SEWilco Commentary.

• It probably is a good idea to include a link to whatever article you are referring to.
• Remember to always sign all of your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( ~~~~ ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which is very helpful.

This user's activities on Wikipedia have been restricted by illegal[1], unreasonable[2], and arbitrary[3] ArbCom restrictions [4] and enforcement[5][6].

Archive: November 4 2005

...saw the flags there, and because I know of the SEWilco-flag-template-initiative [ :-) ] I wanted to change them. But how? I will watch the page, so maybe just change some, and if I see your work I do more. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i was at Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template - but where is the list of all the codes? I saw it some days ago, can't remember where. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

still did not find it. instead the obscure Country_code is the usual country identification code - what does usual mean? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Usual" depends upon which country code is relevant to the specific template. IOC, ISO, or country name. Want to edit it to "appropriate" or some other general phrasing? (SEWilco 04:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

i rephrased: Country_code is the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 code and for the flagIOC template it is the IOC country code. see also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Flag_Template/Testall Tobias Conradi (Talk) 09:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

done - the flags are changed, i found the "flagicon". Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chapter reference has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Chapter reference. Thank you. Phil | Talk 10:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chapter reference link has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Chapter reference link. Thank you. Phil | Talk 10:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Book reference edition has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Book reference edition. Thank you.

If you are interested Talk:Winter Soldier Investigation#RFC on Winter Soldier Investigation TDC 18:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please help with this template? I'd like to make parameter 3 utterly optional. For an example, see entry 33 in Herzgruft (Vienna). --StanZegel (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but now it never displays at all. See Template talk:Bioxref and Imperial Crypt Vaults for examples that formerly worked but no longer do. In Herzgruft (Vienna), all the entries except number 33 should display the →Family Tree hyperlink, but now none of them do. Help! --StanZegel (talk) 06:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I omitted a pipe symbol separator. Try this version. (SEWilco 06:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for your help! --StanZegel (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your question on my talk page—GraemeMcRae^talk 06:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I replied again by creating two pairs of ref_label and note_label, letting the third parameter default. Please see my talk page, and try out the links.—GraemeMcRae^talk 06:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I replied again to thank you for making this change -- it is just the cat's meow!—GraemeMcRae^talk 07:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to be a principle editor on the effort, please allow me to direct your attention to my comment at Template talk:Harvard reference. I have this page and that watched, so prefer any ensuing discussion in one of those two locations unless you greatly prefer to use my talk page. Thank you. --Kgf0 22:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am improving the citation technologies, but {{harvard reference}} is so far an independent effort created recently by one fellow. There are several problems with its design and implementation. (SEWilco 05:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Hi SEWilco. I just ran across your trick for inserting an apostrophe next to closing italic apostrophes over at autism. It's clever and I'll add it to my toolbox.

Just a quick note, though—watch out for interlanguage links to the other wikis that contain Unicode. Your browser seems to have run into some trouble with them: [7]. I fixed those up, but keep an eye out for the problem in the future. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vim, actually. I'll add yet another setting and see if that helps. (SEWilco 05:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Ah, Vim. /me gets wistful. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An edit of yours to Arsenal F.C. on Nov 12 at 15:58 managed to munge the Unicode characters there as well - see [8]. Just thought you should know... Qwghlm 15:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your 'bot has just caused my watchlist to explode. That's what I get for citing sources, I suppose. ☺ Uncle G 11:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I feel your pain. (SEWilco 14:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Hello - I would like to create a navigational template, but it will need to be able to branch depending on the name of the article it is in. I know the "toccolours" class causes the template to vary its behavior this way. What I would like to do is have a "title" in the template which jumps you up the heirarchy, and a list of topics one level down from the title, of which the article you are in is one. It should be in black, indicating "this article" but then for this article only, I would like a list of subtopics to appear. So the logic would be like "if this article is named "xxx" then display the following list of subtopics". Is there a way to do this? Thanks for any help - PAR 06:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What are you trying to accomplish? Maybe there are several ways to accomplish the goal. (SEWilco 06:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

There is a heirarchy of wikipedia pages. page A has 3 subordinate pages A1, A2, A3. page A1 has 4 subordinate pages, A1a, A1b, A1c, A1d and so forth for A2 and A3. I would like a box in the upper right corner of, lets say page A2. Its title would be "A". Under it would be a list: A1, A2, and A3. Under A2 is another list: A2a, A2b, A2c. No such lists under A1 or A3. All would be linked to their respective pages except A2 which would be in black, because its the page you are on. The purpose is to be able to jump up the heirarchy, across the heirarchy, and down the heirarchy. The box on page A2 would look like

A (link)

A1 (link)

A2 (no link - black)

A2a (link)

A2b (link)

A2c (link)

A3 (link)

The box on page A1 would look like

A (link)

A1 (no link - black)

A1a (link)

A1b (link)

A1c (link)

A1d (link)

A2 (link)

A3 (link)

I wonder if this can be done with one template or do I have to write a separate template for each page? PAR 17:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "no link" is done automatically for the current page so that is not a problem. It looks like you might need something like {{navmenu_A_{{{PAGENAME}}}}}, which should retrieve whatever template is at [[Template:navmenu_A_{{{PAGENAME}}}]]. For all the "A2" pages you have a single template with all their navmenu_A_* templates containing a #REDIRECT [[Template:navmenu_A_(name of an A2 menu)]]. (SEWilco 19:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Ok - I hope you have patience with me - I guess I don't understand the "if equal" template. That third parameter is completely opaque to me. Could you take a look at the box in the upper right of the Thermodynamic potentials article. This is where I am trying to do it. Click on "edit" and it will show you my latest attempt. I think you will see what I am trying to do, for starters. Thanks for your help. PAR 02:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "if equal" only is able to test for specific values of the third parameter. If you look at what I described above, I think you don't need a template with logic in it, you just need a template which retrieves one of several navigation templates. (SEWilco 04:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Or put the appropriate nav template on the appropriate page. (SEWilco 04:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

PS - is there a central page for learning template syntax?

No. (SEWilco 04:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Ok, I should not have given you the impression that I ignored what you wrote. I spent a lot of time trying to make PAGENAME give me the name of the page I was on. After about a half hour, it dawned on me that maybe you meant by PAGENAME a parameter of the template call, and this was not some system variable that was magically being handed to me. So thats what three braces mean! After a couple hours of blindly trying this and that, I wrote you again.

I hope you understand now the deep level of my ignorance on this subject and why a few words from you can save me hours of stumbling around in the dark.

With regard to what you wrote, I don't get it. I understand that {{navmenu_A_{{{PAGENAME}}}}} when I am in the A2 page will insert the instructions in the template named Template:navmenu_A_A2. But then you say "For all the "A2" pages you have a single template with all their navmenu_A_* templates containing a #REDIRECT Template:navmenu_A_(name of an A2 menu)." OK, "all the A2 pages" means the A2a, A2b, A2c, and A2d pages. So the above translates for the A2a page -

"For the A2a page, you have a single template with its navmenu_A_A2a template containing a #REDIRECTTemplate:navmenu_A_A2menu

I have read the above statement over and over, but I still haven't the faintest idea what it means. Could I impose upon you to enter something into the Template:Thermodynamic potentials and maybe a few sub-templates just to get me started? I will learn it as quickly as I can, but right now I'm baffled.

Thank you for any help - PAR 06:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to use of Wikipedia:Redirect to make several pages produce the same template. I'll be busy for about 20 hours now. (SEWilco 09:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Hello - just to let you know, I solved it using the iftrue template and passing a parameter from the calling page whose name is unique to the calling page. Set that parameter equal to "true" on the calling page, and then in the template, test the parameter with iftrue to either display the list or not. PAR 21:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Welcome, Template Master. (SEWilco 05:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry for nagging again. I dived a little into the template code of Template:Book reference and found that there is an undocumented ref creation mechanism in the template that relies on the *Last* and Year parameter. So my proposal to eliminate First Last would have broken that, right?

I understand that this is an important (yet not documented) feature of the template and in light of this the Last parameter has far more weight than can be inferred from the template doc – it is used to address the reference. In fact, the tuple (Last, Year) addresses the reference.

So maybe we might attack the problem from the other side and even impose the rule that the Last parameter should always be mandatory (also in the case of multiple authors) because it is used for addressing. In the case of multiple authors, the surname (or dominating part) of the most important author's name should be assigned to the parameter "Last" and the rest of that author's name to the parameter "First" (which is a bit confusing, but anyway).

The second and all subsequent author fullnames then sould go to mmh what? They can't go to Author, because it's either Author or (First, Last) that's used in the template, not both. So, maybe that would mean introducing another parameter "CoAuthor" (or whatever) to receive the second and all subsequent author's names. Should CoAuthor replace Author?

I think I can see the dilemma a bit better now (if I'm right). Sorry again for stressing you and thanks for your work on book reference.

— Adrian | Talk 14:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't add authors to "First" nor "Last" because a different display order may become preferred. A "coauthors" parameter does sound like a good idea for additional authors. The html "ref" issue hadn't occurred to me. That was recently added by one person's citation experiments. I'm more interested in identification of author name components for display, at the moment. There are various proposals for additional support for referencing and citation, which may move the information from templates to a database. Having the information identified in templates will make it easier to transfer to a new medium. (SEWilco 16:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Right. I wouldn't stuff more than one author into ("First", "Last"). So we could do (proposal):

*{{Book reference
 | First = Martin
 | Last = Fowler
 | Authorlink = Martin Fowler
 | Coauthor = [[Kent Beck|Beck, Kent]]; Brant, John;
 [[William Opdyke|Opdyke, William]]; Roberts, Don
 | Year = 1999
 | Title = Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code
 | Publisher = Addison-Wesley
 | ID = ISBN 0-201-48567-2
 }}

Implemented as "Coauthors" to emphasize that multiple authors are OK. (SEWilco 06:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

• Fowler, Martin, Beck, Kent; Brant, John; Opdyke, William; Roberts, Don (1999). Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code, Addison-Wesley. ISBN 0-201-48567-2.

Wow, thanks! — Adrian | Talk 09:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier/Evidence. You may make proposals and comments at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier/Workshop. Fred Bauder 20:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SEWilco. I feel free to call on you since you modified my recent clarity edit of this article -- a good way to get acquainted. Anyhow, as I just wrote in the article's talk page, the latter parts of the article are exactly right for also being clarified, with at least some of their content being moved to a footnote or to the talk page. I certainly lack the expertise to do it -- and I don't really care whether it gets done or not, since I'll just ignore it anyhow. My point would be, how much value do we Wikipedians place on cleanness of our guideline articles? This one doesn't seem good enough to me. But I like the first parts very much, as I wrote (sort of) on its talk page. I hope you can agree that my attempts had a positive effect, and I hope I didn't foul up anything. If I did, please fix it (or get someone else to). For7thGen 19:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a request, which refers to you, to re-open the climate-change Arbitration case, here. I thought that you might be interested to comment, or at least observe.

Yours sincerely,

James F. (talk) 02:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Things get so messy when people don't follow the rules. Maybe this will end on April 1st. (SEWilco 04:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

As far as the Signpost goes, I generally don't report if it hasn't been accepted. But, yes, it looks like I might have to next week. Thanks for pointing it out though, and I'm sorry I didn't respond earlier- I thought it was a personal comment, based on my blocking of Connolley earlier that week, rather than a Signpost-related thing. Ral315 (talk) 05:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I hadn't noticed that you had also beeen involved in enforcing his parole or I would have phrased it differently. (SEWilco 05:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Mention in Signpost might be needed to help locate all the parties involved in the case and enforcement situation. (SEWilco 05:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I've thought more about reader navigation of multiple references to the same footnote, such as navigating the 5 references to footnote [2] in Wikipedia:Footnotes. It might be a little hairy for some readers. As mentioned in that talk page (Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Multiple references to the same footnote), I like having all the multiple references be in the footnotes section, for easier future maintenance. The article currently also mentions easier navigation for the reader. So I moved all the multiple references to the footnotes section to really see it for myself, and you can see it too at User:For7thGen/subpage 1. You can decide it, if you can get to it despite the other demands on your time. (I'm VERY interested in global warming myself, if that's the climate change involved, above.)
That is, you can decide whether anything further should be done with this footnote-section idea. I'll be doing other things so I won't concern myself about this topic unless I hear from you. I'll be very happy if most of my changes to the article are found acceptable, but won't even put the article on my watchlist. For7thGen 21:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can see multiple footnote referencing in Jew and Alchemy. It might be better to rephrase to avoid sensitivity to the footnote number, so adding footnotes to the article won't break numbering. In some cases you could just say "a preceding footnote" (followed by the link to it). Another possibility is to have the referenced footnote start with a word or phrase which you can mention when referring to it. (04:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC))

Hi SE, I read on AN/I that this is your bot, [9] and I was wondering whether there was a consensus to change these embedded links to footnotes. As you know, either is allowed according to WP:CITE and we're not supposed to change from one to the other without gaining consensus on the talk page, unless I've misunderstood what you're doing. And if it's not you, my apologies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was no existing style for links to citations, so I used the most popular method when I added citations. (SEWilco 17:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

SE, sorry to trouble you with this again. Another editor has drawn my attention to this. WP:CITE says you must defer to the citation style used by the first major contributor, unless there is a consensus on the page to change it. See Wikipedia:Cite sources#How to Cite Sources, which says: "If contributors differ as to the appropriate style of citation, they should defer to the article's main content contributors in deciding the most suitable format for the presentation of references. If no agreement can be reached, the style used should be that of the first major contributor." I understand that you're keen on footnotes, and although I've personally never seen the attraction of them, I'm very willing to be proven wrong, and I respect that you're willing to devote time and energy to helping with WP's sourcing issues. I wish more editors would do that! But please try to see that there are advantages in other citation styles too, and edit warring to replace other styles with footnotes isn't appropriate or fair to the other editors on the page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your attention was drawn to the wrong edit. This edit was the actual conversion of the consensus style to more complete citations, using numbered links to mimic the consensus linking style. The edit to which you linked is based on Vsmith's recent non-consensus style, which as pointed out several times in Talk is fragile in ways which are demonstrated by errors created by Vsmith. There are now versions using both citation styles in History in case the numbered style continues to be preferred. (SEWilco 17:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by the "most popular" method. If there is one, it's using embedded links, not footnotes. But the important point is that WP:CITE, which is the relevant style guide, has no preference, except that the citation style used by the first major contributor must be adhered to in the event of a dispute. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Except when Wikipedia policy, such as Wikipedia:Verifiability requires a change. (SEWilco 06:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

