professional wrestler articles being cropped down has prettyu much resulted that way if we go off previous experience. –– '''[[User:Lid|Lid]]'''([[User talk:Lid|Talk]]) 05:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
*Perhaps we need a new page [[Wikipedia:Biographies of dead people]]? [[User_talk:Radiant!|>Radiant<]] 12:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If one of the primary intents of BLP is to reduce the risk of Wikipedia's liability, then BLP should apply to all persons recently dead inasmuch as their estates could be an issue. Reasoning would dictate this is a number less than 100 years. It would be impossible to assign a specific number or rule as this it would be a matter for individual courts to decide. [[User:Quatloo|Quatloo]] 20:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
*I'm not sure what you are suggesting, we wait for the courts to decide what? When we can start to edit these articles while not under the umbrella of BLP? –– '''[[User:Lid|Lid]]'''([[User talk:Lid|Talk]]) 05:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
::I'm saying only a court can decide when an estate has standing in a libel case. [[User:Quatloo|Quatloo]] 06:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

:Simple: BLP = Biography of '''Living''' Person. If they're dead, they're not living anymore, now are they? [[User:Luigi30|Luigi30]] ([[User_talk:Luigi30|Taλk]]) 12:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
::That would seem like the obvious position, but it seems there is some dispute over this hence this posting. –– '''[[User:Lid|Lid]]'''([[User talk:Lid|Talk]]) 00:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
::The individuals are not living but their estates are living entities, capable of filing lawsuits. [[User:Quatloo|Quatloo]] 03:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If BLP applies to the deceased, then the title of the BLP policy needs to be changed then.--[[User:Wizardman|Wizardman]] 03:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

== Jimbo's unblock of VK35 ==

I'm concerned by Jimbo's recent [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User:VK35 unblock] of {{user|VK35}}. I became suspicious that VK35 was a sockpuppet of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archive6#Dereks1x_proposed_community_ban banned] user [[User:Dereks1x|Dereks1x]] (who has a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Dereks1x considerable list] of socks) a few days ago. Jimbo's explanation for the unblock was that he has "reasonable confirmation that this user is a real physician."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJersyko&diff=132514171&oldid=132405198] Per the original [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archive6#Dereks1x_proposed_community_ban community ban], Dereks1x was banned in part for using a confirmed sock ([[User:Doc United States|Doc United States]]), for whom he claimed medical credentials, to bolster his own arguments (i.e. Dereks1x's) at [[Talk:John Edwards]]. Doc United States was confirmed to be a sockpuppet via checkuser here: [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dereks1x]].

In that very checkuser request, Doc United States [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_checkuser%2FCase%2FDereks1x&diff=119645154&oldid=119619913 attempted] to prove that he was indeed a doctor, even uploading a photo of a medical degree and posting it in the RFCU in an attempt to demonstrate that he was a doctor and was not Dereks1x. Checkuser confirmed that Doc was a sock of Dereks1x.

The community ban discussion followed. Joining in the discussion was [[User:Atlas87|Atlas87]], who [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=119841853 argued] that we should provide greater "legal safeguards" for banned users while also agreed to revert Doc United States' edits per WP:BAN. Atlas87 was eventually confirmed to be a Dereks1x sock as well via checkuser. Community consensus was unanimous in supporting a ban.

Several other Dereks1x socks eventually surfaced, which were accompanied by more RFCU requests in several circumstances.

Then I recently noticed VK35, who [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=131818818 expressed] a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=130355469 similar] concern (to Atlas87) regarding Wikipedia's approach to banned users. Additionally, VK35 used the word [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FBrendelSignature&diff=131364136&oldid=131293564 "dictatorial"] in describing an RFA candidate (later striken by VK35), a word that had been used by at least one other Dereks1x sock (and I believe others if memory serves) regarding administrators. Additionally, VK35 volunteered to be a checkuser clerk just a few hours after an IP check was submitted regarding Dereks1x on May 18. In fact, VK35 appeared to have a particularly acute interest in both check user and the banning policy for a brand new user. Finally, I noticed that VK35 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=VK35 created his account] less than 2 hours after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Dereks1x Dereks1x was indefinitely blocked].

I confirmed that I might be right to be suspicious with another user in good standing familiar with the situation off-wiki. I then e-mailed [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]], asking him to run a checkuser on VK35. Dmcdevit's e-mail response stated that though VK35 was editing from a dynamic IP range, Dereks1x was editing from the same range. He indicated that the probability of sock puppetry in this case was very likely given corroborating evidence. I blocked VK35 and began rolling back his edits at that point per [[WP:BAN]].

Thereafter, Jimbo unblocked VK35, making the physician comment at my talk page. As I asked Jimbo, I'm curious as to why this user decided to try to prove he was a physician when it wasn't even the reason he was blocked . . . unless he was familiar with the Dereks1x situation. I am not certain whether Jimbo is aware of the user's prior attempt to claim medical credentials, though I did note it at Jimbo's talk page. I still think it is more likely than not that Dereks1x is attempting to pass false credentials, as I'm not aware of exactly what evidence Jimbo has been provided to prove VK35's credentials (given the degree photo that was provided previously, however, I doubt it has great probative value in any event). I do not completely discount the possibility that VK35 is a doctor, either. Like everyone else who was familiar with the situation at the time, I assumed Doc United States' attempt to prove his credentials was insincere, meant merely to bolster his puppet master's talk arguments. Even if the user has medical credentials, that doesn't excuse the behavior in my opinion, as sock abuse is improper regardless. The full conversation between me and Jimbo (and others) is [[User talk:Jimbo Wales#VK35|here]].

Thus, given that check user confirms that VK35 is editing from the same IP range as Dereks1x and his other socks and given the corroborating evidence, I am wary of the unblock. I think administrative input would be useful in this case. '''· [[User:Jersyko|jersyko]]''' ''[[User talk:Jersyko|talk]]'' 01:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

:Right now, I suspect the best thing to do is keep an eye on VK, and ring the bell if he starts getting in the same patterns as Dereks did, which does not seem to be the case right now. Although Dereks is known to be highly deceptive, I don't believe there is a reason to really worry until VK gets in trouble with pages relating to Democratic party members. [[User:Circeus|Circeus]] 03:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

::I failed to mention above that VK35 had begun serving as an [[WP:RFCU|RFCU]] clerk before I blocked him. Whether that affects your opinion or not, Circeus, is obviously up to you. Thanks. '''· [[User:Jersyko|jersyko]]''' ''[[User talk:Jersyko|talk]]'' 03:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

:I completely concur with Jersyko on this. Several of us have been following the trail of Dereks1x's disruption and repeated instances of sockpuppetry, and his community ban for falsely claiming to be a doctor, and VK35's approach is strongly reminiscent of how one or another of Dereks1x's 20+ socks responded to the accusations. While VK35 has not gotten involved in the same content disputes as some of the other puppets, he has shown an unusual, and very early, interest in Jersyko (the admin who blocked and/or gave evidence against most of Dereks1x's sockpuppets), a good example of which is what would otherwise be a random AN/I discussion, except that it was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:253AAdministrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=131818818&oldid=131818233 VK35 coming in] to comment on a false RFCU accusation that one of Dereks1x's confirmed sockpuppets made a few days ago (in defiance of his ban of course) against another editor who had participated in previous Derek SSPs and had initiated a couple of IP checks on Dereks1x suspected puppets. Even his edit summary is reminiscent of the dozens of Dereks1x's that I have read. What is the likelihood of the coincidence of an unrelated observer -VK35 - coming in out of the blue to comment on that particular AN/I thread out of the hundreds of administrative matters that are discussed every day, and then that user being ''erroneously'' confirmed by checkuser as a Dereks1x puppet as we would be led to believe? The easier answer is usually the better one - and that would be that the checkuser confirmation of independently formed suspicions about VK35 and Dereks1x was not mistaken, and they are one and the same.

:And I truly do not understand why Jimbo feels that VK35's sudden claims of being a doctor - whether or not they are true - are somehow proof that he is not a puppet of Dereks1x who falsely passed himself off here as a doctor, complete with photo of a bogus diploma. I don't really find the doctor issue to be relevant - at least not in a way that it supports VK35's claim of not being Dereks1x's sock - but maybe I'm missing something.

:I have written [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser&diff=prev&oldid=132455666 elsewhere] about my concerns regarding VK35 as a checkuser clerk - he volunteered for the job a few hours after one of Dereks1x's new socks was listed for an IP check. I see that as a result of the unblock VK35 has been reinstated in this role and I again say that if he is a sock evading a ban, one that has undergone numerous IP checks and checkusers, having him on the inside of that process to glean whatever insights there might be about the checkuser process is a matter of concern, and I would urge that there be more oversight on the selection process, even if there are no privacy ramifications.

:Finally - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=130355469 this] description by VK35 captures what Dereks1x did when he created [[User: Atlas87]] when he was undergoing an SSP. Atlas87, a few days after being created, came into the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACommunity_sanction_noticeboard&diff=119915368&oldid=119893834#Dereks1x_proposed_community_ban discussion] about Dereks1x's community ban and was soon revealed to be another sock. Is VK35's description another coincidence?

