User talk:Sven Manguard/2011 Q4

7705:

is that sometimes one or another arbitrator just has to take the bull by the horns and put forward a position that may appear, on the surface, to be out of step. The Betacommand/∆ motion passed because the Committee as a whole wanted to give the user another chance while recognizing that the community had serious concerns about certain of his activities. But in order for that motion to pass, someone - in this case Roger - had to put it forward. Similarly, the motion about restricting newer editors on Committee pages is an example of Roger and other members of the Committee taking seriously the concerns expressed by the community about transparency. He could easily have put forward the same motion on the arbwiki, but that would have eliminated the opinions of the community in the considerations that other arbitrators gave to the motion. Proposing changes in practice in a transparent way is, I would have thought, a positive trait. Indeed, I myself have made proposals that have been unpopular in their own way, for example

2718:

called away from posting my response to your very first comment in that thread, which would have cleared things up. Everything else that you see as being some sort of conspiracy... isn't one, so you can leave poor WikiPuppies out of this. Now you know that I really don't want you copyediting my pages, and I'm personally fine if you never return to the Signpost, but we both know a) that your strike is not going to accomplish anything, and b) the only thing being hurt by the strike is the Signpost itself. The Signpost could really use a good copyeditor, and you are a good copyeditor, so I'm asking you to believe me that there is no goddamned conspiracy, and end this strike. That's all I'm going to say on this matter. As soon as you read this, I'm archiving the whole thread, because we both know that we simply cannot keep on fighting like this, it's just causing too many problems.

2056:

is the own words of the submitter, and is on topic, and then put it into the signpost with the proper templates. I don't forsee myself having either the authority nor any particular willingness to say "No, I don't like your message, I'm not running this", that's not the kind of thing that we do at a volunteer paper like this, IMO. If you're willing to assume part of the leadership of Dispatches, I would hope that you'd take a somewhat similar approach. You're certainly welcome there, as far as I am concerned, and you do know more about the Featured Processes than I do. I assure you I meant no slight not informing you, I truly was unaware of the history here, other than that Dispatches stopped almost a year ago.

11023: 806:

and don't need votes to be good editorials. The whole thing should be handled in-house and it has always bothered me that Dispatches is on a separate page from the rest of the newspaper (which I remember you purporting was trash). As it turned out, the novelty of the Signpost experience wore out, and it became more of a chore then a matter of interest to me. I'd rather write some good articles, truly, although I wish them luck. I wrote a total of 21 articles and was a regular for a while, that's good enough for me. tldr: do what you want I can't be bothered with it anymore.

2709:

page which made me realize that I couldn't do Dispatches alone, and I couldn't involve other people without reviving a fight that was never settled when it went on hiatus. Therefore, I instead decided to revive the discussion report. As I was writing out a blueprint on paper, I was in the IRC (which I'm often in) when I saw SMasters come into #wikipedia-en (which he's rarely in). I approached him, in private chat, explaining that you and I had history, and that I'd prefer having someone else copyedit pieces that I wrote. He suggested I take my pieces to the GOCE.

10468:(3) Problem with the solution: Volunteers contribute, because it's fun, but policing marketers is not fun. We need to reduce the policing burden by getting more good contributions in the first place and deterring the bad ones from ever taking place. Marketers don't actually read the policies. That's our fault, but it doesn't mean that doesn't effect Knowledge. All this arguing with the community encouragees marketers to seek seedy tactics. Ethical contributors are literally fearful of Knowledge and seedy ones post anyway and often get away with it. 1994:

of review. Then ResMar (who has considerable prose difficulties along with limited knowledge of Knowledge policies and practices) started putting forward unreviewed Dispatches, which Tony1 supported, quality went to heck, I bailed. Without editorial control, we can't be writing accurately about the featured content or other vetted processes, and we sure shouldn't be putting forward editors who have difficulty writing at all. If you think the new "management" can work on The Dispatches with some degree of editorial control, it could work.

4029: 12095: 3120:

was approved for a trial. This doesn't happen for "ridiculous" BRFA's. I doubt I can convince you to change your mind about the BAG nomination, but I am genuinely confused and disheartened by your comments. I have no problem with your opposition to the BRFA, but I feel like your opposition to the BRFA is inappropriately spilling over into the BAG nomination. My personal opinion is that the reasons you provided at the BAG nomination are not an adequate justification for opposing it; and I hope you'll reconsider your vote.

2093:. The things need to be vetted for accuracy, and they can't be written by a) someone who can't even write, or b) someone who knows nothing of those processes. I don't intend my criticism of ResMar's prose difficulties to come across harshly, since everyone knows that my prose stinks as well, but at least I had the good sense to make sure someone copyedited my writing, and to bring in the best people to work on every Dispatch. I don't see how the Dispatches can be as good as they were without this kind of collaboration. 10477:(4) Obstacle to a better solution: Knowledge works in policies, but businesses work in processes. Don't give them a policy, give them a process. So many marketers like those of Pottinger have done so much irreperable harm. Knowledge has a philosophy of forgiveness, but it's difficult for us to earn it when things like this happen. We need to focus on what will make Knowledge better, achieve the mission, be the best possible encyclopedia, not take out a personal vendetta against corporations and marketers. 10894: 115: 4954:

to suggest a "solution" that has not been proposed by anyone. When assessing discussions like this, if there is no consensus to change, then the status quo remains in place. Most administrators experienced in closing difficult discussions follow this principle and will not normally substitute an undiscussed resolution in the absence of a consensus to change. Please don't take this as a rebuke; it's clear to me that you're one of the few people who are very enthusiastic about elections. :-)

10973: 8093: 7709:. If one keeps in mind that our policies and guidelines are descriptive rather than prescriptive, this specific proposal was on the money: WMF employees have been pilloried on a regular basis on multiple mailing lists, their talk pages, and miscellaneous other WMF (and outside) venues. The Committee, by its votes on that proposal, made it clear that there are limits to the extent of that criticism. However, if the proposal had never been made, we'd never have had that resulting response. 5139: 3075: 1146: 1030: 710: 10486:(5)Alternatives: Review and approval cycle, where marketers post proposed content to a board before it ever goes live and lets the community evaluate whether to post it. Marketers collect all the citations and provide it to the community on the Talk page. Bounty and reward boards. Certified COI Wikipedians (typically paid, but not explicitly). Policies and Essays are good - keep those - add a process element to it that allows COIs and the community to collaborate productively. 1075: 3681:@Sandy - Well, yes, I got into a nasty fight, but I did so at a more appropriate venue (if there is an appropriate venue). Had Tony1 and I decided to stage our fight on your user talk page, your complaint might be a bit more valid ;). As for why I ditched the Dispatches but stuck with Discussion, it all comes down to that I can't do Dispatches without getting pulled into an existing fight between established editors. Dispatches, on the other hand, has no such history. 11578: 490: 11860: 5435:

end; you need to learn to shrug more off. In the future, if you think anything I've said crosses the line, I really don't want to hear about it from you, because you clearly don't know when to back off and accept that nothing is going to happen. If it's so egregious that you feel the need to take it to ANI, do that, but if it's not at that level, accept that I am telling you now, in advance, that coming to me and complaining isn't going to get you anywhere.

286: 12177: 1656: 756:

so. Dispatches is an interesting section and certainly one old-timers look out for. Fortunately or unfortunately Sandy wants it to run like an FAC - nominations page and fuss about details, etc. etc. I haven't really been active on the wiki lately, but I think a good place to "start" is the Other Wikis idea—namely, Featured articles on other languages. It's a solid idea. As for myself, I don't have the time or energy to deal with these things anymore.

2713:. I, knowing that every time we interact, we fight, approached one person, asking for a way out of having to interact with you. Meanwhile, you started editing the piece that I wrote before I had a chance to compose an appeal that we avoid each other. I reverted the change, hoping that I could bide time (I couldn't craft the response then because I was heading off to class), but you reverted it back. That sparked me posting a poorly worded premature 120: 3900:

poorly written, b) it uses the Singpost as a platform to attack specific users (or break any of the big behavior/civility rules), or c) it dosen't deal with Knowledge. That means, of course, that if you want to write a scathing critique of the Singpost, or a rousing defense of ArbCom, you're free to do so, and I'll run it. As far as I'm concerned, my personal opinions don't mean shit when I'm wearing the opinion desk hat. It's not my place.

8125: 2096:

areas of editing in order to keep my head above water. That has subsided now. But I will always remember editors who claimed to be "friends", knew what was going on in my life, and thought it was OK to regularly trash me whenever they had a bad day, then pretend a few days later like nothing had happened and carry on as usual. Killing off my pride and joy on Knowledge, when it was a very good product, isn't something I'll forget.

10495:(6) Conclusion: We're not all Pottinger. We have value to add, if you'll help us do so. I wish I could apologize on behalf of our entire field for Pottinger's actions. But look at how long they got away with it. We need more people catching Pottinger, fewer people salvaging advert and more people working collaboratively. It'll take time, because marketers and Knowledge volunteers have so much built up animosity towards each other. 4221:

good method of tackling the issue. Most non-file workers won't really work on these even if they know, because copyright is scary and complicated. I've just decided that tomorrow I'm going to build the noticeboard, and then you can post it there, but for right now, your best bet lies in that a few of the file workers watchlist my page. Yes, it's really that bad. We'll get it sorted out eventually though, I hope. Thanks for this!

2089:(she said with no pretense of humility). The reason the Dispatches (like the one on Plagiarism) were good is that they did NOT go to print without me personally making sure that everyone who was anyone involved in a given topic was not personally contacted for review, as those unfamiliar with vetted processes frequently make errors of assumption, and those errors can affect those processes negatively if propogated via 5396: 10530: 6230: 4073: 11465: 10127: 10281: 7030: 6480:. This 500+ pages work covers the whole vol 7 of Complete Works of Liang Sicheng, it is the most authentic section by section annotation( not translation) of Li Jie's Yingzao Fashi, a must read reference to any one seriously interested in Yingzao Fashi. I have Liang edtion, Tao edition and Siku Quanshu edition of Yingzao Fashi in my library--Gisling (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC). 776:

quite difficult-- I don't propose it's a good starting place at all, especially considering all the changes that have taken place since the Dispatches cratered that would provide good material. Um, yes, I was proud that articles about featured processes were accurate and were presented as well as featured articles are-- sorry you think that's a bad thing, but it's what made them good.

7643:, which is unacceptable. The same result of keeping sockpuppets from causing disruption could be achieved through empowering the clerks to, in private, look over evidence presenters to make sure that they are not trouble making socks. It's really easy to spot the people that are just there to cause trouble, dosen't need special tools, and you can do that without alienating new users. 9425:

then stop running the task for a while. The backlog of items waiting for transfer is monstrous, and there's a transfer to commons drive right around the corner. The last thing we want to be doing is making the mountain larger while the backlog is going on or immediately after it ends. We want to see the bar graphs trend downwards after each drive, it's good for confidence.

3269:

Durova has retired and appears bitter about her time here. The other two users you mentioned, TomStar81 and JulianColton, are in semi-retirement (although only one officially). Secondly, if you have a friend on the GOCE, I'd recommend you ask him or her to take a look at the piece. The prose is pretty good overall, but I noticed some issues with tenses.

9614:

checkuser to look at the situation. They are often familiar with the patterns of long term abusers and can spot things by behavioral clues, or by technical evidence. Then again, they CU might say "no fishing" or "no apparent connection", which in either case resolves the question. It is preferable to resolve the accusation than to leave it pending.

5431:

that there would be no point in trying to continue the conversation. The alternative, saying "You're wrong, now leave" would have been decidedly less civil. Even after I said, specifically, that SW's interpretation of the comment wasn't at all what I meant, SW kept badgering me, and yes, I really don't care what SW calls it, it's plainly badgering.

305:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 8701:

of this) 'pet images'; images people have taken an interest in and therefore want to protect from being changed. I'm sorry, but the image use policy sets a very small size. DASHBot sets a slightly larger size, pretty much on its own (but no one complains about it). There's very little space for you to claim an even larger size than those two.

10407:. Submissions have no fixed size limit, but most that we've run float between 1000 and 1200 words, with some half that size and one at 1500 words. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask me or Skomorokh, however just so that you know, I'll be largely gone for the next week or so, so my response time might be pretty awful. 1245: 3930:

concern for neutrality or accuracy. I hope some of the other departments will get back to accurate neutral reporting from people with a good command of prose, and any "new management" will exercise some editorial control to make sure that happens. Ragesoss and Ral315 did, HaeB didn't, I don't know much about the new folks. Best,

110: 11352: 9673:

On the second point, thanks for reminding me that I was on that list. I forgot about that entirely. The extent of my involvement with Pedro, as you'd be able to see if you investigated the claim before lobbing it, is minimal. To me, he's 'the guy with the blue rectangle signature', that's pretty much

7734:

Risker, your proposal was unpopular, but no harm to the project would have come about by its adoption. I cannot say the same thing about the motion that resricted new editors from contributing to ArbCom. As for the discrepancy in timing, yes, the decision was formalized two days after Roger put forth

7704:

Sven, excuse me for sticking my nose in here; however, I think you're being unnecessarily harsh with respect to Roger's contributions, particularly given the disparity of your assessment of his work and mine; I voted in favour of the same motions you're concerned about here. Something to keep in mind

5434:

Since being subtle isn't working, I'll be blunt: Snottywong, you are offended far, far to easily. People are going to say things that you don't like all the time. Going after them isn't going to make you friends, and more importantly, it isn't going to change how what they say. The problem is on your

5430:

With all due respect Chzz, there is a problem here, and the dove won't fix it. There is no reason why this conversation should have continued after my comment at 15:06, 5 November 2011, but SW just kept coming back. I was broadcasting quite clearly that I did not want to continue the conversation and

4953:

Sven, I take exception to your message to the closer of the section relating to support percent required for election, and wonder if you would reconsider it. You are very, very involved in the discussion, and it really isn't appropriate to tell an uninvolved assessor that it is "too close to call" or

4456:

We're setting up a long-term timetable now which should have more timezone variability; in the meantime, there's always the talkpage. I'm also going to be setting up a newsletter to run biweekly and inform people of specific discussions (just in case they want to participate on some topics, but don't

4220:

There really needs to be a File namespace noticeboard. Honestly there is no good place to put it now. There are a small handful of file workers, most of whom (myself included) fix these on sight, however short of going though all the transclusions of Non-free logo and checking each one, there isn't a

3899:

Sandy: As for the 'editorializing', ResMar is correct in that I am now the opinion desk coordinator. My philosophy, however, is 'if it comes in, it runs'. I have a set of criteria that I'll be putting down formally soon, but essentially I won't prevent a piece from running unless a) it is exceedingly

3374:

One more thing you should be aware of: When I run the piece on November 7th, there is going to be an italicized one or two line micro-biography up top (see any of the recent opinion pieces for what I'm talking about. How exactly you want yourself described is entirely up to you. I'll stick your piece

2708:

If you're so desperate for a behind the scenes look into the vast conspiracy, let me enlighten you: When the public call came out for people to step forward and work on the signpost, I decided that I wanted in. I first thought about doing the Dispatches section, but ResMar and Sandy had a fight on my

2095:

More history, since you appear to be serious. I have been through some personal upheaval, and am finally resettled after three long years. I kept up almost all of my Knowledge workload throughout considerable difficulty, but my main priority had to be FAC, which meant I had to give up on some other

1993:

writing had already turned into opinion pieces). As someone in that discussion stated, yes, the Dispatches had some editorial control so that inaccurate info and speculative opinion wasn't put forward, it was a highly collaborative project, and nothing was put forward until it had received boatloads

1489:

Meh, if it blows up in my face, it blows up in my face. I'm an optimist and it's unlikely to dash my faith in humankind. Mentorship in this sort of case regularly fails, but the few times that they do come out the other side as a better editor is worth it for me. You're right at AN though, it's a lot

98:

The September 2011 Move To Commons drive was a tremendous success! We blew away our main goal, and our secondary goal was 97% complete by the end. Thanks for doing your part! For transferring 155 files you earned the All Around Amazing Barnstar, for being #6 on the leaderboard you earned the Transfer

9810:

yet couldn't be arsed to check our interaction history (next to nothing) or the fact that I've stated time and again I don't user IRC. And I don't use Gchat either as it goes. Jehochman's massive assumption of bad faith if fantastic, for someone so paranoid about his promotional behaviour he assumes

9500:

It's 2:00 AM where I am, and the internet is less stable than it looks on my end. I dropped a note in for the final DR report, and loaded up the op-ed for closer reading tomorrow. If Tony1 is willing to copyedit the rest of the piece, that'd be fantastic. Other than that, and the messages that I put

9158:

Mike Christie is considering writing an opinion piece (see my talk page). Let me know by email or by the usual means if you have any comments or want to get involved. In the meantime, do you expect any of the pieces in development to be fit for print by Monday? If you could share any thoughts you're

8700:

I do have policy behind me, it's not edit warring, and your reasons for not wanting the images resized don't make a whole lot of sense. There are people who have put forth good arguments for keeping a dozen to two dozen images from being resized. The rest, like your images, are (pardon the harshness

8585:

better. Yah, it wasn't good, was it. Often the bottom pic is left out because it's so hard to avoid acres of white space between the right-side pics and the centred bottom pic (or squashing). I don't think there's a solution to satisfy all window widths and resolutions. But your choice is effective,

7843:

Nothing you can say or do will ever restore my confidence in you as an Arb. Please stop trying to get me to change my opinion; it's not going to work, at this point all its doing is just annoying me. If you're willing to spend this much time arguing with one guide writer, either you peg me as having

6566:

Sven, it would lead to far to continue this discussion on the Arb Case page, but if I were to have such a "speed limit" restriction, I would no longer make any AWB edits, and you would be very hard pressed to find many other times when I edited more than 40 times in 10 minutes. The most I could find

5406:

attack but it's best to avoid that type of thing" - and your reply as "YES, but it's justified 'coz HE said THIS and SHE said THIS" - thus, making it personal. This is the kind of escalation that causes all kinds of drama. I don't see this thread as "badgering", and I suggest you accept it as advice

5257:

this opinion, others might disagree. If he thought that people would be more sympathetic to him if they knew all the facts, he was wrong. Knowledge is not the place to take pity on people for their problems by promoting them. And while the opposes you point out are on the harsh side, they are not

2055:

Finally, as to how it would be run, if it comes down to me running it, I would see my role as being very similar to the role that the executive editors have taken towards the opinion page; they ask for people to write in, make sure that everything that does come in meets a basic standard of quality,

874:

I was going to write something out but then I realized where the article sits makes very little difference. This is the part where I sit back and watch the effort unfold. Unless I magically find the time and interest to get involved again. In which case I'm going to roll up my sleeves and do my very

846:

Um, no, the stumbling block is not translations. I had editors translate every major other Wiki FA process already (did Spanish myself, had friends do others). You're ill-informed again. And those unfamiliar with certain processes will naturally have a hard time writing about them, which is why a

534:

Roger, and thanks. I'll be working on it during the next few days, I might even have to put out a general call "Yo, all you people with file mover, time to use it", or something like that. I have only two other tasks on my Knowledge plate right now, an opinion essay for the Signpost and a GA in late

9319:

I know you're presently experiencing difficulties here so I understand any delay in responding . I only just now noticed that the two images I altered originated with different editors. One file has been released into the PD by the creator but the other is licensed under CCA-bySA-2.0 requiring my

7678:

Actually, the proposal didn't assume the worst at all. New editors are already treated with suspicion and hostility on case pages, sometimes ending up at SPI. Having an arbitrator endorse their participation would dramatically improve their reception. Some filtering was a way to achieve this. It is

7613:

I'm sorry that you have reacted the way you have to the proposal. Your anger surprises me. While it wasn't one of my finest ideas, given the history of disruption on ArbCom pages, it seemed worth exploring. I suppose that's the point of a wiki. Put up ideas, bounce them around, and see if something

6446:

You wrote: Hi there. In December of 2008 you added to the article Architecture of the Song Dynasty the source "Li Jie/ Liang Sicheng p46". NickDupree and I are trying to get that article relisted for GA, but we can't find that book. If you could give us the title and ISBN of the source you used, we

5753:

Sven Manguard, I wanted to explain why I was here on your talk, and jumped in to the discussions above - it's because I followed that RfA, although I didn't !vote there - and when looking at the eventual outcome, and the candidates page/talk, I was linked over here. I believe I am about as close to

5641:

Hey, you made a good point on that proposal, so I wanted to follow up and give you some more details, see what you think, et cetera. The basic gist is that the reason we proposed that separate task of archiving pages with block notices only is because people objected to the automated archiving of a

3776:

No, I don't think it's bad to expect some control over your own talk page, although mine is different and that's fine with me-- I just didn't know what had made you so upset, since the discussion itself was no worse than the one you had with Tony1. For me, dealing with random senseless awful things

3773:

When it became so much editorializing, non-neutral, ArbCom bashing, agenda-promoting, unfactual opinion, I stopped reading (that was sometime after Ragesoss was replaced), so I didn't know until the issue here that HaeB had left as well. I hope things will improve there under "new leadership", but

3639:

OK, I understand and agree-- but ... I have no idea what ResMar's trout is about or what discussions are being referred to by him, but I do hope you get my goose-gander concern. You went off at ResMar and me for a disagreement we had, spread your discontent at us all over the Wiki, and then showed

3268:

If I might make a recommendation, it needs two things in my opinion. First of all, it needs an update, specifically with regards to the people you mentioned. Cirt has been dragged through the mud at ArbCom, Shoemaker's Holiday has been through two additional accounts and had a horrible blowout, and

3136:

as "ridiculous", since it was unanimously opposed. There isn't much difference between your proposal to ban non-language character usernames and my proposal to have a bot automatically fail the worst AfC submissions. Both proposals were made in good faith and based on logical reasons, but did not

2151:

I made use of my broad base of Knowledge contacts to make sure everything was well reviewed before it ran-- I can do that again, if it gets off the ground. The main problem here is that Knowledge truly is being taken over by immature editors, and most of the editors of the caliber who collaborated

1839:

b) There were numerous ways you could have worded that "Purpose of use" field that would have come closer to NPOV than the wording you chose. However you consistently push a very specific world view, which despite the fact that I don't entirely disagree with, has absolutely no business being pushed

10654:

One other thing I'd like to add a section on "clearing the air" on how companies see Knowledge. The premise being that people on Wikipdia have a certain perspective based on the companies they encounter on Knowledge, but off Knowledge in the real world I see it in a different light - a perspective

10525:

I like what I'm seeing here, this has definite potential. My advice for when you write this is to focus the absolute majority of your prose on points 3 through 6. Points 1 and 2 are useful for framing the argument, but get spoken about so often that at this point people tune it out. Keep in touch!