When would any WP policy e.g. WP:V require a change in citation style? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Changes in policy could require many changes. (SEWilco 21:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Something has changed that mkaes these template display incorrectly (mabye a software change- since they looked fine last week), see Canberra for an example. Any idea how to fix them?--nixie 04:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the appearance are you referring to? A change was not apparent when I looked. Is there a problem with a specific link? (SEWilco 17:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I have files an RFC against you: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SEWilco. William M. Connolley 22:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

SEW, you've now reported user:William M. Connolley 11 times since November 15 for alleged 3RR violations, some of which are over a month old. This is starting to look like malicious reporting, and you may be blocked for disruption if it continues, though by all means report a new violation if you see one. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Users are supposed to report 3RR violations, have these violations of the parole already been reported? The parole terms are defined at William M. Connolley: Six-month revert parole on certain articles. You seem to have an issue with how many times William M. Connolley has violated his parole. (SEWilco 16:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Has the ArbComm stated a rule on handling of parole violations someplace which I have not seen? (SEWilco 16:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Not that I'm aware of, but violations should be reported sooner. In future, you should probably either report them within a day or two, or let it be. Also, it might make more sense if you were to report them on WP:AN/I as parole violations rather than on the 3RR page, as they're not, strictly speaking, 3RR violations. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please stop robotically replying to comments on the 3RR page as well. It's become obvious no admin is going to take an issue with these reports where the incident was more than a month ago. At least by #8 or #9 you were asked to stop and you're still doing it. SchmuckyTheCat 03:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because you posted your 13th report against William Connolley, also for an alleged violation that took place in October, after being warned not to, you have been temporarily blocked from editing. If you feel this is unfair or incorrect, feel free to e-mail me using the link on my user page, and I'll get straight back to you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really believe it is right to tell me to post in AN/I and then block me for that posting? (SEWilco 04:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Do really believe that's what actually happened? --Calton | Talk 08:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently SlimVirgin forgot WP:AN/I is not WP:AN/3RR. Part of the discussion in AN/3RR is based upon an assumption that 3RR will be reported soon after the event. SlimVirgin brought that assumption over to AN/I and applied it without discussion. Clarification from the ArbComm has been requested. (SEWilco 16:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Interesting new spin: you now implicitly acknowledge that ignoring stale 3RR reports is okay; yet, you apparently forgot that you continued posting them there and demanding action long after it had been made clear to you that they would be continue to be ignored. Now you've ginned up a brand-new wikilawyering theory to get your way: clearly, your only criteria for interpreting rules is whatever benefits you personally. --Calton | Talk 06:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The new situation was due to the change to AN/I, which does indeed have a different context (or I'd have first put reports there), but do go on. What are those benefits? I'd like to know what they are so I can use them. (SEWilco 14:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Did you really take SlimVirgin's messages on this page an an invitation to move to WP:AN/I and carry on business as usual there? She says you may be blocked for disruption if you continue posting the old violations (did you miss that part?), then she adds "though by all means report a new violation if you see one" (emphasis added by me). And after you respond, she says "you should probably either report them within a day or two (did you miss that also?), or let it be" and she adds "Also, it might make more sense if you were to report them on WP:AN/I as parole violations rather than on the 3RR page". Also =besides reporting them within a day or two.

I'm sorry, I try to AGF, but I look at the posts on this page, and at the way you read them, and I feel the assumption crumbling. Your interpretation is too selective. It not only flies in the face of all likelihood (would Slim invite you to do that? Seriously?), but also ignores salient parts of her text. Bishonen | talk 10:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I read and understood the situation better than she did. The discussion in WP:AN/3RR is based on an assumption that 3RR will be reported soon after having taken place, and the discussion in AN/3RR repeatedly refers to AN/3RR situations. WP:AN/I is not WP:AN/3RR, yet SlimVirgin brought the AN/3RR context over to a different context. The ArbComm has been asked for clarification. (SEWilco 16:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Hi. Would you be able to run your bot through Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama to fix all the footnotes? Thanks. (Basically the same thing it did on Ainu language) --Hottentot 19:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Hottentot 01:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. (SEWilco 01:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2 has been re-opened. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Workshop. Fred Bauder 01:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the additions you made to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2, other than the section on why case was accepted, which I responded to. On that page you may only make a statement in the section set aside for you. You may make motions on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Workshop and use the talk pages of all pages for comment. Fred Bauder 15:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It won't hurt if I unprotect it while you make the changes! Just tell me when you are finished and I'll protect it again. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't yet know what Guanaco is talking about. Keep it protected at the moment, it may take a day or two to figure out what is being proposed (I haven't found the mentioned ability but doubt it is relevant to the changes I tried). Also Guanaco hasn't identified the noticed oddity. (SEWilco 04:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Hi SEW; I've been looking at your poll, the recent RFC and the RFA. I won't, for the moment, be responding on the climate change page directly, since I think that a wider consensus is needed than just at one page. I will probably try to open up a general poll / discussion soon.

I also saw the RFC & RFA. I began to research this and after some reading found things which I thought might explain why you have been acting as you have; including some things being done that I thought were wrong, I was thinking about adding some supporting evidence to the RFA, but I realised that to do so I would pretty much have to put words in your mouth. For that reason, I'd like to ask that you first respond with some comment about how you feel (as opposed to evidence) and why.

One current problem, for your fair treatment, is that many people come into this discussion with little background. All they see is that you have an editing dispute with someone and that you have then continued to try to get that person blocked, even when various admins have said that that block isn't needed. An explanation of what you have been doing like, for example, "I felt attacked and the admins did nothing" would really help. If you wish to discuss then feel free to contact me (wiki or email etc.) Mozzerati 23:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be supplying more comments when they are ready. I've seen what happens when one responds piecemeal and hurried judgements take place from partial information. No hurry, the arbitrators are being slow to supply information and answers also. (SEWilco 04:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Hi SEWilco, my compliments for your bot's hard work of turning article URLs into footnotes. This has been a bugbear of mine. What we need next is someone to change the NCBI/PubMed URLs into scientific footnotes. There is a possibility of doing batch citations from PubMed[10], although I'm not sure if that would include decoding PMIDs. At any rate, if this is possible we could feed the URLs into your bot and change Web references to PubMed into Journal References. JFW | T@lk 19:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed planned soon. It has been delayed by a rewrite using different parsing technology, which was required for several improvements including such citation and source examination. (SEWilco 19:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Ditto, i saw it pass through some articles on my watchlist too. Good job. David D. (Talk) 20:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although processing of individual citations is planned, design of the bot presently is oriented toward cleaning up individual articles and citations. There is a balance required between processing citation information and sweeping through an external collection of data such as PubMed. I will be using interfaces such as the one you mentioned, and have pointed out additional possibilities which may require Wikipedia Board action. (SEWilco 19:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I've sent an email to NCBI about this. What sort of "Board action" were you referrring to? JFW | T@lk 19:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are situations where it would be helpful for my bot to use Google:Scholar results. I've also encountered Wikipedia citation information which Google:Scholar seemed to not be aware of, such as an online copy of often-cited work. This suggests a mutually beneficial relationship, where data from Wikipedia (or its users) can enhance Scholar's data, and details for partial data can improve Wikipedia's citations. Google already has policies and tools which allow some of this activity. I've pointed this out to WP R&D. However, due to legal and corporate roadblocks it can be difficult to get such suggestions to someone in Google who can consider them. I understand the Wikimedia Foundation already has a relationship with Google, and this could send such suggestions to Google for their consideration (such as Google's lawyers ensuring ideas don't entangle their IP and then passing it on to the right staff). (SEWilco 21:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Strong support for the footnoting bot. Great work. Stirling Newberry 12:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am about done with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Workshop. I'll put those proposals on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Proposed decision in a few days. Please make any comments or provide evidence which is relevant. I see here that folks like your bot. Fred Bauder 22:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice start, although you should wait for all the evidence. As the arbitrators haven't even finished supplying their required rationale, so there didn't seem to be a hurry. Not that evidence is easy for this case. (SEWilco 04:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

It might be easier to work with country/flag template information through {{countryedit}}. Of course, there is no ISO country code for NJ nor an Olympic abbreviation. (SEWilco 16:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the info, I wasn't aware of this set of templates. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SEWilco,

can you please clarify if you address me or User:Fred Bauder in your recent edit at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Workshop?

Thanks!

--Stephan Schulz 21:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified. The motion itself is not signed. (SEWilco 21:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Interesting concept, would be nice to see it grow and expand into something substational. It a shame it it more or less, or well be, DOA, once the "insert name of group that does not acknowledge it existence but its actions prove it" get a whiff of it. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 09:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you should type {{subst:Doctl}} _→AzaToth 03:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I was looking at the diff. I guess I see what the first template does now. Obviously it needs documentation too :-) (SEWilco 03:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

• hahahahaha :), the doclt utilize some of the moste stange things in wiki, test it so can you see :)

You can see my comments at Wikipedia talk:User Bill of Rights, but, out of curiosity, what brought my name to your attention specifically?--Sean|Black

I think it was a comment or vote in Silverback's admin culture discussion/RfC. (SEWilco 05:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

You might have better luck with Gulf Stream if you use {{ref}} and {{note}} for all refs which don't need ref_label/note_label. Use the ref_label/note_label only for links other than the first one, and let "#" ahead of the References to provide automatic numbering of the list. Then when a new note is inserted in References the numbering will adjust and only the ref_note numbers will need adjustment; the links will still work although ref_note numbers will be wrong. (SEWilco 07:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks very much for the advice. I didn't quite understand your suggestion to 'let "#" ahead of the References', but I think otherwise I've done as you propose and it seems to be working. From what you've said, I now understand that it is more robust for the addition of future extra references to avoid "ref label" except in the case of the duplicate reference to the same footnote. -- JimR 09:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also for explaining the "#" part to number the footnotes: now done. -- JimR 03:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

replied on my talk page--JK the unwise 10:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SE, I've briefly blocked your bot because I see it's changing embedded links to footnotes again, against WP:CITE. Did you discuss with anyone that you were doing this, or get permission to use it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you read WP:V, you'll see the examples it gives are of embedded links and Harvard references, although it allows footnotes too. All three styles are allowed under WP:CITE, as you know, and we're not allowed to change from one style to another without gaining consensus on the page. Where there is a dispute, the first style used in the article should be deferred to. I'm confused, because you know this already, so I'm not sure how to proceed regarding your bot. Do you plan to continue using it to change citation styles to footnotes? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of WP:CITE is violated by adding details about sources? It says "The most important thing is to enter comprehensive reference information — that is, enough information so that a reader can find the original source with relative ease.", and SEWilcoBot is adding reference information which helps find the original source (particularly if the URL later goes dead). Also if you read WP:V further you see that the important part of the examples is not the inline links but rather the detailed citation information. Use of an inline link is only accepted as a minimal citation for lack of any other detail, and it is expected that other editors will improve the citation. And when you run your revert button again to restore SEWilcoBot versions, leave George Galloway alone because that one has additional edits on it already. (SEWilco 14:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

The part of WP:CITE that is violated is where it says not to change from one citation style to the other without consensus, and that in the case of a dispute, leave it in the style first used.

When embedded links and Harvard referencing are used correctly, a full citation is added to the references section, so all the information is there. We don't have control over editors who don't use the citation styles correctly. All we can do is explain how they should be used.

To look at just one example of a page your bot changed, Northern Pacific Railway Museum, if you look at your bot's version [11] and the version it changed [12], how does your bot's version supply more information? All it does is force the reader to the bottom of the page to find the link.

Anyway, the point is that the bot is editing against WP:CITE. Can you let me know whether you intend to continue or whether we can agree that you'll stop using it to do this? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding content for citations, which is supported by both WP:V and WP:CITE. "Style" is the appearance of the article, and replacing a numbered link with another numbered link does retain the same style. The Northern Pacific Railway Museum change added the title of the document and the date it was accessed, both of which are needed for WP:CITE recovery instructions.[13] (SEWilco 15:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

If you want to add more citation detail, you're welcome to do so, but you can do that without changing to footnotes. That is the point here. Please don't use the bot to change embedded links or Harvard references to footnotes unless you gain consensus for the change on each of the article talk pages. I have to decide what to do regarding extending the block, or not, so can you let me know what your intentions are regarding the bot? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That edits are done by the bot is not relevant, I run it manually and have been reviewing all its edits. You have blocked me for following Wikipedia policy WP:V. If you want to forbid use of Wikipedia:Footnotes or change WP:V then make a proposal in those Talk pages. (SEWilco 15:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Footnotes are not forbidden, but nor are embedded links. What isn't allowed is to go around changing from one style to another without consensus. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A URL alone is not a full citation and adding more detail is encouraged. If you want to change WP:V then make a proposal in its Talk page. (SEWilco 15:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

No, if you want to change WP:V, you make a proposal on its talk page. As it stands, it allows embedded links, as does WP:CITE, as you know very well. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It allows embedded links but prefers more detailed citation information. (SEWilco 21:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I have been blocked from editing and can not participate in Arbitration Committee activity. (SEWilco 15:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

You have not been blocked from editing. Your bot has been blocked. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have been blocked. (SEWilco 15:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I suspect that since he and his bot edit from the same machine (and hence same IP address) the autoblocker catches SEWilco in your block of SEWilcoBot.

