This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

And I thought I was sooooo smooth. Thanks. :) Protonk (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed that mess as it was happening; I recreated Steiger's page because he was on WP:MET. The others aren't, and I don't generally write articles about contemporary classical composers unless they're on that list (without already having made it into another encyclopedia, they're sitting ducks for deletion sharks). Also, I never went to UCSD, and so I'd be a poor judge at the relative importance of their faculty members. I have to wonder whether the creator of those articles wrote the UCSD homepage faculty bios himself. Chubbles (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was already aware, but thanks. WilyD 18:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of admins (User:PhilKnight & User:Bogdangiusca) have been, what else, edit-warring on Sarah Palin. Do you need to notify them, as well? Ronnotel (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. GRBerry 19:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was editing the article to fulfill the editprotected request while you declined it. I've explained my rationale on the talk page, and do feel free to revert me; the edit seemed trivial on the face of it, though I did not duplicate the controversy link as requested. Sorry for the confusion, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't even bother to look fully, I'm not going to be reversing any admin's actions on that page. I do think the editors need stronger instruction on the talk page to get consensus first for any substantive edit. That we draw the line differently as to what is substantive is not a big deal. GRBerry 20:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sarah Palin wheel war arbitration case, on which you have commented, is now open.

• Evidence for the arbitrators may be submitted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Evidence. Evidence should be submitted within one week, if possible.
• Your contributions are also welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Workshop.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny ✉ 21:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Unnecessary_protection_at_Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I do the small edits is because there have been a number of times when I've been furiously working on an article for hours; and, when I'm done I'll try to save the work only to find out that my login status has unbelievably disappeared, along with my hours of work. And I don't know what to do about that. I don't know how to correct it and keep my login status while I work on a page. So, I'll keep doing the small edits. As far as writing edit summaries, I don't remember to do that a lot. And, actually, I don't really care that I forget about it. Canihaveacookie(talk) 10:09 (UTC-5) September 8, 2008

Using the "Preview" does not work for me. I've tried it. I still lose my login status. Maybe some joker with access behind the scenes of Wikipedia is disconnecting me from my login status. Well, at this point I don't care who's doing what. Canihaveacookie(Talk) 11:37 (UTC-5), September 8, 2008

Could you review this edit? [1]. The user made the edit before [2] with an edit summary("replaced with longer version from political positions as agreed by consensus there") that suggest he simply copied the longer version from the subarticle instead of a summary. Hobartimus (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was some discussion at Talk:Political positions of Sarah Palin#"Lobbyists" and "Bridge to Nowhere" earlier today/yesterday. There are a few editors there who felt that the material largely is not a political position, and thus largely off topic for the sub-article. I wouldn't call it a strong consensus, and he was already told there that it should be discussed at Talk:Sarah Palin. GRBerry 03:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This[3] is an attack. Withdraw it. If you have legitimate concerns about my actions, let me know about them; do not misrepresent Rfc's and claim wrongdoing while calling me names. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to spew all you want, but accurate descriptions are not personal attacks. As I said, the consensus of uninvolved editors at that RFC was that the group acts as a group and that behavior of the group is a problem. Feel free to change your behavior so the description stops being true. Until then, expect to get called on your bullshit when you claim that the groups behavior is not a problem. In that edit I said that in this case I don't know if you were aware of other members of the group being involved or not. But since you come here, I'll ask you - did you know that Webber66 and Jim62sch were involved at the time you became involved or had they or another member of the group solicited your involvement? (They were both already involved on multiple related articles.) GRBerry 19:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? Are you telling me I have to check what articles all members of the wikiproject have edited before editing, and avoid all articles they have edited, and even related articles, or endure your bullshit and lies about me? Explain that in some way so it isn't a nonsensical personal attack. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding, who is Webber66? I don't even know him. And no, I've already stated I didn't know anyone from the wikiproject was editing Palin's article, and no one asked me to get involved, I saw there was a problem by a post by Kelly on ANI - but as I say above, your rules would have me check and avoid all articles and related ones. There is nothing questionable about my behavior on the Political positions of Sarah Palin article, and I wasn't editing in concert with anyone there. I was trying to stop an edit war, and my only edits to the article were two reverts (of reverts, trying to stablabize things). KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a typo, I meant We66er. I'll take you at your word that you were unaware that other members of the group were involved, but the perception generated by your actions when you get involved in a dispute they are already involved in is that you are coming to their support. If you want to eliminate the meme, you need to eliminate the perception, which means that behaviors need to change.

I'd prefer that the meme be eliminated by eliminating the perception (which I believe is accurate) that at least part of the group often referred to by the label is more interested in attacking a certain point of view than in writing a neutral encyclopedia. To me that is more important than the issue of standing up for one's friends - which is often a good thing to do. And I've never believed that all members of the ID project were part of the problem group - Uncle Ed would be an obvious counter-example that has clearly received the opposition of the problem group. Personally, I don't think the ID label accurately captures what that group attacks; I think ID is only a subset of the views they attack. Dominionism and the Christian right generally seem also to be their targets. I've never thought of you as part of the core problem, but I've also never put in the Arbitration level effort required to figure out just precisely where the core problem is. I expect if I ever did that some folks would be surprisingly worse than I perceive them as and others would not be as bad as I perceive them as. (I got a similar surprise in the SV-FM-Cla arbcomm; FM proved far worse than I had thought and SV not as bad.) In the long run, the solution most likely to be effective will be if their friends tell them that their behavior is out of line. That, followed by a longish wikibreak, appears to be the solution that has worked for JzG. (And it is generally true - people are more likely to receive criticism as constructive from their friends than those with whom they regularly disagree.)