9424:

We should talk in depth about the issue, as well as those of the other bot tasks, sometime soon over the IRC. The short answer is that right now I advise you run task 2 with the original whitelist, to make sure that all the recent uploads that qualify for moving under those criteria are moved, and

8684:

I appreciate your efforts to be helpful to the encyclopedia, but please pause before taking it upon yourself to follow my edits around and undoing them to change my image uploads. What you're doing is mild edit warring, doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and you don't have policy behind you. How

7779:

The motion wouldn't have restricted newcomers from ArbCom, just from the /Evidence and /Workshop pages: no problems about chipping in on the talkpages. There's no reason whatsoever to believe that the proposal would alienate the tiny number of new editors who find their way to case pages. In sharp

7681:

No, it's not easy to spot bad hand accounts and I'm not convinced that specifically empowering the clerks to watch out for socks would help. I suspect it would crank up the drama even more, lead to requests for investigation, followed by accusations of bias and favouritism. The clerks already have

4972:

no prior ruling on the matter. I could be totally wrong, but I don't remember there being a minimum threshold in 2010. In the absence of that, there really isn't anything to fall back on. The only reason that I didn't start the run-off RfC was that I was involved in the discussion (one vote out of

3735:

I haven't been around the Singpost for very long, so I have no idea if there's a cabal. I've worked with Skomorokh before. Don't really know the rest well enough. As for the fight with Tony1, we crossed paths before at another venue, I'm not sure this is as much Signpost related as that we're once

3714:

has "history" (as shown by the "nasty fight" you had). It's basically all editorializing now by that thing ... how do they say in this country ... "the cabal" :) :) So it was that it was your talk page that bothered you? I've lost sensitivity to that since my talk page is regularly a cage-match

3355:

The in-house copyediting team generally covers copyediting. Of the people I mentioned, I only know Cirt and Julian well. Julian in particular read it and giggled, but that was a while ago. I'll put it up for next time and see how things go, I suppose. Personally I think it's a bit rambling, but it

3119:

Sven, I'm taken aback and somewhat insulted by your comments on my BAG nomination. The BRFA that you reference clearly doesn't have consensus, and I'm fully aware of that, but I don't think it's fair to label it as a ridiculous idea. Several knowledgeable editors supported the idea, and the BRFA

2114:

You make a very good point about the need for expert vetting, and while I'm not a pushover in arguments, I will acquiesce that point immediately, as it is quite valid. If you'd be willing to take on the responsibility for vetting items and making sure that the content is up to standard, I would be

1806:

Second, as I suggested in wikipedia space, others who want to discuss the image are entitled to read my efforts to draft a policy compliant rationale for themselves. They are entitled to reach their own conclusions on whether the arguments were convincing. Your removal of this key field from the

805:

The stumbling block is translations. Get some multilingual editors to jump ship and look at the other wikis, write out what they see here, or vice versa. The introduction would be interesting to write, perhaps. For assembly some smoothing over would be nice, but good editorials are good editorials

775:

There's that knowledge thing :) Featured articles on the other Wikis turned out to be the hardest Dispatch we had ever attempted, not the slightest bit easy to tackle, and the reason it never got done. Multiple accomplished editors tried to gather the info for a good piece on that, and it proved

755:

My feeling on the dispatch are mixed. It's a nice idea and everything, but a drawn-out fight over the publishing of my article and Sandy's opposition of pretty much anything and everything I do got tiring. Not sure if my note has anything to do with you wanted to reactivate the page; I would guess

11718:

I have considered the fact that, since there are no built-in checks, it is open to abuse; if you can suggest a way of doing this, I would welcome it. But I realised that the process of actually downloading the tool takes a bit of effort, so foolish newbies hopefully won't get their hands on it. —

9623:

You are wrong to accuse me of bad faith while having no evidence whatsoever. Did somebody get hold of you on IRC or Gchat and ask you to grief me? Some times friends will support each other. Pedro recently made some pretty vicious personal attacks against me on the RFAR talk page and on my own

8272:

Meh, I forgot to zap this one. My hiatus was over before most of you people woke up. TCO spends a good deal of time making other people feel bad about their contributions here, and his report serves as a vehicle for him to continue this trend, so I'm still very much against running the piece, but

7586:

Per policy, the committee retains jurisdiction over BC/Δ. This is because of (i) his previous arbitration case and (ii) the committee's involvement in suspending his community sanctions. Ultimately, therefore the buck stops with us. Given the wiki-wide clamour, and the restrictions the editor was

7225:

You are certainly entitled to your opinion on my candidacy, but I swear to god that user is not me. In fact, I never heard of that user until I read your candidate guide. I do think that if you looked at the diffs I provided, you would notice that the rhetorics of that user is very similar to the

6172:

Not everyone is going to have images because of this rule. If you know the person or know where the person is going to be you can take the picture yourself, then release it under a free license. If not, you can search FlickR for images that are licensed with one of the acceptable Creative Commons

3929:

I'm not sure how we can converse on your talk without the kind of sarcasm and interference that led to your last vent ... open to suggestions. I think it's appropriate for an editorial department to editorialize-- the problem became that the whole blooming thing was one big editorial with little

2998: 9613:

Sven, I have a different approach to Checkuser. The WMF Checkuser policy allows broad use of the tool to prevent disruption. The "no fishing" rule is not in fact a rule; it is a loosely agreed upon custom of this particular wiki. When there is an accusation of sock puppetry, I prefer to ask a

7176:

I want to make it abundantly clear that the sockpuppet you accused me of operating is not me. It is quite possible that the editor who copied my userpage style is the same person who vandalized my userpage several years ago. On Ryienn's userpage, he accused me of being pompous and talking about

3947:

I read that comment and I could almost see the "not ResMar" jammed in between every other line. I think HaeB was a brilliant editor and very much concerned with the post, I think that you are the minority and most people enjoy reading the post, and I think you still haven't answered my questions

9556:

Are you a check user? If not, please don't interfere with my request for assistance. I also don't like you accusing me of bad faith. What evidence have you got to support that? Whenever I see an accusation of sock puppetry I like to ask for help. The best way to deal with an accusation or

6538:

Officially, the closing time is after at least two weeks once the nomination has clear support/opposition. Unofficially, topics are closed whenever I get around to it. We do have two other coordinators at this time so we should be alright for now, though hopefully I'll see them close a few more

5360:

I really don't see a problem with Sven's comment. Right now, the community isn't looking deeper into past issues, and is acting quite unforgiving at RFA. Opposes claiming that there needs to be a larger time gap are unhelpful. Secret has already waited almost 2 years. He is also getting opposed

5348:

Don't assume bad faith. This has nothing to do with the BAG nomination, and I am not badgering you; I am having a civil conversation with you about your choice of words. First you call a good faith proposal of mine "ridiculous", then you characterize 43 editors who disagree with you as "ugly,

2717:

message at the talk page. I know that you spin every word I say looking for some hidden meaning, so I really should have just spent the time to compose a better message, but by that point I already felt that momentum was going to overtake my opportunity to make that comment. Unfortunately I was

2696:

I'm fully aware of the timeline. The article was started at 18:41, 29 October 2011‎. You went "on strike" at 01:28, 31 October 2011‎. The article was marked as "done", you having done no editing of it while it was under construction, despite being active elsewhere during this time, at 02:46, 31

1527:

Thank you for your support and all but they've won, I'm not coming back on here anymore I can't deal with this anymore I'm sitting here crying my eyes out cause I'm so stressed out by all this and I got a LOT on my plate with my baby brother going into surgery and he has problems pulling out of

9579:

As for accusing you of bad faith, you can of course deny that you were acting in bad faith, but it very much looks like both of you were not even trying for good faith in that request. Had you spent five minutes looking though Pesky's edits, you'd have found a very productive and very friendly

8985:

It was removed ages ago. Trying to deflect from your own problems with civility by pointing out comments made by others isn't going to solve the problem that you perpetually create a toxic environment. As illustrated by the RFCU, you have defenders because you do good work. That won't save you

5593:

with you, nor do I plan on holding a grudge because of our recent interactions. I wasn't personally insulted by your comments on Secret's talk page, I just found them uncivil and didn't want other editors to be insulted by them. And I wasn't particularly bothered by your opposition to my BAG

5221:

who opposed met that description, but a few do. Yours wasn't one of the bad ones, but a half dozen of them were appalling, disgusting, and socially unacceptable. Opposes #18, #19, and #36 stand out. I found #19 so downright offensive that I went to the commenter's page to see if he was open to

2895:

I appreciate that not everyone can make it to that session - it's in work hours for most of North and South America, for example - so if you're interested in having another session at a more America-friendly time of day, leave me a message on my talkpage. I hope to see you there :). Regards,

4878:

Could you amend your close of the voting requirements section to say something about blocked editors? I realize neither of the proposals that dealt with the issue received much input, but even if you decide neither of them have sufficient consensus to be adopted, could you identify what the

11968:

Thanks. I'll look over it. There's just a ton of stuff that I need to do, and I've been both swamped and a little bit sick lately. I noticed that you were working on it, but haven't had the time to leave you a note. I'll try and get to it tomorrow. Yes, working through Christmas/6th day of

9320:

release "..under the same or similar license to this one." I think use of either of your suggestions would be based on the original image being PD. I may be over-thinking this whole process (and likely constructing mountains from mole hills), so please bear with my ineptitude. Thanks

8166:(Template that admins will use to request file replacements). The basic concept is here, but it's implementation is rough around the edges. If you're willing, I could definitely use your help in bringing the quality of that page up to par. Feel free to change everything except for the 3739:

And yes, unlike you, I'm not used to random fighting erupting on my talk page. I've gotten by gloves dirty on project space pages a few times, it's not something that I enjoy, but it happens. On my talk page however, I'd really rather confine arguments to topics that... well... involve

3137:

achieve a consensus. Neither of these proposals were "ridiculous", and neither of them demonstrated a lack of judgment on either of our parts. Had I commented on that proposal, I would have opposed it, but I would not use it as justification to oppose your RfA, or something similar.

1835:

a) I consider your fourth paragraph in the above comment to be a threat. Combined with my previous observations of you (I got in the middle of one of your bouts with Fran before I knew who either of you were), you would be wise to expect nothing but the most chilly of receptions from

9573:

In answer to what evidence I have that Pesky is not a sleeper troll, I present to you many months of positive interaction. Pesky had done many a good thing here, and is friendly to a fault. I can't attest to who she is, but I can attest to how she behaves, and you're utterly off the

6447:

would be able to get everything in Harvard citations, which is the gold standard on Knowledge. We also have to get rid of the 'ibid' citations, and replace them with full detail citations, so having someone around who wrote the article and knows it better than we do would be ideal.

5277:

Thank you for making your opinions known to me. I am not, however, going to alter or redact what I said. What you see as "on the harsh side" I see as grossly inappropriate comments unbecoming of an administrator. We have an intractable difference of opinion on the matter, it seems.

9567:

I'm not a CU, but I do hang out in the area often, so I know that there is not a chance in hell of them accepting it because CUs are not for fishing. There's nothing credible to the accusation, and you haven't named any other accounts that Pesky is supposedly controlled/controlled

4481:

Hi Sven. I just stopped by to thank you for your work on the Signpost. You already do a lot for the project, so taking on a big task like reviving the Discussion report is very generous of you. I really appreciate your efforts and I'm certain others do as well. Thanks very much. -

9260:

limited, so finding the files will be no challenge. The original images were released for alteration to an equal or better license, but I don't know if any other attribution points need to be addressed. It's a low priority request, so don't go out of your way. See ya 'round

6055:

While there might be better ways, something that might help is disabling images and JavaScript in your browser when you go on Knowledge. Some things wouldn't work—search suggestions, the editing toolbar, the Knowledge logo, etc., but it should reduce the loading time somewhat.

5361:

simply because he has a mental disorder, on the remote chance that Secret will go rampant again. Now that crats can desysop, an admin going rampant would cause very little damage. Yet that is precisely the kind of opposes that were raised at Secret's RFA. These types comments

8546:

Not sure why I'm being notified of this. If you're asking for me to cover it in the discussion report, I'm sorry but I'm going to have to decline. The DR is for the most heavily trafficked and most important discussions; with dozens started a week I can't cover all of them.