SEWilco, I'll lift the block(s) if you agree not to make further changes to footnote styles until the question of their appropriateness is settled. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ToAT, User:SEWilco edited George Galloway twice after the bot was blocked, so what does he mean by saying he can't edit? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that when I click on "edit this page" (or "view source") I was getting a message that my IP was blocked by SlimVirgin. (SEWilco 20:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Did you try to edit while logged out? Something seems to have tripped the autoblocker. Mysterious. It seems that you can edit now, at least. I'd urge you to refrain from using the bot to make footnote changes until the appropriateness of that use can be hashed out. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, although I did try to run SEWilcoBot on a sandbox. What is inappropriate about adding details about source material? (SEWilco 21:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

In general, there's nothing inappropriate about adding details about source material. The problem is that you're not asking the right question. It is inappropriate to run a bot that makes changes to page style where those changes are controversial...and, indeed, related to a case currently being arbitrated. There's obviously some dispute about citation style and content on the pages in question; its best not to run a bot until after some resolution of the dispute is achieved. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The citations bot is just a user helper script, it is not running independently. Treat it as being me doing the editing. (SEWilco 00:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

If you want edits to be treated as you doing the editing, it might be best to use your own account, rather than your 'bot' account. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For this WP:V policy discussion, treat it as being me doing the editing. Browse through SlimVirgin's or SEWilcoBot's recent activity and you can see History of those articles shows the pace of my editing, as well as she is seeing some of those articles have my manual edits wrapped around SEWilcoBot. (SEWilco 07:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Not quite sure i understand exactly why you have been banned. Anyway good luck in having it over turned. I wish that I had known that you had a bot for converting ref's before I spent so long doing the Feb 15 page!--JK the unwise 17:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand your edit here at User talk:Jimbo Wales#A sincere question. - Ted Wilkes 19:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking why the question/proposal was not being considered based on the text of the proposal. I thought the editorial spew about an editor was not relevant to the proposal. (SEWilco 20:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Hey there... I was just looking at Image:Last glacial vegetation map.png, and it appears that Antarctica and SE New Zealand were hmmm... Tropical Grassland. Got a source for that?  ;-) Tomer^talk 06:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think Antarctica has the "Continent" color. The source seems to have moved, I added links to other maps to the image description. (SEWilco 07:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Oh. I see! So, then, it's only SE NZ that's tropical grassland?  ;-) Tomer^talk 10:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SEWilco. In WP:TFD#To orphan there are, at present, 3 templates to be orphaned and deleted. I'd do them myself, only they each have a considerable number of articles containing them at present. I wonder is your bot able to help out? Thanks. -Splash^talk 05:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. (SEWilco 06:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up Slrubenstein | Talk 16:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know there were still URLs in the article body. I think it's a good idea to turn them into footnotes. JFW | T@lk 07:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! WP:WPC could use your help; please see the bottom of this talk page. Thanks in advance! ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template implemented, discussion in the above page. (SEWilco 22:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

First off, THANKS so much for your work on the references. I would like to replicate your work on some other articles that need it (specifically, Killian documents, which is a mess in many ways...) but I wasn't sure of the significance of the digits at the end of your template for the web references, e.g. "{{note|www.bartleby.com.274}}". What's that about, do I need to use it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaisershatner (talk • contribs) 19:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Those are numbers added by the citations bot as a side effect of its operation. The label name can be alphanumeric and some other characters, although not a space character. See WP:FN. (SEWilco 04:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I've been trying manually to convert the refs in Killian documents but I'm running out of steam. If you think the bot would help, I'd be delighted. Kaisershatner 17:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You were running out of steam? The bot was running out of steam! What a collection. (SEWilco 05:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Don't expect to hear much from me. An Administrator with no email address autoblocked me indefinitely, with a reason which does not make sense if he/she had read what he/she simultaneously reverted. Development of the country infobox transfer bot continues, but there will be no updates to its discussion. (SEWilco 15:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I blocked the new user RefBot as a precautionary measure. It edited User:SEWilcoBot to point to itself, but there was no edit from you to confirm that it was really you and not an impostor. Bots tend to make a lot of edits that nobody really checks (remember the fake Uncle G bot a while back), so impostor bots can be a problem. By the way, for some reason I thought you were an admin and would be able to unblock it yourself. For what it's worth, I don't believe autoblocks are ever indefinite (unless the implementation changed recently?) -- Curps 19:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there was no edit to point to a not yet fully defined user, and SEWilco was logged out while RefBot was logged in. There were SEWilco edits a few minutes before RefBot appeared, so I was around. And the autoblock is for 24 hours, but they keep getting reset to a later expiration time which is following the indefinite block. (SEWilco 19:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Are you sure you're blocked? [14] enochlau (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I was. [15] For some reason the autoblocker isn't showing in the Block log, but there were several autoblocks created so it was in effect an indefinite autoblock. (SEWilco 03:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2 case. Raul654 18:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of the need for Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights. (SEWilco 20:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Hello - Could you take a look at the Levy skew alpha-stable distribution article? The Template:ref_harvard and Template:note_label combination seems to be broken. There are three references in the first two paragraphs and clicking on them does nothing, whereas before it would direct you to the refs. Thanks - PAR 14:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see one cause and am working on it. (SEWilco 15:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Work interrupted by an Administrator blocking me on bad faith and in obvious error. Change your ref_harvard and note_label to define something for all the parameters. For note_label try "1|a" or "1|none". (SEWilco 03:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Hi.

I have blocked RefBot temporarily while trying to understand its purpose. The recent Arbcom decision says:

 3) SEWilco should not use a bot to convert citations on articles, nor should he manually convert 
 citation styles on any articles.

This edit looks to me like RefBot is converting citations on an article. Can you explain to me how this is in conformance with the terms of your probation? Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding what's going on. Drop me a line and let me know. Thanks. Nandesuka 14:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article style already uses WP:FN. (SEWilco 15:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Sure. But how does that matter? The Arbcom decision doesn't say anything about article style. It says "SEWilco should not use a bot to convert citations on articles..." That was a citation on an article. You used a bot to convert it. I've asked Arbcom to clarify their decision, but on the face of it I don't think that edit is permitted. Nandesuka 15:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did not convert a citation, I created a citation where none had existed. (SEWilco 15:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I think your argument is too subtle for a simple man like me to understand. A citation is a reference to a book, paper, or other work.[16]. The inline link was a reference to the guardian web site. You converted it to the format you prefer. In any event, I'm sure the Arbcom will clarify for us if I am mistaken. Nandesuka 15:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I created a citation in the format which is already in use in the article. Remove the block until you know what you are doing. (SEWilco 15:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

No. The bot's activities contravene the plain reading of the ArbCom's decision. If another admin thinks I have made a mistake, I will not object if they lift the block. And obviously if a clarification from Arbcom comes down that indicates that my reading is in error, I'll be glad to lift the block myself. If, on the other hand, my reading is not in error, then I think you are fortunate that it is only the bot that is blocked at this point. Nandesuka 15:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A URL link alone is not a citation. "complete citations — also called "references," because the citations identify the referred-to sources — are collected at the end of the article under a ==References== heading". Keep reading plainly. (SEWilco 15:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Three arbitrators on the mailing list have now indicated that this is exactly what you are not supposed to use bots to do. Phil Sandifer 20:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not convert the article format. The format was already using WP:FN, so additions are also supposed to use that format. I did maintenance on the article and created the missing citation, which WP:CITE states should exist in boldface several times. There was no citation to convert. (SEWilco 21:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I repeat - three arbitrators have said RefBot should be blocked uner the terms of your ruling. Since they made the rule, I feel they are entitled to declare it to work this way. Phil Sandifer 23:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And nor may I do that manually. So they're confirming that they refuse to follow WP:V and adding that on existing articles I must not follow WP:CITE, WP:MOS-L, etc. Some encyclopedia we're building here. (SEWilco 03:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Now I've been blocked erroneously by an Administrator that apparently thinks User:RefBot is a hidden account or something. I had made links to it from User:SEWilco and User:SEWilcoBot, and the Admin is claiming authority under a ruling which applies to me under any account. (SEWilco 03:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

It's not a hidden account, but you're operating it to try to game the AC ruling. If you want to be banned completely, you're certainly heading in the right direction. Stop pulling stupid shit - David Gerard 20:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What does "operating it to try to game the AC ruling" mean? Do you think there is something about that account which makes its operation have a different relationship to the ruling from SEWilcoBot? Did I set something wrong in its Preferences? And why is it referred to as a "second account" when it is my third? (SEWilco 21:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

User:RefBot has been blocked indefinitely with the current explanation "username created only to evade arbcom ruling". This is incorrect. As has been explained to the blocking Admin, RefBot was spun off (before the ArbCom ruling) because it has become too specialized for the utility and development account User:SEWilcoBot. Evasion also does not make sense with an account labeled as belonging to me, as the ArbCom refers to me under any account and was aware of User:SEWilcoBot. (SEWilco 01:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

You may have already found out about this, but this could be your saviour: the new Cite extension (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cite/Cite.php). This basically provides intrinsic support for citations into MediaWiki, and combines the power of the footnoting templates currently in use with the ease of use of inline references as demanded by WMC. Although the ArbCom decision prevents you from unilaterally changing reference styles, you may like to raise this with other contributors on the pages that you regularly edit. Cheers. enochlau (talk) 13:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working with the author of Cite on it already, as it does look like a useful tool. There was no need to mention it along with many details; or maybe there was a need but the "case" was so poorly defined the need was not apparent. The ArbCom's decision is too ambiguous to be very useful and I've asked for clarification. The consolidation of WP:CITET will be awkward without RefBot's next version. Updating/replacing "ref/note" even more so due to variety of citation structures. Maybe converting "ref/note" to "cite" is not considered "converting citation" if the effect is the same. (SEWilco 15:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

For that matter, the ArbCom ruling is so ambiguous that I may not be allowed to discuss how someone else might change a citation. (SEWilco 15:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I have been adding a query regarding the Bill of Rights, along with the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct, to those candidate pages where you have not already asked it, and I am attempting to compile a list of responses. Obviously, a "correct" answer would not be the sole criterion for evaluating a candidate, but does separate the sheep from the goats. I have found that in previous elections, it is very difficult to know what an ArbCom candidate is actually going to do, just by reading their statements. Incidentally, Silverback has waged a fairly gutsy campaign against what he calls the "admin culture of abuse," which leads me to have some confidence in his intentions to clean things up around here.

I presume that your motivations are similar to mine; I had a recent experience with the present ArbCom which convinced me that the present line-up is hopelessly corrupt, and more than happy to abuse its power to promote one POV over another, without any pretense of a justification founded on official Wikipedia policies. I have concluded that the only real solution is some sort of formal check on ArbCom powers, but I will settle for new ArbCom members that acknowledge that there is a problem.

I am astonished at the wild machinations aimed at suppressing the Bill of Rights. You would think that its opponents would simply encourage votes against it, but they seem to want to bury it altogether, so that the Wikipedia community will be unaware the the issue was ever raised. I find this very creepy -- maybe a lot of these Wikipedians are hoping to land a position at the Washington Post or something. --HK 07:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SEW, you've been reported for a violation of your probation by changing citation styles at Sea level rise and have been blocked for 72 hours. This was agreed upon by at least three admins as required by the arbitration committee. See WP:AN/I#User:SEWilco. If you feel the block is unwarranted, you're welcome to e-mail me using the link on my user page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My work has again been interrupted by interference by "Administrator" User:SlimVirgin. She blocked me based on her incomplete information to WP:AN/I#User:SEWilco. In article Sea level rise, User:William M. Connolley had deleted material contrary to his POV while claiming in Talk:Sea level rise that he couldn't find the connection between citations and the related material. Because one link had gone dead WMC deleted the section [17] instead of following WP:CITE and leaving the supporting link or finding a copy of the material. WMC claims URL-only citations are sufficient but obviously couldn't find a replacement link using only the URL. I restored more complete citations which User:William M. Connolley had deleted because he didn't have time. [18] While adding clarifications to the information I was blocked. (SEWilco 04:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The meaning of the ruling is that you are not allowed to change from one citation style to another for any reason whatsoever. When you asked for clarification, Fred Bauder replied: "Please assume the broadest possible interpretation. We will back up any administrator that blocks you under a broad interpretation." [19] Having said that, this example didn't even involve a broad interpretation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The citations already existed and you neglected to mention that. Stop deleting information from Wikipedia.[20][21] (SEWilco 04:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

At the risk of making a fool of myself, I'm going to assume you genuinely don't understand the ruling. When you changed [http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/425.htm] (which looks like this [22] in the text) to {{ref|www.grida.no.454}} (which looks like this ^[23]), you changed the citation style. You are not allowed to do that. Not for any reason.

If you feel more citation information is needed, you must add it using the citation style already used throughout the article. In this case, that would have meant adding a full citation to the References section for the article linked to. But not a citation in the form of footnotes, because that would have meant changing the citation style. Sea level rise currently does not use a footnote system, so you are not allowed to add one.

In this case, a full citation would have involved writing something like the following in the References section:

• "Changes in Sea Level", Climate Change 2001, Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change, undated, retrieved January 7, 2006

That gives you all the information you need, exactly the same amount of information as with a footnote system. Let me know if there's something you still don't understand, and I'll try to explain it further. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the above mentioned Talk:Sea level rise, where WMC can't find the text associated with unlinked references. I restored the existing "converted" links to more complete citations (deleted by WMC because of a lack of time), I did not "convert" again. Now, why is it OK for you to delete those more detailed citations instead of changing them to the format which you prefer? (SEWilco 05:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Whether you restored a citation system that had been there earlier, or converted for the first time, and whether or not WMC can or can't find something, you are not allowed for any reason to make an edit that changes a style like this [http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/425.htm] (which looks like this [24] in the text) to a style like this {{ref|www.grida.no.454}} (which looks like this ^[25] in the text). And you are not allowed to add footnotes to the end of the page either. That is the important point to grasp: not for any reason, no matter how good.

As for me changing it back, I don't have a preference regarding which style this article should use, because I'm not editing it. All I'm doing is reverting your citation changes following the arbcom ruling. It's up to the editors on the page which citation style to use, and you are one of the editors, so you can be involved in the discussion about it, but you're not allowed to be the one who makes the change. Is that clearer? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I may add details but not touch, improve, or make easier to use an existing URL, despite any otherwise overriding Official Policy? (SEWilco 06:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

That's more or less correct. You would be allowed to add information so long as you used exactly the same citation system as before. For example, if you found an article that had a URL as a source, but no full citation in the References section, then you could add that full citation, but not in the form of a footnote. If any of the touching, improving, or making it easier to use involves changing the citation system, you would not be allowed to do it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, this is ridiculous. Just the other day you reverted his edits to Battle of Singapore when we wanted the new citation style (we being the people at the SGpedians' ntotice board). That said, yes, what if we want it (or whoever else happens to be editing the article)? For that matter, Surely the Arbcom ruling was merely to prevent edit wars over the citation style, not make ridiculous restrictions on actual contributions to articles that we couldn't be bothered with otherwise? My original intent was to see if SEWilco's bot could help me with automatically converting some articles to use a footnote system if requested, but apparently the arbitration ruling prevents him such. Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 07:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the other editors agree on the talk page to change citation styles, you're of course allowed to do that. But the ruling says that SEWilco is not allowed to do it, because a complaint was made against him for doing it against consensus. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm lazy (or just pressurised with lots of articles to work on). His bot isn't, or himself for that matter. Again, isn't the arbitration request simply supposed to prevent him from changing citation styles out of his own whim and fancy (and to prevent edit wars), and not when consensus wants the new citation style? Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 07:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ruling is that SEWilco must not change from one citation style to another. If there is consensus on the page, other editors will make the change, but in this case, there is no sign of consensus. On the contrary, the other editors keep reverting him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Verifiability requires no consensus for improving verifiability. And until the restrictions on me, Wikipedia:Footnotes was both documented as being an intermediate step toward better methods and could track any better methods within days of such becoming available. (SEWilco 02:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

That is correct, SEW. You are allowed to improve reference material but you must do that within the citation style already on the page. All citation styles give the same information, when used correctly. A full citation should always be given in the References or Notes section with every citation style. Just as you would not add a number to a text without a corresponding footnote, you should not add an embedded link to a text without a corresponding citation in the References section. So please do improve things, but do not change the citation style. I hope that is clear now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, now that is the case. My paragraph before yours was referring to your reference to the edit wars before the ArbCom ruling, where there were "other editors" reverting. (SEWilco 04:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The arbcomm ruling is perfectly clear; SEW, you do yourself no favours by pretending not to understand it. That said, Natalina makes a fair point: you are interested in fixing refs which other people often neglect. I make two suggestions:

• copy the article, with updated references, into a /tmp on the talk page; point it out to people on the talk page. If someone likes it, they will insert it.
• update the article refs, then revert to the previous version. Again, note on the talk page, and if people like it they will revert to the updated version. This might just be a technical violation of your parole, but I can't see anyone would complain, and I would certainly argue in your defence that this was simply making a different version available if people chose to use it.