You are free to find your own path to eliminate the meme or separate yourself from it. But I believe the only paths with a chance of working to eliminate the meme are those that eliminate the behaviors that gave rise to the meme. There are likely to also be other paths that would separate yourself from the meme. Showing that you also come down on them or correct their edits when they are out of line would be an obvious one in that category. GRBerry 20:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, they weren't ON that page. I am NOT going to spend 1/2 hour before every edit to check the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject_intelligent_design#Participants - which btw does not have a Webber, or a We66er, or any name like that, so I don't know what the hell you expect me to do about his edits - and avoid every topic they've edited. That's bizarre bullshit. Examine my "behavior" - I was backing up NO ONE. Yet you post all that crap about me "modifying my behavior" so I won't be called names? No, indeed, your nonsense doesn't wash. Be specific. Find ONE thing I did which was behavior which in ANY way could be construed as supporting Jim62sch, the only other Wikiproject member you tell me was even on a related article - there is none. And you know what? Even if there were, guess what? WE AGREE ON SOME THINGS. It is not necessarily a DEEP SEKRET CABAL if I agree with an editor I am in the same Wikiproject with. Your argument about "the meme will stop when you stop wrongdoing" holds no water at all, and is exposed for the absurd bullshit it is. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who seems highly concerned about the existence and expression of the meme. You have no obligation to take my advice about eliminating it or separating yourself from it. Try to handle it in your own way - but you aren't going to change the perception without changing behavior in some fashion. GRBerry 20:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What behavior should I change then, in order to get the kinds of attacks I have received from Kelly, and Cla, and Kyaa, and now you? I told Kelly to stop edit warring. I'm not going to stop that. I didn't even edit an article any other ID Project memeber had edited - so I'm clearly not "editing in collusion". I suggest, and very strongly, that it is YOUR behavior - and theirs - which needs to change. In short, stop the lies and personal attacks and name calling. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you really wanted my advice, you'd have listened to what I wrote above. It appears you have no intention of doing so. I've told Kelly to stop edit warring before myself. And when he blew up at me, I didn't go running to a noticeboard to try to get him in more trouble - I went to an experienced admin, soliciting and getting advice about how I could change my behavior to make the situation better. My approach worked. GRBerry 20:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your adivce above is that I change my behavior, and I ask you, what is at all questionable about my behavior? You state that I edited an article that is related to an article one other ID project memeber worked on, and somehow I was supposed to a) know this, and b) avoid all related articles? Please clarify, because that is utter ridiculous nonsense. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(A continuation from Talk:Wasilla, Alaska.)

Pushed for, uh, time, I'll take your word for what is and isn't in the Time article that was cited but perhaps shouldn't have been.

Yes, I'd noticed that the newly-deleted material had been added right in front of an existing footnote. I'd hoped that the editor knew what he was doing. (Let's assume masculinity for convenience.) It seems that he didn't. The ease with which newly added material can be "sourced" via existing, irrelevant footnotes has long disturbed me. It seems a systemic flaw of Wikipedia. The only way I know how to counter it is for every footnote to start by summarizing just what it is that's being sourced; for example <ref>The location of the church: [source].</ref> This of course provides no protection against vandals, but might help protect against the lazy. On occasion I've added this stuff in other articles, but of course it clashes with the widespread desire to recycle footnotes via <ref name="NAME" />. -- Hoary (talk) 04:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to say "thanks", publicly, for your thoughtful and wise e-mail. It was a great boon in helping to find perspective and peace. Kelly ^hi! 03:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad it was helpful to you. I'm also pleasantly surprised to see I was partially wrong on one point - you did get some apologies, though not from everyone who I think should have apologized. GRBerry 13:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B.6 seems like it may be a viable approach, so I am collecting a set of notes for improvement (User:Vassyana/RFC notes). I'm trying to include the point of as many caveats and objections as possible, while maintaining harmony with the proposal and avoiding contradictions. At this point, it appears that all of the points raised can be handled in a coherent fashion. Your feedback on the notes sandbox talk page to ensure I'm on the ball would be appreciated. Vassyana (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked BristollovesLevi as an inappropriate username, and you apparently commented that my username was inappropriate as well. Please explain. Edison (talk) 03:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was trying to agree with you that the user's name was inappropriate. However, your block is not in the log; only my 31 hour block for edit warring is. There is already a longer message on your talk page. GRBerry 03:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per your coment, I undid your 31 hour block and applied an indefinite block due to what I see as a username violation. I started a discussion topic on the appropriateness of my indefinite username block at WP:ANI. Edison (talk) 04:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I cut a reference where I ought to have copied. Thanks for your repair work.--Scarpe (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GRB I understand that you rather dislike my engagement in fiction-related topics, but you should not conflate User:TTN's actions with my own. The thread at AE is about User:TTN and it is needlessly provocative and inflammatory to link threads pertinent to my own actions. If you wish to open up an AE thread about me, please do so, but let's keep individual editors' actions separate. I have accordingly removed the links from the list you have provided. If you wish to restore them (and I fervently hope you don't), perhaps we can discuss the merits of such an action first. Eusebeus (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Per the rebuke at my talk page, I would ask you to remove this yourself since my edit has been undone. Eusebeus (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GR, thank you for semiprotecting this article, the anon revert war was out of control. I had submitted a RPP earlier this morning [4]. Can you please mark it closed? thank you! --guyzero | talk 18:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. I think I'm just going to mention which sections I don't think belong and then rm them after a few hours if there are no improvements to those sections. thanks again, --guyzero | talk 16:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule of thumb, it is better to wait a few days - I've even gone as long as a month on some articles. If the editing traffic is heavy then faster action may be appropriate. GRBerry 17:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments at WP:BLP/N re: Mike Kernell. I feel a bit like a broken record on the topic, so it's very useful to have your input. I thought about asking you directly, but I figured a noticeboard post would be more general and less canvassy. MastCell ^Talk 20:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on. I wasn't finished writing the article. You deleted while I was writing :) This is not advertising and I'm waiting for more info to add in this article.(Uflidd (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