5318:

Continuously badgering me over something that I've already said that I'm not going to change is also unproductive. I understand you're not exactly happy with me on account of my opposing your BAG candidacy, but chasing after me like this isn't going to get you anywhere.

3979:

If you gots yourself a beef wit' me, this be the place to take it up. I'll take it and I'll dish it wit' you, if that what you want. If you gots yourself a beef wit' some'ne other that wit' me, take it outside, I don't wanna hear it, and this ain't the place for it. You

1852:

Now, I am going to reword it. I am going to remove the parts that don't belong, including the complete shot-in-the-dark PD-Afghanistan suggestion and, of course, the heavily biased wording. Let us please try and keep our contact with each other to a minimum from now on.

7590:

Incidentally, the site ban was an alternative to the topic ban and is actually the remedy specified in his restrictions. In practical terms, it would have simply reinstated BC/Δ's earlier (suspended) community ban, for re-appraisal later when things had quietened down.

1430:

I can certainly see your point of view and given his reactions to Dweller's mentoring, I'm not going to drive myself insane on the whole thing, but I do think I can help and I'm willing to try. I have a terrible habit of doing this... he's not the first. Cheers for now

10655:

you can only get in the real world, since these discussions at companies never make it onto Knowledge in a documented way. I have a great metaphor lined up for it. I'm just imagining next time I write a company Wiki I'll have 20 editors watching me after all this. ;-)

6642:

It's worth watching. My personal methodology is that I judge things for inclusion based on 1) impact, 2) level of participation, and 3) how interesting they are; and in that order. I personally think it needs a few more comments, but if you're writing, it's your call.

188:

Thanks for your review of AV-8B. For your first point, by all means do whatever you can to improve the pic -- I'm no good with images. As for the other two, I see no problems with them -- the second pic does have an English caption, while the third pic seems to have

6156:

Where to find such images? Can I upload images from websites where they have their pics of red carpet function or any other such public appearance? And under what license should such images be uploaded? I'm having such trouble with biographical related images only.

2322:

ResMar, you're not welcome on my talk page. You weren't in my good graces since the brawl, but unlike Sandy, who has the good sense to be nice about the whole affair, you came here to either a) make a pointless sarcastic comment, or b) ask me to do something that I

7873: 2701:

you went on strike. At any time after WikiPuppies started, you could have stepped in, added your name to the list of authors, and done work on the article. You're used to collaborating, Dabomb is listed as a co-author in many Featured Content articles, however you

5722:

I understand that idea, and I agree. Removing a notice from a thread throws the meaning of other things out of context; it should be all-or-nothing, and it shouldn't be immediately after a short block has expired. That's what I've been trying to say, elsewhere.

5594:

nomination, I just disagreed with your rationale. So, if I annoyed you by extending the above conversation for too long, then I apologize. We occasionally work together in some of the same areas, so let's put it behind us and get on with more useful things.

3375:

in as soon as the Newsroom clears tomorrow's stuff, and then you can put what you want in, whenever you get around to it. Please make a decision on or before November 6th though, as I really try to have everything done a solid day before crunch time. Thanks,

668:

Firefox 6.0.2, with a 1024 by 786 resolution screen. The white box caused the menu and participants sections to squish, and then overlapped over half of the squish. If the G. F. of C. (see green banner up top) didn't block image hosting sites, I'd show you.

6126:

Normally I would move it, however the Non-free content policy does not generally permit us to use non-free images to illustrate living people, especially so when the people are in the public spotlight, and thus provide ample opportunity to be photographed.

445:

Apologies for the delayed response, I went to dinner after my last post. You are free to do whatever you think is best in this situation, however as I am in no mood for unnecessary conflict, I am disengaging from this and going back to doing other work.

12229: 4389:

and I will be holding a second Office Hours session on IRC in #wikimedia-office on Thursday, 3 November at 24:00 UTC. This unusually late time is aimed at permitting East Coast editors, who would normally be at work, to attend. We will be discussing

1963:

could you please link me to the discussion of taking this out of mothballs? It was "my baby", and was killed off by Tony1 and ResMar; I'm curious to see who wants to reinstate it and why, what leadership it will have, and whether editor control of

10604:

Skomorokh wants to sign off on ideas ahead of time to prevent people from doing a bunch of work for pieces that won't run, so yeah, I should poke him. In all honesty though, I'd be floored if she looked at this and didn't say yes. I'll go poke.

9557:

innuendo is to gather evidence to establish it true or false. What evidence do you have that Pesky isn't a sleeper troll account? I have seen what appears to be baiting behavior. The accusation is not one that could be dismissed out of hand.

5754:

impartial as it is possible to be, on the issue - I do have some opinions about the whole débacle, but they're pretty much in the middle. And the second thread (Walling, above) was something I just saw as a result of the first, so I commented.

2155:

My prose stinks-- I always brought in good copyeditors. I cannot write the same quality of Dispatches the Workshop had before without a copyeditor. And if ResMar is writing them, the cleanup requirements will be daunting, taking too much

9173:

Thanks for the heads up. I'm not really going to have much time this weekend, but I'll get the DR done, and take a look at what we have. I'll be on the IRC in a second to see if the authors of the other two pieces on the table are online.

4694:

If I remember correctly, you applied for file mover without ever having worked on files. You still have zero edits to the file namespace. That tells me that you don't really know what it is you're asking for, that you didn't read the page

11654: 6450:

The full list of four things needed to get the article to GA status is at Talk:Architecture of the Song Dynasty if you're interested. It includes two tags and a section that needs work, as well as the citation rework and a copyedit.

2147:

We didn't aim for a Dispatch every week-- if it wasn't ready, it didn't run, period-- hence, no compromise in quality. We usually ran two to three per month, but trying to push something out every week will result in a compromise in

10036: 3422:

FS is dead and its doubtful it will ever see the light of day any time soon. It may be in your best interest to strip mentions of the former process from the essay. I'm writing an essay about why FS failed but it will take a while.

9344:

per se, it's just not what I'd have done. In the case of the CC-BY-SA, you made a good call in reusing the license. Unless you're absolutely sure about a given file, it's always the smartest option to follow what the license says.

395:

Err... sorry, that wasn't my intention. "Hostile to the idea" and "not hostile to the idea" are common expressions where I'm from, and make no comment on the person with the opinion of the idea or the person who proposed the idea.

9021:

You seem to be so angry that you miswrote "coordinators" rather "coordinator". My comment was aimed precisely at the coordinator who wrote "appears to be false or at least deceptive", who apparently didn't bother to check Monty's

5676:. I consider the warnings leading up to a block to be part of the same discussion as the block, and therefore they need to be kept together. As for how you'd work out the timing, I have no strong preference one way or the other. 1840:

on Knowledge, and especially so in a file description page. That, Geo, is in fact exactly how I would rationale my use of the word rant if you did manage to convince a sympathetic administrator to question me over my word choice.

6725:

Never mind, I figured out a way to get to it. I see... that is a problem. No idea why/how it happened, but I was having lots of problems with my internet last night, which isn't at all unusual (read up to the top of this page).

5642:

page if it has a block notice on it. I don't know how you feel about the archiving proposal in general, but that was the purpose of specifically separating out the archiving of such shared IP talk pages. Thanks for your input,

9251:

on my user talk. I've seen your sig in various places (mainly file discussions); could I request an opinion? I altered some images to complete a gallery on an article and would like to make sure I didn't break any rules.

10459:(2) The solution so far: COI policies and policing after edits are already made. Lengthy debates on paid editing. Banning, reverting, lecturing. Efforts to make Knowledge more welcoming and easy-to-use to attract volunteers 2115:

more than willing to try and recruit people who are active in the featured processes to author pieces, and make sure that everything winds up in the signpost correctly once you give pieces the green light. Would that work?

6107: 10440:

I'm game so long as you can wait until late Januaryish. The topic seems to fit the requirements for being unique and debateable. I bet you've never gotten one from a marketer before. My post might be something like the

7780:

contrast, there is abundant evidence that what drives new people away from the project in their thousands is summary reversions and deletions of their work, and communication by template. Which is what usually happens.

7630:

This is to acknowledge that I have read what you said. I am not changing my recommendation, not in the slightest. If anything, that you're struggling to figure out why I'm angry at the new editor proposal makes you even

7564: 10321: 7706: 5222:

recall. He isn't, but if he were, there's a damn good chance that I'd have taken a shot at having him desysoped. Human beings should not treat other human beings the way that people treated Secret at this RfA, period.

9118:

I'll do it, why not. Also, while I don't really want you desysoped, I think that those numbers are a bit too high. The procedure I had personally planned on adopting if I got the mop is a slightly modified version of

6768: 2251:

I'm quite upset with both of you right now, so I'm going to withdraw from FAC participation for a while. I do hope that this dosen't cause any long term tensions though, because I would like to return in a few weeks.

3323:

I read Durova's opinion piece, it's the second one ever run. If that's an indication, she was quite good at what she did. As for the rest, I either don't know them or don't have as positive a view of them as you do.

8224:

You probably shouldn't have put it straight in... but whatever. I am, at least temporarily, putting aside my role as the opinion desk person because Skomorokh wants to do something there that I am utterly against.

5849:

I've read them and decided that I'm not the best one to answer them because my involvement with Delta dosen't go back that far. I've already said, between by two comments, all that I'm willing to say at this time.

9388:. The task's associated blacklist will have to become more extensive of course, but it certainly beats having to constantly cross-check between the two lists when trying to add/remove items. What do you think? - 8986:

forever though, and every comment you make like the ones you leveled at the coordinators is going to cost you more and more defenders and add more and more people to the list that want to see you off the project.

2590:

is bigger than any one editor. If you decide to come off strike and write the Featured content section for next week, no-one and nothing is stopping you. I don't like you, really, I don't, but you're good for the

2492:

Well you used an odd template, but the discussion above really wasn't the worrying one. The worrying one I already archived. Thanks for trying to help, James, but please don't close discussions on my page for me.

12043:

I won't even ask :P Yea, I think I addressed that. And thanks! It's been great working with someone not in the project. It's always good to get some outside feedback. If you ever have any GAN's, lemme know. --♫

8607:

Thanks. I have a laptop with what I guess is an average sized screen. On my screen the top pic in that section occasionally gives me a horizontal scroll bar, but only for about a half inch, so I don't mind it.

2152:

on past Dispatches are gone. Perhaps we can re-cultivate some of them via the Dispatches. Just look at the list of editors who worked on that Plagiarism Dispatch-- how many are still active, how many gave up?

10186: 11011: 9701:

Finally, as the thread it is connected to is now resolved, I consider the matter over. I see no reason for us to continue to discuss anything related to the thread. Thanks in advance for not continuing this.

6315:

I saw your request for English captions for the images used in the article. This has now been done. While you are there, would you care to comment about the quality of the article, any aspect at all? Cheers,

99:

to Commons Drive Leaderboard Barnstar, and for going above and beyond the call of duty in this drive you earned the Teamwork Barnstar. Thanks again, and I hope you'll help out with future Wikimedia drives! –

9838:

There is no clear conclusion to the section you prematurely archived. Unless you are prepared to state "no admin action will be taken here," (you are not an admin), then please don't close sections. Thanks.

8330:

Nothing gets run without Skomorokh's signing off on it, and the opinion pieces are no exception. My guess is that Skomorokh will push it back until the next slot if it's not done in.. err... really soonish.

90: 10855:. Please have a look. I don't think I can put much more about the individual schools' history because there's not a lot on that on the web, and I'm very far away. Please have a look when you get a chance. 5976:

for me? I'd be most grateful. If it helps, while in you're in the land of personal freedom, perhaps you'd prefer to email fixes needed to me, so you just need to look at the page and don't need to edit it.