Needless to say, these should only be done if you're unsure: where people have made it clear that they object (certainly covered by SLR), you should leave the article ref style unchanged.

I have a third suggestion, which is that the new cite extension almost but not quite renders this whole problem moot. Why not work with the developer to try to make it cover both cases?

William M. Connolley 20:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure someone would be just thrilled to delete the number of /tmp pages which would be involved in the many articles without full citations. What is the "this whole problem"? What are the "both cases"? I've been involved with Cite before it was installed here, but how does yet another format do more than offer another format not to "convert"? (SEWilco 02:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

You prefer the footnote style. I (and others) prefer inline links. Cite.pm could, potentially, generate either from the same text, depending on the users or the pages preferences. This would solve the dispute over reference format. William M. Connolley 11:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

And as I told you in another Talk page, I was also adding a "url=" parameter to WP:FN tools before Cite existed; this was interrupted by the AUTOINCREMENT experiment by the author of Cite.pm. The advantage of Cite.pm here is that Cite.pm can produce a single link to a citation (numbered or labeled link) with a non-numbered external link symbol where the symbol itself is the link (WP:FN can not create a linked image). There are many ways of producing inline links to external pages, and support for all of them is required. What is required by WP:V is full citations, and WP:V does not require one-click access by nonexistent users rather than two-click access. (SEWilco 18:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Again, what is "this whole problem moot" and what are the "both cases" to which you refer? (SEWilco 18:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I don't know much about the ArbCom case involving you (and don't particularly want to) but just so you know, there's a new citation feature available at m:Cite/Cite.php. If you could use that in future, it would be appreciated. Cheers, [[Sam Korn]] 23:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look above and you'll see others pointed it out and I've been involved with Cite before it was mentioned here. I use whatever Wikipedia best practices are available. (SEWilco 02:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

My apologies. I was in a hurry when making the comment. [[Sam Korn]] 23:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have put Template:Country alias Akrotiri and Dhekelia up for CSD. If this is something you are in the middle of working on please remove the CSD notice and replace it with content or an inuse tag. Thanks! -- xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 06:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC) If needed, please reply on my talk page [reply]

As the edit comment suggested, this is part of a data array used by tools related to Template:Flag. CSD removed. (SEWilco 06:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The entire scheme around the various country_flag and country_infobox templates you've created is in violation of the WP:AUM policy. The developers have confirmed that templates calling or within other templates cause extra processing. This policy has been reaffirmed by the Arbitrators as valid. The template namespace is not a general data repository. -- Netoholic @ 08:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I pointed this out in Template_talk:Infobox_Country#Complete_list_of_country_articles_not_directly_using_.7B.7BInfobox_Country.7D.7D. The m:Help:Arrays are being used for the minimal information for the tasks, intentionally not creating items for every parameter in Country infoboxes. Also, the data repository which Jimbo described is one of the technologies to which I refer in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Flag_Template#Technical_issues as a replacement for the data array (there are other proposals such as selecting data within a page). What is the development status of the data repository which Jimbo described last year? (SEWilco 09:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Infobox vote where a poll was held about the specific issue of country infoboxs. The predominant, and ultimately accepted, practice was to use one common template and put the template's data in the country article itself. Any suggestion to change to that strategy should be brought to the WikiPRoject itself, not the talk page of the Infobox (which should stick to the Infobox operation only). -- Netoholic @ 09:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A poll a year ago, maybe that's why I didn't notice a link to it. Further discussion on Infobox_Country should be over yonder (whether that's the Infobox or Project page). (SEWilco 09:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Why are you contacting all the participants in his priot RfA? El_C 07:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case they are interested in the new RFA. (SEWilco 07:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

78 votes have already been cast — do you not find this excessive? El_C 07:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is the number of votes relevant? To which phrase does the pronoun "this" refer in "this excessive"? Please rephrase your question. (SEWilco 07:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I mean, it isn't as if it lacked many participants to the point that further input was needed to such an extent. Thus, a comment on the Village Pump would have probably been sufficient; copy-pasting a notice on each person's talk page seems excessive. El_C 07:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you think voting should end at some number of votes. Is 10 enough? (SEWilco 08:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Not end; this was regarding further input through mass talk page notices versus a single notice on the Village Pump. El_C 08:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a targeted list, and everyone on the list no matter how they voted. Will you revert your changes? You're interfering with the required full notification of everyone equally. (SEWilco 08:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

It appears we are at an impass, since I do not see it that way. Again, please feel free to seek additional input at WP:ANI if you strongly contest my position. Thanks. Regards, El_C 08:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Fortunately, I checked WP:AN/I and discovered the mistaken assumptions being discussed there by people who didn't bother asking for the facts. Thanks for taking the time to ask instead of starting that secret hearing. (SEWilco 09:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I reverted your changes as I found it constituted spam. Sorry. El_C 07:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was rude and probably abusive. Explain what you mean by "constituted spam". (SEWilco 07:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hi again. I'm sorry you found it rude or abusive, but I really think you should have used the Village Pump as more central venue for such a notice. Mass copy-paste talk page notices is something we generally wish to discourage, everything else that's specific here aside. El_C 07:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of all participants in a discussion related to a vote is acceptable. Got a rollback-rollback button? (SEWilco 07:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hi again. Yes, I do. Please feel free to raise the matter on WP:ANI; perhaps I acted in error, in which case I would offer you my sincere apologies and try to draw the appropriate lessons. Thanks again for your time. Regards, El_C 07:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the changes (does it take longer than 5 minutes?) and I see no need to report you to ANI. Everyone forgets details at times. (SEWilco 07:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

What were you trying to express in your inquiry about the number of votes? (SEWilco 07:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Please see above the line. Thanks. El_C 07:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. It takes ~20 seconds, but I think you misunderstand. I am not inclined to restore the changes, although I do concede the possibility that I acted in error. I actually encourage you to place a notice on WP:ANI if you strongly contest my position, so that we could fall back on the thoughts of other admins. Thanks. Regards, El_C 07:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been blocked before for posting in ANI, apparently they don't like many messages. Notifying everyone in a vote is the non-spam requirement. (SEWilco 07:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

While I mightn't have reverted the messages, campaigning for or against RFAs is frowned upon. And, you should at least have checked to see if people had voted (Dunc, at least, had voted already). Guettarda 07:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did check, then misread part of the list. Wait, the list you're on... Great, I misread it again. Well, at least I'm not under-notifying, as that is really frowned upon. (SEWilco 07:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Nope, didn't misread the list showing "El C" had not already voted in RFA2. You voted under another name? (SEWilco 08:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Oh, that was a comment from Guettarda about Dunc. I did not notify a Dunc, although I did notify a Duncharris who did not vote in RFA2. I see, he's aliasing his name in the RFA2 vote to Dunc. (SEWilco 08:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

You have been blocked from commenting on the actions of William M. Connolley. The official wording is below.

Per the consensus of myself, Ambi, and Extreme Unction, SEWilco is blocked from commenting, either directly or indirectly, on the actions of William M. Connolley. This is to be interpreted liberally. This restriction is to last for one year, or until we believe that SEWilco can distinguish what actions are appropriate in respects to other users. Ral315 (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also the applicable WP:AN/I conversation. Ral315 (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I object. This flies in the face of freedom of speech. Yes, SEWilco sometimes can be a PITA. Yes, some of his comments and behavior violate WP:Point or WP:AGF or WP:CIV. But there is no reason for a blanket block on a whole class of comments. This message will go to User talk:SEWilco, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2 --Stephan Schulz 14:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three Administrators meeting in a corner can now issue rulings? That's going to produce a lot of odd little rulings on many topics. (SEWilco 16:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Actually the arbcomm ruling did, in effect, allow for something like this. It's irrelevant though. What baffles me is that you shuld be able to predict how the community would react to this, especially after the whole 3rr thing earlier. At the same time, the more light there is on WMC's RFA, the more likely it is to pass. Last time most of the oppose votes dealt specifically with the fact that he was under arbcomm restrictions. This time its mostly from aetherometry people - just seeing their oppose votes is likely to push a neutral-to-mild-oppose voter to Support. Guettarda 16:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated above, I am indeed shining more light on WMC's RFA and don't know how those from the first RFA had voted. (SEWilco 16:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Don't play dumb. You know the first RFA failed, so obviously the opinion of voters back then was less favourable than it is now.--Stephan Schulz 16:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So obviously the opinion of voters has changed so the number of voters won't matter? (SEWilco 04:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I invite Administrators to go to WP:AN/I and vote against this "block". (SEWilco 16:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

You have been blocked for violating the injunction forbidding you from comment on WMC. This is due to your spamming of talk pages asking to be allowed to give a notice that clearly refers to the notice of WMC's RFA.

On a more personal note, your attempts to game the system are unremarkable and will be unsuccessful. This is not a game where you can win if you can just figure out how to fit your behavior into a set of pre-defined rules. The problem is not how your behavior fits the letter of the law - it is how your behavior fails to fit the spirit. Phil Sandifer 05:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I only referred to the "block" which has been created. I linked to "blocked from commenting" and asked for assistance with that restriction. I can't complete the required notifications until that restriction is removed, and I only referred to "anti-spam process" which is not a reference to a voting process, so I did not refer to WMC nor the RFA. (SEWilco 05:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Which spirit? I recognize that your block fit right in with the custom on AN/I of taking action without bothering to find out the facts. (SEWilco 05:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The problem is there is no letter of the law. To not be spamming a vote, I have to notify everyone involved, but that has been interrupted by the "blocked from commenting". So I have to remove the "blocked from commenting" both to participate in the RFA and to complete the required notifications. To remove the "blocked from commenting" I have to persuade Administrators to cancel the restriction or create a counter-restriction. To remove the "blocked from commenting" I have to discuss it but that same restriction won't let me refer to the restriction. (SEWilco 05:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I cannot believe you find it this hard to understand what is being asked of you. Which is to leave WMC alone in every respect. ANY action about his RFA is prohibited. Even telling people to go vote for him. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 07:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But that creates a violation of anti-spamming procedures which are required to ensure the RFA is fair, which makes the RFA not be fair. My block also ensures that AN/I can penalize me for those violations while following the tradition of acting on partial information and assumptions rather than facts. (SEWilco 13:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Briefly, the three admins who put forth the restriction (among many, many others—including me) have noticed that your conduct is generally reasonable and usually your contributions to this encyclopedia are positive. However, when you interact with WMC–or even focus your attention on him–the quality, tone, and usefulness of your edits decline sharply.

The purpose of the restriction is to continue to allow you to edit productively and positively for the good of the encyclopedia, while preventing you from engaging in behaviour that many editors find disruptive. Constantly trying to interact with/affect WMC is a waste of everyone else's time as well as yours, and only serves to soak up Wikimedia Foundation bandwidth and server space.

If you refuse to understand that your behaviour is disruptive after so many editors have tried to explain the matter, further discussion of the point is unlikely to be worthwhile. Try instead to understand that you will be blocked if you violate the editing restriction and that most admins are getting tired of the argument. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a debating society nor an arena where you can spar with WMC. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is WMC's behavior which is the problem. You are granting him ownership of the articles he chooses to mangle, such as with Talk:Sea_level_rise#Tuvalu where he deletes what disagrees with his POV even though there are at least two existing References (search for "Gayoom" and "Maldives"). I can't remember whether no article ownership from a policy or guideline, but please update that articles can now be owned. (SEWilco 14:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I have extended the block by 24 hours based on this comment (Specifically "It is WMC's behavior which is the problem.") Phil Sandifer 18:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that one user has confirmed that the message for which I have been blocked was indeed not a "notification", as he's not sure what I'm trying to say. [26] (SEWilco 14:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I saw that you voted against the adminship of William M Connolly. I reviewed said candidate's actions on the Cold Fusion article and determined them to indeed be very biased and uncivil. I haven't looked at WC's actions on the aetherometry article yet though. The vast support for WC is truly disturbing. I am a candidate for the arbitration council. William M Connolly is precisely the type of biased and uncivil person that I would fight against.

I request that you review my candidate statement and questions at: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/LawAndOrder , and consider voting for me, though only if you have suffrage for arbitration committee elections (registered before 9/30/2005, and have over 150 edits before 1/9/2006). The votes are vastly against me, so I will not win, but I have very few support votes, so voting for me will at least show that I (who is on your side) am less of a pariah. LawAndOrder 21:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to why almost all the links in this template are hidden - can you enlighten me? Cheers! BD2412 T 18:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the pages do not exist. If one exists, uncomment it. I had tools for creating the list, now which makes further organization easier for editors. And missing articles are easier to identify. (SEWilco 06:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I am planning to make a user conduct RfC on the rogue admin NSLE. I saw that NSLE libellously accused you of making a WP:POINT violation for making honest get-out-the-vote messages on the candidate William M Connolly, his POV ally. User conduct RfCs require a minimum of 2 people to initiate, so I ask that you be the second person.

He may have also made a libellous false accusation of WP:POINT violation by a person (KDRGibby) that voted against him that did not have suffrage, just because the 2 of them had come into conflict, but I have not investigated that particular case.

However, NSLE's most gross and clear-cut policy violations (recently, anyway) have been made against myself. I can hardly even list them all by memory. Let's see... 1. He has vandalized my candidate page under libellous pretenses, 2. He has blocked me under libellous pretenses in which he has projected his own behaviors onto me, 3. He has restored his vandalism on my candidate page after I had deleted it, and after he had blocked me, 4. After he blocked me, he deleted my report of his actions in Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, as well as my report of his allies that have also violated policy while attacking me, 5. After he blocked me, he libellously discreditted me to a seemingly less-biased admin (Freestylefrappe), so as to convince said admin not to interfere with his gross policy violations against me, 6. He has falsely portrayed me by requesting a CheckUser on me under libellous pretenses (I don't mind the CheckUser itself; it's the false portrayal that one is warranted).

Also, it is becoming clear that NSLE is a member of a powerful POV-pushing policy-violating wikiclique that also definitely includes members Ambi, William M Connolly, and Ral315, and possibly many others as well, such as Joke137, Ems57fcva, Todfox, and Jeffrey O Gustafson. A user conduct RfC would also provide more evidence to implicate such wikiclique members, as NSLE's policy violations are so extreme and cut-and-dry that no honest user could possibly discount them.

some evidence, though yet incomplete: [27][28][29][30][31]

Well, I can't say that I didn't warn him not to grossly violate policy. Now, NSLE or one of his wikiclique allies might vandalise this talk page or block me under libellous pretenses now or later, so coordinate with me by emailing me at: cpt (at) icerocket.com . LawAndOrder 22:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NSLE did libel me by making assumptions, probably based on the initial poor report rather than checking the facts. But you'll have to be more specific if you're going to produce a legible RFC; if the vandalism of your candidate page was the strikeout then you should show the strikeout was not a personal attack (otherwise the "truth" defense protects from being libel). You are correct on several points, but I think NSLE is following Administrator customs. These customs are so poor that it will be hard to show NSLE is rogue because so many do act that way. I do think it was not necessary for NSLE to strike out part of your statement as that is part of your presentation for ArbCom status and if your candidacy is valid then your statement will help people to more quickly determine how to vote for you. However, the statement was not deleted and it was still visible so it was minor vandalism. I don't know where NSLE described what was the WP:POINT violation for the block, so I don't know what criteria were used for defining the disruption. I find it hard to believe that a candidate's statement on the page where it is supposed to be would be a disruption, other than to the train of thought of voters who came looking for such information for their decision. (SEWilco 06:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

FYI: LawAndOrder has been blocked infinitely by Kelly Martin, by the request of NSLE. JSIN 12:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see such a block. [32] (SEWilco 14:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I apologise, this is an oversight on my part. JSIN 01:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I wanted to thank you for taking the time to vote on my arbitration commitee nomination. Although it was not successful, I appreciate the time you spent to read my statement and questions and for then voting, either positively or negativly. Again, thank you! Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 22:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh, pretty! Thanks for creating these, they look great. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I implemented Cite.php over there to reduce the amount of stuff, however, there are references to stuff not listed (1983, but nothing listed from 1983 etc.), and I have no idea how to properly cite the links, or what they are supposed to confirm exactly. Since you seem to be the main sitation maker there, could you have a look? Circeus 01:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the probation on footnote, but I don't believe this is in violation, s it not a conversion (I converted), but rather making sure the references are properly made. Circeus 02:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay; I've been busy coding the next version of RefBot and am not checking here often. The 1983/Drewry info came from USGS Professional Paper 1386-B http://pubs.usgs.gov/prof/p1386b/ which credits Drewry. Reference details are within there and you decide how to update the article; there already is a link to the paper in the article but not in "References" so any related updates are a "conversion" and I don't have time to deal with Administrator stupidity now. (SEWilco 23:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I see that you are the most active user for the FlagIOC templates. I have started to "backfill" some of the old Olympic pages, and I think it would be very useful to have a more generic form of the FlagIOC template. Basically, I want to add another argument, which would determine what page the country name links to. For example, using {{FlagIOC|USA|2006 Winter}} would produce  United States (same as now), but because the games name is an argument, it makes the template usable for any games. This would be very useful for linking from the medal table in an old games to the "Country at the xxxx Olympics" page for that Olympiad. Right now, most of the older medal tables have links to the country's page, which is not very useful. I think this solution is a lot more scalable than the current practice of making FlagIOC-2006, FlagIOC-2004, etc. templates. It is also useful for creating links to a country's "home" page -- for example, using {{FlagIOC|CAN|Summer}} would create a link to Canada at the Summer Olympics, which would be the most appropriate link from Summer Olympics medal count. Anyway, I'm prepared to make all the edits necessary to make this scheme work, but I wanted to get your opinion first. The set of pages still using flagIOC (and not flagIOC-yyyy variations) is quite small & manageable at the moment. Thanks for your feedback. Andrwsc 07:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FlagIOC was created before optional parameters were available. This which-games parameter seems helpful for editors. (SEWilco 20:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I think it should be easy for me to make the change without mucking up any pages. Andrwsc 00:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you are on the Ref converter spamlist.

Hello there, I'd just like to make you aware that Lulu has filed an RfC against me and "other users of Ref converter". Since Lulu has previously contacted you regarding Ref converter I think it is safe to assume that you are one of the people named in the "other users of Ref converter" bit, so you may want to get involved. Just a heads-up, Cyde Weys 18:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi SEWilco,

you once voiced your support in the case of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries#Proposal on how to introdue an article of a country. I've posted my final proposal, however it seems to be lost in action. I just wanted to ask you what you think and what are the steps we need to take to make it official? I have posted the text for you underneath

The country introduction reads: Xxxxx, officially the Yyyyyy of Xxxx (Republic of Xxxxx, or Kingdom of Xxxxxx, etc.), is a country located on the Xxxxx of Xxxx. It shares borders with Xxxx to the east, etc. For example the introduction to France should read: "France (pronounced /fʀɑ̃s/ in French), officially the French Republic (French: République française, pronounced /ʀepyblik fʀɑ̃sɛz/), is a country...."

Exceptions: If the official name and the most common name are synonymous, the entry is left with only one name, as is the case in the articles United States, United Kingdom, Romania, Mongolia, etc. For example: "The United States of America is a federal republic situated primarily in North America." or "Romania (Romanian: România /ro.mɨ'ni.a/) is a country in Central Europe." In cases where there is a thorough explanation of the official name, the official name in the lead sentence may be dropped, as long as it is explained later. This exception is illustrated in the article Canada.

looking forward, thanks alot. Gryffindor 18:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied in #Proposal. Phrasing OK but the country names should have emphasis formatting. (SEWilco 02:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hi SEWilco, thank you for your posting, however I am afraid I don't quite understand what exactly you mean. There have been tweaks done now by User:E Pluribus Anthony, which look fine to me, if you have a further suggestion to make, then please by all means I am looking forward to it. Thank you. Gryffindor 22:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now. (SEWilco 02:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hello; what does "macroseepages" mean? I see you used this term when introducing the "environmental effects" secion in petroleum; I have never seen or heard this term, nor have I found any definition for it (to be honest with you, it looks like a typo to me). Could you please replace it with a more undestandable term (if that is possible), or at least provide a wiki stub with a brief explanation? There is only one appearence of this term in wikipedia, in petroleum; also, a google search gives 101 hits, but none of them seems to provide any hint of the meaning of the word. Thanky you. --Paiconos 18:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try a search for the singular "macroseepage". "The term macroseepage refers to visible oil and gas seeps." (SEWilco 19:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hey SE, I wanted to let you know that I have nominated Arlington County, Virginia as a candidate for US Collaboration of the Week. The article is in need of much help and with a little group effort, it could be brought to Featured Article status! I brought this to your attention as I have seen you have contributed to the article in the recent past. Please cast your vote with your signature at the US Collaboration of the Week page under Arlington County, Virginia. --Caponer 02:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IFD'd because I made a PNG version that was about 7 times smaller. I replaced both instances in article namespace; the only one left is the one in your gallery. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 12:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, thanks. (SEWilco 04:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the cool looking award. Could i ask the motivation for it? It does not need to be Politically correct. Have a good day :) --Striver 09:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting to keep the image for the Islamic Barnstar Award at the May 27 voting page. --JuanMuslim ^1m 13:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw that you had made a lot of edits to the fossil fuels page, and I was wondering if you could help me out. Do you know where I could find a list of the main countries which produce fossil fuels? Or do you know? Thanks! :)

In Fossil fuel look in the "Levels and flows" section for links to EIA estimates. Names of countries are included in the estimates. Another approach is to find members of organizations oriented toward the production of your fuel of interest, such as OPEC, but not all relevant countries are members of such. (SEWilco 02:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! BD2412 T 00:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to notify the original uploader, Luis María Benítez, as I just moved the image from es:Imagen:Earthimpact lmb.jpg almost a year ago, and have no clue about its original source. I do have a vague recolection of it being on a NASA website, though. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow the uploading user names which I followed didn't point at that user. Notified. (SEWilco 04:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

RE:Copyright conflict
Sorry for the delay and thanks for letting me know about the image. I have left a message on its discussion page. Kind regards, Luis María Benítez 13:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on a project to add the complete 128-man draws of every Open-era Grand Slam tennis tournament to Wikipedia, in the same format as 2006 Wimbledon Championships - Men's Singles. In this format, each player has a flag next to their name representing their country. I've been using the {{flagicon}} template to achieve this, but don't know much about how it works. Since these tournaments go back to 1968, there are some countries represented in the tournament that have ceased to exist. In particular, in 1974, Roger Dowdeswell of Rhodesia was in the Wimbledon men's draw. The country code for Rhodesia is RHO, but {{flagicon|RHO}} doesn't work.

What is the appropriate method for creating a Rhodesian flag icon? Also, for other tournaments, is there an easy way to get a list of all the country codes for which {{flagicon|CODE}} will work? I ran across your name in a quick search on the flag project -- if you're not the guy to ask, just let me know who is. Thanks, --Dantheox 05:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template#Editing_flag_description. Do not use the ISO country code feature if there is no ISO 3166-1 code for the country. (SEWilco 04:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

One of the people wanting the template deleted has demanded another shot at getting their way, and the template is up for deletion again.

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 7 --Barberio 19:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for better articulating my akward wording.[33] HighInBC 21:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:T7789 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 20:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the ISBNs in some entries, but I don't know anything about the operation of the template. I'll pass on your message to User:Rich Farmbrough. Alan Pascoe 08:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you re-read your link. It talks about costs of 10k to over 100k for production, 10k for storage, and potentially insurmountable *political* (not financial) costs. Yes, tritium is radioactive, but only minimally so. Tritium releases a very low energy beta (6.5 keV) that isn't very effective at even penetrating skin. For comparison, 14B has a beta energy of 20.6 MeV, 32Ba has 17.9, etc -- and beta isn't a particularly bad kind of radiation to begin with (for that, you're looking at neutrons and gamma). The only risk from tritium is ingestion of compounds that contain it. Even with that, most have very short biological halflifes. You could drink all of the tritium from a laser sight and not die. Industry uses many chemicals that are much harder to store and are much deadlier in quantities much larger than that.

Since you seem particularly interested in keeping your link, I simplified the description to the basics: that the production cost is likely greater than the payoff. -- Rei 21:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually page 14 includes production and storage as the major issues. Fortunately, tritium would float upward if released. Unless they store it as tritium water. But it seems worth mentioning the scale of the problem; page 2 mentions 13 metric tonnes He-3 per year for 25% of USA power needs (I haven't checked his projection against current numbers), so global needs would be measured in 10s rather than 100s of tonnes. (SEWilco 03:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I've just noticed the revert war at Template:Country label alias West Germany. As well as the elegant solution. {{flag|West Germany|name=FRG}}. However, I am confused why West Germany is shortened to DEU. I had thought this was for Germany. What are the examples where West Germany went as DEU? You cite ISO_3166-1_alpha-3 but I think there is no mention of West Germany on that page. David D. (Talk) 21:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DEU also was West Germany's country code. I added "**st Germany" names to the "Past codes" section to make text searching on the ISO page work better. (SEWilco 02:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Excellent that will make things more clear. Thanks David D. (Talk) 03:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have removed links to a number of the World Coal Institute publications.

I agree this is excessive to have these here however the Coal: Facts and Figures provides a good quick reference for people looking for coal numbers so I have put this one link back.

What do you think?

I do understand the idea, and comply with that, but the implementation is an archanic solution from mid 2005, and should be fixed, see for example InuYasha and the list of used templates. Made an example template {{Country name alias}} how it could be fixed, but the list is made up from the list from ISO_3166-1 and may be inconclusive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AzaToth (talk • contribs) 18:18, 6 October 2006

It was intended to be temporary code until a better solution was created. The primary purposes have been to get those flag and country references have a consistent appearance, and to get them marked in articles for when better solutions are created. Discuss in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template, and mention it in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. Include links to info about the technologies (#switch) being proposed. (SEWilco 19:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I have heard of Wikicite (not much seems to be happeining there atm) Do you have tool(s) written that can create reports (all books by a given author, all authors in articles in a given category, etc.) from the live site or dumps? If so, I'd love to see them, and try them out. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No reports yet, nobody has needed them. The parsing and standardization was the hard part. When Wikicite or some other project needs citation data or reports, it's trivial to save the info in a database. Summaries can then be created from the DB. (SEWilco 17:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I'd certainly appreciate a list of all the books cited on the pedia, sortable by author, publisher or year. If you can make that, that'd be great! JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The material on the blogs is copyrighted. Wikipedia does not link pirated mp3s and should not link pirated newspaper articles either. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 04:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: this; If you can look this over and agree there is no diff, can you add a {{db-author}} to the image you uploaded. Thanks. // FrankB 02:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{db-reason}} actually. (SEWilco 05:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

There is a request for a Peer Review of the article History of Earth. However, unlike other articles with a request for a PR, this article does not have a request for PR box at the top of its page. The question is, is there still a need for a PR, and do editors still want one done? KP Botany 16:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to the Flag template WikiProject at the MoS discussion. Has there been much discussion at the WikiProject about the limits/usefulness of flag icons? Carcharoth 15:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a tool for editors to improve the previously existing icons. How they are used is a separate matter from the existence of icons. You can find that within that discussion. (SEWilco 19:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I asked a guy this morning from the Defence section about these and apparantly warships need some kind of authorisation to travel. Its not a passport but something else. I had my mind on something else at the moment but I'll try and find out some more later. I just wanted to drop you a line to say nice job on the new article on this subject. --Spartaz 20:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Apparently the Mediterranean Pass was for a special purpose. I am aware the Law of the Sea has special provisions for warships and that warships have protocols to follow in order to use a foreign port. I wouldn't be surprised if additional documents are often needed. (SEWilco 20:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The Mediterranean Pass was confirmation that a ship was protected by blackmail paid to the Barbary Pirates. (SEWilco 07:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

SEWilco, not sure about your views on the subject, but I did see you've been involved in some, shall we say, discussion with William Connolley and Stephan Schulz. Just thought I'd let you know that we've been embroiled in a debate for the last couple of days on the neutrality of the global warming article, and I feel completely disillusioned by their premise that if they don't acknowledge the dispute, one clearly must not exist. I would appreciate any help you could offer, thanks to your interactions with these gentlemen. Thank you for your time. JQLibet 20:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have insight into them. What they acknowledge does not affect what exists. (SEWilco 05:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

hello there, I see you created the citecase template - do you know how to provide an option to allow for English (and all the Commonwealth) citation format?