:I completely share Jersyko's conclusion that VK35 is another Dereks1x account, and I am disturbed that the checkuser that confirmed it is being disregarded here. I strongly encourage adminstrative input on this unblock as well, as I would like to understand this. [[User:Tvoz|Tvoz]] |[[User talk:Tvoz|talk]] 06:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

::Not that I want to unleash Dereks1x's "editing style" upon Wikipedia again, but based upon Jimbo's confirmation of his medical credentials should the community ban be revisited? A stroll through the community ban discussion indicates that some of those voting in favor of the ban did so because they thought the credentials were false in addition to his use of socks to support his viewpoint. If the community banned him for just the sockpuppet use, then Jimbo's reasoning for unblocking VK35 would be moot and this latest account could be sent back into blocked-land.--[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] [[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]] 18:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
:::It looks like most people wanted him banned for the false credentials. [[User:Funpika|Fun]][[User_Talk:Funpika|pika]] 21:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

::::The medical credential problem was the proximate reason for his ban, yes. However, this was a highly disruptive editor before the medical persona arrived here - disruptive under the master's account and disruptive under a number of socks who were used to defend the master's positions in disputes. He appeared to be on the road to longer-term blocking, when the medical persona burst on the scene to defend the master's position in a dispute regarding a medical matter, and the master had called for a "medical expert". The questionable credentials that were presented at the time eclipsed the issue of disruptive editing when the community ban was considered and implemented. The user was not deterred by the ban, as other socks continued to emerge, this just being the most recent one uncovered. [[User:Tvoz|Tvoz]] |[[User talk:Tvoz|talk]] 06:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

== GordonWatts ==

I blocked {{userlinks|GordonWatts}} for egregious [[WP:POINT]] violation. If anyone can find a productive edit since his last block expired they are welcome to look, I can't find one but then I didn't look to hard because what limited patience I have with him expired some time ago. Enough already, I'd say. He is, in his own opinion, always right, and will continue to explain why in ''excruciating'' detail until you lose interest or die of old age. [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([[User:JzG/help|Help!]]) 20:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
:You might want to see the discussion on Gordon over on ANI or CSN, Guy. CSN, especially might be a moot point now. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] 20:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
::Given that Friday has just re-blocked him, I think he can be considered banned unless somebody unblocks him. I certainly won't. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 20:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Nor me. Endorse Friday's judgement on the block. '''[[User:Daniel|Daniel]]''' 08:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

== Ganging up ==

Content dispute. [[WP:DR|Disputte resolution]] is down the hall.--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]g 15:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc glasgow]] Did you just close this discussion? Are you trying to tell me that you not only took part in this discussion, representing a partisan point of view, but you are closing this discussion too? Where is the fairness in that? In point of fact I posed a question to you (see below) that you have not responded to. [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] 15:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
:Foolishly I did take part. But neither your question, nor any response from me, belong on this page. Take your argument elsewhere.--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]g 15:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
::Okay, pretend I closed it. -- [[User:John Reaves|John Reaves]] [[User talk:John Reaves|(talk)]] 16:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Sigh... It's most unfortunate to see the discussion closed, especially since Bus stop's last comment is extremely misleading and presents an outright falsehood: the 'List of Christians' tag was never on the article previously, and indeed was even created from scratch by user [[User:Warlordjohncarter|John Carter]] around a week or so ago. It was added, confusingly, because the need for such a tag only applies to the [[List of notable converts to Judaism]] (because of the complex definition of Who is a Jew?, and the confusion which may arouse in such a title; for example, there can be Jewish atheists, but not Christian ones- at least, there is no comparable example). A few days after its creation and addition, it was removed by other editors, who saw its misplacement as much as I did. User John never clearly explained his purpose in including the tag, so I'm not even sure what it was all about.
:::Anyway, since the discussion is, after all, closed, I don't want to continue where it isn't warranted. However, note Bus stop's appeal to birth religion in his illogical assumption of "If a Christian convert is not openly displaying his Christian faith, and not openly negating his old one, then he must be adhering to his old faith- never mind the other religious possibilities and the fact that this individual is very private about his personal life". Also, note that, despite my explanation of such several times, Bus stop still does not remember that the sources which we have explain his Jewish ritual involvement as "coming from a Christian perspective" and being "more cultural than religious"- the sources even state that he was involved with the [[Lubavitchers]] from a "Christian perspective". All such examples are dismissed because his involvement with these things is normal for a Jewish Christian (really, ask one of them). Keep in mind that the sources used are reliable in accordance with [[WP:BLP]] standards. Well, I suppose the discussion is done, but I wouldn't like to see a misrepresentative comment as the last one frozen in this discussion. Forgive me. --[[User:C.Logan|C.Logan]] 16:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
:If Bus stop wishes to report the behavior of Doc, the correct forum is [[WP:AN/I]]. However, I agree that the argument as stated really was more of a content driven one, and as such should be handled by dispute resolution, as indicated above. And, regarding the {{tl|Christian list}}, it was created on the model of {{tl|Jew list}} both to resolve the question of who qualifies for inclusion in such a list and to function as a replacement for the {{tl|Christianity}} which has been placed on about 300 articles to which it is not directly relevant. I thought copying the Jewish list template Bus stop so frequently cited as a point of reference would possibly quiet some of his objections, and also be a template which could at least potentially be used on various Christian lists. I hope that answers the questions above. [[User:Warlordjohncarter|John Carter]] 18:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
{{archive top}}

I hope an administrator can handle this situation:
I left this original message on admin [[User talk:Jayjg]] - ''ganging up'' a few days ago. It looks to me as though there are several editors ganging up against one [[Bus stop]] - here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notable_converts_to_Judaism and here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_notable_converts_to_Christianity, can you look into it?
[[User:Modernist|Modernist]] 17:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
:[[User:JJay]] seems particularly vindictive against [[User:Bus stop]]. Thanks [[User:Modernist|Modernist]] 11:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Each day the situation appears to be getting; is getting worse, there and on other pages like [[Talk:Bob Dylan]]. [[User:Cleo123]] has attempted to help [[User:Bus stop]], but the abuse by [[John Carter]], JJay, [[Logan]], Gustav von Humpelschmumpel, and several others continues. I think an administrator should intervene, as a somewhat outside observer it looks ugly to me. Kind of like a hornets nest. Is there anything you can do? [[User:Modernist|Modernist]] 18:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

:Considering that I'm mentioned along with the editors above, I'd hope you'd articulate the full reasoning behind your accusations, and moreso those reasons concerning my own involvement in 'ganging up' on Bus stop. Bus stop has never allowed the possibility that the editors who disagree with him might actually be arguing behind a point of reason- he appears to have always assumed that such editors (myself included) have been operating from behind a heavy bias. He often makes accusations which, I believe, are quite libelous and without support. Every opposing suggestion and personal defense of character made by the accused editors have been dismissed by him, and it seems that he refuses to believe that any other editor is operating for neutral reasons, preferring instead to see the motivations behind the editors involved as "proselytizing for Christianity", "winning a victory over a Jew", and 'warping' the article (which has had the same parameters since its creation, apparently) to "capture Bob Dylan on the list" (and it should be noted that Dylan has been listed on the article since the article's creation[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_notable_converts_to_Christianity&oldid=35579159].) Thankfully, Cleo has tried to discourage him of such behavior, but I've seen no change as of yet. The discussion, which should have ended long ago, has persisted for... I believe it's been exactly a month now. Now, as a form of compromise has been proposed by Cleo, myself and John Carter (although we all seem to disagree on the specifics of it), you would think the discussion might cool down a bit. Well, I've yet to see it, but I have my fingers crossed.

:Also, it should be noted that there's been no conflict, as far as I know of, on the List of notable converts to Judaism. The only real involvement of the editors mention was Bus stop's unwarranted(?) removal of a 'citation needed' tag (referring to the claim that 'Judaism is not a proselytizing religion', which is challenged by recent proselytizing efforts made by some branches of Judaism), and JJay's restoration of the tag with an explanation.

:It would seem that Bus stop's own perception of a 'gang mentality' in the opposing editors is based more on the perception of one who holds a minority opinion being faced by a strong majority than in any actual 'ganging up', although I haven't thoroughly observed the behavior of the other editors involved, so I can't defend them. However, in regard to the route taken by the discussion, it would seem that Bus stop prefers to mold the discussion to work around whatever argument works best for his ultimate goal of removing Dylan from the list. Note the escalating demand for quality of sources, which peaks at the point where Bus stop rejected (and still rejects) 3 published biographies (reliable in accordance to [[WP:BLP]] standards), the Encyclopedia Britannica, the New York Times, and a Jewish Newsletter's study of Dylan's faith (at one point, baptism records were suggested to be 'sufficient'- a strange suggestion, considering that many Christians do not find baptism to be a necessary step in conversion. Additionally, if we begin to require baptismal records for conversions, many actual converts to Christianity would not make the list because of the difficulty in finding such sources, or because of the non-existence of such records in the first place). After the sources became generally accepted, he switched the argument to one regarding the merits for inclusion- and this is the point where personal attacks against the motivations of editors opposed to him intensified. I can't claim innocence in action for any editor involved, but Bus stop is not a defenseless individual, and he has committed equal, if not greater, errors in comparison to the other editors involved. Therefore, concerning this issue, one should keep that in mind before vilifying any single side in the discussion. --[[User:C.Logan|C.Logan]] 15:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

:Wanted to second everything [[User:Modernist|Modernist]] has said. I've been keeping watch over there, and, although the subject falls outside my own area of knowledge, there does seem to be a great deal of hostility and bad faith editing going on against [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]]. [[User:Freshacconci|Freshacconci]] 18:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please follow [[WP:DR]] or bring up on [[WP:AN]]. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 20:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
:I am hoping this can all be amiably and reasonably worked out, so they can all edit articles in peace and with quality. Thank you, [[User:Modernist|Modernist]] 20:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

::I’ve watched this issue since coming across it some time ago (it’s rather hard to miss), but have avoided becoming involved due lack of time and the apparent futility of engaging in it. From my perspective, the putative “ganging up” is more a result more of exasperation over [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop’s]] persistent [[WP:POINT|pointism]], as he makes clear in various places. Cf. [[Talk:List of notable converts to Christianity#Bob Dylan shouldn't be on List of converts to Christianity|Bob Dylan shouldn't be on List of converts to Christianity]] and [[Talk:List of notable converts to Christianity#You do not put a Jew on a list of Christians|You do not put a Jew on a list of Christians]] for clear expositions by [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] of his or her position on the issue. While the advisability of having “Lists of notable converts to XYZ” on Wikipedia may be readily debatable, it is a historical fact – according to [[Bob Dylan|Bob Dylan’s]] own testimony – that he at one time became an evangelical Christian. It is likewise “reliably reported” (in the Wikipedia sense) that he has more recently participated in Jewish worship practices, and later since that Dylan says he now subscribes to no organized religion. None of this changes his Jewish ''ethnicity'', but since Mr. Dylan has always been rather private about his personal religious beliefs, it’s unclear what his current ''religious'' preferences may actually be at this time. The status of the “Jewishness” of ethnic Jews who are non-observant or apostate (or formerly apostate) is a controversial issue in Judaism, so it is unhelpful for someone to arbitrarily conflate them in Wikipedia – least of all simply to preserve a “body count.” It seems to me in any case, that [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop’s]] chief complaint would be better addressed on [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)]] as to whether or not “Lists of converts” are properly encyclopedic, and if not, deprecated as such. However personally offensive he may find the issue to be, trying to unilaterally enforce his objections on a single such list can only be disruptive over the long run without there being a consensus to support it. [[User:Askari Mark|Askari Mark]] [[User talk:Askari Mark|(Talk)]] 19:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

:::You've made some very good observations. I don't want to go into both sides of the argument here, but it seems like Bus stop is motivated by personal offense and unwarranted assumptions about why opposing editors are opposing him, while I, at least, am more concerned with transmitting information that is relevant to the article at hand in an un-conflicting way, and fighting censorship on Wikipedia. Bus stop has a legitimate point buried somewhere in the accusations, assumptions and dramatic language, but it's become too integrated to analyze one element without the other. --[[User:C.Logan|C.Logan]] 19:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You do not put the Jewish person named Bob Dylan on the [[List of notable converts to Christianity]] because in doing so you contradict yourself. You do not contrive parameters in order to relieve that contradiction because doing so constitutes a form of "forcing." If he doesn't fit, then he doesn't fit. One does not force him onto that list if he doesn't fit. He happens to be Jewish. It is a list of Christians. Therefore he doesn't fit the parameters of that list. We don't present contradictions on Wikipedia. We don't say that black is white. And we don't say that white is black.

We don't blur distinctions. We respect differences. And yes, it is an offense to put a Jew on a list of Christians. As enthusiastic as the Christian philosophy of the salvation available through Jesus Christ may be, Jews do not accept that. Jews consider that incorrect. Jews do not accept that Jesus was the Son of God. Jews do not accept that there is salvation in accepting Jesus as one's Savior. Jews do not accept the New Testament. You respect a Jew by not forcing him onto a list of Christians. Equally important Wikipedia has no allowance for contradiction that I am aware of. [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] 14:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

:But that is POV. Clearly, overwhelmingly, Jews believe you can't be both Jewish and Christian, But some people do identify themselves as both - indeed many thousands. That's a significant minority opinion which must also be represented on Wikipedia. Identity is always subjective anyway. It is not a matter of black and white 'facts'. This is POV dispute - and you need to reflect both sides (whilst making clear the mainstream view). At any rate, not a matter for admins.--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]g 14:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

:An observation: By that reasoning, it would be offensive to put Christ on a list of Christians. I understand he was a Jew, too. Perhaps if you tone down the rhetoric and discuss this with a eye towards consensus, there will be less grandstanding and complaints all the way around. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]][[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]] 14:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

::This is all got to do with mainstream Jewish POV pushing that wants to eradicate any mention that there are, and always have been, 'Messianic Jews'.--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]g 14:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

:::[[User:C.Logan|C.Logan]], [[User:Askari Mark|Askari Mark]] -- As for my "switching" arguments, that is incorrect. I first encountered the "contrived parameters" on the Talk page of the [[Bob Dylan]] article. That was before I became aware of the [[List of notable converts to Christianity]] article. Editors posed the question, "shouldn't Dylan be removed from the category 'converts to Christianity,' since he is no longer a Christian?" To which came the reply that it was a category of "all those who had '''ever''' converted to Christianity. That struck me as contrived, and an unfair pushing of a Christian point of view. I eventually found my way to the [[List of notable converts to Christianity]] where I continued to encounter that contrived line of reasoning. In point of fact, it was always that contrivance that I was indignant about. I don't think Wikipedia should be pulling the wool over the people's eyes.

:::A 'gang' is not just a gang because its members act in concert with one another. Another reason that the word gang might be chosen is because of the improper activities that members may engage in. In this instance that runs the gamut from insulting comments to point of view pushing to the excessive use of the Wikipedia legal system. But I won't get bogged down in complaining about every one of those things.

:::[[WP:POINT]] is not applicable. I am not trying to do something that runs approximately parallel to some other thing. There is no attempt on my part to prove my point by doing something else. I am entirely aboveboard in my contentions. In other words, my words mean exactly what they say. How does that involve the violation of [[WP:POINT]]? I'm not doing one thing in order to prove a separate point. I don't see that [[WP:POINT]] is applicable. [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] 14:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

:::I'm having a hard time grasping that there is anything to argue about here. Maybe I'm too simple to see the big picture, someone want to explain it to me? Dylan was a Jew. He became a Christian. Maybe he was both at the same time, maybe he wasn't, but his own words in reliable sources say he was a Christian. Whether or not he's still a Christian or has become a Jew again (if he ceased to be one when he became a Christian) is irrelevant to the list, which is about people who converted, regardless of lapses back (or reconversions) to their first religion, conversions to third religions, acceptance of agnoticism or atheism, or whatever. [[User:Lexicon|Lexicon]] [[User talk:Lexicon|(talk)]] 14:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
::::Ah, I see. Do articles on conversion to other religions follow the same "contrived parameters"? If so, then they're not all that contrived. It makes sense, in one way, because while you may have information about the "conversion event" you can never know if an individual still practices. Last week Mel Gibson might have rejected [[Traditionalist Catholic|Traditionalist Catholicism]] for all we know. [[User:Lexicon|Lexicon]] [[User talk:Lexicon|(talk)]] 14:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] -- Do you have a source for present day Messianic Judaism for Bob Dylan? Do you even have a past source for Messianic Judaism for Bob Dylan? [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] 14:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[[User:Lexicon|Lexicon]] -- Actually that is a contrivance. If you look at the [[List of converts to Judaism]] you will see the parameters for this sort of list ''minus'' the contrivance. The [[List of converts to Judaism]] clearly has the tag on it reading ''This page is a list of Jews.'' In point of fact that same tag hung on the [[List of converts to Christianity]]. (Except that it read ''This page is a list of Christians.'') It was only removed to accommodate the contrivance I'm referring to. I know that to be the case because it was removed in a direct response to the challenges to Bob Dylan's presence on the list. The [[List of converts to Judaism]] follows far more restrictive guidelines. If any name can be proven ''not'' to be a Jew then it is liable to be removed for that reason alone. Why is the [[List of converts to Christianity]] casting a wider net for the names on it's list?

Furthermore, the title itself says that only Christians are on the [[List of converts to Christianity]]. ''Convert'' in this sense is a noun indicating ''Christian.'' But Dylan is not a Christian, so why would he be on a list that in it's very title indicates that it is a list of Christians?

Parameters for lists need to be simple, or they leave themselves open to being contrived. And this is clearly just such a case of parameters that have been made more complicated than they are in their most basic state, and they are in this instance a contrivance to push a point of view. There are really only two ways by which a person can acquire either Jewish or Christian identity. Those two ways are by birth and by conversion. Basic parameters for this list are therefore simply "those notable people who have found Christian identity by way of conversion." It is only by way of an enhancement to those parameters (which constitutes a contrivance) that one arrives at the the criteria that it is a list of all those who have '''ever''' converted to Christianity. That group is incalculably larger than the first group. It appears to me that there is an agenda at work here that wishes to enhance the contents of this list either in quality or quantity or both.

Finally, sources have areas of inapplicability as well as areas of applicability. Contemporary (1979) sources using the word ''convert'' don't confer ''convert'' status on someone 27 years later. We know Dylan has had nothing to do with Christianity in 27 years, or at least we have no evidence that he has. And he was born a Jew. Birth has lasting applicability in such things as religious identity. And there is evidence of normal Jewish involvement in quotidian Jewish affairs in the intervening 27 years. No one is arguing he is a pious Jew. But the average Jew, and Dylan too, shows some level of involvement in the holidays, for instance, found on the Jewish calendar. An observance of a Jewish Sabbath is occasionally reported for Bob Dylan. In one photograph he is seen wearing the traditional Jewish "skullcap," as well as the extremely arcane Jewish adornment known as "phylacteries," worn on the head and arm. My point is that the sources from 1979 do not have automatic applicability to 2007. They are more clearly inapplicable. [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] 15:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== My monobook ==

{{resolved|1=[[User:EVula|EVula]] // [[User talk:EVula|talk]] // [[User:EVula/admin|☯]] // 15:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)}}

Could an admin please blank my monobook.js page please? I'm user:GrooveDog, and I accidentily put a script on it that won't let me log in.[[User:GrooveCat|GrooveCat]] 23:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
* I looked (via [[WP:RPP]]) and the page is already blank! - [[User:Alison|'''Alison''']] [[User talk:Alison|☺]] 23:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
**I blanked it and then realized GrooveDog had already been working on it; apologies. [[User:Chick Bowen|Chick Bowen]] 00:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

== Vandalism-only account ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Blehhhahaha%21%21 User: Blehhhahaha!!] appears to be a vandalism-only account. I have reverted all his edits. --[[User:Eastlaw|Eastlaw]] 04:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
*Thank you, but please see [[WP:AIV]] next time. —'''[[User:MichaelLinnear| MichaelLinnear]]''' 05:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

== [[Ron Paul]] series of articles needs an admin to adopt them ==

We could use an admin or two to watch over the [[Ron Paul]] article and its associated articles - the main article is semi protected, but we have people new to wikipedia who don't get all the nuances - like 3RR, edit summaries, NPOV, consensus - and I think some administrative oversight would help. A few people have tried to flesh out the article and keep it neutral, but as a presidential candidate article there are some very partisan people over there and it's getting tedious. So - does anyone like politics? Thanks (I wasn't sure where to post this - let me know if there's another more appropriate place.)[[User:Tvoz|Tvoz]] |[[User talk:Tvoz|talk]] 09:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

== Block of [[User talk:69.134.117.202|69.134.117.202]] ==

Hope I'm not taking up space just an FYI that when [[User talk:69.134.117.202|69.134.117.202]] was blocked I was on this IP and I am confident it did not happen in my building. Is this a shared IP? Thanks for the help! --'''[[User talk:Trumpetband|Trumpetband]]''' 14:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Henrygb]] ==

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. For abusive sockpuppetry involving the accounts [[User:Audiovideo|Audiovideo]], [[User:Facethefacts|Facethefacts]], and [[User:SE16|SE16]], the administrator privileges of [[User:Henrygb|Henrygb]] are revoked. He may reapply at any time, either a) by appeal to the Arbitration Committee, or b) after giving notice to the committee to allow verification that no further abusive sockpuppetry has occurred, by reapplying via the usual means. Henrygb shall edit Wikipedia from only a single account. Henrygb is banned until he responds to the Arbitration Committee's concerns on this matter. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 14:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

:Whoa. That kind of jumped ahead of the line, didn't it? I suppose it was a relatively straightforward case then. [[User:Hbdragon88|hbdragon88]] 22:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
::"Line"? There's no particular order in which we handle cases. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]][[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]] 23:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Okay, wrong word. I was surprised to see this case be closed so quickly based on the usual length of cases. [[User:Hbdragon88|hbdragon88]] 01:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
::::Some cases are way easier than others. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]][[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]] 13:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

== Cowboy Rocco's block ==

[[User:Cowboy Rocco|Cowboy Rocco]] has been constantly calling me and asking me to request his block extension be reviewed. He asked me to tell you all that he was "unjustly blocked" because the unblock template should be removed because it said

<blockquote>
''"This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer."''
</blockquote>

at the bottom so please review his request so he will shut up and get back to acting normal when he talks at school. --'''[[User:Kkrouni|Kk]][[User talk:Kkrouni|rou]][[Special:Contributions/Kkrouni|ni]]''' 00:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
*Looks like {{user|Raul654}} was the blocking administrator, probably acting as a checkuser. Have you discussed the block with him? [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 00:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
:Well kind of... I don't think that he thought that he was trying to cover up his sockpuppetry incident. He even wrote in his edit summary's that he was trying to obey the template. --'''[[User:Kkrouni|Kk]][[User talk:Kkrouni|rou]][[Special:Contributions/Kkrouni|ni]]''' 00:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

CoybowRocco was a large-scale sockpuppeteer. I caught and blocked dozens of his sockpuppets. (Note - Kkrouni is one of them who I have, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kkrouni&diff=127341783&oldid=127301629 against my better judgement], decided to allow to continue editing.) When I made a note of this on his talk page, he tried to remove it. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 01:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

:I swear to GOD that we are two different people! We have known each other since the third grade!--'''[[User:Kkrouni|Kk]][[User talk:Kkrouni|rou]][[Special:Contributions/Kkrouni|ni]]''' 01:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

:Hmm, where do I remember this name? Oh yeah, [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Susan_Walton|Susan Walton's RfA]], who has been [[User:Susan_Walton|blocked as a sock]]. Note that I typed the first half of that, then checked the userpage fully expecting to see the sock tag. No alarms and no surprises, move along folks there is nothing to see here. [[User:Teke|Teke]][[User talk:Teke|talk]] 03:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
::Supplemental reading, in case you can't just move along: [[:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Cowboy Rocco]]. Checkuser cleaning. [[User:Teke|Teke]][[User talk:Teke|talk]] 03:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Yes but Raul blocked him for a month for sockpuppetry, and added two months for that template. I don't see how removing a template that says "remove me" warrants an extension of a block. --'''[[User:Kkrouni|Kk]][[User talk:Kkrouni|rou]][[Special:Contributions/Kkrouni|ni]]''' 11:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

== Monobook JS (Again) ==

For the third, yes, the third time, I have messed up my monobook (My memory of bad scripts is horrible). Could an admin please blank "GrooveDog"'s JS? Thanks. [[User:GrooveCat|GrooveCat]] 02:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
:{{tick}} '''Done''' --[[User:Deskana|Deskana]] [[User talk:Deskana|(talk)]] 02:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
::If you didn't know, you can disable javascript in your browser and revert yourself, unless something is blocking changing the settings.  [[User:Prodego|''Prodego'']] [[User talk:Prodego|talk]] 02:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll remember that in the future when I messup again. :) [[User:GrooveCat|GrooveCat]] 02:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

== Problem at [[Dennis Kucinich]] ==

I have been contacted by e-mail by {{user|Aivazovsky}} (formerly [[User:Clevelander]]), who said he didn't want to have the articles [[Mayoral administration of Dennis Kucinich]] and [[Cleveland recall election, 1978]] available to the general public anymore but wanted to keep them for personal use. He asked whether I could delete these articles, which I declined.
*Aivazovsky has redirected both articles to [[Dennis Kucinich]] and replaced the link there with a summary account.
*Aivazovsky is ''not'' the sole editor on these articles.
*By publishing these texts, Aivazovsky has put them under the GFDL, a non-revocable free license.
*The GFDL allows Aivazovsky to use ''his'' contributions to these articles elsewhere, too (for instance, for publication in some journal), though if doing so, it would probably be a good idea to state that the text has been published on Wikipedia already, which in practice may mean that it could be hard to get the text accepted at a journal.
*I have not checked whether there is a potential [[WP:BLP]] or [[WP:COATRACK]] issue here.
I'd like to see more input on this case, from Aivazovsky and from others. My initial reaction was to un-redirect both articles and undo the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dennis_Kucinich&diff=133098212&oldid=133012658 changes made] at [[Dennis Kucinich]]. What do you think? [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] 06:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

: If he put his work up on Wikipedia then he agreed to release it under the GFDL, it's no longer his place to say what can or cannot be done with the work. [[User:Ben W Bell|'''Ben W Bell''']] [[User talk:Ben W Bell|''talk'']] 06:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
::The combination of your 2nd and 3rd points - that he's not the sole editor and every edit screen explicitly states that you agree to license under GFDL - seems to me makes this an open-and-shut case. In fact, even if he was the sole editor it wouldn't matter. (If he wants to get an article on the topic published in a journal, then he'll just have to write a new one if he can't separate out his own words from the words of other editors here. This isn't our problem.) As for the redirects - unless the material in the main article completely encompasses the material in the redirected articles, which I doubt, I think the redirects should be removed and the articles reinstated. [[User:Tvoz|Tvoz]] |[[User talk:Tvoz|talk]] 07:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Actually, according to [[WP:CSD#G7]], if not for the second point - he '''would''' have the right that the article be deleted. [[User:Od Mishehu|Od]] [[User talk:Od Mishehu|Mishehu]] 07:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
: Ben restored one article and I restored the other. We should talk about controversial mergers before doing them. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] [[User_talk:Jehochman|☎]] / [[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|✔]] 07:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
::The one I restored I did as it covered a lot more detail and was a specific article not solely pertaining to Dennis Kucinch and didn't deserve to be redirected to the later. The other one I left as I was a bit more unsure over that one as a lot of the info has been recently incorporated into the later page. [[User:Ben W Bell|'''Ben W Bell''']] [[User talk:Ben W Bell|''talk'']] 07:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

:::The mayoral article can not be covered by CSD G7 as he is not the author of the article, and thus him redirecting it makes it even odder, while the second article which he did author does not relate solely to Dennis Kucinich making the redirect unfeasible. In both cases the articles should remain as sngle entities. –– '''[[User:Lid|Lid]]'''([[User talk:Lid|Talk]]) 07:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

::::It doesn't matter to me anymore. I'll just rephrase myself if I decide to use this information. -- [[User:Aivazovsky|Aivazovsky]] 10:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
::::: No need, you can use it exactly as-is, provided you either include the text you submitted, verbatim, or attribute the text you take, to Wikipedia. Releasing under GFDL absolutely does not preclude publication elsewhere under other licenses. [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([[User:JzG/help|Help!]]) 12:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

== Redirecting proponent ==

I've come across a user who is trying to improve Wikipedia. Good I hear you say, normally I'd agree with you and they are acting in good faith. Unfortunately the [[User:Mathiastck]] has just discovered the #Redirect command and the meta soft redirect and is setting up many redirects. Some of them are fine, don't get me wrong, but some are just bad going to double and sometimes triple redirects, and also creating redirects to end articles that really aren't directly relevant to the initial redirects. I've tried mentioning some words to the user and they are truely acting in good faith, but it's becoming a bit of a frustrating exercise. Can anyone else have a look and put forward their views as maybe I am being a bit hard here. [[User:Ben W Bell|'''Ben W Bell''']] [[User talk:Ben W Bell|''talk'']] 07:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

:I will look into it and try to discuss the issue with them. [[User:Vassyana|Vassyana]] 08:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

:(edit conflict) I agree with your view, and you are warning him appropriately. Redirects aren't bad, and there's nothing wrong with being inclusionist, but creating too many irrelevant redirect pages and causing double or more redirects becomes a problem. I'm sure those edits are done in good faith, but he's pushing it a little bit. After all, there are other ways to improve the encyclopedia, such as adding content to articles and sourcing. '''[[User:Sr13|Sr]][[User talk:Sr13|13]]''' 08:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

== [[Freedom of panorama]] ==

I've copied over the commons version of this article because it's more complete than our version. Unfortunately there are a few differences when viewed side by side (mainly encyclopedic tone and formatting). I'm going to integrate the versions later, but I have to go to work. If somebody else wants to take crack at it in the next 12 hours, they are welcome to. -[[User:Nardman1|N]] 10:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

:Gosh. Look, the commons page is not for nothing in the "Commons:" namespace. Would you ever had the idea to take a "Wikipedia:" namespace policy or guideline and copy it to article space? Probably not. This will need ''a lot'' of work if it is to become an article. In particular, the whole list of countries should go and be replaced by a link to the page on the Commons. [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] 10:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
::Go ahead and revert if you want, the version we had before was virtually identical, except for a few sentences. You do bring up a valid point though, maybe this is in the wrong namespace. Anyhow I'm off. Cheers. -[[User:Nardman1|N]] 11:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
:::The previous version was ''also'' copied from the Commons... [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] 11:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
::::Versions merged. Consensus for moving to the Wikipedia namespace and leaving only a stub about the legal concept of freedom of panorama in the article space? -[[User:Nardman1|N]] 15:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::Going to do it, per [[WP:BOLD]] -[[User:Nardman1|N]] 23:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention]] ==

Could we get more admins to watchlist and patrol [[Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention]]? It's getting quite a bit of activity (especially from the bot) and yet reports are sitting for more than 2 hours at times. It's a pretty straightforward board. Just need some assistance. Thanks. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']][[User talk:Woohookitty|Woohoo!]] 11:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
:OK. --[[User:Fire Star|Fire Star 火星]] 16:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

== [[WP:BLP]] ==

Uncle G has made a thoughtful and wlel-reaosned suggestion for [[WP:BLP]] to clarify what we should do in the problematic cases where all the sources on an individual refer to a single incident. I added this to [[WP:BLP]] because it seemed to me to make good sense, but needless to say a brief revert war ensued. I encourage people to review [[Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#The new section people are putting in]] and pitch into the debate. [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([[User:JzG/help|Help!]]) 13:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
:So much for actual changes... JzG has protected the page under his version. [[User:Miltopia|Milto LOL pia]] 16:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
::Looks like a different sysop undid that protection and re-protected (on the [[m:The Wrong Version]] of course). [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 16:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
::: Actually I unprotected it myself almost immediately, since I thought better of it. Irrelevant, though, since as you say someone else reprotected it in response to a [[WP:RFPP]]. Needless to say all page protections are at [[m:The wrong version|the wrong version]] (fsvo). [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([[User:JzG/help|Help!]]) 17:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
:::: As per my recent posting here, [[#WP:BLP and the deceased|WP:BLP and the deceased]], BLP either needs renaming, a complete re-write to encompass both living and dead, as editors believe BLP now applies to dead people (including Jimbo Wales and admin Alkivar) or possibly a re-write to make it much tighter in who it applies to as in the last two weeks BLP application has resulted in three rather large cases of "process" debate (Little Fatty, BLP applying to the dead, Crystal Gail Mangum). –– '''[[User:Lid|Lid]]'''([[User talk:Lid|Talk]]) 01:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

== "Status" of fictional characters ==

I think that the "status" section for fictional characters (deceased/active) in their character bio box should be removed, because it leads to a lot of OR. In a lot of films, for example, the main villain may supposedly die at the end, but it is never actually stated that they are dead, and therefore there is a possibility that they may have survived, so listing them as "deceased" is relying too much on human perception (look at [[Ernst Blofeld]] for example).--[[User:70.251.189.99|70.251.189.99]] 15:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
* Plus it's entirely in-universe and in any case depends on which work in the series you happen to be looking at. I completely agree. Howver, this is not the place to talk about it... [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([[User:JzG/help|Help!]]) 16:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
::Where would be a better place to post this?--[[User:66.143.166.156|66.143.166.156]] 18:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Possibly somewhere on the [[WP:VP|village pump]]. [[User:ConMan|Confusing Manifestation]] 05:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

== CFD slow processing ==
{{resolved|1=Discussion moved to [[User talk:TonyTheTiger]]. [[User:EVula|EVula]] // [[User talk:EVula|talk]] // [[User:EVula/admin|☯]] // 19:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)}}

The following [[WP:CFD]] has not been properly handled (renamed): [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_6#Category:Chicago_films]]. I have attempted to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timrollpickering&diff=132323171&oldid=131092510 contact] the closing administrator. Let me know if there is anything I should do (preferably at my talk page). [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] ([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|cont]]/[[User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon|bio]]/[[User:TonyTheTiger/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM|tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM]]) 16:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

*Responded on the user's [[User talk:TonyTheTiger#CFD slow processing|talk page]]. --[[User:After Midnight|After Midnight]] [[User talk:After Midnight|0001]] 18:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

== Abusing userspace for political propaganda ==

I think we should have a clear policy about expressing political beliefs in userpages. I had a sandbox on my userpage, [[User:MariusM/Heaven of Transnistria]], which included some personal opinions (but also some sourced facts) about current government of [[Transnistria]]. My sandbox was deleted by [[User:El C]] and it was reported as an example of "abusing my userspace for political soapboxing", for further actions against me.

What I find strange is that the same person who deleted my sandbox is abusing his userspace to make Communist political propaganda [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:El_C&oldid=127611532 User:El C], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:El_C&oldid=133013650 User talk:El C]. He put Lenin's and Che Guevara's photos and quotes from those two guys on both his userpage and usertalkpage. There were millions of people killed because of Lenin, he is one of the big criminals of the 20th century, and such an userpage is deeply offensive for people who suffered because of Communism.

Based on the precedent [[User:El C|El C]] himself created through the deletion of my sandbox, I am asking [[User:El C]] to remove Communist propaganda from his userspace.--[[User:MariusM|MariusM]] 18:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

:You may have better luck addressing your concerns directly to [[User:El C]] on his [[User talk:El C|talk page]]. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' [[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]] 21:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

::I did [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:El_C&curid=887796&diff=133273787&oldid=133258358].--[[User:MariusM|MariusM]] 22:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

:::MariusM seems to think that expressing nationalist pov, as he does on his user page, is different from my own in terms of the userpage policies. He said that he will respect the results of the DRV which confirmed my deletion of his subpage, but obviously he feels compelled to engage is soapboxing ("millions of people killed because of Lenin") on the noticeboard. Luckily, the RfAr [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Transnistria/Proposed_decision#MariusM_2|involving himself]] is almost concluded. [[User:El C|El_C]] 01:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

:::MariusM is right to point out that Wikipedia seems to use politically-correct standards of what is acceptable on user pages. 'Millions of people killed because of Lenin' is fact, not propaganda. [[User:The way, the truth, and the light|The way, the truth, and the light]] 01:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

::::I'm not interested in having polemical exchanges on the noticeboard. [[User:El C|El_C]] 01:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::Dear Marius, I'll do my very best to AGF on your part, and believe bringing this here is in fact a confusion on your part, and not a vindictive action towards El C. So please, bear with me. There's a big difference in posting a PD image of a former Chief of State (who, as controversial a historical character he may be, is still revered by millions of people - and no, it's no Stalin we're talking about here) or a notable Cuban politician, and keeping a repository of strong political propaganda in userspace. Frankly, from my modest perspective, having a famous quote by Che Guevara that has nothing to do with Communism in itself (the only quote El C has in userspace, btw, as fas as I can see) cannot be compared in any possibe way with the collection of strong-worded and biased political stuff contained in the now deleted sandbox. And yes, I do agree that this has no place in this noticeboard either.
:::::We are all entitled to our personal opinions, and that includes our political ideas, yes. But the point is, to which extension is it acceptable to let our POV leak into our Wikipedia activity. And while El C's action appear as nothing but a decorative way of expressing his own political sympathies, the contents on your sandbox seemed more like explicit advocating of a political POV, sometimes resorting to strong words like ''"dreary, corrupt, and run by a repressive regime funded by arms and people trafficking"'' (sic) There's nothing bad in using your sandbox to write and prepare articles, even on political matters; it's all in ''how'' you do it. So please, drop this - El C simply did what any other admin would have done, he just got there first. Try and write a different article, and I gladly volunteer myself to proofread it and enhance it for you. Regards, [[User:Phaedriel|Phaedriel]] - 01:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Basically, if you're upset about the deletion you can go to [[WP:DRV|deletion review]]. It appears you may have already done so; if that's not worked, then I'd suggest the same thing as [[User:Phaedriel]] - if you rewrite the article, try to address the issues raised that led to the deletion. If you feel [[User:El C]]'s userpage is inappropriate and should be deleted, then the correct process would be to nominate it at [[WP:MfD]] to get community input. There really isn't any administrative action to be taken here. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' [[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]] 03:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

== [[WP:CSDAR|CSD AutoReason]] ==

It's been updated again, and I thought I'd pop over and let everyone know. I've also added a users page, so I know who to update in the future, if anyone wishes to add their name. Cheers, ^[[User:^demon|demon]][[User_talk:^demon|[omg plz]]] 18:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
: Excellent. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]][[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]] 18:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
::I wish I had known about this earlier. Excellent tool, ^demon. [[User:Sean William|Sean William]] 19:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
:::It makes deletion fun and easy again, it cured my herpes, and it gave me rock-hard abs in only three weeks. Not only that, but it can cut through steel and tomatoes with ease. I love it! [[User:EVula|EVula]] // [[User talk:EVula|talk]] // [[User:EVula/admin|☯]] // 19:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
::::I'd suggest you give it a little more time before you pronounce your herpes "cured", but otherwise I agree with you. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' [[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]] 19:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I love it! Many thanks, --[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 19:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
*This tool rocks my socks. [[User:Trebor|Trebor]] 19:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

== Question about deletion of templates ==

While going through the list of articles for speedy delete, I noticed a number of userpages which were up for speedy delete. Turns out an editor had placed the speedy delete template on several user box templates (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/EdBoy002]), which then caused every user page using said user box template to come up for speedy delete. It's probably my ignorance, but how do we avoid this? Or is this a simple case of this is what happens when you try to speedy delete a template? --[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 20:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
:You stuff it in <nowiki><noinclude>Bad tag</noinclude></nowiki> tags, which means that it is not transcluded or substituted into articles that contain that template (or page). [[User:x42bn6|x42bn6]] [[User talk:x42bn6|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/x42bn6|Mess]] 20:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
::Many thanks. That's what I needed to know. BEst, --[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 22:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

== A request for an admin to talk to an editor ==

I have come across an editor who I think may need some assistance from an admin today. [[User:Dolmance]] placed an edit on the [[Michael Palin]] page that was full of unsourced POV and original research. As I perused through the edit history for this editor virtually all of their edits followed this same pattern. There is one warning on their talk page from Josiah Rowe referring to this. As a wikignome I have no idea where to begin to try and have this editor's contributions brought more into line with wikipolicy so I have come to this page in the hopes that one of you will be able to discuss this situation with them. It is possible that I am overstepping my understanding of wikipedia and that you will be okay with their edits, but, as this person does edit fairly often, I thought that I should bring this to your attention so that you can decide whether this is worth taking care of or not. My thanks for any assistance that you can provide. [[User:MarnetteD|MarnetteD]] | [[User talk:MarnetteD|Talk]] 21:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
:[[WP:WARN]] has a nice list of warnings you could use. Anyone can inform another editor of errant behavior, not just admins. [[User:EVula|EVula]] // [[User talk:EVula|talk]] // [[User:EVula/admin|☯]] // 21:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks for the link. It just seemed that as I looked at their edits, especially the things that they are posting on various talk pages and their reply to Josiah Rowe's warning, that they should be informed by someone who is more conversant in all aspects of wikipolicy than I am. [[User:MarnetteD|MarnetteD]] | [[User talk:MarnetteD|Talk]] 21:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
::: This user has received two previous warnings, and I just left a third. If you see the user causing further trouble, file a report at the appropriate notice board and somebody will investigate. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] [[User_talk:Jehochman|☎]] / [[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|✔]] 21:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

== Apology ==

I've decided to apologize for my conduct over the past few days. My behaviour was unacceptable and all blocks were fully justified. I have been, in short, a complete asshole. Sorry.

I apologize specifically for my disruption of Gracenotes' adminship request. I advised Gracenotes against accepting the nomination on the grounds that adminship is a most unpleasant experience – and it appears my concerns were not unfounded – but I no longer care. I realize now that I made the mistake of getting to know another contributor; I shall avoid repeating this mistake in future.

I seem to be incapable of engaging in discussion in this environment. So I won't. I will, of course, act exactly as desired by those who enforce the rules, and their personal interpretations thereof, without question. If anyone catches me trying to express an opinion rather than blindly following orders, they are invited to block me as appropriate. If I am at some point rendered obsolete by a bot, I will go quietly. Thank you for your time.

– [[User talk:Gurch|Gurch]] 21:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
* Gurch, I will see if I can replace you with a shell script, but it might take some coding. [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([[User:JzG/help|Help!]]) 23:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

::There are some who say that someday, someone will create a bot that will be programmed to react the same way to certain stimuli all the time. There are some who say that humanity can never build anything to replace humanity. There are some who think this has already happened. (couldn't resist the badly paraphrased HHGttG joke there) [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] 23:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

== [[Mull_of_Kintyre_test]] ==

Is this article true? It sounds like nonsense, but it's referenced.