4654:

which they are. They, in fact, are very powerful tools, and I just believe that I am ready for the responsibility. I've been on Knowledge for almost two years now (1 year 10 1/2 months) and I've been using

10869:

I'm happy to do more work on this, but I need your help with the specific sections corresponding to the three criteria you mentioned. I left a more detailed message at the GA review; please respond there.

1152: 1145: 12230: 9687:

As for the third point, that's not what I asked, I asked you if you looked at Pesky as a whole. I also find your conclusion, and that of the closing admin, to be wrong, and am very much not alone in that

7453:

hi, i noticed your fansite tag there. i'm confused. did you mean Advert, or Tone? i don't know how much more neutral you could make the language. this is the language of the average museum professional.

5407:- take it or leave it - and we can all move onwards and upwards. Same goes for my own advice right here (which, now, is to just close this thread) -I hope SW will be happy enough to just move along too. 5821: 4667:

as "trophies," then you are mistaken. Forgive me if I'm being too stern, but I've been denied Rollback thrice now, and I'm very exasperated in real life. Sorry, but people accusing me of viewing user

6392:

over at FAC, if you have time to spare. There aren't a lot of images in the article (5) and most are works from the U.S. federal government, so there shouldn't be too many problems. Much appreciated

3585:

I'm not sure which is the "other discussion", but I did see one discussion that appeared to me as no different than the discussion that made you go off when it happened here, so ... yep, trout x 2.

7735:

his motion, but it was pretty clear exactly how the community process was going to resolve long before its official close. I don't think I'm being too harsh, and I'm not changing my recommendation.

1843:

c) Considering the amount of times that other people have tried, and apparently failed, to explain that NPOV applies to you, I see no reason to go out of my way and debate with you on the merits of

9811:

that others are talking about him. His thinly veiled accusation is, frankly, you and I are either SOCKs or MEATpuppets. Brilliant. Sorry for the orange bar Sven. The bloke with the blue rectangle.

7116:

No, I wouldn't mind at all. The table, by the way, is just the default table you get when you click the table icon in the "Advanced" drop down menu. This might save you some time getting it ready.

2624:

Your opinion of another editor is unwelcome, irrelevant, and a breach of policy. However the conspiracy took shape, it is there. And get your chronology right by looking at the edit-history times.

8811: 7560: 1460:

and stick your neck out for a problematic stranger. It is, I suppose, a strong showing of good character. I just hope that you don't get hurt in the process, because that would just totally suck.

8139:

and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

10450:(1) Defining the problem: Declining volunteer participation, the burden of policing honest COIs, rewarding poor ethics, bias in the volunteer community, lost opportunity for encyclopedic content 7905: 7844:

a whole lot more influence than I think that I do, or you want to stay on ArbCom way too badly. Sorry, I think you did a lot of good work outside of ArbCom, but I want you off of the committee.

7599: 7552: 7548: 11509: 10378:

I just saw your note on the Signpost discussion on Skomorokh's page. I'd be interested in writing an opinion piece. I don't really know much about what that entails. Can you send me some info?

5831: 1306:

Replying to the edit summary ... that's great if you're doing all of them, I wouldn't know, I only keep an eye on the history-related ones :) Hope your semester abroad is going well. - Dank (

9660:

On the first point, we're never going to agree. It's a moot point anyways because I'd eat my hat if the CUs found anything suspicious (if, for some reason, they did decide to run the check).

2205:

Due to the (now archived) "discussion" between the two of you, I am withdrawing my willingness to participate in Dispatches. Please, both of you, don't bring up the subject around me again.

978:

contains some images with short filenames, whats in the category is images for which I've not due to a lack of information been able to suggest names for. Perhaps you will have better luck?

12249: 11951:

Hey there! Thanks for the GA review for the 1956 AHS article. I believe I addressed most (all?) of your comments. Lemme know if there's anything else I can do. Oh, and Merry Christmas! --♫

975: 3856:

You haven't joined our cabel? You should join. Seriously. ...I would invite you but the page is a secret one. Still, I'll give you a hint, there's a hidden link somewhere in the Newsroom.

2523:

Anytime and okay. Pretty much my stand is this ignore it. That's what I'm doing now. It's really not worth it. This is just the internet not real life. So pretty much it's really nothing.

1803:

First, you are of course free to disagree with me, but I suggest calling a good faith contributor's efforts to explain their reasoning a "rant" does not comply with our civility policies.

11062: 9025:

Finally, I am unaware of any project that you and I are on. I was surprised to see that you had accused me of "grinding an axe" at your election guide, but otherwise you don't concern me.

7360: 6389: 4809: 10050: 7196:

Behavioral evidence that I have observed disagrees with your statement, but I'm not going to fight over this. There are more than enough other reasons to strongly oppose your candidacy.

3975:

Sarcasm is allowed, although I've never partaken in such vile activities myself :D. What's not allowed here is what's starting to go down right now. Let me make "The Policy" very clear:

10404: 2026:. The signpost was due to come out over 24 hours ago, but since the content was going to come out anyways, I figured I'd get some inertia going so that it could hit the ground rolling. 11814: 11012: 3736:

again occupying the same space; I don't think that even both of us in the Signpost would have been a problem, but we started working on the same page, and it went downhill from there.

12014:

RL is taking 30 minutes to download (no, I won't explain that one). All but 6b marked as done. It really has been a pleasure working with you, this has been a supremely easy review.

8174:. That cannot change; there must be four parameters. Also, note that the order of those parameters is not important at the moment. In case tl;dr, I could use your help in making 6567:

for November was 22 edits in ten minutes, and for October 24 edits in ten minutes. So yes, in reality it would be fairly easy for me to follow that restriction; just stop using AWB.

9064:

I made it very clear at Monty's page that I was done talking with you on this matter. If you choose to continue this discussion, I will simply revert your comments to my talk page.

7226:

anonymous IP who vandalized my userpage (accused me of being pompous and having a huge ego, etc). I do appreciate the fact that you remove the accusation from the candidate guide.--

3471: 2785:

a) that your strike is not going to accomplish anything (i.e. I'm not leaving, no one is kicking me off, and there was no conspiricy that the strike would force to the surface); and

11226:? I am worried about "Specifically, this image comes from Los Alamos National Laboratory. LANL requires the following text be used when crediting images to it:" - is it a problem? 9743:

You are welcome. As for not continuing it, I trust you will honor that request yourself by not returning to my talk page with this same dispute. It is finished. Good evening.

9123:(biggest modification is that I would require a discussion on my user talk page run to its good faith fruition before the process was able to be started.) Also check your email. 8853: 8120:

Hello my friend! First and foremost, I want to thank you for helping out with my talk page and BRFA requests while I was on break. I really appreciate it! Here, have a cookie!

5843: 3774:

if they don't take a firmer hand and exercise some discretion and control (as Ral315 and Ragesoss did) over what gets published there and by whom, I fear things won't improve.

2327:

said that I wasn't interested in even hearing about anymore. Honestly? Just go away, I'd rather not have anything to do with you anymore if this is the way you conduct yourself.

11538:

Meh. If it's promoted by the FAC coordinators in this state, then I'll know that the action has their tacit approval. That would be sad, but there's nothing I can do about it.

11305: 4541: 146: 11755: 9088: 1989:

So, good news and bad news there. We're looking for a new editor-in-chief, so things may improve, but at the same time, we're looking to include more opinion pieces (most of

1088: 103: 7367: 11045: 7572: 9889:

I note you've reverted my edit again. If you could explain the rationale for the editing the correct name of the house (which it shares with the estate) I'd be grateful. -

6173:

3777:

that people say on my talk page, and the brawls that erupt there, goes with the territory: I'm de-sensitized. I only insist posts be removed if they are personal attacks.

1906: 8171: 8163: 2033:

I was not intentionally trying to exclude you, I simply just posted the message to everyone who was on the Members list. If you want back in, that's entirely your choice.

11216: 7568: 3272:

And yes, we can run it as soon as next week. As soon as you decide it's ready to run, stick it in the opinion desk page. I can run it as early as next week (November 7).

993:

Perhaps. I have so many things on my plate right now that I won't get to it for a while though. I might know someone else who'd be interested, but I'd have to ask first.

8159: 7576: 1788: 10185: 7911:

True, but the thought slipped my mind at the time, and when I remembered F3, the files had already been there for a day or so. Everything worked out in the end though.

3990:

Now pretend that I'm saying that, with those intonations, as a heavyweight boxer turned crabby old mentor, like you see in the movies, and you'll get the idea. Cheers.

11054: 8438:

Bug 32660 - File extensions for the same file type should not allow variations of a file name (File:X.jpg, File:X.jpeg, File:X.JPG should all refer to the same file)

7605:

Having given this further thought, I don't think it was such a bad proposal. As my colleagues almost unanimously supported the topic ban, I guess they agreed with me.

4620: 4612: 9995: 9966: 9940: 654:

broken in Safari, I think it should be fixed—it ranks last among the big four, granted, but it still accounts for around 5% of users according to various statistics.

519:

I feel I've reached the end of the 'easy' to resolve ones, and would appreciate a group of experienced contributors trying to clear (or FFD the unrecoverable ones).

4815:

Hi, I've fixed the images and deleted the "In popular culture" section - if you have time could you vist and see whether you could support the FA nomination? Thanks

278: 11841: 11808: 11788: 8113: 7248:

Would you mind if I take more points from your ACE2011 page? I'd say that your guide is the best I've seen so far; and I've taken a bunch from you already. Thanks.

4566: 1316:

Wait, in my edit summary? I see that you're right, but what the heck just happened? That was supposed to be in the page text itself. Silly drag and drop feature...

9099: 9018:

Please relax. You and the other fellow who deleted my links both over-reacted, and the other fellow made a personal attack "at least deceptive", which you ignored.

8446:

Give it a week or so and then go poke someone? I'm not sure how fast these things work? Either way, it's almost time to fire up the filefolk and get LDFN cleared.

2023: 5916:

I seem to have goofed up. You were right to be cautious to close the section on the threshold. I've made a correction to the RFC closure and posted about it on

4149: 8930:

Look, dude, I don't care. Really, I don't. I already said above that I'm not going to fight over it, and I'm not the one that removed the links the second time.

6935:

for deletion as orphaned. I just though you might like to know that you don't have to list these on the "Knowledge:Files for deletion" pages. Just Tag it with

4728:

I'm only trying to help the encyclopedia. I really don't know what I was thinking applying for FM, I really don't. I just haven't been in a good mood lately. :(

4699:(it says in bold that experience with files is needed), and therefore that you're viewing user rights as objects to be collected. That's why I said what I said. 297: 6678: 5053:

It's 50% by virtue of the fact that the Jimbo said he wouldn't appoint anyone with <50% support, and the Community did not overrule him in either direction.

11370:

So we have this barnstar laying around, gathering dust; and I feel as though none of the editors that put pen to paper every week to produce the much-demanded

11099: 7879: 4254:

I try not to touch logos with a 50 foot pole. the "Threshold of Originality" is so vague that it depends on they eye of the lawyers if its PD or copyrighted --

4214: 2551:

Hi, I'd like to know whether you were emailed a request to come in and participate in this move to push me out of my position as writer of "Featured content".

512: 9502:

for ResMar to address, there's nothing more I can say until after the closer reading tomorrow. Trust me, you don't want me reading something over at 2:00 AM.

7951: 12165: 11122:

Unless you're congratulating me on the FP nom, in which case thanks, but all I can take credit for is stumbling on it. That's where all my FP noms come from.

8895:

I added links on the 29th. Monty last edited on the 30th, and I believe the record shows that Monty has previously removed unwanted revisions from his guide.