It's basically the date in a different place, I think. e.g. Sturges v. Bridgman (1879) 11 Ch D 852

Many thanksWikidea 09:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss Template:Cite court in Wikipedia talk:Citation templates. It could be done but needs discussion, preferably from some people who know court citation formats. One issue is what to name an option which changes the format (or just create a new template), as maybe that format is used more widely than in England or the UK, and maybe that format has a name. You might also put an invitation to the discussion in Talk:Case citation. (SEWilco 00:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hi there. I just thought I should let you know that I have nominated The science is settled, to which you have contributed, for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The science is settled. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 17:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "Please unprotect User talk:RefBot. Wikipedia:Protection policy says temporary protection should be used for unblock abuse. I was not abusing it, I was trying to get a review of an erroneous block. There is was no documentation for Template:Unblock and I was just trying to have someone with some sense look at the block which is based on an admin's faulty imagination. Stomping in with an undocumented penalty after two requests doesn't seem reasonable. And when RefBot is running, all users should be able to access its talk page."

I'm honestly not sure what happened there. I have unprotected the page. I may have been bombarded that day with people requesting unblock after unblock after unblock and we often use the unblockabuse template after two unblock requests have been declined. My use does not appear to have been legitimate here, though. --Yamla 13:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You voted for Ganges River, this week's Indian Collaboration of the Week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. - Aksi_great (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you like the idea of Wikipedia but disagree with this project's particular implementation of that idea (as you implied on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is failing), you may be interested in looking at Opencycle, a similar project to create a freely-editable open-content encyclopedia, but without a lot of the arrogant uptightness that is prevalent on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.135.28.40 (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, I removed the info on the accusation of anti-Semitism for two reasons - the lack of citation, and the irrelevance. It's known to have funded terrorism, as mentioned earlier in the article, and thats why it was shutdown. I would assume any organization that funds terrorist attacks against Jews would be by definition anti-Semitic. KazakhPol 06:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted it with a comment that indicated you were adding information. Put a {{fact}} tag on it and invite a source. (SEWilco 23:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Do you have a copy of the book in question? The opening sentence of the quotation is grammatically incorrect, and I wonder if there's not a transcription error. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have that book. I reverted tinkering of a quotation by an anonymous user. If you think the quotation is incorrect, go ahead. (SEWilco 15:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

No — the anon's change didn't in fact help, and you were right that it was almost certainly incorrect. I don't want to turn the quotation into correct English if the original contains the mistake. I'll leave it alone. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Sami Al-Arian were reverted by Wikimaru07. I thought you would like to know. Regards, KazakhPol 16:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This time he provided a reason. If someone puts the link back in there should be explanation of why the link is relevant. (SEWilco 18:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for fixing that ref mess. I'm not allowed to. (SEWilco 23:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hey you are welcome. I think I put a major dent into it. I hope that my morning's work on the page does not get reverted by these out of control admins. It seems they guard certain articles from dissenting opinions or even changes that add relevant information. Yes, even correcting references around upsets them. Some people believe that people are basically bad and need law and order in order to behave. Other people like me believe that most people are basically good and can help each other to do great work. Thanks for your help. Maybe they will let you out of the dog house soon.Kgrr 23:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know I removed a link from the above page because it was to a site being considered from the spam whitelist. Leaving it would have made the page unsavable should you choose to work on it further. You can see the link I'm referring to in the page history. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I didn't quite understand your comments on Hamas. Could you rephrase? Thanks, Tewfik^Talk 22:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What don't you understand? That Hamas is not Hezbollah? Discuss over there so I know what you're referring to. (SEWilco 04:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I gots just two woids fuh ya: join an' spread-da-woid. Eh, dat's two woids, right? >;-)

PS: Thanks for beating me to it, heh. I was about to go create the page and there it was! I got mired in the WP:ATT debate for too long... — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm don't have much time for it now. Seems needed and those signed up should get things improved pretty well. I'll fix my stuff to track whatever ends up happening. (SEWilco 19:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Taku glacier firn ice sampling.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:GISP2 1855m ice core layers.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SEWilco, if light travels 186,282.397 miles per second and kilometers are about 2 times more then miles then 186,282.397 miles per second would be 299,792.458 kilometers per second not 299,792,458 kilometers per second. Please stop correcting the thousands into the millions on Voyager 1. The decimal is just there for an exact speed. It was not meant to be a comma. -TheMonolith 14:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look at the numbers. I reverted a vandal-like change once. I'm sure you fixed it. (SEWilco 01:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Howdy, I noticed your edit adding a section back on Scientific opinion on climate change. There is an extensive discussion ongoing on the talk page about this section, which was only added today. Climate-related issues are fairly contentious and prove to devolving into unproductive editing. My understanding is that controversial changes should be discussed before being made, at least until some semblance of consensus (or as close as we can get on these kind of articles). I feel like reverting your addition would be perhaps not directed at cooperation. In the spirit of cooperative editing, however, I was hoping to convince you that adding the material back is also probably not the best thing at the moment; I was hoping you might undo your own edit. Many thanks, --TeaDrinker 03:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion will make a decision. I reverted an edit with a summary which suggested the article is only for surveys. (SEWilco 03:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I believe something similar is one of the issues being discussed on the talk page. At the very least, there does seem to be a reasonable discussion going on there of whether to include the section, so adding it, at least to me, seems premature. --TeaDrinker 03:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or deleting it is premature. Follow that discussion. (SEWilco 03:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Of course, it is not my goal to get into an argument. I was hoping to convince you that adding back new material which discussion to add it is closely divided would be less than ideal. If I have not convinced you, that's fine. I felt I had to try. Thanks for your consideration, --TeaDrinker 04:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Images of Anchorage, Alaska, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Images of Anchorage, Alaska has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Images of Anchorage, Alaska, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 11:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SEWilco

I've listed {{Country-stub}} which you created for deletion on WP:SFD along with other un- or little-used stub templates. It looks very unusual and is not in use. Feel free to comment on the issue on WP:SFD. Happy editing. Valentinian ^{T / C} 08:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Marlo Lewis, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --Kim D. Petersen 20:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Early summer flowers, by PAK Man, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Early summer flowers fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Early summer flowers, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Category:Early summer flowers itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 17:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Early spring flowers, by PAK Man, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Early spring flowers fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Early spring flowers, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Category:Early spring flowers itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 17:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SEWilco. You have made some useful edits on the oil shale article. This article has developed quite well, but still some more expert assistance is needed. I hope you would pleased helping to improve it. I put some questions and issues to the talk page. Thank you in advance. Beagel 17:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What in blue blazes are you talking about over there? Vaguely menacing references aren't that helpful, if you have a specific complaint, be clear so someone can help you, please. Passive aggressiveness is silly. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you follow the link to his archive? (SEWilco 03:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I saw that you had asked him about something, then, when he didn't answer, started pulling the admin abuse trigger. Go back and try again, but if there's a chip on your shoulder, leave it at home and you might get a better result. I'm not trying to be teh evil, just some basic social interaction tips. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the admins aren't abusing, as they're not doing anything. Since they're not examining his block, I asked him to do so. (SEWilco 04:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You are prohibited from the kind of edits the bot is intended for by ArbCom sanction. I have reset the block to reflect this rationale.[34] If this restriction has been lifted or loosened by ArbCom, please show the diff showing the successful appeal. Otherwise, the bot must remain blocked as enforcement of that restriction. Vassyana 06:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's about time. Thank you. (SEWilco 16:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for removing all that stuff on the petroleum article! Cheers Geologyguy 23:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm well aware of the existance of the sandbox, thanks. I thought I knew what the problem was, but it appears to be more complex than a minor quick fix. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 22:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

elements cross-posted

I am confused. You seem to be applying our article sourcing policy to the Committee's explanation of how it works; this is an incorrect assumption, and may have led to your query. The Arbitration policy is a primary document, a distillation by the Committee of how it has been operating.

The phrase "if so moved" is obviously a cause of confusion for you - it means "if they feel that it is necessary in this context". It is not an invitation for people to petition individual Committee members - indeed, the part of my corrections which you highlight in particular here was an attempt to avoid some of the more spurious requests by denying a "right of reply". I hope to speak for the entire Committee when I say that we would always welcome queries from parties that could let us help them understand better how and why we carry out our duties.

Thank you, however, for pointing me to the Rationale, which I had forgotten - I will make sure that it is updated.

James F. (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ... With my assistance, VAwebteam (talk · contribs) has completed their first assignment on User:VAwebteam/To do list for the 50+ proposed article:link pairs following the reverts and the discussion at WP:COI/N#Victoria and Albert Museum (2) ... I have been in contact with VAwebteam by email, and this turns out to be rather low on their list of priorities, so they'll only be working on it once or twice a week.

The first assignment was to recover the links and create a subsection for each proposed article:link pair, to make it easier to evaluate and comment on each one ... I have archived the version of the project page as of yesterday on the talk page for the project, so that the second assignment has a clean slate without the clutter of previous comments.

The second assignment is to examine both the article and the V&A page to make a decision, as described in the introduction to the list ... with the help of other experienced editors, 14 of them have already been dealt with, either as rejected, or as acceptable and integrated into the article, either as a citation or in the External link(s) section of the article.

While VAwebteam works from the top down, I have been working from the bottom up, and suggest that you do the same ... the project page User:VAwebteam/To do list now has two sections:

• Second assignment for VAwebteam - these 45 are the the ones that need to be evaluated ... the ones that have the article linked in the section header still contain the "raw" link, i.e, the {{cite web}} boilerplate has not been applied yet, and that is part of VAwebteam's second assignment ... when you have time, please work from the bottom up in this section and add your comments.

• Reviewed article:link proposals - these 14 have been dealt with already, with a "†" to indicate "integrated", and "‡" to indicate rejected ... you may review them, but I don't think that you'll need to make any comments ... when consensus is reached on an article:link proposal from the previous section, I will move it to this section with the appropriate dagger to flag it.

Thanks in advance for your help ... Happy Editing! —72.75.70.147 (talk · contribs) 09:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are talking about. (SEWilco 15:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, so I was wondering if you could help me out;

There is a page I've been working on for the past number of weeks which I was hoping to attach flagicons to (you can find the page in question here). However, the flags are not flags of countries, they are GAA county colours (if you know what that means, you can find them here). I would greatly appreciate if you could help me out on this. Deco16-10 12:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template. (SEWilco 15:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Template:PD-Old regime Iraq has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikilink has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Mike Peel 17:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't seem to need it now that the MediaWiki parser has changed its behavior. (SEWilco 03:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		To SEWilco, on the occasion of Minneapolis, Minnesota reaching featured article. With thanks -Susanlesch 23:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know if you remember the anon from VVAW and related articles, but would you mind chiming in before I get crucified. Thanks. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VVAW still getting slapped around by copyvio? Sigh. (SEWilco 05:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

No, most of the most egregious shit's been removed or properly integrated. I am sure there is still some left, but I just wanted someone to attest to the nature of the anon editor, now editing as user:Xenophrenic, who was responsible for so much heartache on that page. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If you'd been following Rob's antics, you'd see that he prefers drive-by anonymous actions. He hides reversions behind comments of minor changes. He moves stuff to Talk so he can demand endless proofs, while pretending ignorance of material which he already drew upon elsewhere. He deletes text while pretending he's moving it. He calls changes by others vandalism (Talk:Fulbright_Hearing#Charges_of_vandalism. He pretends ignorance of other things which he is doing (see his recent reference to the need for a Russell Tribunal page as if he hasn't been wreaking havok also in that already existing page). SEWilco 04:29, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) [35]

You do realize that user:xenophrenic is the same editor, Rob, that gave you all the heartache over here Right? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's claiming he is not, and it looks like you two are now in mediation so it's up to you two to chat with the mediator. (SEWilco 01:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

My comments, for the record, were only that we should be careful what we write about in the Wikipedia Signpost! I didn't discuss the death in detail, I only noted that we should be careful because of what looks to be OR/vandalism and violation of BLP. If the comment that the discussion had digressed was addressed to myself, I fail to see how that is the case. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I agree. The original rumor violated several rules, and that is what any Signpost story should probably focus on. But that's a tip line, not Signpost policy discussion, so it's all hints to whomever decides to write. I'm not writing on it this week. (SEWilco 04:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Why do you keep removing the link to AudubonParkNY.com from John James Audubon, George Bird Grinnell, and Washington Heights entries? AudubonParkNY.com represent more than ten years of research and is fully documented with bibliography and credits for all quotes. It expands upon the information in the three entries to which it was appended and includes both description and images that are not available anywhere else. From the note you left on my page, I gather you consider it a "self aggrandizing" site, which is ludicrous. Perhaps if you had gone beyond the first page, you would have realized that. AudubonParkNY 02:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was information on your talk page (User talk:AudubonParkNY). You were promoting your own site, whatever it is. (SEWilco 03:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

OK, so now that you know the site is valuable information for anyone researching Audubon, Grinnell, or Washington Heights, you post it for me! Thanks. 141.155.16.188 03:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with your site nor its value. Maybe someone who knows that Washington Heights exists will be better to evaluate it. You might let your local newspapers, historical and genealogical groups, and bloggers know about the resource. (SEWilco 04:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

"someone who knows that Washington Heights exists"

Following that logic, the entire Washington Heights entry should be deleted. Odd that you should think AudubonParkNY.com is a vanity entry and you've left both Northern Manhattan and Washington Heights and Inwood Oneline (similar sites, similar layouts, submitted by their creators) in place.

I haven't looked at those other pages, so of course I haven't done anything there. As you've noticed a problem, please fix it. Thanks. (SEWilco 23:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for participating. To answer your question, the straw poll is an attempt to resolve an ongoing edit war. By the way, you can change your vote: please strike through (don't delete) any part you change. --Una Smith 14:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a post to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced that you might be interested in. Jeepday (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wanted to know where the 4% came from for annual growth? The number is just an example. No one knows what growth will be. The calculation just shows what happens if growth is included, it does not specify or anticipate 4%. The article (coal) has been amended to show how the calculation was done. 199.125.109.64 01:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I was wondering if you might have time to comment on the list of article links I’ve been making on my Sandbox page User:VAwebteam/Sandbox (edit | [[Talk:User:VAwebteam/Sandbox|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Also, if you can bear it my To Do List page User:VAwebteam/To_do_list (edit | [[Talk:User:VAwebteam/To_do_list|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been completed now. I'd really welcome all your comments/advice and hope I've gone about this the right way this time. Thanks for your help. VAwebteam 09:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was unclear when we first discussed the issue, although I see I am unclear in my blathering response on the discussion page about plagiarism. Anyhow, when you use the Keeler, please something of the sort about the article including text from Keeler which is out of copyright, like is on the bottom of article page's with 1911 encyclopedia Britannica text. I think, though, that I checked your description, and you used simply the description that she got from the original Latin description of the species, which is pretty much what every one uses. Anyhow, hope this clears it up somehow, if still confused, ask me, but I'm in finals.

How are articles going otherwise? The Keeler is still a very useful source of excellent descriptions of plants because of the detailed anatomies. KP Botany 21:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm really too busy to go back and look. However, when I looked at it, I did not think there was any problem with your additions from Keeler because of the specific nature of what you used from her work, simply the botanical descriptions of the plants, which she ultimately derived from prior sources, plus you had rewritten her descriptions, quite well, into 21st century English. I swear it was you, but, of course, without checking I can't know. So, I do apologize for being inaccurate, and agree that the conversation should move forward, regardless, as we both agree I looked at your plant article(s) at some point in time and neither of us had any concerns with them. KP Botany 05:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

1. Please use {{coord}}, instead of coor dms.
2. You seem to have missed my reply to your "time" microformat query.

Regards, Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 21:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was using the dms which the Google Earth tool is emitting. (SEWilco 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You can use coord with DMS values - that's oe of its benefits - input in any format; display in user's preferred format. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 16:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your comment that you went to the scene of the bridge disaster to get pictures for Commons. Thanks for your dedication. Durova^Charge! 04:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews tends to have a need for photographs, and I had just enough daylight. I wasn't able to find or reach suitable people to interview, unfortunately. Turned out the press area grew on the opposite side from where I approached. (SEWilco 04:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hello. I have not formed an opinion on whether the article on the replacement bridge should be merged into this article. Each position is defensible and has its points. The decision of whether to merge should be taken after reasoned and deliberate discussion; until then the status quo ante should be maintained. As there were separate articles they should be restored and we should discuss it and decide how to proceed. I suggest discussing it for a week and then deciding. I know I want more time and input before I come to a conclusion. Thanks for considering this request. Kablammo 16:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal has been made to merge Replacement I-35W Mississippi River bridge into I-35W Mississippi River bridge. The matter is being discussed at Talk:Replacement I-35W Mississippi River bridge. Please feel free to comment. Thank you. Kablammo 18:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-- I undid your deletion of my changes. My changes were based on press releases from the DOT and NTSB; they do not ascribe cause. I'm trying to strike a balance between those who want to included every uninformed speculation, and those who would say nothing until the final NTSB report is released. If you disagree with my changes (now with a caveat at the end) let's discuss on the article talk page tomorrow, as I'm signing off now. Thank you. Kablammo 03:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SE - copied this over from WP:Plants talk, as it has faded into the background and I only just discovered it now so am coming in on it rather late:
"A plant article with public domain material is an example at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Why quotation marks are not the real issue. Discuss there whether the style of Aralia spinosa needs significant alteration, other than rephrasing to prose. (SEWilco 20:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC))"

Personally, I don't think we should use out-of-copyright stuff like this at all, other than in very specific historical-related aspects - it is always going to be at least 70 years old, and botany has come an awful long way since then. Too much is likely to have changed; names, taxonomic placement and circumscription, discovery of new variation not known then, etc., etc.; the wording is also often awfully archaic, and they used measurement systems that 95% of the world rejects now, making it incomprehensible to most people. - MPF 10:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What needs to be changed in that article? Fix it. (SEWilco 13:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

A template you created, Template:Country name, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Cheers. --MZMcBride 16:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Thanks. (SEWilco 19:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,Newyorkbrad 18:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the star! Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 21:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've added a new template(?) KML to List of crossings of the Connecticut River. How do I help get it working? Denimadept 20:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is working. If you have Google Earth or one of the other mentioned programs, click on "Find maps of all coordinates" then click on the program which you're using. Discussion is here. (SEWilco 20:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

That explains why it's not working for me. If it won't happen directly in the browser, it won't happen for me, at least at work. If Google Earth now exists for the Mac, I might be able to see it at home, but I'm not installing 3rd party software on a client's machine w/o an explicit request, other than Firefox itself. Hm, strangely my argument just fell apart. Denimadept 20:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one of the choices is to view them on Google Maps. But they're showing up just as numbers. You can add "|name=The Bridge Name" to the end of all the {{coord}} calls, and if the requested name= change is approved then they'll all be labeled. (SEWilco 20:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

That's something to do once I get home and have access to a better text editor. Denimadept 20:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The redlink of Plymouth Notch, Vermont on User:SEWilco/Sandbox can be removed by pointing to Plymouth Notch. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a workspace where edits are destroyed. Go see in Talk:List of National Historic Landmarks by state how to fix the Vermont info when the data is reorganized. (SEWilco 05:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hello, I'm trying to get List of Minnesota state parks to featured status, all I need is for people to review the facts about the parks. I made a work list of parks split into groups of 7 on the talk page, any help would be appreciated. Thanks! -Ravedave 04:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a Commons link on this article page and created a gallery article for all you photographs of the MLA. Most of your photographs I am making links to galleries as they are all pretty well Orphans and no-one will ever see them. WayneRay 17:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

That's fine, thank you. They're not expected to be widely used, as they're illustrations for specific plants so they're getting used where they are needed. (SEWilco 02:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for uploading images/media such as Image:Mass balance atmospheric circulation.png to Wikipedia! There is however another Wikimedia foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please consider creating an account and uploading media there instead. That way, all the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons (you may view images you have previously uploaded by going to your user contributions on the left and choosing the 'image' namespace from the drop down box). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading!

Richard001 23:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow; how is it more appropriate not to share the image with the other projects? Are you saying it would not be an improvement to move it to commons? I use this template a lot because there are thousands of images uploaded here when they should not be. If I were to read through a person's talk page and user page, and search for an account on Commons, then type out an individualized message for each person, it would greatly reduce my time for other editing activities. Richard001 00:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes decide the content or license is not suitable for Commons. You might decide otherwise. (SEWilco 04:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hi. You saw I chimed in on the Talk:Bathhouse Row discussion. I thank you for giving pointers to software for editing NPS photos that come in PDF files; I have been looking for such an approach. About the List of National Historic Landmarks in Arkansas list that you have been developing, I have to note there are only 17 NHLs in Arkansas, per the official NPS list, and 4 or 5 or more of the 20 listed are not NHLs. I am just concerned that you are adding photos and description on the list page for items which will have to be deleted, and especially for items where there is no article created yet so it won't be easy to transfer material over to anywhere it can be saved. Hope you don't mind if I do delete them. IMHO, I think it would be better to develop the definitive list, and develop the articles listed first including documentation that they are NHLs, then refine the summary list. P.S. I do see there is a complication in that "Camden Expeditions Sites" collectively make one NHL, and a couple of those listed fall into that category (I think there should be just one Camden Expedition Sites entry on the NHL list, and its article would reference the Elkins and some other specific sub-sites which are themselves NRHP-listed and have or deserve to have separate articles). Regards, doncram 18:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answered in article Talk page. (SEWilco 19:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

And all the photos came from articles, so they kind of have places already. (SEWilco 20:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Tickle, tickle to you, too. -Ipoellet 03:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. Actually, I was not editing or using the template in English Wikipedia, rather I was planning to translate this for Bengali Wikipedia. Since I need to test that there for the time being, I decided to remove the interwiki template I added. Thanks. --Ragib 03:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you wrote on the Commons VP about the DjVU file format. We now have a basic help page: commons:Help:Creating a DjVu file. Hope this helps, pfctdayelise (talk) 11:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise, yet surprise, again. It's for the usual stuff your anonymous IP/sockpuppet buds like User:Jmcnamera have/had been doing: reverting things to your POV, blocking adds of ref's info and the removal of distorted/false nonsense, refusing to discuss anything legitimately (and in your case, even coherently) on the Talk page, and even removing, and more than once, discussion points on the Talk page. Very, very naughty behavior overall. My 3RR complaint will mention all these in addition to you reverting my well, WELL ref'd updates and fixes to the main page. One of the reverts was done by some random dude with the handle of User:HiramShadraski, and his behavior, especially after I informed him of my reverting his change on his Talk page, is highly suspicious and so will be mentioned as well. So, tsk-tsk...you have been officially warned. -BC aka Callmebc 17:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect, sir. (SEWilco 04:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Care to specify an instance of how and where? The bottom line is that pretty much all the facts and best evidence are on my side, whether you like that idea or not. Your edit history seems actually benign when it doesn't involve touchy conservative political issues like Global Warming and the Killian memos. Also, without fail, every major online debate/battle over the Kilian stuff, whether here or elsewhere, only serves to unearth more evidence that I had overlooked before. Already I figured out that the flight logs, when combined with a calendar for the dates involved, cleanly shoot down in one fell swoop all of the pro-forgery charges and contentions based on the misconception that Bush, as a trained ANG pilot, had the same weekend/monthly "drill" hours as regular Army National Guardsmen. And this all kind of started with your Mother's Day insert. I suppose I should say thanks....hmmm...eh -- thanks. -BC aka Callmebc 20:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps your observation should tell you something about your perception of political issues. (SEWilco 00:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

My only lack of perception so far was to not be quicker in taking screen shots (curiously enough, the second time that's happened in a Killian revert war...) and to not notice this policy, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, earlier on, but I suspect the latter would have had little effect in your case regardless.... -BC aka Callmebc 00:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't know about WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, but I won't use it against you. I didn't think that you ignored what I said. (SEWilco 01:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hi. Thanks for adding the Wikiproject templates to this article. I've nominated it for WP:DYK, but they'll reject the submission if it's rated Stub. Could you possibly bump up the assessment scale to anything better? This article is about 2200k and has multiple references and a picture, so it should be at least Start class. Thanks! - Jehochman ^Talk 03:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I forgot to change stub class when I pasted the templates. Sorry. (SEWilco 04:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Wow, you're fast. Thanks!!! - Jehochman ^Talk 04:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SEWilco,

I'm copying the post I left on the talk page of that entry here for you to see. As I state over there I do not intend on edit warring over this or of having another discussion about the reliability of this source. It has been pretty well established as unreliable in my mind but I want to leave it up to the regular editors like you to follow the discussions and to decide for yourselves. Consider my edits more of a suggestion to do just that. Cheers.PelleSmith 12:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not edit this entry and did not intend to ever edit it but for the link I followed from Islam in the United States. My edit only attempts to remove WorldNetDaily when used as a source for "news." The issue was raised on Talk:Islam in the United States and on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard where unanimously a slew of uninvolved editors agreed with each other in that WorldNetDaily was not a reliable source for news. Since I do not intend on editing this entry in the future, after removing these references again I will not come back, and I will not revert war over it. That said I believe we need uniformity in applying these types of measures, especially when entries link together, such as this one and Islam in the United States so please don't simply revert back without taking these discussions into consideration. Thank you.PelleSmith 12:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, just what was needed. Discussion in yet another remote corner of Wikipedia. (SEWilco 18:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for your work over at Killian documents. I don't know how you keep up the energy. Kaisershatner 13:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't take much energy to state that everything in one short paragraph is correct when it's all in a short source which has other supporting info. (SEWilco 13:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hmmm...is that a roundabout way of saying "lie"? Whatever.... -BC aka Callmebc 14:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Callmebc has been blocked for a period of four days due to continued personal attacks and incivility. - auburnpilot talk 16:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hello< iam a new person here in wikeipedia,en. and i am a member at wikipedia arabic... i want to make everything god in wikipedia> but are you reday to answer my Quistions >plz if you haver a time < thanks --Osamahw 15:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to help with any questions. On your User page, I suggest you remove how old you are and mention that you are a beginner trying to help. You could mention that you are a member of the Arabic Wikipedia and maybe some subjects in which you are interested. (SEWilco 15:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar, which as you know is my first. I was beginning to wonder what it takes to get noticed around here.  :) cheers, doncram 21:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate your input. There seems to be an editor who feels it is his/her perogative to completely control the WSI article. He is even edit warring on the talk page.--JobsElihu 00:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? (SEWilco 03:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, I was looking for some assistance in that vein. It seems that I can't even have a conversation with another Wikipedian without this other editor following me around.--JobsElihu 03:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, start at the top with Wikipedia:Requests for comment. See whether the situation needs comments about the article or a user. (SEWilco 03:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I am not sure if that works in everyone's browsers, or in those outside of Australia - being located here means context-sensitive stuff can't be tested easily. I did find it somewhat weird that one of the links would have been broken for at least 8 months and noone had done anything to fix it - I did so this morning, but it gives evidence of how few users maintain (or know how to maintain) it compared to the other links. The meaning of "indirect" is also unclear to the average visitor. Orderinchaos 23:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in Australia and MSN Maps Australia worked for me. (SEWilco 23:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You know the routine. You and Jmcnamera keep reverting the entry to a prior, highly POV and misleading version with the pretense that it's a "summary," and with no genuine attempt to explain your actions on the Talk page. Naughty, naughty.... -BC aka Callmebc 16:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know the routine. The discussion on the subject is in the Talk pages for the main articles on the subject, not in that article whose summary you're trying to expand. (SEWilco 16:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

There is a Talk page for United States journalism scandals -- you might want to think about using that for discussions about how to improve the article. That is what it's there for after all. -BC aka Callmebc 16:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're introducing material to the summary in that article which is not covered in the main article on the subject. Discuss over there. (SEWilco 16:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

And your warning is frivolous. I've only reverted once today. (SEWilco 16:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Given Jmcnamera's history and some edit histories on the Killian wiki's, I do believe I have a potentially strong case for showing that this was gaming attempt to get around a 3RR block. Unfortunately I don't have too much time today for this fun stuff, but I'll will make a shorter entry and see how that fares. -BC aka Callmebc 16:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The funny stuff here is your messages. Funny odd. (SEWilco 16:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the note about callmebc's 3RR accusation/threat. I reverted his POV twice today and by my count he's reverted three times in 24 hours. He makes this and other accusations fairly regularly. He did it quite a bit last April as well. Jmcnamera 17:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's 3 then it's not a 3RR violation. He keeps trying to expand stuff in the United States journalism scandals summary which he's not able to support in the main article on the subject. (SEWilco 17:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hi SEWilco -- Really nice job you did in the List of National Historic Landmarks in Virginia. I like the short description you provide for every one of the 118 or so entries. I trust it is okay to remove any one description's footnote to the NHL summary, once it is verified that the corresponding article a) footnotes to that source and b) serves adequately to support the description. I created one article, for the Ball's Bluff Battlefield, and revised 2 descriptions.