I thought my name would be replaced in all occurences when I changed. "Tautologist" is one of my real life nicks (since I never really say much with content), so its easier to spot me for people, who have not heard of the prior other name, but have known me for a while. It appears to have changed in some places at Wiki, but not others. Is there a way to change it on all past edits, for consistency? Thnx. Tautologist (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, an editor with auto-wiki-browser or the like could go update it everywhere. (I don't use any such tools myself.) Generally speaking, it isn't critical. It only matters when you go back to revisit an existing conversation, so people don't misunderstand you as two different editors supporting a position. When returning to an existing conversation, you could either change your prior signatures on that page yourself or just include a note about being the same person. GRBerry 17:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thnx. Is there a "push one button" replace capability? The "find and replace" in WORD only seems to have an equivalent "find" on the Wiki word processor. Tautologist (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For sorting out Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 29, I was trying to figure out what I was doing wrong when I saw you adjusted it to present properly. -- Banjeboi 14:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GRBerry, where you comment at AN/I that places named xxx Gore resulted from an error by the surveyor, are you speaking from your own knowledge, or are you relying on our article? I believe our article is incorrect or at least mis-states.

To my knowledge, a gore is the result of the inherent errors in surveying. To wit, if we both start from one point with theodolite and chains, your party heads 5 miles west then 5 miles north; mine goes 5 miles north then 5 miles west - we will not end up at the same place. This is because surveying goes up and down over the land, so whichever of us encounters more hills will end up a little short.

In rural Ontario where I grew up, every township had a gore. The north-south concession roads were straight. The east-west sideroads had a jog at each concession road. And the north end of each township had a gore, so that the next township started from a straight baseline. This is the natural consequence of ensuring that each surveyed lot had 200 acres of land. Similarly with town surveying, if the town charter says "shall extend 10 miles square from the big oak tree" and the next town over says the same, it's inevitable that you end up with a gore. The difference in Ontario is that the gore belongs to the township rather than being unincorporated.

Do you have superior sources on this? Thanks! Franamax (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was definitely not relying on Wikipedia articles, as my knowledge of the meaning of this term predates the existence of Wikipedia - and is in fact old enough to be like all memory inherently doubtful, since my profession is not surveying. Expanding from my memory, it can be from an error by a single surveyor or from space ommitted between multiple surveys and land grants, not necessarily done at the same time. That particular one is between towns, but a gore can also be between individual properties.

Looking quickly for online sources, I find moslty law cases. (I note that Google searching is hard, as there have been multiple prominent land surveyors with the surname Gore.) Page 135 of this book or page 582 of [5] this would be more reliable, as actually written on the topic rather than a usage in a legal case, but neither is not available online. The best I've found is here], which although the whole is not visible in snippet view does reveal enough of the definition to give me comfort that I was partially right - and you are also partially right.

This (small print, hard to read) and this look use it as I understand the term from growing up in Maine. This case is even more clear as showing the usage as the result of a survey error.

This appears not to be a reliable source, but is worded as a somewhat different definition. That definition appears to be supported by this and this case.

A long winded way to say that I think each of us is partially right. GRBerry 19:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes - for Hibberts Gore in particular the only article here is a reliable source which in some other snippet views refers to this one as "ignored by surveyors", but I've never paid for full access to improve our article on the place. GRBerry 20:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed response. My understanding of the term (from high school) also predates Wikipedia, in fact predates the internet :) Thus I will need to do some research and possibly improve the article thereafter. I too noticed the large number of sureyors named Gore - which brings up the question of whether there is a settlement somewhere named "Gore's Gore". :) Franamax (talk) 06:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: [6] --Elonka 14:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I noticed you may well be a suitable candidate for Arbcom. Would you be able to confirm that you are/aren't running, so I can add your name to this list. Thanks, and best wishes, -- how do you turn this on 11:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This should serve as a clue, though I can't imagine why you'd have considered me a viable candidate. GRBerry 14:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you frequently commented on Arbcom cases, so thought you may well be interested. Shame to see you're resigning. Best wishes, -- How do you turn this on (talk) 14:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ack! Sorry to see you dropping the tools and walking away. Too damn few admins willing to stand up to intellectual thuggery and you are one of the best. Too late to reconsider? Ronnotel (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For now. I'm burnt out. I intend to go inactive for a long time, at least as an administrator, and I believe that locking away the tools is just the responsible thing to do - both for me as an individual and for the site with all of its inactive administrators. I've got no chance of pushing through the policy change for the latter, but I can be a good example on my way out. GRBerry 14:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add me to the list of people who would have supported you had you decided to run: whenever I've seen you, you've been a sensible and decent voice. Anyway, with over 1,800 years of life-experience, I can't imagine anyone more qualified to run than you. :) Best wishes. Acalamari 15:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		Shining Knight Barnstar
		The project needed more of you and needs more like you. PRtalk 16:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add my voice to those sad to see you go inactive. Your input has been very sensible and helpful as a balance and sanity check, despite (especially because of?) our somewhat differing approaches to adminship. You've done a lot of good work here and will be missed. I think you're making a good decision in terms of handling burnout, but I hope you decide to return soon. Best wishes. MastCell ^Talk 16:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hell, when I saw the section header of "ArbCom" here, my first reaction was, "GRBerry is running for ArbCom? Cool, I'd support him in a second!" Then I see that not only are you not running, but you're actually resigning as an administrator? Bummer.  :/ I understand about you're saying about burnout though, and respect your decision. I hope that the break is temporary and that you will be able to return someday with renewed enthusiasm, after you sharpen the saw. If not, best wishes, whatever you decide to do next.  :) --Elonka 23:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happened? I'm also sorry to see you go. Cool Hand Luke 19:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling that quite a few would have supported you for arbcom (likely me too : )

While I'm sorry to hear that you're stepping down (at least for a well-deserved wikibreak), I'm empathetic, and wish you well. (And to you lurkers, GRBerry is/was one of the DRV closing regulars, so any admins who might want to step up and help, I think it might be welcome.) - jc37 15:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a request either for unprotection, or putting information in the article, here[7]. I am not familiar with the procedure for doing so. Could you check and see if I did it correctly? Thank you. Tautologist (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you've gone inactive (although I hope you reconsider), but as the original blocker of User:Canterberry you probably ought to be aware of this discussion. (I personally think it's time he was given a second chance – yes, he's been socking but the sock was making valid and uncontentious edits – but can sympathize with the other view.) – iridescent 22:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at AN. Also, I got an email from another blocked user with a protected talk page referencing this discussion. Can some admin drop a note at User talk:EliasAlucard that references User talk:GRBerry/Archive 10#SELF NOTE. Of course, if someone wants to review the whole history and do something else instead, that would be fine. GRBerry 15:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done – iridescent 16:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GRBerry, is EliasAlucard asking to return? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, via email on Saturday that I just read in the hour before my note above. Part of the message was "I'd like to be unblocked". I'm sure that I was asked because of my statement at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive377#Should EliasAlucard indef block be taken to WP:RFAR. The results of my review half a year ago may not have come to his attention, because they were only posted on my talk page prior to today. Obviously, the fact that I resigned as an admin last month didn't come to his attention. GRBerry 04:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance, this was the first email or other direct request I've had from him on the subject. Since I was the admin who had explicitly said I'd be doing a review, it seems logical that I'd have been one of the first if not the first he would contact. GRBerry 05:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was it your thought to mentor him? Or did he indicate that he'd change his behavior? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now attempting to be inactive, so I certainly won't be mentoring. There was nothing in the email to indicate an intent to change behavior. But as I recall the problem never was the content edits, it was a proper subset of the talk page edits. Which is why my thought back in March-April was that it might be best if he returned under a new account and avoided making those troublesome edits. We'd get the good content edits and avoid the drama that destroyed all semblance of reasoned decision making in the ANI threads back then. GRBerry 14:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That block was widely endorsed by admins and others, and it's still in place. If he is not promising to change his behavior he shouldn't return. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A significant fraction of that wide endorsement was by a group of editors who have strong partisan interests in a related nationalistic dispute. Also widely opposed by a large group of editors. Canvassing appears to have been a problem in both directions, so the amount of support and opposition is totally irrelevant, the arguments are relevant. I do remember that conversation, and the discussion of the block was noise, not signal, so I never have given significant weight to what was said in the original ANI thread.

As you replied to Guy back then "I respect your opinion and would support any strong editor who is willing to take a menoring position with his editor." My conclusion was that any return under that account would lead to far too much drama, largely instigated by those who supported the original block, just as the original block was instigated by an editor that has gone on to receive many blocks themself [8] and that he should just return under a different account and avoid the behavior that caused the block. GRBerry 19:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would support the possibility of his return if there was a strong editor actively mentoring him. But until the community agrees to it he's still blocked, and if he evades that block with a new account he'll be blocked again with even less chance of returning. Let's not encourage him to violate Wikipedia policy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to keep an eye on Elias' contributions. I'm blessed with not having much interest in the political side of this debacle. He has indicated to me off-wiki that he is willing to steer clear from controversial topics for a while. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By keep an eye on, do you mean watch carefully for at least six months, provide strong feeedback, and a willingness to reblock if he repeats his formerly problematic behaviors? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I can't commit to that as I can't devote as much time to this project as in the past. I've known Elias for a while from some non-controversial articles. The JPS^{talk to me} 00:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being honest. If a strong editor who is active on the project is willing to mentor and take responsibility for Alucard, I'd still support his return. But without that I don't think it's advisable to unblock the user or have him create a new account to circumvent the block. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This thread started with a request for my input, as the originally blocking admin, into a discussion about whether or not to unblock somebody. That discussion has archived (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive176#Unblock?) with no further input after mine. I think it should be resolved one way or the other or dragged back out for more input. GRBerry 18:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AGF and all that, but on this thread there's what looks very suspiciously like a Canterberry sock – an account created shortly after Olana North was blocked, carrying on the same arguments. I may be horribly unfair, and there's certainly not enough to warrant an RFCU, but I hear quacking. – iridescent 18:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Oh well, lets leave that thread dead and buried then. Looking through those contributions I've got a feeling that this editor will eventually derail themself without anyone needing to refer to history. GRBerry 19:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great comment, you're really on the ball there, and not just because I appreciate being noticed. Seriously, you added something to the discussion.--Tznkai (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement. I hope you are right, though lacked certainty as I posted it and even now. I don't have a solution for the problem I proposed. Seeing Moreschi, of all admins, do this should have been a wake up call for people. Unfortunately, the problem is also the reason that few people would have realized that his action was a sign of the problem. GRBerry 21:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto the above, eh? I can see why there's no obvious solution: what kind of suicidal madman would volunteer to take up the role of arbitration enforcer now? If a call gets put out for volunteers, they usually show up; an Eeyore-esque "Will somebody help with Arbitration Enforcement" at AN would probably generate some volunteers under regular circumstances. Irregular? Eek. WilyD 22:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration enforcer is a thankless incredibly difficult job to begin with - which may sound like me kvetching and feeling sorry for myself (which I am) but I also have another point. Its a hard job to do right, and you do it wrong, and you get blasted for it, you do it right, you get blasted for it - sometimes even worse. That kind of pressure selects very stubborn admins - which leads to its own problems. You need to have the magical triumvirate of stubbornness, adaptability, and measured responsiveness to criticism. What admin has that all the time, let alone at all? Most people (rightfully) wimp out of the difficult problems, and the ones left often become problems in their own right.--Tznkai (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor that you have been involved with in the past has been taken to WP:RFAR#user:ScienceApologist. You are welcome to express your comments at the specific RFAR case. Thank you, seicer | talk | contribs 21:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, lovely. Totally lovely. Why are we getting coal in our stocking for Christmas? GRBerry 22:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be delayed till 2009 :) seicer | talk | contribs 02:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear GRBerry,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on my talk page--Tznkai (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:GRBerry/Archive 11 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as GRBerry/Archive 11's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear GRBerry/Archive 11! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Assburger Syndrome. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ~CortalUX^Talk? 03:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for the Elonka matter to be handled as a full case, and copied over all comments. Please strike any comments no longer relevant. Thank you, Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, As you feel you that the portal is not of sufficient general interest- can you please explain based on what reasons do you declare this? 20 years ago women's rights wasnt sufficient general interest - today it is a leading topic. Also i would like to understand how can the UN have a portal and not SWIFT - they have similair goals but on different subjects! Both are created by nations / national banks intended for countries / financial institutions welfare. Without it wikipedia wouldnt be receiving the donations is so fervantly was 'advertising' a month ago!