8202: 7163: 7140: 6932: 6925: 6243: 333: 38: 9043: 9010: 8980: 8954: 8917: 8883: 8378: 3231: 1510: 1484: 1451: 1425: 11409: 10214: 8394: 3891: 3459: 3012:

For your painstaking addition of alt text to the images in Song Dynasty-related articles, I award you the Original Barnstar. Thank you for your good work.

2390: 2317: 888: 841: 12236:

Hi Sven, hope you had a wonderful Christmas. I have an idea for the upcoming MtC drive, and your thoughts on that matter would be appreciated. Regards,

11492: 11456: 11438: 10160: 8297: 8267: 8249: 7293: 6667: 6636: 6618: 5874: 5530:

Both of you: If your answer is 'yes', please disregard this. If it's "no", would you prefer it if I stay out of it, or would you like me to try and help?

5510: 5481: 5097: 5068: 4245: 3924: 3705: 3548: 3417: 3399: 3369: 3348: 3318: 3296: 2586:

There is no conspiracy Tony. You went "on strike", and the paper was supposed to publish yesterday. The show must go on, with or without you, because the

2419: 2369: 2351: 2229: 963: 528: 12071: 12055: 12038: 12009: 11993: 11562: 10774: 10273: 10024: 9643:

I did look at Pesky's edits. I saw evidence that she was baiting a vulnerable user, and that in fact is what the discussion's closing admin concluded.

8424: 8191: 8175: 8155: 8060: 8023: 8001: 7823:

Perhaps not but it's traditionally how we do it, usually on ArbWiki. We tried a few motions publicly during the summer as an experiment in transparency (

6904:

It would, I guess. We could just treat Sven's talk page as it for now :P After all, most of the people that would participate seem to watch this page. --

6750: 6527: 5903: 3961: 3869: 3849: 3673: 3577: 2517: 1567: 923: 905: 863: 823: 788: 10154: 8571: 7788: 7690: 7667: 6696:

I can't open pages from secure wikimedia, and I'm not sure why. Can you either a) show me a link in regular en.Knowledge, or b) describe what happened?

6612: 6435: 6212: 6197: 6167: 6151: 5717: 5700: 4596: 4451: 4437: 4344: 3942: 3789: 3768: 3727: 3652: 3634: 2978: 2949: 2935: 2293: 2276: 2246: 2172: 2139: 2108: 2080: 54: 11761: 11332: 11299: 11277: 9958: 9902: 9647: 7470:

The "Collars" section is far, far to promo-y, or fansite-y, and reads more like something you'd find at the artist's site than you'd find at a museum.

7075: 6720: 6375: 6360: 6110:

for deletion. If you have file mover rights can you please rename it to Cristina Rosato.jpg? It got uploaded by mistake with its default name. Thanks.

5377: 4535: 4466: 4329: 3433: 2619: 2474: 2048: 2006: 1717: 1601: 565: 11700: 11639: 11196: 11167: 11148: 11114: 10364: 9449: 9369: 9335: 9314: 9147: 8805: 7004: 6875: 5630: 5355: 5343: 5313: 5302: 5272: 5246: 4264: 3172: 1225: 1133: 1017: 559: 363: 236: 10037: 9878: 9747: 9726: 9632: 9604: 9543: 9526: 9198: 8725: 7494: 6817: 6278: 4795: 4774: 4744: 4723: 4608: 1947: 1933: 1817:

Could you please explain why you disagree with arguments, in future, rather than excising explanations you disagree with, as if they never existed?

84: 10960: 10824: 10717: 10664: 10629: 10583: 10557: 10512: 10431: 10180: 7529: 6975: 6095: 4944: 4636: 3948:

above. I also think you're a snobbish elitest who consumes new users for breakfast, but apparently this page has been declared a sarcasm free zone.

3657: 1877: 693: 175: 11223: 10990: 10693:

Go ahead. I'm not sure why Skomorokh hasn't made any comments here, but as I said, I'd be shocked if this didn't get a green light from the execs.

10301: 10244: 9467: 8774: 8106: 7935: 7235: 7220: 6239: 6042: 6028: 5654: 5156: 3143: 3092: 2690:

Maybe this is resolved, maybe it isn't. At this point though, there's nothing more that I can/will do that I haven't already tried. Time will tell.

2374: 1766: 1194: 1183: 1159: 1047: 723: 10092: 10080: 8756: 8498: 8074: 7776:

What Risker is saying is she voted in support of both the BC/Δ and new editors motions, and she's wondering about the disparity in your reactions.

7759: 7720: 6302: 5961: 5048: 5024:

Err... it's not that I don't believe you, it's that I can't find where it says that. I'll chalk that up to it being 4:45 AM, and call it a night.

5019: 4997: 4854: 1710: 601: 12111:

says: "I wish you a hopeful Christmas, I wish you a brave new year; All anguish, pain, and sadness Leave your heart and let your road be clear."

11734: 11235: 10908: 8732: 8632: 4362: 2847: 2824: 2765: 2668: 2639: 470: 440: 420: 12223: 9416: 8831:

I reverted your edit of Monty's guide. Let him remove the links to candidates in my guide. Let others add links to candidates in their guides.

8355: 7556: 7442: 7350: 6606: 5815: 5740: 5576: 5459: 4323: 4180: 1358: 1340: 1311: 1301: 9945:

OK. No-one is listed as being a reviewer for it at the moment, thus me contacting you directly. I'll await your contact on the review page. -

9916:

As I said in the edit summary, I am explaining it in the Good Article Nomination, which I've been working on for the better part of two hours.

7835: 7818: 7227: 7182: 6914: 6899: 4911: 4198:. I am not nearly as involved in images as you are. I was wondering if you could point me to the appropriate location to bring this issue up. ( 2581: 7595: 5986: 5967: 5636: 5307:

The difference of opinion is fine. However, I think we can both agree that reacting to an insult by posting another insult is unproductive.

650:

For the record, both versions seem to look fine in Safari. Some things don't line up perfectly, but there's no overlap. However, if something

12132: 11001: 10194: 9827: 7883: 6488:

Thanks for the heads up. Sometimes pictures get added by other editors. I try to do my best to use only those that are dafe to use on lists.

4963: 4505: 2793:

The Signpost really needs a good copyeditor. You're a good copyeditor. Therefore, despite our differences, I am asking you to end the strike.

663: 11244:

This won't work in all cases, but in the future the easiest way to tell if a license is acceptable on Commons is to look for it on Commons.

11210: 5467: 5465: 5185:

I know you were just trying to cheer up an editor whose RfA was unsuccessful, but in the future I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from

4602: 1624: 8673: 8114: 6556: 5251:

My personal opinion is that Secret brought this on himself by divulging so much irrelevant information about his mental illnesses. Others

638: 8834:

You can see that many guides provide links to selected discussions of selected candidates, so there is ample precedent for such linking.

9971:

The bot won't list me as a reviewer until after the first edit is made, which won't happen for a few (15 or so, hopefully) more minutes.

9910: 5834:. As you are either an involved party or have presented evidence in this case, your input is sollicited. For the Arbitration Committee -- 9804:"Whoever you've been chatting with about me has fed you a bunch of nonsense, and you apparently have swallowed it hook, line and sinker" 7824: 7110: 6497: 504: 10879: 10864: 7190: 7089: 6326: 5118:

I just read it, put a little link about it on top of my user page, and speedied, sourced, and proded an article because of it. Thanks.

4624: 3715:

for anyone who happens by with a gripe-- I should realize that not everyone has the same experience-- I let 'em run on my page. Best,

2911:

Or, I could just chat you up on the matter in the IRC on a random Tuesday. Oh, wait, that's exactly what I did this past Tuesday... :D

2706:

not to co-author with WikiPuppies, instead making an accusation of a conspiracy that you were excluded, two days after writing started.

1268: 513: 1960: 1891:) - but I can't find any edit you made. Link, please? I'd really like to know what was wrong! and many thanks for doing the check! :) 11969:

Chanukah/Kwanza Eve, but I have no plans until the evening, I don't think, and I'll take large blocks of time where I can find them.

11154: 7967: 3483: 1607: 1395: 1235: 39: 9767:

Notation that the above comment refers to a comment I made on Jehochman's page which he removed. Datestamp 06:02, 6 December 2011‎.

6959: 6533: 6120: 4476: 1900: 703: 11940: 10927: 8738:

I'm planning on giving it a major overhaul, given the 'mass hysteria' on my talk page. Your input would be appreciated. Regards,

8540: 8379: 7801:

I don't think that arbcom motions are an appropriate place to simply toss around ideas; the Village Pump would be better for that.

6681:. Please pay better attention in the future, and fix whatever is wrong with your TW and whatever other damage you may have caused. 5931: 4892: 3607:. Not withstanding that I could have trouted both of you for recent events myself, I'd much rather put the whole affair behind me. 1100: 12268: 11901:, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! 9848: 2742: 317: 12126: 11604: 11532: 9950: 9894: 9407:

Sven is in the IRC, he can't get pages to load consistently, so he's having trouble responding here. Can you jump onto the IRC?--

8472: 8218: 6859: 5996:. While on the surface nothing appears wrong with it, there are just all sorts of red flags raised by looking at the uploader's ( 5211: 4824: 4144: 3603:

We're talking in circles here now. The "other discussion" refers to a now archived argument between Tony1 and myself over at the

10334: 7171: 6865:

Looks like it will be a simple backlog to get rid of. I wish there was a good place to discuss some of the more shaky entries --

6576: 6247: 4407: 4096: 3021: 2884:

session tomorrow at 19:00 GMT/UTC in #wikimedia-office to discuss completely changing the system. In attendance will be myself,

2199: 1577:

and remove all of them. I archived it already but I didn't realize I couldn't delete the stuff without being signed in. Thanks.

11667: 7580: 7517: 6787: 6454:

Please contact me, even if you can't help, if only so I know how best to proceed. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

5785: 5402:

SM, relax. Nobody has demanded that you change anything. I read SW's post here as "hey, that was a bit borderline; it wasn't a

4687: 4164:

Hello Sven, I have been going through company articles, and I have noticed that there are a large number of images tagged with

3465: 3109: 2022:

I was completely unaware of its background, as I really only joined as it was winding down. The discussion, so to speak, is at

987: 7868: 6405: 4551: 3126: 3063: 2905: 1980: 769: 11050: 11033: 7624: 7539:

For whatever reason, this summer, the problems erupted again. On 8 July 2011, when I proposed the ArbCom motions, there were

7464: 7177:

myself in the third person, which was exactly an anonymous IP said when he vandalized my userpage. Please refer to this diff

6690: 3088: 2438:

I certainly understand. It's not worth getting into shouting matches and disagreements over something so trivial. Take care,

1986: 1814:

in future, unless you truly think you could defend your use of the term as appropriate, if challenged by an administrator?

1736: 11387: 9237: 8373: 7614:

better comes out of it. If there's no consensus, the thing doesn't fly but at least the options are clearer for the future.

7525: 7405: 5600: 3081: 3074: 12192: 11962: 10117: 9454:

Sorry about for the late reply. That's reasonable; I won't run the bot until some time after the backlog drive. Regards,

8694: 7263: 6483: 5547: 5424: 480: 8751: 5911: 5175: 4859:

No worries, though that wasn't what I was asking - just an acknowledgement that I had resolved the issues you had raised.

4398:. I hope to see you there; thank you for your participation in the discussion so far :) They're being taken into account. 3262: 2566: 1171: 12259:

Well Sven... it's been a while but I finally took up your offer. Oh and a belated Merry Christmas from me! Kind regards,

11528: 10161: 9401: 7505:

I was surprised and disappointed to read your comments and I was wondering whether you were aware of all the background.