I just looked up "Mull of Kintyre" test, and it appears to be true! [http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article2092827.ece] [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] 22:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
:It's a well known test, though the [[BBFC]] have previously called their involvement in it an urban myth. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] [[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]] 22:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
:(EC) We need better references. I tagged the article {{tl|db-nonsense}} and deleted the so called reference, which was actually a porn spamlink. --[[User:Edokter|Edokter]] ([[User_talk:Edokter|Talk]]) 22:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
::I've removed the speedy tag, as even without references, it is patently not patent nonsense. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] [[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]] 22:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
::Compare the U.S. equivalent utilized by [[U.S. Supreme Court]] Justice [[William J. Brennan|Brennan]], discussed in ''[[The Brethren]]'' and [http://library.findlaw.com/2003/May/15/132747.html here]. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 22:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
:::OK, not porn perse (I only glanced), but still commercial spam. --[[User:Edokter|Edokter]] ([[User_talk:Edokter|Talk]]) 23:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
::::Agreed, that was not a reliable reference, but I've found that other one to put in :) [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] 23:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
::You deleted two references not one. The other was a newspaper which I've restored. --[[User:JLaTondre| JLaTondre]] 22:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
:: LOL! Funny idea. Should probably be a redirect to an article on British broadcasting standards, though. The concept is only informally known as this, and that mainly by insiders. [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([[User:JzG/help|Help!]]) 23:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
:::As the person who mentioned this, if you like I'll sort out the redirect/merge <==correct term? tomrrrow 23:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)~

== "Please do not vandalize Wikipedia regardless of what happens on TV" ==

That needs a period, like the "Early registration for..." sentence. --[[User:Zenohockey|zenohockey]] 04:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

== Just a heads up: A changing of usernames by Teke ==

Not meaning to [[User:NoSeptember/admin_username_changes|follow the recent trend]] of renaming to actual names, I have filed a request to usurp [[User:Keegan]], scheduled to occur if there is no contest on 1 June at minimum. This will be my second renaming, should it occur, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&limit=50&offset=500&type=renameuser&user=Essjay&page=&pattern= having renamed (second from the bottom)] from [[User:TKE]] to [[User:Teke]] on 2 June, 2006. Transferring the flag as well. I originally renamed to avoid confusion with other T** acronyms, such as [[User:TKD]] (now a sysop). As we had no usurpation policy to take Keegan , Teke has been what I've rolled with until now. So here I go, no responses needed. Just borrowing 30 seconds to let y'all know. I'll make a similar post if/when the rename occurs. [[User:Teke|Teke]][[User talk:Teke|talk]] 05:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

== I am [[user:Wikidudeman]] Someone please help me. ==

I seemed to have messed up my ability to edit when I was working on my [[User:Wikidudeman/monobook.js]] file. I can't revert it since it's protected. Can someone please revert the edits I've made? You can do it here [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AWikidudeman%2Fmonobook.js&diff=133356286&oldid=133355647]].
Thanks.

User talk:TimVickers

2007-05-25T06:17:42Z

Testing123Testing: Wikidudeman here, I need some help.

<tr><td valign="top">

<table style="padding: 5px; width: 100%; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; margin-bottom: 4px; clear: left; -moz-border-radius: 6px;">
<tr><td>
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" id="talkheader" align="center" style="text-align:center;background-color: #FFFFFF;"
|-
! colspan="2" style="border-bottom:1px solid #C0C090; background-color: #F8EABA;" |
Welcome to [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]]'s [[Wikipedia:Talk pages|talk page]].
|-
| style="background-color: #FFFFFF;text-align:left;" |
'''Please sign your comments using four tildes (<code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>).''' Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them <nowiki>==A descriptive header==</nowiki>. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see [[Wikipedia:Introduction|Welcome to Wikipedia]] and [[Wikipedia:FAQ|frequently asked questions]].
| style="background-color: #FFFFFF;" |
<div style="border: 1px solid #C0C090; background-color: #F8EABA; margin-left: 20px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-right: 3px;">
'''[[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|Talk page guidelines]]'''

Please respect [[Wikipedia:Etiquette|Etiquette]], [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith]] and try to be [[Wikipedia:no personal attacks|be polite]].
</div>
|}
</td></tr></table></td></tr>
<tr><td valign="top">

{| class="messagebox" style="background: AntiqueWhite;"

|This talk page is '''automatically archived''' by [[User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Howto|Werdnabot]]. Any sections older than '''25''' days are automatically archived to '''[[User talk:TimVickers/archive 4]]'''. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
|-
|}{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} 

<table style="padding: 5px; width: 100%; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; margin-bottom: 4px; clear: left; -moz-border-radius: 6px;">
<tr><td>
{| class="infobox" width="270" style="-moz-border-radius: 6px;"
|-
!align="center" colspan="1"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]] [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]
----
|-
|[[User talk:TimVickers/archive 1|Archive 1]]
|-
|[[User talk:TimVickers/archive 2|Archive 2]]
|-
|[[User talk:TimVickers/archive 3|Archive 3]]
|-
|[[User talk:TimVickers/archive 4|Archive 4]]
|-
|}

==Hi==
Hi Tim I didn't know how else to reply to your message so I guess this is the only way to express my sincere apologies for recklessly editing charles darwins page, I dont know what came over me, I realise that charlie is an inspiration for species all over the world including myself. I can only hope you will forgive me.. yours katie zimzalabim...yes thats my real name I'm from morrocco..

== [[DNA]] FAR ==

[[DNA]] has been nominated for a [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_review|featured article review]]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to [[Wikipedia:What is a featured article?|featured quality]]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_review|here]]. Reviewers' concerns are [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/{{#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|DNA}}|here]].

==Duplicate images uploaded==
Thanks for uploading [[:Image:MM curve v3.png]]. A machine-controlled [[WP:BOT|robot account]] noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name [[:Image:MM curve v2.png]]. The copy called Image:MM curve v2.png has been marked for [[WP:CSD|speedy deletion]] since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and remember exactly which name you chose (file names are [[case sensitive]], including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see [[Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Image_titles_and_file_names|Wikipedia's image use policy]]. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact [[User:Staecker]], who operates the robot account. [[User:Staeckerbot|Staeckerbot]] 18:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

== Malaria protection ==

Hi Tim. I noticed you semi-protected [[Malaria]] but didn't add a template to this effect (e.g. {{tl|pp-semi-vandalism}}). I took the liberty of doing so—if there was a reason why you hadn't, I apologize, and feel free to revert my edit. Best, [[User:Fvasconcellos|Fvasconcellos]] ([[User talk:Fvasconcellos|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Fvasconcellos|c]]) 19:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
:No problem :) [[User:Fvasconcellos|Fvasconcellos]] ([[User talk:Fvasconcellos|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Fvasconcellos|c]]) 19:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

==[[Talk:Jimmy Wales]]==
I think you were looking for [[User talk:Jimmy Wales|this page]] when you made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJimmy_Wales&diff=128310468&oldid=128159144 this edit]. --[[User:Dookama|Dookama]] 22:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

==IP 75.22.64.116==
Just to inform you, since that user/IP most likely seems like a bot. He has made over 15 total edits to [[WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008]], and even 8 literally within less than a minute after I had reverted it to an accurate version. I had notified admins on the vandal pages and suggested that he get a maximum, or near maximum edit-ban. I have also requested full protection on [[WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008]]. Just thought I'd let you know! (Edit: Apparently you've followed through, thanks.)[[User:Socby19|Socby19]] 03:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Socby19

==[[WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008]]==
The [[WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2007|2007 version]] can be unprotected, as 2008 is the one with heavy vandalism. [[User:Socby19|Socby19]] 03:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Socby19

==On 76.5.105.107 vandalism==
I just saw you reverted the vandalism by this IP address at some sites, but I am concerned about the extreme violence and depravity
of the commentary that was used by this person. I see vandalism all the time, but usually it is the stupid kind, the one that inserts
a curse word or two, here or there, but this is different. This is the type of vandalism that should be reported to authorities that can at least try to track down the IP address. I sincerely doubt that the statements are true, but it takes a lot macabre sensibility to
make such provocative statements. Does wikipedia have a mechanism for reporting such stuff? If not, someone should report it to a law authority. [[User:CARAVAGGISTI|CARAVAGGISTI]] 15:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

== I don't understand why y'all are gangin' up on me ==

I can't believe how many darn individuals like yourself have considered my edits vandalism like y'all are callin' it. I ain't makin' sense to me. I thought I'd be deterin' vandalizm for ya and thus makin' yer job easier, I guess I was mistaken badly. I suppose that y'all only see things on one side, y'all don't see the whole picture, 'cause if ya did, y'all would understand it like dis:

"O-rite, this guy's sayin' 'Give yer proper respect to this page', hmmm, maybe he's usin' an eloquent southern accent with humor to deter vandalism here, lets keep his edits and allow him to improve like articles like he would"

Ah well, it's just another matter of timin' 'till am banner fer sure. Y'all don't see it the way I do. Keep yer self-servin' opinions and ban me fer improvin' an encyclopedia like I do. It's not like it ain't been done before. Just look at the user: [[user:Jimbo Wales]], someone did the '''same exact thing''', they used a ''hidden'' html comment to deter vandalizm. I was thinkin', "ya know, am not the sharpest knife it the drawer, why not just do the same thing on other articles, and have fun while helpin' people at the same time." Any case, y'all are gonna ban me fer bein' different, and I guess yer admins and your opinion is thus more important, I guess there's nothin' I can do, I can't conform so maybe I ought to leave. [[User:ClaimJumperPete|ClaimJumperPete]] 20:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

==accuracy==
Hey Tim, i was looking at [[:Image:Catabolism schematic.svg|this figure]] in [[metabolism]] article and it seem to be a little confusing. I understand that accuracy is lost when trying to simplfy the process but what did you have in mind with respect to the proteins being broken down into acetyl coA? It would seem that the better thing to do with this figure would be to have the arrow pointing to the TCA cycle as an entry point rather than acetyl CoA? [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 21:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
:Alternatively add pyruvate and have three arrows from the protein route to pyruvate, acetyl CoA and TCA cycle. Then you could add the glycerol to pyruvate arrow from the lipid catabolism route too. Or is this just too complicated to capture? On the other hand this is fairly complex and might be worth showing in a diagramatic form. One of the major themes in metabolism is that itis a network rather than linear pathways so this might help emphasise this point. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 21:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

== Wikipeida xml 2 html ==
Hi Tim. I am trying to convert the wikipedia xml into html for displaying on our web site. For various reasons running the mediawiki software/apache server is not straight forward to set up and not supported on our network setup (systems support dont want us to do this). I have been trying to use the Text::MediawikiFormat perl module which works reasonably well but misses a lot of fiddly xml markup. Do you know of anything more generic that doesn't require us to run the Apache server -- we did look for a .xslt style sheet in the mediawiki software but couldn't find one. Can you point me in the right direction? also wrt etiquette for getting this kind of help should I just post this query on my talk page and add the helpme tag to my talk page?. [[User:Jennifer Rfm|Jennifer_Rfm]] 09:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

==Help?==

Hi [[User:TimVickers|Tim]]! :)

I have a favor to ask, but you should feel completely free to say "no". Could you look over [[sweater curse]] and eliminate anything that falls under [[WP:NOT]], particularly anything that falls under [[WP:NOR]] or [[WP:SOAP]]? Any improvements or suggestions that occur to you would be most welcome as well. I feel keenly that it's moving from the sublime to the ridiculous for you, but it would help me a lot to have impartial eyes and a neutral spirit there, since it's gotten uncomfortably warm. I may have made a bad first impression and have yet to recover from it. :( [[User:WillowW|Willow]] 21:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

PS. I'm leaving again tomorrow morning for another graduation, so I probably won't be able to write until next week. Take care!