I would appreciate a clear explanation because for the moment I have feeling that there is positive discrimination since only 3 people do not believe SWIFT is interesting enough!! FYI Anna abstained from the vote from her lack of understand of the complexity behind SWIFT (which I appreciate her honnestly) - how can one base their understand of SWIFT on SWIFTNet E&I - this is the same as saying understanding the UN through UNDP. The only reason I requested a DR was becuase the reasoning for the deletion (and for some reason no email was sent to me!!!) were weak in the first round and I STILL BELIEVE that there is no substanial reason for the deletion.

How can a DR be conducted by three people with only yourself a slight knowledge (with no disrespect meant) of SWIFT. How can information on a subject where little is written about it come to light if it being repressed. Furthermore what says that if this information is placed in the article in wont be AGAIN deleted? Can you ensure that this wont happen? Non of this information is advertisment as was critisied in the first place - just as a demonstration of the limited knowledge people have of SWIFT. It is the same as saying the UN portal is 'more like an advertisment' - is such the case? I feel strongly about this because wiki is supposed to be open and unbiased - I do not believe in adverisment but in the general dissemination of information. I do not know your position if you are a core admin or a volunteer however I assume you must have alot to review, however as said, I would appreciate input to better mold the portal so that this information can be posted (unfort i believe the article to not allow the broadness a portal does) and suit both your and my expectations. Thank you for your time. Nicolas39 (talk) 09:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I feel that you are ignoring my comments and I can understand when much has to be done and many people will try to plead cases in many times that have no real value. However I feel strongly that the topic of the SWIFT portal is a valid one baed on the reasons I have provided and will try to re-summarize in the following. Furthermore new information has to come to my attention which I believe you would not able to ignore. I have tried to discuss with the three admins who felt that the SWIFT portal was too narrow. However i provided a defence of which I still have not received a response. My defence still lies in the fact that the UN has its portal - SWIFT, albeit being smaller, serves the same role as the UN but to a different community. SWIFT is a non-profit and non-commerical organisation involved in Standards for the financial community and collaborates with ISO and the UN CEFACT for the community as a whole (e.g. the BIC codes being used to pay salaries and wages are an example). Based on this reasoning how can one have a portal and the other not? Furthermore it has come to my attention that microsoft has its portal - if this is the case than I would have to declare that the deletion of SWIFT portal would be positive discrimination. How can a profit and commerically orientated company be a valid portal topic and how is this not too narrow? A valid logical response would be appreciated. Thanks Nicolas39 (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. :) I noticed that you had participated in the deletion review of the module Dwellers of the Forbidden City, and helped to overturn the initial deletion. I just wanted to let you know that today, the article was successfully turned into a Good Article. :) BOZ (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work since then.[9] And nice to see DRV participation bear signigicant fruit. GRBerry 14:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - in fact, I nominated it specifically at GA because of all the drama that had gone on, and I wanted to see if we could turn it around. BOZ (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wanted to thank you for your help clarifying the issues in the discussion there regarding OR. Much obliged. - Chrism would like to hear from you 17:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As you were involved in some of the recent discussion and debate about the images in the article on Intelligent design, I thought you might like to know a separate proceeding was brought to remove the Time image by outright deletion from the wiki . It's at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_February_12#Time_evolution_wars.jpg . If you are at all interested in the issue, it would be reasonable to post a "keep" or a "delete" at that page. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the policy that says this? I can find no evidence of it on AFD, IFD, CFD, or MFD. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See MediaWiki:Robots.txt, in particular:

Disallow: /wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ Disallow: /wiki/Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion/ Disallow: /wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/ Disallow: /wiki/Wikipedia%3AVotes_for_deletion/ Disallow: /wiki/Wikipedia:Pages_for_deletion/ Disallow: /wiki/Wikipedia%3APages_for_deletion/ Disallow: /wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/ Disallow: /wiki/Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion/ Disallow: /wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellaneous_deletion/ Disallow: /wiki/Wikipedia%3AMiscellaneous_deletion/ Disallow: /wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/ Disallow: /wiki/Wikipedia%3ACategories_for_discussion/ Disallow: /wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/ Disallow: /wiki/Wikipedia%3ATemplates_for_deletion/ Disallow: /wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/ Disallow: /wiki/Wikipedia%3ARedirects_for_discussion/ Disallow: /wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/ Disallow: /wiki/Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review/ GRBerry 18:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also see |bugzilla #4776. The DRV regulars realized that the robots.txt solution wasn't also capturing DRV, so we added {{NOINDEX}} to our log pages to achieve the same result. GRBerry 18:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DRV has been in MediaWiki:Robots.txt since September 13. Are you saying that robots.txt works for every page except DRV? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{NOINDEX}} was created in August 2008, and added to Wikipedia:Deletion review/New day the same months. I'd had (off wiki, for obvious reasons) private conversations going back at least to March before that about trying to close the indexing hole exposing DRV, but not directly with the admin that edited Robots.txt. Apparently we've had duplicate coverage since that September edit you just found, which hadn't been noticed until this discussion between us. Since we appear to have redundant coverage, we probably don't need the template on the DRV logs. I've taken the template back out of the log pages, and we can test in a few days.[10] GRBerry 18:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thanks. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Would you be good enough to review my comment in the DRV, which seems to be in line with what you suggested, though your remarks that were a hair short of affirmative support for bringing the article back to Wikipedia. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were a hair short because I don't believe that just bringing it back is a good idea, further work is needed to make it really belong here. I am not in a position to do that work. If you are in a position to do it, just do it and ask for partial history restore; you can use the history visible at http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Transwiki:Good_Germans&action=history to see prior versions and specify which parts of the history you need. GRBerry 16:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 02:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just quoted my memory of some advice you gave me a few years ago. I hope my memory of your advice is correct. If my memory is more or less accurate, but you think consensus has changed, would you let me know?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<undelete> Please undelete "List of artists signed to Atlantic Records". I would like to read it!! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.98.79 (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. There has never been an article at List of artists signed to Atlantic Records.
2. I am not currnetly in possession of administrative tools, and couldn't fulfull the request even if it was valid. GRBerry 17:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be very grateful if you could find the time to read User:Geo Swan/opinions/"False Geber" and what a biography should contain and offer your opinion on its talk page.

In a recent {{afd}} one of your challenges was that the article lacked biographical details. If I understood you properly, you meant details about the subject's birth, education, early career, and so on. While I agree articles are more balanced if they describe the full course of the subject's life, not just the most notable aspects, I have questions as to whether the absence of biographical details should be grounds for deletion. My essay cites a counter-example.

FWIW, it seemed to me that the nominator in that {{afd}} had adopted a position diametrically opposed to yours -- that biographical details served merely as puffery.

Thanks in advance! Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not concerned about biographical details, I'm concerned about independent biographical sources. The two are different. An editor engaged in original research from primary sources would find it no big challenge to learn many biographical details about people with just the sketchiest of starting points. We do not want extensive details (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of personal information and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of names). Nor do we want editors publishing the results of their original research from primary sources (see Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources.

We do want editors to write articles about people for whom biographic sources can be found. Such biographic sources are secondary sources that are substantially biographies. They are writing about a person as a person, not merely mentioning a name in conjunction with a news event. They are not resumes and news reports on events that happen to mention participants. In the absence of biographic sources, it is impossible to write a policy compliant biography, and the attempt should not be made. If someone was involved in an event of significance, cover the event, only cover the person if there are biographic sources that are secondary sources, independent of the person and their employer/agents/publicists, and reliable. If those biographic sources don't exist, don't create an article at their name.

The problem with almost all of the articles titled after people associated with Guantanamo is that they are not written using biographic sources. They need to go away.

• A couple years ago, I thought that the answer for the detainees was to try to merge all the detainees into one big list. I've since realized that the list itself is a problem - these people should not be named in the encyclopedia unless there are biographical sources about them that are 1) reliable and 2) independent. For the majority of them such sources do not exists. I think that we could have an article on the List of Guantanamo Bay detainees, because the list and its (in)completion has been the subject of many sources, but the contents of the list should not be on Wikipedia, only linked to in one or more of the relevant sources.
• For the various people involved in the legal and paralegal processes, the same problem exists. I hadn't realized until just recently that we had any such pseudo-biographies. We should have a good article on the legal and paralegal processes, but we don't need or want pseudo-biographies on the people involved in them.

GRBerry 15:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an example for the first paragraph, look at my rewrite today of Will A. Gunn. There are a lot of biographical details in the sources I used, especially the one that is clearly not independent and to a lesser degree the most independent source. I intentionally choose to omit the details from our article because of concerns about privacy of personal information.

I got your email last night, just as I got the one in 2007. I'm not going to reply via email because of my concerns about my own privacy. I don't think I've lost patience, but I do think that our communal best practices are moving further and further from the article editing practices in the Guantanamo Bay topic area, and that the encyclopedia and you would be better off if you started converging with the current best practices. As far as I can see you are one of the lead editors for the entire topic area - which is certainly worthy of encyclopedic coverage - and if I can get you to change, that will lead over time to change in the entire topic area. I also respect Sherurcij; in 2006 he was one of my mentors on how editors with different points of view can work together (see Talk:1993 Lebanon war and the article's history). But we are as a community getting less and less willing to cover living people over time, so what I thought was good practice a couple years ago I may no longer consider good practice. GRBerry 23:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something low drama on ANI for once:WP:ANI#scriptural reasoning article. I seem to recall you being involved in some religion wikiproject or another. Most of these articles could use some work. Any idea on how I can easily figure out which ones are worth saving and which ones to prod?--Tznkai (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to say "oy veh", but I can't spell it right because I don't actually speak that language. I've seen some of the drama threads related to this, and I seem to recall reading a (related?) wikipedia article some time (months?) ago. It is the sort of thing I might be interested in actually doing should I have lots of spare time (hah!) and a local opportunity (unlikely to hear of one if it exists). But I don't actually know much.

I redid the search as a phrase, and only for articles/templates:[11]

1. Scriptural reasoning survived AFD,
2. Daniel W. Hardy shouldn't be prodded - there are some real claims to notability there, but the article needs a major rewrite
3. the wall of publications in Peter Ochs should probably go, yielding a weak stub but there is enough scholarly work with citations (Google Scholar) to offer hope
4. I don't know enough about Islamic scholarship to have a meaningful opinion on Timothy Winter, but the only Google scholar citations I found were to a book that he translated instead of wrote, so I'm doubtful
5. Given which professorship he holds David F. Ford would probably survive an AFD, and his google scholar results are comparable to Ochs.
6. Narrative theology and Interfaith are not part of the problem; at most an internal-spam link would need editing out
7. Fatwā appears to have an external spam link
8. Qur'anic hermeneutics is a false positive
9. Christian Kabbalah, Johan Kemper are false positives but the use of The Journal of Scriptural Reasoning as a source in each may not be worth keeping
10. Three Faiths Forum survived an AFD last month, or I'd have suggested prodding. Perhaps push the user that said he would be working on it?

GRBerry 21:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! You participated in the discussion on open source notability a month ago and I figured you might want to pitch in again and help get the discussion going on User:Abd/Open Source notability.

Also, I've rewritten the proposed article at User:Abd/TurnKey Linux, added reliable sources and opened an RfC requesting comments on how to improve the article and establish consensus regarding it's notability (or lack of). See the talk page for details.

Cheers! LirazSiri (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm sorta discussing the word consensus at MastCell's talkpage and picked out your comment that the 60% against autopromotion was "clear consensus". I'm letting you know so you can defend your interpretation of the word if you want. Hope you don't take it personally, although I do think the word should not be used improperly. II | (t - c) 07:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No good ever comes from my talk page... by the way, hope you're doing well, GR. MastCell ^Talk 19:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am doing well. Here, I'm not quite succeeding at my desire to stay completely out of disputes and avoid the related venues, but I'm doing a lot better this last month or so. Still have some of the old habits of reading those pages, but I'm gradually getting away from them. Every once in a while I do a page rewrite, but I generally avoid topics likely to be contentious.

In the real world, life is going well. Had a bit of stress last week when the kids found some undesirable neighbors, but after four separate inspections I'm sure it will only cost a few hundred to run them off, which falls into the category of "it sucks, but if you can solve a problem by throwing money at it, you don't have a very interesting problem". And fortunately, my employer is doing well enough that I can just operate as usual financially without regard to the economic headlines. So I can look forward to next week's vacation.

How are your doing yourself MastCell? GRBerry 19:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that you asked me a question which I rudely failed to respond to. I'm not sure if I took this page off my watchlist or I just missed it, but I apologize. I've been trying to avoid projectspace, because I find the less time I spend there, the more I enjoy Wikipedia. I haven't been very successful, though.

Glad to hear you're weathering the economic downturn. It's affected me indirectly so far - I've been very fortunate in that respect. Research funding opportunities may actually increase, as a result of the stimulus package. But there's probably a ways to go till things turn around.

Anyhow, glad to hear things are going well, and keep up the good work. :) MastCell ^Talk 21:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the injunction was put in place because he was being disruptive on the case pages themselves, not because of anything related to the original dispute. Given that he was not a party to the case, I'm hesitant to introduce findings about him at this late stage. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 04:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. GRBerry 13:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Nice to meet you on Saturday. I'm looking forward to the group's next meeting. I hope the forthcoming book that you wrote a chapter in does well. GRBerry 13:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's probably better to reach _me_ by email. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an IP sock to the complaint and a link thet shows how Ewen is connected to it. You can see in his edits how he redirected the cyberanth a+ccount using it. Prima Facie evidence as well as the IP from his work.--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted you in a comment I made at a thread at RSN. Cirt (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently titled "Southern Baptist Convention Conservative Resurgence/Fundamentalist Takeover" will soon change its name. An early straw poll narrowed the choices to six alternatives, listed at: Talk:Southern Baptist Convention Conservative Resurgence/Fundamentalist Takeover#Straw poll 2 (once this thread is archived, see here.)