3201: 2869:

Hey Sven Manguard/2011 Q4! I'm just dropping you a message because you've commented on (or expressed an interest in) the

2529: 2486: 206: 12085: 10846: 8657: 7269:

My guide incorporates the findings of NW's guide, and I don't mind at all if people incorporate any of the my findings.

6561: 6310: 5258:

personal attacks, uncivil, or anything close to warranting the recall of an admin. Your comments on Secret's talk page

5152: 4293: 3516: 1060: 130: 11801: 11748: 11727: 9561: 9167: 8523: 8324: 7521: 4014: 2444: 1826: 1593: 1578: 11006: 10884: 9494: 9486:

a bit of a once-over while we iron out a proper version, take a look at let me know if it accords with your thinking?

9276: 9112: 5748: 5524:

Sven Manguard, would you be happy to close this discussion down now, if SW agrees? (just yes or no, please, right now)

5127: 4873: 4808: 3597: 3133: 1043: 875:

best to annoy you as much as possible with the shoddy, no good, worthless scrap heap that is my writing. I promise :)

301:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 11049:, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at 10871: 10856: 10389: 9248: 7181:] (note that he also put homosexual pornographic image on my page) and retract the unfounded allegation. Thank you!-- 6953: 6682: 6550: 6477: 6065: 4495: 3604: 1883: 1537: 273: 129:

I've restored to you the awards which Quadell originally gave you, and which Ebe123 (the original drive coordinator)

10986: 8007: 7392:

enough to register. It's also noted on the PD-textlogo page that a trademark supersedes it. Just thought I'd share.

5589:

Sven, while I disagree with some of the things you've been doing lately, I just wanted to let you know that I'm not

1586: 1188:

Question. Do you still Oppose the nomination? You said everything was done right but you didn't strike your oppose.

12171: 10330: 9946: 9890: 8770: 8527: 7370:

you brought up the argument of the image being non-copyrightable. While it can probably be kept because of meeting

5527:

Snottywong, would you be happy to close this discussion down now, if SM agrees? (just yes or no, please, right now)

4092: 1677: 389: 202: 11706: 9833: 6924: 1345:

Btw ... just in case the information is useful, I post a status report of history-related FACs regularly at (now)

12264: 8601: 7320: 5924:. Could you also make a correction, and make a notation about it, on your signpost article? Very sorry.--v/r - 5253: 5186: 3640:

the same behavior (which you previously qualifed I believe as disgusting) yerself :) :) That's my last word :)

1781: 1723:

Hi Sven. I've configured a program to update the above list daily. Thought you might be interested :) Regards,

1065: 11793:

No, I never knew of that user. (S)he and I must both think along the same lines (in terms of naming), though. —

7941: 6101: 4500: 939:

I've closed this section, and am sending it to the archive immediately. I will discuss this in the tread above.

10920: 10249:

Since I can't put everything back in place (I can't get rid of the redirects, can you clean up my mess please?

9159:

having about this week's slot, that would be great; drop a note in the newsroom when you get a chance. Cheers,

8510: 8033: 8029: 7896:

tags, since a Knowledge-only permission is grounds for speedy without the delay that most file criteria have.

4053:

on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween!

3029: 2988: 142: 11568: 8504: 7973:

As the image is deleted, I can't be sure what happened, but I specifically remember replacing that image with

7083: 6224: 5180: 2030: 1847:. You will either follow NPOV, or you will find your comments redacted or refactored, it's really that simple. 306: 12108: 11795: 11742: 11721: 11058: 7679:

true that the matrix contemplated, an edit count, is probably too crude but alternatives are worth exploring.

6939: 5993: 5584: 1036: 1029: 11853: 11022: 10311: 9204: 6758: 4641: 2940:

Sure, but you won't get to hear all the news and plans, and you won't get to speak to the rest of the team!

9232: 9038: 8975: 8912: 8848: 8670: 8654: 8493: 6896: 6299: 4413:

I believe that would mean that the meeting is at 8 AM for me. I'm not sure if I can make it, but I'll try.

4019: 3710:

I think you meant "Discussion" in your last sentence? Bad news ... ever since Ragesoss left, everthing at

3196: 3055: 1716: 625: 588: 265: 247:

You may now put yourself on the logs subpage. There's instructions on the page. I simplified it alot. ~~

11881: 11878: 11648: 7356: 5765:

to :-) And I'm always reasonably happy to be told when to just butt out - I don't take offence easily :-)

12120: 11897:

and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a

11040: 9283: 8679: 8478:

So bugs can take an extraordinary long time, and if it gets stale, then it could be there for months. ~~

8362: 7974: 6782: 2534: 1742:

I've watchlisted it, however I have a mountain of work this weekend, so I can't do anything with it now.

1640: 1528:

sedation. I don't need this on top of it so I give up and I'm just gonna stay off Knowledge from now on.

1370: 969: 645: 11504: 8430: 7954:

was of an image in use and thus not subject to speedy. Please check file use in future before tagging.

7448: 6823: 5145: 5138: 4372: 4272: 4106: 12260: 11998:

Haha, no worries. RL comes first. You can wait til after Christmas/all that jazz if you need do :) --♫

11450: 11403: 11381: 8261: 8212: 8006:

No, you maybe thought you replaced it, but you hadn't. The article still had the "S" version when the

7886:

because they had Knowledge-only permissions. You could have gotten the process done a lot faster with

7711:

I hope you will reflect on these ideas in making your final determination about all of the candidates.

7533: 7157: 7104: 3955: 3885: 3863: 3843: 3667: 3510: 3453: 3411: 3363: 3312: 3256: 3243: 3114: 2384: 2363: 2311: 2193: 1506: 1447: 1391: 1244: 917: 882: 835: 817: 763: 11674: 11172:

Ah, well... I'm not really a fan anymore of music with... well... words, so I didn't know about that.

8731: 8196: 8146:}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ 6831: 5205:. Or at least do it off-wiki if you must. Talking about fellow editors in this way is not helpful. 1800:

to my good faith attempt to draft a policy compliant rationale struck me as particularly troubling.

339:

Looks like there's an SVG with the same content now, so there's no loss here. I just resized it, BTW.

9802:

How fascinating that Jehochman has a whole bunch of passive aggresive threats on his talk page about

9287: 7389: 7016: 4442:

Awesome :). We're hoping to hold one a wee bit later on and on a weekend to cover all the timezones.

4064: 1889: 1573:

Hi it's James I got the enforcer on and I'm wondering if someone will blank all the conversations on

1543:

I hope everything works out, and I hope that comes November, you reconsider retirement. Feel better.

9379: 8638: 6673: 6383: 2832:

This is a yawn. Who's fighting? If it's you, just ... stop. I'm really time-stressed at the moment.

2356:

a) that wasn't sarcasm, I truly hoped you could get the ball rolling again b) it was encouragement.

1201:

in there for a while, which explains why you didn't see it and why I was surprised by your comment.

60:

Just got back to my stable internet connection. I will look over everything over the next few days.

9535:

No worries, appreciate the hard work, good night and good fortune with the internet gods tomorrow.

7411:

You've misunderstood the notation, which explicitly refers to certain images (logos in particular)

7256: 6629: 5839: 5479: 5375: 5061: 4632: 4212: 4173: 2864: 2796:

We both know that we simply cannot keep on fighting like this, it's just causing too many problems.

2644:

Because WikiPuppies really isn't involved in any of this, I am moving my response to my talk page.

2281:

It most certainly won't in my case; hope to see you back at FAC once you're calmer. All the best,

1955: 11287: 7500: 6771:

where the discussion is occurring? (or even notifying me or asking me why I did what I did...) --

4611:. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at 1807:

rationale could give the unfortunate appearance that the rationale had been drafted in bad faith.

12214: 12156: 12066: 12050: 12029: 12004: 11984: 11957: 11931: 11832: 11779: 11691: 11630: 11553: 11524: 11483: 11429: 11323: 11268: 11187: 11139: 11090: 10951: 10765: 10708: 10620: 10548: 10422: 10355: 10264: 10235: 10145: 10071: 10015: 9986: 9931: 9869: 9782: 9717: 9595: 9517: 9440: 9385: 9360: 9305: 9189: 9138: 9079: 9001: 8945: 8874: 8796: 8716: 8623: 8562: 8463: 8415: 8390: 8346: 8288: 8240: 8051: 8017: 7992: 7961: 7926: 7859: 7750: 7658: 7635:

qualified. I lined it out in the guide myself and it's a relatively simple to grasp; your policy

7485: 7341: 7284: 7211: 7131: 7066: 6995: 6850: 6808: 6741: 6711: 6658: 6597: 6518: 6493: 6426: 6351: 6269: 6188: 6142: 6086: 6019: 5952: 5894: 5865: 5806: 5691: 5621: 5567: 5501: 5450: 5334: 5293: 5237: 5088: 5039: 4988: 4935: 4845: 4765: 4714: 4587: 4526: 4428: 4314: 4236: 4135: 4005: 3915: 3759: 3696: 3625: 3568: 3539: 3390: 3339: 3287: 3222: 3163: 3104: 2969: 2926: 2815: 2733: 2659: 2610: 2524: 2508: 2481: 2465: 2410: 2342: 2267: 2220: 2130: 2071: 1924: 1868: 1757: 1701: 1574: 1558: 1535: 1475: 1416: 1331: 1292: 1216: 1124: 1008: 954: 684: 550: 461: 411: 354: 227: 166: 75: 17: 11868: 10966: 5132: 5113: 2873:

in the past. If you don't have any interest in it any more, ignore the rest of this message :).

12231:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Images_and_Media/Commons/Drives#Priority_List_for_January_2012_Drive

12112: 11072: 10852: 10111: 9384:

Hi Sven. Hope you're well. I'm thinking about abandoning Fbot Task 2's whitelist in favor of

9282:

The images are certainly free, but I'm not sure if yours is the best license. Commons template

8519: 7037:

I found a swarm of them in another dimension. You can open a portal by invoking the dark magic

6400: 6209: 6164: 6117: 5711: 5648: 4560: 4462: 4447: 4403: 4395: 4340: 4281: 4167: 3938: 3785: 3723: 3648: 3593: 3068: 2945: 2901: 2289: 2242: 2168: 2104: 2044: 2002: 1976: 1668:

Many thanks for the helpful information on image management on the article I nominated for FA.

1635: 1597: 1582: 1139: 901: 859: 784: 730: 716: 709: 10100: 9884: 7874:"The copyright holder, ypoong, gave me permission to use this work only in Knowledge articles" 11295: 11241:

It's perfectly fine to move. All that extra text constitutes is a long attribution statement.

11231: 10875: 10860: 10105:...for pointing out in the Signpost the ongoing work on the AfC templates. Much appreciated. 9030: 8967: 8904: 8840: 8643:

FYI, I was on wikibreak over the last week (family issues), but am back now and have updated

8361:

Sven, can we get your review/suggestions on the essay? I made some inline hidden comments on

8099: 8092: 7146: 7093: 6950: 6686: 6372: 6323: 4491: 4349:

Just to thank you for a reminder. As a response to reading your essay, I added references to

3188: 2577: 1772: 1491: 1432: 1376: 242: 183: 45:

I've reviewed the Song Dynasty article. If you have any questions please ping on my talkpage

11946: 11342: 9551: 9153: 7516:

In April 2009, BC/Δ appealed his ban to ArbCom. T asked the community on his behalf and was

11663: 11599: 11162: 11109: 10043:

Hey. Could you weigh in at this link for me? Just looking for some clarification.--v/r -

9412: 9328: 9269: 9107: 8766: 7977:

before listing the small version as redundant. Perhaps someone put it back in the article?

7418: 7385: 7378: 7013: 6970: 6909: 6870: 5349:

petty, underinformed-judgmental". Your tone on Knowledge in general needs an adjustment.