:You're wonderful and wise; thank you, [[User:TimVickers|Tim]]! A grateful [[User:WillowW|Willow]] 02:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

== [[Biology]] ==

I know you have spent probably every free moment you have working on the [[Evolution]] article, but I'm trying to clean up, improve, and get FA status for Biology. It was kind of sad how poorly written and referenced the article is. Since there's not a lot of help there, I took it upon myself to write the article from a unifying theories concept: Gene Theory, Theory of Evolution, Cell Theory, and Theory of Homeostasis (probably not a theory). If you have a handle on those four theories, you can basically describe anything in Biology. But that's my opinion and understanding of the field. Anyways, it needs help. Anything you can do, of course, will be appreciated. [[User:Orangemarlin|Orangemarlin]] 01:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

==Virus protection==
Good call on the semi-protection of [[Virus]], I was getting sick of people and their "MRS GREEN HAS A VIRUS INFECTION" crap. -- '''''[[User:Serephine|Serephine]]''''' ♠ '''''[[User talk:Serephine|talk]]''''' - 05:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

== Peroxiredoxin ==

Hi Tim. I noticed you were the creator and main editor of the [[peroxiredoxin]] article, and wondered if you'd heard of [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/12/4886 this article] published this March on ''PNAS''. It actually came to my attention through a popular science magazine, and I wondered if you'd think any info from it warrants inclusion in [[peroxiredoxin]]. I realize it's fairly recent, and in all honesty I only skimmed through it, but it seemed interesting enough. Best, [[User:Fvasconcellos|Fvasconcellos]] ([[User talk:Fvasconcellos|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Fvasconcellos|c]]) 15:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

== Odd IP block issue ==

<s>Hi - you blocked [[User talk:76.5.105.107]] on the 6th. Looking at the contribs they ''appear'' to have edited after the block. Reason I'm asking is they seem to have done the same thing on Wikibooks where I blocked them. Heads up as much as anything - cheers</s> ok it was early and I was catching up and the brain was not working well! It is (of course) their own user page so they can edit that - the stuff we had has been rather unpleasant tho - sorry to bother you and regards --[[User:Herbythyme|Herby]] [[User talk:Herbythyme|talk thyme]] 08:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

== Lead image in [[Metabolism]] ==

Hi Tim. Sorry to bother you again, but I thought I'd give you a heads-up that the lead image in [[Metabolism]] ([[:Image:Metabolic pathways small.png]]) was [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=Image:Metabolic_pathways_small.png deleted] from Commons as a copyvio. Apparently, it was taken from KEGG[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Polarlys#Image:Metabolic_pathways_small.png]. I've been slowly working on a vector version of the file over the past couple of months, but now I think finding a replacement might be in order. Best, [[User:Fvasconcellos|Fvasconcellos]] ([[User talk:Fvasconcellos|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Fvasconcellos|c]]) 17:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
:Looks nice. I quite like ATP in the lead, actually. [[User:Fvasconcellos|Fvasconcellos]] ([[User talk:Fvasconcellos|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Fvasconcellos|c]]) 16:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

==Good work on Evolution==
Excellent work on the evolution article. I have been disillusioned and burned out lately. It is wonderful to see editors coming together in a constructive manner and develop this article. I had given up hope. The article really has improved the more carefully I read it. Kudos. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 23:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Amen brother. The more you read the more absolutely ignorant you feel. Personally, I like that because it is never boring and always humbling. I noted your research interest-excellent and it has application. I will be absent for a couple of weeks but I will try to add some comments on the peer review if it is warranted. Thanks for the notice. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 23:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

:I agree. This article has been greatly enhanced by your edits. My personal knowledge of the science behind evolution is a woeful 30 years out of date. Nice to see, however, that really not that much has changed!!!! BTW, I had no problem with the Futuyma reference revert. I was doing some housecleaning of the article (just by reviewing the references, I've learned more than anything). [[User:Orangemarlin|Orangemarlin]] 04:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

== [[Evolution]] ==

I'll take a look when I get the chance!

''[[User:Verisimilus|Verisimilus]]'' '''[[User_talk:Verisimilus|T]]''' 11:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

:Always a pleasure. Just let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to take a look at! ''[[User:Verisimilus|Verisimilus]]'' '''[[User_talk:Verisimilus|T]]''' 23:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

== Peer-review of Evolution ==

Thank you for the kind note, I am glad you found my remarks useful. I never found it easy to write articles, which is probaly why I migrated over to Wikisource. However I am always happy to find areas where I can be helpful and that are more suited to me than article writing.--[[User:BirgitteSB|Birgitte]]SB 17:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
:I've been really taking advantage of the nice weather rather than following anything online very closely. Good luck with it and let me know if you have any questions about my review.--[[User:BirgitteSB|Birgitte]]SB 19:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

== Trait vs phenotype ==

Hi Tim,
I recently updated the definition of [[phenotype]] (first paragraph) and see that you have done the same to [[trait (biology)]]. Before we edited, these articles basically said that an example of a trait would be "eye color" while an example of a phenotype would be "blue eyes". Are trait and phenotype synonyms? [[User:Dr d12|Dr d12]] 15:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
::So by one definition, a phenotype and trait refer to the same measurable character, while phenotype can also refer to a collection of traits. (I added some definitions to the trait talk page as well.) I think all I have to do is add the second "collection of traits" use to the phenotype page. [[User:Dr d12|Dr d12]] 20:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

== Evolution article ==

Dear Tim, as always, you're doing an exceptional job and if you make evolution featured, then we won't have enough barnstars to praise you. So, my suggestions:
* I took a deeper look at the Heredity and Variation sections, and I found them easily readable (I tried to read them differently according to [http://epidemix.org/blog/?p=72 this criticism]).
* Don't you want to use [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Genetic_code.svg this image]?
* In the Heredity section, when you're talking about DNA methylation, I saw you've mentioned Epigenetics, but don't you want to mention [[Genomic Imprinting]] (Prader-Willi and Angelman Syndrome are serious disorders)?
* In the Mutation section, an other image would be better, I think (maybe [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:DNA_Repair.jpg this one]).

Anyway, I couldn't add new content to it and these sections are perfectly referenced ones. Great job again, Tim! [[User:NCurse|NCurse]] [[User talk:NCurse|work]] 20:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

== Image conversion ==

Sure, no problem. I'll see what I can do by tomorrow. [[User:Fvasconcellos|Fvasconcellos]] ([[User talk:Fvasconcellos|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Fvasconcellos|c]]) 22:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
:How's [[:Image:Evolution of complexity.svg|this]]? :) [[User:Fvasconcellos|Fvasconcellos]] ([[User talk:Fvasconcellos|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Fvasconcellos|c]]) 15:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

== Barnstar ==

Why, thank you! I may create nice SVG images, but you actually ''add content''! :D [[User:Fvasconcellos|Fvasconcellos]] ([[User talk:Fvasconcellos|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Fvasconcellos|c]]) 15:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

== GAC and conflict of Interest ==
Hi Tim,

You're a GA reviewer, so I figured I'd ask here. Recently, two articles from the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs]] team were promoted to Good Articles based on review from members of the team who hadn't worked on either article. I think feedback from the community is important here, and would prefer to have no [[WP:COI|Conflict of Interest]] (or ''appearance'' of Conflict of Interest) issues. The articles in question are ''[[Scelidosaurus]]'' (passed February 22nd) and ''[[Lambeosaurus]]'' (passed two days ago). Both articles were reviewed by good faith editors who did not feel there was any conflict of interest. Neither one had contributed to either article, but as our GA and FA passes are feathers in the WP:DINO team's cap, I think a review from a non-Project member might be important. Things such as clarity, etc, might be issues with someone who has never read or worked on a WP:Dinosaurs article. Is it possible for you to take a second look at these two articles, and make sure they truly represent GA material? I think they do: I nominated both of them, but would prefer community feedback. I had originally posted a similar comment about this to the GA talk page, but received no response whatsoever. What do you think? I specifically asked you because you're a GA reviewer with a science background. [[User:Firsfron|Firsfron of Ronchester]] 22:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
:Thanks for the reply, and the fixes. Much appreciated, Tim. [[User:Firsfron|Firsfron of Ronchester]] 23:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

==When to sessions of sweet silent thought...==

[[Image:Ludwig Vollmar Strickendes Landmädchen.jpg|thumb|200px|right|In shadows and in sun.]]

:...But if the while I think on thee, dear friend, 
:All losses are restored and sorrows end.

Thank you, [[User:WillowW|Willow]] 23:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Good luck with [[Evolution]]; I'll keep my two eyes on it in return. :)

::The article reads very well, and I'm sorry that you're having so much grief with it. What do you think of the following idea? I like your illustration of light vs. dark circles, but you could also imagine making it with a ''discontinuous'' phenotype such as red vs. blue, perhaps corresponding to Mendel's wrinkled and smooth peas? Then, assuming that blue had a slight evolutionary advantage in terms of net reproduction, one could make a graph showing the red fraction declining and the blue fraction predominating exponentially over time. If you like the idea, I could make the graphics tomorrow and send them to you. Sending supportive thoughts your way, [[User:WillowW|Willow]] 22:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Now I'm ''really'' sorry that you're having so much grief with the [[Evolution]]. Rather loquaious for one so silent, no? ;) I was trying to help, but I hope that I didn't make matters worse. :(

:::What do you think of [[User:Madprime|Madeleine's]] [[:Image:Simplified tree.png|tree image]]? I like her colors and her combination of pie chart and phylogenetic tree, although there seems to be an internal uncertainty about the best taxonomic order, phyla or species. Since our not-so-taciturn friend seems to like it as well, perhaps we could work to improve that tree? It might help him save face, and win him over as an ally. [[User:Madprime|Madeleine]] seems really nice and smart, at least that's my impression. It's a pity about the Talk page, but the prolix debate can always be buried afterwards in an archive; look at the six archives over the photon's mass — going on seven. ;) [[User:WillowW|Willow]] 11:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

:::P.S. For comparison, a truly vexing thing is when you have to top-stitch something and your old mechanical sewing machine gets stuck on a fat zig-zag stitch. Arrrrggggh, arrrrggggh, aaaarrrrrrrgggggghh! ;)

::::People who mean well sometimes have to work harder, but the rewards are that much richer and sweeter, no? Congratulations on a well-earned tranquillity and warm admiration of friends. If you have a moment sometime, send me your favorite poem, if you like one in particular. Well done and good luck ahead, [[User:WillowW|Willow]] 21:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

== Informal LoCE ==

Hi Tim. I see you're a member of the LoCE and would appreciate it if you would give an article a quick read through and fix the worst grammatical and punctuation errors, and then give me some advice for further improvement. (Although American, my English skills are rusty after living in Europe for many years.) While it is no longer "my" article, I did write it and naturally have alot of interest in it and the subject. Here it is:

* [[Reindeer hunting in Greenland]]

It would be great if it could become a GA or FA at some point in time. -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]]/[[User talk:Fyslee|talk]] 13:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

==[[Schizophrenia]]==
I mentioned you on the [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/Schizophrenia|FAR for Schizophrenia;]] you might want to weigh in, and perhaps you can lend some help on images. [[User:SandyGeorgia|SandyGeorgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
==Reframe?==
Just noticed the compact on the evolution talk page. Are you going to reframe the discussion? [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 15:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

==IP blocking policy==
I recent had the following question posted on my talk page after warning an anon IP and, not knowing the answer, thought I'd ask your opinion:
:"I'm sysadmin at a school and we are often warned and occasionally blocked due to vandalism from our IP address - User_talk:203.56.245.7 After some discussion here we feel the best approach is to block anonymous editing from our IP address, and since you are the most recent person to warn us on our talk page I'm guessing you can point me in the right direction to arrange this - we don't want to block editing outright at our end, as some students may have useful input, but we'd like them to go through their own logins to do this so that foolishness doesn't impact on others. Any idea what the process is? Thanks in advance - Jase 02:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)"
I know that the latest MediaWiki software can handle anon-only blocks, but is this: a) something admins generally do, and b) if so is there an "official" route or is this a case of asking an admin to [[WP:BB|be bold]]? If this is something admins do, could I impose and ask you to do so? Thanks for you input. -- [[User:MarcoTolo|MarcoTolo]] 18:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

== Progressive evolution ==

I would be curious to hear any comments about this book [http://users.tpg.com.au/users/jes999/] that claims to "prove" that evolution is progressive. Also look at [[The Great Story]].--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 20:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

==Thanks==

Thanks for the offer of help Tim. I currently sitting my finals and will get back to working on Wikipedia when I finish in a few weeks. Regards, [[User:Rowan Savage|Rowan]] 11:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

==Congratulations!==

[[Image:Cat-and-computer.JPG|thumb|275px|right|''Dogs R stupid'' — mischievous kitty violates NPOV ;)]]

Dear [[User:TimVickers|Tim]],

Congratulations on your new family!!! :D

I had no idea that you were a "cat person". I hope mother and kitties are doing well, and will bring you lots of joy as they grow up. My own kitties are full-grown (but still mischievous, not surprisingly), but I'm getting some of the same feeling every day as flowers bloom and berries swell in my garden. Some of my strawberries are almost ready to eat — yum! :) Good luck with evo-devo, comments to follow when I get a chance, [[User:WillowW|Willow]] 22:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

==TS article==
Tim, two items to review with you vis-a-vis developments at [[Talk:Tourette syndrome]] (I'm also going to ask Colin to look at in, as I had recently discussed this with him, and he seems to have learned a lot about the TS research).

1. As a layperson, I'm not sure how to sort out the incidence/prevalence dilemma in TS, considering that a) there aren't good epidemiological numbers to begin with, and b) it is known that tics peak during the ages of 8 to 12 (mean 10), and diminish after adolescence, so that estimates in adults aren't reliable or easy to come by, while estimates in children 8 to 12 are thought to be the most indicative. Are you able to lend any assistance to the concerns raised on the talk page, or via rewording any of the text relating to incidence/prevalance?

2. Of more concern: during the FAC, between the two of us, we brought the exact number of possible school-age children with TS mentioned in one source (530,000) forward to the article lead. As I [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Colin#Check_it_out commented to Colin last week,] that exact number has gone from relative obscurity to suddenly showing up regularly in my inbox via Google alerts and such; I noticed this as an indication that many journalists and others are doing their research via Wikipedia, since that number isn't widely published anywhere else (to my knowledge). It occurs to me now that this number is likely to draw attention vis-a-vis the age-old problem of conflict of interest at, and competition for research funding from, the NIH. Many disorders "compete" for NIH research funding (specifically in terms of "disruptive behaviors" which the NIH has targeted in some inititative whose name I can't recall), so other "disorders" would want "competing" prevalance rates to be as low as possible; that number is likely to attract attention. (For TS, there's the additional factor that the NIH has a [[PANDAS|pony in the race,]] but that's another story.) The 530,000 is based on a 10 per 1,000 estimate; there are several papers which back up this number, explaining why it's likely to be a good one, considering the amount of TS that does undetected, and my "personal" sense is that it's probably a good number that will be borne out over time. The NIH says 200,000 adults may have "severe" TS (which is very rare), which substantiates the higher number among school-age children, when mild TS is more likely. But, this number seems to be attracting attention, as it is perceived as high, and is the upper bound of cited prevalence ranges, and people outside of the TS research community just don't seem to have a sense of how common undetected TS is. I can spend a lot of time citing the numerous sources that discuss it, and delving into controversy over the numbers, but a) I'd like to find a way to avoid that (I just don't have time over the next two weeks to dig into all my papers, and I'm going to be traveling), and b) I also want to avoid having ridiculously low and outdated numbers like the Apter study take on undue weight in the article — anyone who follows TS research knows of the methodological issues in that older data. Somewhere (which will take me time to find, since I have four large file drawers full of papers) Scahill suggested that 4-5 per thousand should be used. Papers regularly suggest the number should be bracketed at 1 to 10. When I put in the 530,000 number, it seemed that it would be reasonable to just "do the math" and say that would translate to about half of that at typical prevalence ranges in the middle, but it seems to me that doing that (the math) would be original research. So, issues are being raised on the talk page, with the result that outdated, very low numbers (like Apter) are being included; an additional set of eyes might help resolve the dilemma. Thanks in advance for any ideas you might have. [[User:SandyGeorgia|SandyGeorgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
:My only suggestion at this stage is to request a pause in the discussion at [[Talk:Tourette syndrome]] until Sandy gets back. If that doesn't work, perhaps Tim can find a compromise that will do for now? Don't overestimate my knowledge of "TS research". I've read a textbook, the WP articles and a few papers! My understanding of prevalence/incidence is only what I've learned in order to contribute to my own neglected [[tuberous sclerosis|pet subject (TSC)]]. I'm fortunate TSC is genetic with a stable diagnosis that isn't subject to the whim of the DSM (a recent New Scientist [http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19426043.900-bipolar-children--is-the-us-overdiagnosing.html article] and [http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19426042.900-editorial-mania-for-treatment.html editorial] on bipolar diagnosis in children caught my attention). I appreciate the politics and possible agenda issues. For now, it looks like a fairly healthy fact-based discussion. I'll keep an eye on it [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|Talk]] 19:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
::Extra eyes are always helpful, Colin, as you're both often able to cut through the fluff and come up with a solution from a fresh point of view. I was up all night re-organizing my files (like I didn't have a million other things to do, but I suppose I needed to do that anyway) so I can source common knowledge facts, and I have pending travel, so the timing on this is irritating ... oh, well ... that seems to be the story for the TS article. I sure would have preferred to use this time to work on the FARs for [[Lesch-Nyhan syndrome]] and [[Schizophrenia]], and to begin reading Kushner, since I had planned to start that writing this summer. Oh, well. I guess I get to go back and cite common knowledge instead. I can't say it's not discouraging, or that I can understand this concern that someone somewhere might have to fund something because we report the numbers. On the other hand, by digging through all of my research material, I did find that the bracket of numbers is referenced, so my question about "doing the math" being original research is now resolved. I don't know what the Hirtz report is about, but I'm going to have to put my hands on it now in all my spare time. [[User:SandyGeorgia|SandyGeorgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

==[[DNA]] article, homologous recombination==
Hello! Yes, it was clear that you were talking about sister chromatids. And yes, homologous recombination between sister chromatids initiates with a double-stranded break. Here is the reference: Neale and Keeney (13 July 2006). Clarifying the mechanics of DNA strand exchange in meiotic recombination. Nature 442:153-158. (I'm sorry, I don't quite know how to enter the actual link.) The double-stranded break is caused by an endonuclease. [[User:NighthawkJ|NighthawkJ]] 23:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

== Bodybuilding ==

Hey. Can you keep an eye on the [[Bodybuilding]] article? Someone keeps removing an image from the article which has been justified for being there. Their reasoning is baseless and personal and I don't want to break any 3rr rules. I justified it's existence on the talk page many times and it's the only copyright free viable and quality image that exists at present. Can you restore the image and revert their edits? Thanks.[[User:Wikidudeman|'''Wikidudeman''']] [[User talk:Wikidudeman|(talk)]] 03:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

== IP blocking (cont) ==
''This is a continuation of [[User talk:TimVickers#IP blocking policy|this discussion]], as well as [[User_talk:MarcoTolo#Blocking_editing_from_IP_address|this follow-up]].''

I've received an email from the system admin's school account confirming the request to block anon editing from their gateway IP (203.56.245.7) for 12 months. Is this something that you can do for him? (I'm happy to forward the email to you if you'd like a copy). Thanks much. -- [[User:MarcoTolo|MarcoTolo]] 23:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

==[[Wikipedia:Good article candidates|GAC]] backlog elimination drive==
This form message is being sent to you either due to your membership with [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles|WikiProject Good Articles]] and/or your inclusion on the [[Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers]]. A new drive has been started requesting that all members review at least one article (or more, if you wish!) within the next two weeks at [[Wikipedia:Good article candidates|GAC]] to help in removing the large backlog. This message is being sent to all members, and even members who have been recently reviewing articles. There are almost 130 members in this project and about 180 articles that currently need to be reviewed. If each member helps to review just one or two articles, the majority of the backlog will be cleared. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{tl|GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the [[WP:WIAGA|GA criteria]] may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the GAC talk page. --[[User:Nehrams2020|Nehrams2020]] 00:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

== Wikidudeman here, I need some help. ==

I seemed to have messed up my ability to edit when I was working on my monobook.js file. I can't revert it since it's protected. Can you revert the edits I've made? You can do it here [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AWikidudeman%2Fmonobook.js&diff=133356286&oldid=133355647]].
Thanks. [[User:Testing123Testing|Testing123Testing]] 06:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Testing123Testing

2007-05-25T06:10:21Z

Testing123Testing: ←Created page with 'Testing.'

Testing.