If you wish to rank the names suggested there, please do so soon. Please put other comments BELOW rather than interpersed among suggested names. Thanks. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please take another look at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#60_Minutes_and_the_Assassination_of_Werner_Erhard? Cirt (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that this was a long time ago, but in your 00:46, 23 August 2006 edit to the Dawn chorus (birds) article, in the edit summary you said,in part, "expand from Smithsonian, April 2006, page 18." You did not put in a footnote giving the article's title and citation. I used the Smithsonian Magazine archive and looked at April 2006, but I did not find the article. Unfortunately, the electronic archive does not use page numbers. I was able to find another source that talked about the same Ecuadorian study. I assume, that at this point, your editing skills have improved, so that were you to make that same edit today, you would provide the full citation in a note. Thanks. --Bejnar (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! As someone who contributed to Articles for deletion/Jonathan Gleich and/or the deletion review of that AFD, I thought you might be interested in the discussion at Articles for deletion/Jonathan Gleich (2nd nomination).

Note: this is going out to all registered editors with talk pages who commented on either page, not just to those on the Delete/Endorse or Keep/Overturn side.

Thank you. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have recently been editing the above article. There is some question in my mind whether Wikipedia should have the article at all. However, as i say here, I believe that if WP is to have such an article, that all sides of this controversial subject should be covered. Would you mind giving an opinion? Thank you, Becritical (talk) 01:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Glenn.

Re: Talk:Häagen-Dazs/Archives/2013#local_management_mistake_not_encyclopedic.

I appreciate any revieww, nput, insight, or help you could offer here, as an editor +/or as an admin. Is this a case where some level of article protection is called for? I thought of pointing then @ wikinews, but don't edit or use it, so don't know if it fits there. I note the article has other issues and needs. I prefer you reply here, not my talk page, to keep our discussion in one place. Thanks either way. yilfs, Lentower (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the article hasn't been touched in the last day. Hopefully, I clued a few editors into what WP is really about. Thanks anyway. Lentower (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke too soon. Your review would be appreciated. Note one of the editors has made deletions to Leonard H. Tower, Jr., The GCC/GNU diff part hould probably be reversed.

I support Lentower's request for inputs. The discussion among just the two of us is not getting anywhere. Regarding the article he started on himself, even if we reverse the GCC/diff part, I think we should definitely leave out stuff about him never owning a car because that seems to be irrelevant, unsourced and self-aggrandizing. Wwmargera (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He may have started it, but the community reviewed and decided that he merited an article. That issue was addressed years ago in AFD #2. he first AFD was erroneously closed, as the DRV I started established.

On the gnu diff, you misunderstood the citations in the article. The cite in the lead to his autobiography was for the cyclist/pedestrian/never a car bit. The cite for the gnu diff part was in the GNU Project section of the article and was to an authoritative primary source. Actually, that cite is still in that section of the article. The fact was in the lead without citation there, which is perfectly acceptable when it is cited in the body of the article. Without the cyclist/pedestrian bit, the sentence would need rewording if that fact remained in the lead. I don't have a strong opinion on whether it should be in the lead or only in the body; I could be satisfied either way.

On the cyclist bit; if Len were known for being a big industry spokesperson or an environmental activist, we'd call it relevant to his notability and keep it in. For his actual notability in free software, it was a fact that humanized and made his biography more interesting, but certainly isn't a requirement to have in the article at all.

Also, it is troublesome wikietiquette to get involved in a dispute with another editor and then go edit a biography about them. Over the years, we've seen some serious abuses by editors doing that, and other times where they found real problems that needed addressing in the biography. I believe that best practice is always to get a second opinion from a neutral party before editing the biography of an editor with whom one is in a dispute, and preferably to leave it to them to edit instead of doing it yourself.

I know this article, so it is easy for me to reply to quickly. The Haagen-Dazs article will take longer for me to figure out what is going on... GRBerry 23:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't seen you around lately, but I just wanted to wish a Merry Christmas, Happy New Year's, and Happy Holidays to you and your family. Best wishes, and I hope things are going well. MastCell ^Talk 05:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MastCell. Good to see you again. You probably haven't seen me because I really haven't been here. Thank you for remembering me. I hope all is going well with you also. Merry Christmas. GRBerry 13:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I sent you an e-mail, wondering if you had time to look over the Christian Conventions article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Conventions

thanks, JesseLackman (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened an AfD for Countenance divine at WP:Articles for deletion/Countenance divine if you are interested. Tb (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Sleep_No_More_(2009_play)#Please_don.27t_delete_valid_content? Perhaps block edits by new editors until April?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stifle handled a similar problem on that page from 2010-01-23T15:55:23 to 2010-01-27T01:35:38. But his Talk page saids he's inactive right now. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sleep_No_More_%282009_play%29&action=history. Lentower (talk) 15:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has been resolved. Thanks anyway. Lentower (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of Welsh Christians is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Welsh Christians until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Grutness...wha? 02:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the article Tahash, and on the Discussion Page: "Consensus on Timeline" give your opinion about the Timeline. Thank you. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you closed the original AfD in 2007. As I mention that close in this AfD nomination, I think it only right as a courtesy to mention the new AfD to you. --Dweller (talk) 12:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I notice that you aren't currently subscribed to Ichthus, the WikiProject Christianity newsletter. Witha new format, we would be delighted to offer you a trial three-month, money-back guarantee, subscription to our newsletter. If you are interested then please add your name tothis list, and you will receive your first issue shortly. From June 2013 we are starting a new "in focus" section that tells our readers about an interesting and important groups of articles. The first set is about Jesus, of course. We have also started a new book review section and our own "did you know" section. In the near future I hope to start a section where a new user briefly discusses their interests.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi GRBerry! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! EdwardsBot (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

On 22 January 2007 you deleted the article Oakwood Homes. I wonder if you would put the deleted article into a draft space so that interested edtiors can work on it? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

...Here: Talk:Church_of_the_Firstborn_of_the_Fulness_of_Times#Merger_proposal.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pseudoscience enforcement has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ^{[Username Needed]} 11:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]