FYI, I also tried editing the list into semi-alphabetical order (per discussion on talk page to List of National Historic Landmarks by state) with a numbered list column, and actually it numbers 119 right now, there must be a duplication to remove. Do you think this format is good? Compare to List of National Historic Landmarks in California and List of National Historic Landmarks in Mississippi.

Cheers, doncram 07:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, fix the NHLs. (SEWilco 22:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the glowing compliment added to the barnstar on my user page... vandal reversion is pretty mindless, but it's come to be sort of a therapeutic thing for me - quick, easy, and with a positive result. Thanks again. Cheers Geologyguy 20:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know I know alot about Seinfeld, but even this reference was a little obscure for me! But thanks anyway for explaining it ;)Joelster 22:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I answered you on my talk page. It is never appropriate to remove content based discussion from an entry talk page because you think the tone of voice of the editor isn't to your liking. Policy violations, if they occur, have appropriate channels.PelleSmith 14:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, fellow Wikipedia peer. It has come to my attention that you have been involved with another Wikipedia editor by the name of Callmebc, and have experienced uncivil comments and personal attacks from said user. I too (and others) have also been subject to this type of behavior from said user. I feel as though we share a common problem from said user, which is their incivility and personal attacks, among other failures to follow Wikiquette and other guidelines/policies. I am therefore interested to know whether you will join me in a RFC or another form of achieving redress regarding said user's conduct. ~ UBeR 20:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You either voted on the original list of the day proposal or the revised version. A more modest experimental proposal is now at issue at WP:LOTDP. Feel free to voice your opinion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you voted on the List of the Day proposal. A new one has been made and your comments are welcome. The Placebo Effect 01:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SEWilco, just regarding your message on my talk page. What syntax would I use to add the ending date for the assignment? I'm still getting my head around using Wikipedia. Thanks! Acute angle 10:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

date=YYYY-MM-DD where YYYY is the year, MM is the 1-12 month, and DD is day of the month. I think that format is an ISO standard. (SEWilco 14:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, SEWilco! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \..+-county\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! AntiSpamBot 01:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and will be removed. Thanks. AntiSpamBot 01:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop spamming Wikipedia. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing. AntiSpamBot 01:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The concern William Connelley and I both have is: do we have any confirmation that this episode actually happened as described? Do you have access to the transcript, and if so, is it accessible online? Thanks. ATren 13:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already answered in Talk and ref. (SEWilco 13:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I didn't realize you could get transcripts going back that far. Learn something new every day. :-) ATren 14:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you are aware, User talk:Callmebc was unprotected to permit that user to discuss a topic ban. You have abused that unprotection to engage that blocked user in a content dispute. As a result, I have blocked you for 24 hours. I am also reprotecting User talk:Callmebc. -- But|seriously|folks  18:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I indicated on your User talk page, it was a message about his behavior, not on the content. Here's the message which your block stopped me from placing on your User talk:BSF page:

Hmm. OK, so he's not aware that he is interpreting records. Just as when looking at a rock star's work records it might look like he only works a few days a year, but one has to interpret the records within the proper context. (SEWilco 18:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I actually think I misunderstood your point, and that I should unblock you. Without using the words OR, you were asserting that her statements were OR while the other guy's were not. Whether that's right or wrong, the point you were making was about Callmebc's conduct. I'm unblocking you, but please stay off of Callmebc's talk page. Thanks and sorry for the misinterpretation. -- But|seriously|folks  03:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, he's repeating OR enough that just invoking it won't remind him of anything to consider, and his argument still seemed focused on his own evidence while ignoring what others point out. (SEWilco 04:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You don't have to heed my request to stay off of Callmebc's talk page, but I'm afraid that you're going to get tagged for edit warring there. I understand your justification, but I think you would be better off opening a thread at ANI and letting someone else take care of it. I'm not inclined to reprotect the page again as others obviously do not feel it should be full protected. Good luck! -- But|seriously|folks  06:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I had information about what the newspaper did before publication, so those statements were false attacks. The edit summaries now inform other editors who can help keep out the attacks. And I removed him from my watchlist because he no longer needs watching. (SEWilco (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I try to mix it up and use she sometimes, just to keep things interesting! ;-) -- But|seriously|folks  18:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I keep coming across your identity. I parse it as SouthEeast, Wisconsin and then something about as LCO, which may be your initials, or something about Lafayette County, Wisconsin. Cam't explain the I.

Read it as SouthEast Wilco (the radio acknowledgement meaning). It carries no significance with southeast Minnesota; I think my wiki-attention was drawn to the Driftless Area by an endangered animal. I'd previously been aware of the Area from other studies. (SEWilco (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I have called the museum and am waiting for the media representative to call me back. If I don't hear anything by 2pm my time, I will just go there and beg. Jeffpw (talk) 09:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. Too bad the leaves have fallen, but at least it's easier to see the shape of the tree. (SEWilco (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Miranda has claimed the reward for the Anne Frank Tree photo. She wants to be paid with a gift card, so I was thinking one of us could buy a $20 gift card for her and the other person could PayPal $10 to the person who buys the gift card. I would be willing to buy the giftcard if you want to send me the $10, or vice versa if that works better for you. Kaldari (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if she wanted to claim or not. I'll double check the background, but that probably is the tree. She earned it by taking proper care of the licensing. -- SEWilco (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once it's fixed up to handle the format=dms, would there be any benefit in substing out Mapit-AUS-suburbscale directly into Geolinks-start? It seems a bit of a waste having one which just directly references the other. As long as it actually works and is usable I'm happy with any final outcome. Orderinchaos 07:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soon the Mapit templates which merely invoke Geolinks will be subst'ed. If that AUS template becomes just an incantation of Geolinks-start, it will soon be cleaned up further. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you deleted redundant coordinates in Minnesota Governor's Residence. That's fine. But you may see some others that are intentionally redundant, such as in B'nai Abraham Synagogue. The purpose of the coord template there is to cause the site to show up on the "map of all coordinates" on the Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Minnesota page. The LAT and LONG in the infobox alone will not be recognized by Google maps. I just wanted to give you a heads-up about the purpose in cases like that.--Appraiser (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that curently "coor dms" works as well as "coord", but the warning notice at Template:GeoGroupTemplate sounds like eventually only "coord" will work. Also in Template:Coord, it says that coord supercedes several similar templates. Perhaps we should work on the infobox nrhp to fix this potential problem.--Appraiser (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bring it up in WT:GEO, as that's monitored by the coord technicians. Just ask how that one infobox should be set up, and that will help to start us on untangling more infoboxes. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you reverted cityscale anyway without the recourse to further discussion. I have put hours and hours and hours putting hundreds of accurate co-ordinates into this template. Most of the Related links to this template are my changes. Why are so many hours of my time being destroyed like this? I have been making sure this template behaves itself for a couple of years. I reiterate: What is the problem for which these changes provide a solution? No doubt I will now be told that "I should add my points to the correct place". Where they will be ignored. I am so upset it's off the scale. --Scotthatton (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the many template talk pages adding pointers to the discussion so people who were interested could participate, I'm sorry that you did not notice the notice. You're ignoring the efforts reflected in the several discussion in that project's Talk page. You noticed editing of the template much more quickly than editing of its Talk page. The coordinates which you added are still being used; I've also been adding coordinates through several templates and it is the location info which everyone is trying to preserve in useful form. The value of those locations is being improved by being available through more tools, depending upon what your needs are. Indeed, your locations will soon show up as Wikipedia markers on Google Earth when the googlebot-compatible coord template is properly exposed. -- SEWilco (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SEWilco. Since you have edited the Piers Corbyn article, you may wish to join the discussion about the subject's COI editing which is taking place here. EdJohnston (talk) 05:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nuclear weapon organizations, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Cgingold (talk) 22:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings from my hometown, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Boy times have changed since, I think it was about 1994. So much overhead to lug around, but nothing the woman I met in the San Diego DMV couldn't write around in about 2 seconds with something called "ST Include" for Windows. Only kidding, I forgot the program's name but writing around an operating system would be quite easy for someone who completed studies in India recently. Best wishes for the new year from someone who recognizes your name from Wikipedia. And you helped me so much in about one email. -Susanlesch (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Callmebc is getting yet another chance by asking for an unblock [36]. You may want to watch some of the usual pages again. --Jmcnamera (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He got to ask for an unblock but it seems to not be happening. I already pointed out there that his terms would allow him to behave as he previously did except for being required to emit more useless notifications. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Openserving, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Openserving. Argyriou (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Openserving, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Openserving. Thank you. Argyriou (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should admitt that I was wrong. I recalculated the radius of the hydrogen atom

.

31 pm for He seems to be resonable now. Ruslik (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't know if you knew this, but your reverts removed content that was initially removed by some anonymous IP's without discussion. My reverts only put them back, as well as another undiscussed deletion my another editor. I had made an effort to get a discussion going on the Talk page regarding the content in question, which seems to revolve around an analysis by Gerald Lechliter originally done for the NY Times and subsequently referenced by other newspapers. If you could, please refrain from deleting any more content until some sort of consensus regarding the material is reached. You are welcome of course to join in and give us your insights and thoughts on matters. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the edit summary explained, the material had {{Fact}} tags which had not been replaced for months. Sources were produced for some of that material several minutes ago, as you probably already know. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but that is part of the ongoing discussion. You probably just didn't notice it. If you really want to deal with some old, never addressed {{Fact}} tags, this other Bush-related wiki could use some TLC. And I do believe you have an interest in that article as well, if I'm not mistaken. Hope this helps. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder: please use the Talk page if you disagree with a proposed edit. Don't just sit back, wait for the discussion to finish and then revert the edit with a cryptic/vague edit summary. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realize that discussion was finished. Seemed incomplete. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would probably be less disruptive if you could check first to see if there was a discussion on the edit before reverting. Aside from mostly some anonymous IP's, most editors have been conscientious in using the Talk page to propose and explain edits. Also if you could follow along with the discussion thread a little bit better and try to address the points at hand a little more clearly, that would also be most helpful. Again thanks in advance for your cooperation. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could present your points concisely and clearly so it is apparent what you mean, and not declare an item lost in your chatter has been decided. Thanks for the information. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thought I had been fairly diligent in clearly presenting my points and asking for feedback, including striving to rephrase and simplify things as much as possible to help better engage you in discussion, as demonstrated by this sequence involving proposed changes to the "Timeline" section: [37] [38] [39] [40]. I admit, though, that for whatever reason this approach has not worked well so far. If there is another method of phrasing, syntax or such you can recommend to better facilitate communication, I would be happy to try to implement it. Besides striving to be a comprehensive, neutral and accurate store of knowledge, Wikipedia is also a collaborative endeavor, and anything that engenders good communication among the participants will only serve to help the overall enterprise move forward. You agree, no? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You omitted your initial specification of deleting relevant material, and have not specified what you now propose. Discuss over there. -- SEWilco (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Glad to see you helping with sanctions.

However, I wanted to talk to you about the Israel-Palestine sanctions. These apply to a broad swath of articles, by no means not just the article you recently tagged Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It may be confusing because the article name is similar to the topic area name used by ArbCom.

In the Talk page to the case, there has been discussion of whether to tag individual articles. Perhaps you should discuss the question of tagging there? Thanks very much, (pls reply to my Talk), HG | Talk 17:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's where there's discussion about why tagging individual articles isn't needed. I suppose you could ask the Israel and Palestine WikiProjects to post a notice. But does it make sense to tag 150+ articles? (You could leave an explanatory note at the Sanctions page.) See also the list of articles WP:IPCOLL/BATTLE analyzed here. If by any chance you want to help monitor and "pacify" this topic area, we'd welcome uninvolved parties to this WikiProject, thanks! HG | Talk 18:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's a nice template you've made. Thanks. I did drop a note in Talk for the ArbCom case. Be well, HG | Talk 18:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you have applied a General sanction to this page. I also note that you are not an admin, so by what authority have you taken this step? --MJB (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only applied a notice of the existing sanction. The sanction was applied to the article in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_probations. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the same as sanctions. Please see WP:SANCTION for a list of articles to which sanctions apply. The sanctions template should only be used on those articles. Waggers (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same. See The Troubles in WP:SANCTION, which links to the above as the record of enforcement actions. "Sanction" is the general term under which several restrictions exist. Some articles have more specific restriction notices, but I used the general term without trying to guess the intentions of admins/arbs. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to archive this page. (postscript and hint: the earliest posts are from 2005)

Anyway. No fight with you, but the abandonment of the historic name for the last three periods of the last North American ice age is silly. It's the stuff I've been reading about, and not this new-fangled term. Ace Telephone (talk) 10:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell, the National Historic Landmark program predates the National Register of Historic Places - the first NHLs were designated in 1960. The NRHP didn't come into existence until 1966. These first NHLs were the first properties listed in the NRHP. Einbierbitte (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on publishing the coordinates for the outbreak's reports! (While some may need to be revised, it is a great start). I don't really know that stuff yet, but I might figure it out for past events. CrazyC83 (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SEWilco -- Your input is invited.  :) I've gone ahead and asked for peer review on the List of National Historic Landmarks in New York list, including the List of National Historic Landmarks in New York City (hopefully to be considered by the peer reviewers as well). Open at Wikipedia:Peer review#List of National Historic Landmarks in New York. doncram (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]