5266:

is entirely unhelpful, and will only serve to worsen the inhospitable environment at RfA.

4696: 4259: 4185: 4177: 4152: 4088: 3428: 1189: 1178: 1166: 1096: 1023: 983: 524: 500: 369: 327: 198: 190: 12254: 10370: 9477: 8962:

Maybe it is time for you to apologize for the "God complex" personal-attack in your guide?

8154:

Now, for some srs bsnz. I'm working on Fbot 10 now, and I here's what I've come up with:

7243: 6050: 2881: 8: 11445: 11398: 11376: 9844: 9536: 9487: 9160: 9120: 8690: 8644: 8366: 8256: 8207: 7461: 7251: 6777: 6624: 5835: 5827: 5470: 5366: 5365:"ugly, petty, and underinformed-judgemental". Stating that fact isn't a personal attack. 5054: 4787: 4736: 4679: 4628: 4386: 4203: 3950: 3880: 3858: 3838: 3662: 3505: 3448: 3406: 3358: 3307: 3251: 2889: 2379: 2358: 2306: 2188: 1943: 1896: 1646: 1619: 912: 877: 830: 812: 758: 50: 9242: 9093: 8577: 4663:

to help me branch out to other areas of the encyclopedia. If you feel that I view these

4378: 12200: 12142: 12061: 12045: 12015: 11999: 11970: 11952: 11917: 11894: 11818: 11765: 11677: 11616: 11539: 11515: 11469: 11415: 11309: 11254: 11173: 11125: 11076: 10937: 10914: 10820: 10751: 10694: 10660: 10606: 10579: 10534: 10508: 10408: 10385: 10341: 10250: 10221: 10131: 10057: 10001: 9972: 9917: 9855: 9768: 9703: 9581: 9503: 9426: 9346: 9291: 9175: 9124: 9065: 8987: 8931: 8860: 8782: 8702: 8609: 8548: 8449: 8401: 8386: 8332: 8274: 8226: 8136: 8037: 8012: 7978: 7956: 7912: 7845: 7736: 7644: 7471: 7432: 7327: 7270: 7197: 7117: 7052: 6981: 6836: 6794: 6727: 6697: 6644: 6583: 6504: 6489: 6412: 6337: 6255: 6174: 6128: 6072: 6061: 6005: 5938: 5880: 5851: 5792: 5677: 5607: 5553: 5487: 5436: 5320: 5279: 5223: 5168: 5074: 5025: 4974: 4921: 4904: 4885: 4831: 4751: 4700: 4573: 4512: 4414: 4300: 4222: 4193: 4121: 4050: 3991: 3901: 3745: 3682: 3611: 3554: 3525: 3376: 3325: 3273: 3237: 3208: 3149: 3099: 3017: 2955: 2912: 2801: 2719: 2645: 2596: 2494: 2451: 2433: 2396: 2328: 2253: 2206: 2116: 2057: 2017: 1910: 1888:

Hi, supposedly you fixed something in the description of the map for Plateosaurus (see

1854: 1822: 1743: 1687: 1544: 1529: 1461: 1457: 1402: 1350: 1346: 1317: 1278: 1202: 1110: 994: 940: 670: 659: 536: 447: 397: 340: 213: 152: 138: 61: 30:

If you need something from this page, please cut and paste it onto the main talk page.

10167:

I thought this would be a better idea than a BRFA :P Just thought I'd let you know. -

4617:

Please add your evidence by October 14, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes.

11673:

I work on it from time to time. I approach it from a slightly different angle, using

11653:

Thanks for resolving the one you did, you might be interested in helping de backlog

11251:

Keep up the good work, and feel free to come back with questions if you ever need to.

10107: 9625: 9212: 9209:

I think that it's time to move your sandbox on the FNN to Knowledge space. Just add

8531: 8514: 7901: 7828: 7781: 7683: 7617: 7398: 7231: 7186: 6474: 6393: 6203: 6158: 6111: 6038: 5982: 5707: 5644: 4656: 4556: 4458: 4443: 4399: 4333: 4060: 4028: 3931: 3778: 3716: 3641: 3586: 2941: 2897: 2282: 2235: 2161: 2097: 2037: 1995: 1969: 894: 852: 777: 12094: 10322:

Knowledge:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II

1401:

Not a problem. Also, despite our disagreement over it, I admire your effort re. TT.

851:

the Signpost. You'll be hard pressed to find anyone who wants to work on garbage.

12060:

Likewise! Next time I'll pick a season that has a few more satellite images :) --♫

11291: 11227: 10089: 10047: 9483: 9228: 8667: 8651: 8489: 8070: 7716: 6946: 6892: 6367: 6318: 6295: 5928: 5123: 5015: 4959: 4864: 4820: 4485: 4358: 4101: 3488: 3356:

gets my point across. Not sure if everyone was as naive as I was at the beginning.

2573: 2439: 1673: 11119:

What? That wasn't a joke. I really have no idea what happened to the original PLW.

9253: 8859:

Whatever. I think what you're doing is wrong, but I'm not going to fight over it.

6202:

Thanks for suggestion. Will hope someone else will put such images in my article.

11676:, which takes from the same list, but a smaller and more specific cross section. 11659: 11595: 11158: 11105: 10325: 9820: 9408: 9321: 9262: 9103: 8762: 8595: 8143: 7439: 6966: 6905: 6866: 5595: 5350: 5308: 5267: 5206: 5202: 5198: 4660: 4255: 4112: 4084: 3479: 3424: 3180: 3138: 3121: 2841: 2759: 2633: 2560: 1092: 979: 520: 496: 434: 383: 321: 194: 33: 4394:

designs; if you have any questions about it, feel free to leave me a message on

2085:

It looks like a serious attempt to revive what was a truly excellent section of

810:. Although if you get the place working again, by all means I would support it. 12188: 11907: 11712: 10979: 10972: 9840: 9744: 9644: 9629: 9558: 8686: 8535: 8317: 8147: 7890: 7811: 7456: 7371: 7313: 6772: 6572: 6540: 5973: 5791:

Chzz, you never need to justify stopping by on my page. You're always welcome.

5778: 5733: 5540: 5417: 4780: 4729: 4672: 4391: 4289: 3875: 3496: 2748: 1968:

has improved since I reluctantly gave up on my pride and joy, the Dispatches.

1939: 1892: 1615: 1522: 1354: 1307: 1264: 425:

You need to change your wording, or I'll have to make a big thing of it there.

46: 27:

This is an archive page. Please do not edit anything here. It will be reverted.

10893: 10403:

signed off on by the managing editors yet, but please see the current text of

10038:

User_talk:Puramyun31#File:Tyler_Shields_with_LG_.E2.80.98Nitro_HD.E2.80.99.jpg

7368:

Knowledge:Files_for_deletion/2011_November_19#File:Scrabble_United_Kingdom.png

4607:

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at

114: 10816: 10656: 10575: 10504: 10381: 8010:

from the article as a deleted file. Anyway, it's fixed now so no harm done.

7048: 7041: 6764: 6441: 6057: 5263: 5194: 5190: 5163: 4899: 4880: 4199: 4158: 4038: 3013: 2870: 1818: 1794:. I chose not to say, in wikipedia space, that your application of the term 1260: 1153:

Knowledge:Featured article candidates/Chrono Trigger: Crimson Echoes/archive1

1056: 655: 134: 7602:

so this really wasn't me going behind the community's back and playing God.

12238: 11887: 11396:

PS: If I left someone out by accident, feel free to give one to them, too.

10750:

It's been green lighted. I'm eagerly awaiting seeing the finished product.

10290: 10203: 10169: 9456: 9390: 8740: 8180: 7897: 7394: 6457:

P.S. When this regains GA, the Song Dynasty regains Featured Topic status.

6034: 5978: 5921: 5917: 4547: 1725: 1177:

I believe I got your concerns done, but if I didn't please point them out.

302: 109: 100: 11017: 10085:

Thanks. I can always count on you to know what to do for files ;)--v/r -

7359: 7047:. Careful though, if these guys take you back to their home-world they'll 6000:) talk page. You should consider using one of the other two images on the 3896:

Both: I'm not part of the cable, I've got satellite television instead. :D

1629: 1074: 11577: 11351: 10086: 10044: 9218: 8664: 8648: 8479: 8066: 7712: 7513:

I have absolutely no axe to grind regarding BC/Δ. The contrary, in fact.

6881: 6284: 5997: 5925: 5119: 5011: 4955: 4860: 4830:

Sorry, but I really don't do full reviews except on vary rare occasions.

4816: 4382: 4354: 4042: 3822:

I found Mal being bashed in private ArbCom chat...kind of funny actually.

3035: 2885: 2777:

The above is my refutation of your assertion that there was a conspiracy.

1669: 608: 571: 248: 11859: 8441: 6388:

Hi there! I was wondering if you could perform a quick image review for

3132:

I'm sure you would be similarly insulted if I characterized your recent

489: 12176: 11510:

Knowledge:Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 2 in Michigan/archive1

11245: 9814: 8588: 8086: 7424:. It means that other intellectual property restrictions might apply, 6001: 4350: 3810:...you say to the guy who's taking charge of the Editorials department. 3475: 3249:

Maybe you could use it in the Opinion desk. Maybe not. Anyway, cheers,

2834: 2752: 2626: 2553: 1655: 1259:

For amazing dedication to image and media reviewing in history-related

893:

What makes you think you'll need to roll up your sleeves to annoy me?

427: 376: 5010:

The minimum ruling has been 50% for at least the last two elections.

793:

Wow! Talking to me directly instead of in the third person! Huge step!

119: 12184: 11898: 11890: 11715:. It's a tool for transferring free images to Commons. No whitelist. 11374:

has been properly compensated for their efforts. You deserve this :)

10320:, I'd like to ask you to participate in the article's MILHIST ACR at 10198: 8310: 7804: 7520:. In July 2009, he appealed again but this time I handled it via the 7306: 6568: 5771: 5726: 5533: 5410: 4285: 4046: 1375:

Your hidden note at AN. Thanks for that, should have done it myself.

11813:

Common good decimated the leaderboards from the last drive. Look at

11283: 8124: 6539:

topics, especially since I'm short on time for the next week or so.

4457:

want to have to participate all the time). Would that interest you?

2997: 2880:

still have an interest or an opinion, good or bad, we're holding an

10574:

Perfect. Next step is to wait for signoff by the managing editors?

7682:

more than enough on their plates and clerk retention is a problem.

7428:

that they negate a PD claim. Trademarked PD image are tagged with

7301:

holds a philosophy on Knowledge that is incomparable with my my own

6832:

http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/reports/miss_tagged_pd_text.html

11013:

Knowledge:Featured picture candidates/Liberty Leading the People 2

5264:

Responding to a personal attack by issuing another personal attack

2572:

I don't have an e-mail address specified, so I wouldn't think so.

91:

Thanks for you help with the September 2011 Move To Commons drive!

11153:

Well, I am surprised that it took this long for the basis of the

10906:

Great work on reverting vandalism via Huggle - keep it up! Best,

10812: 8761:

I have withdrawn the nomination per your explanation. Thanks, —{|

6236:

For your voter guide work. Interesting and informative reading.

3305:

written two years ago. Shame all of them aren't editing anymore.

2788:

b) the only thing being hurt by the strike is the Signpost itself

11760:

Yes, I have Windows. Was the program based off of the fantastic

9580:

editor, not the person being painted in the noticeboard thread.

8959:

For your readers' benefit, Monty explicitly approved the links.

8132: 5822:

Questions to the parties on the Betacommand 3 arbitration case

1089:

Knowledge:Contribution Team/Backlogs/Participants and progress

10317: 6229: 5395: 4072: 10993: