Jump to content

User talk:John Vandenberg/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16

Any news? :-) --Addihockey10 e-mail 03:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Image for Frank Ponta

Hi John, any luck finding an image for Frank Ponta? I'll be holding the DYK nomination in case you have one. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

We have one, but we're chasing down permission for a much better photo. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
No luck. I think we should just run with it without an image. Sorry, John Vandenberg (chat) 08:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The google link thing not helpful at all for Indonesian page

John, I tried this google link that you gave in the email with the intention that I know how to operate them before showing the other gals and guys on how to classified user by location. If you look at the link, it's totally collapse on Indonesian user page (search result just went unrelated-ly bezerk), unlike the English one with a lot of search result. Anyway, long story short: not working in Indonesian, might help you in the English page. No need to answer in WP EN page talk, never checked 'em :p Serenity id (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC).

"Indexing" looks like it has recently been turned off for Indonesian user pages. I have raised a bug. bugzilla:30757 John Vandenberg (chat) 22:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, the problem is id:MediaWiki:Robots.txt. --John Vandenberg (chat) 23:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
here is the mediawiki search for Indonesian Wikipedia userpages mentioning Yogyakarta. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, John Vandenberg. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case.
Message added 03:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi John, You have previously voted to decline the case against La goutte de pluie because of an open RfC/U against the user. I have presented a new diff in my section to show that it is highly unlikely the RFC will be successful, and would like to request that you revisit the situation. Thanks. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I am however, open to considering many other remedies proposed. I am simply not convinced that the editors involved are at all informed of the issues at hand before they called for some blanket prohibition. (Similarly, unlike how they advocated, an IP rangeblock against problematic IPs is untenable, because it would involve blocking half of Singapore.) Furthermore, unlike many other editors with much free time on their hands, I have not been going around different talk pages canvassing potential allies, so it is my impression that the sample of commenters on the RFC may be problematic. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 03:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I hope this will be resolved adequately with the closure of the RFC. I don't see any reason to rush; La goutte de pluie is not out of control, and the recall was very calm. The RFC has already been quite successful in that regards. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Society of Biblical Literature

Hi, since you contributed to the article in the last year you may wish to participate in the discussion on refs and tags. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Senkaku Marriage of "content" and "conduct"

This is a response to a question Newyorkbrad asked. It took time for me to craft it.

To add this at this time, do I need to ask permission from you and your co-author? If so, this is my request.

If permissible, where do I add this? --Tenmei (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

1 . Newyorkbrad asked a question:
I do not understand specifically what you are driving at with this proposal. Please explain in a bit more detail (but only a bit more, please). -- Newyorkbrad 00:44, 22 August 2011
2. This was my initial, short response.
These concepts are illustrated in the diffs of Qwyrxian and Bobthefish2 in one short thread Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 7#U.S. Control prior to 1972. --Tenmei 19:49, 24 August 2011
3. This is an untimely expanded analysis:
In this ArbCom case, "content" and "conduct" are sometimes married, not divorced. Synergies in the marriage of information asymmetry and delegitimisation is a significant factor which ArbCom may have overlooked.
According to Elen of the roads, "A useful thing that the parties can do is help Arbcom with ... what it is that [WP:RfArb/Senkaku] is all about....".
In part, the case is about tit-for-tat diffs. Stepping back, the ArbCom case is also about Information asymmetry (ja:情報の非対称性) and Moral hazard (zh:道德风险)
Information asymmetry. Without using the term explicitly, Magog acknowledges the information asymmetry, e.g.,
"... it's just so difficult to read that page history and figure out what's gotten some people upset and what hasn't." -- Magog the Ogre 06:43, 13 August 2011
The term "information asymmetry" implicates the study of decision-making where one party has more or better information than the other. In effect, Magog acknowledges an imbalance which might cause decision-making and its consequences to go awry.
The genesis of this ArbCom case is distilled in one thread. At Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 7#U.S. Control prior to 1972, STSC and Bobthefish2 attempt (a) to modify an intransitive verb and (b) to add "by the Americans". Both the verb usage and the three words have significant ramifications which are recognized immediately by John Smith's, Phoenix7777, Oda Mari and me. Qwyrxian doesn't "get it", and he marginalizes what he doesn't understand, e.g.,
Okay, you know what, it's not really that important to me (other editors may speak for themselves). I am still firmly convinced that the sentence with "by the Americans" is grammatically incorrect, and that, by definition, grammatically incorrect sentences cannot be "precise," but it really isn't important enough to fight about ...." -- Qwyrxian 09:44, 27 January 2011
In subsequent months, the significance of this diff is emphasized by Qwyrxian when he repeatedly points to arguing about three words as the proof that outside intervention by mediation or arbitration is needed. Characterising others as " pretty much entrenched and non-collaborative" is demonstrably a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Moral Hazard. Economists distinguish "moral hazard" involving hidden actions from "adverse selection" involving hidden information. Both are special sub-sets of information asymmetry; and both exacerbated in Wikipedia by the unexamined consequences of the hortatory WP:Assume Good Faith.
Nobel laureate Paul Krugman explains moral hazard as "... any situation in which one person makes the decision about how much risk to take, while someone else bears the cost if things go badly."
A. Bobthefish2 proposes contriving conditions which cause Senkaku articles to be locked, e.g.,
"Let's just get the two pages locked so that they will move on and go mess with better-monitored pages like 'Japan in World War II' and 'Nanjing Massacre'." -- Bobthefish2 08:45, 27 January 2011
B. The strategic thinking is underscored by repeating the proposal, e.g.,
"Anyhow, the lack of any constructive efforts on this page is evident. Perhaps locking this will allow some people to go off and contribute their time on something like Nanking_Massacre_denial." -- Bobthefish2 21:34, 27 January 2011
C. Locking an article stigmatizes everyone in the manner of Mercutio's "plague o' both your houses!" which overwhelms all else ... which is part of the objective the gambit was intended to achieve.
Qwyrxian was only partly correct in assessing the impact of Bobthefish2 and others, e.g.,
"Of course, the problem is that any comments I make like this are useless ... and really, even if you could be blocked (say, if this went to ArbCom), you have nothing to lose, since you're not really interesting in actually editing Wikipedia, anyway." -- Qwyrxian 00:20, 9 June 2011
Summary. In our collaborative editing context, "delegitimisation" refers to a process in which an editor or editors are strategically undermined. WP:Delegitimization as a tactic is about deflecting attention away from writing or content, focusing instead on the writer or writers. Information asymmetries exacerbated the short- and longer-term consequences.

I was also asked the exact same question on my talkpage. I have replied there. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

For all his complaints about this "delegitimisation as a tactic", Tenmei has been a pretty relentless practitioner of it. Even after the period of commentary is over, I still find him going all over the place and quoting my words out of context. This reminds me of those ubiquitous attack ads spammed all over the television by the Republican party during the U.S. Congressional/Presidential Election. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I would further highlight Tenmei's deleted response to this very post [1] (he said he deleted it because he wanted me to have the "last word"). He claimed it is not about me, but the latter half of this post is quite clearly an attack, especially when he described my quotes (which he took out of context) as "plague o' both your houses!" and then he went on to quote Qwyrxian's comment which was also about me. I am sorry if I don't sound very appreciative about any of this... especially after seeing this kind of crap spammed all over the place. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
we can haz propozed disizhun plz? kthxbai Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm waiting on NYB at the moment; should be moving ahead in the next 24 hrs. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Gotcha. I'll bother him, then. ;-) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you...

Hai. Terima kasih sebab beri perhatian.

WMAu geonotice

I put up the WMAu IRC geonotice, and it should go live at Sep 26 00:00 UTC. Please go and check (after 11am AEST) if it works. Deryck C. 15:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It is working! Thx. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Senkaku decision

Thank you for an explanation here. You may take this for granted, but it's new to me. I do not believe that the underlined sentences are made explicit in any other place.

"... the policies for talk page are not as strict in regards to original research and POV, as consensus comes from people providing their opinions on the talk page .... In this dispute, there were only a few parties involved in the process, and most of them prevented consensus using different methods ... [T]he proposed discretionary sanctions will mean this topic will be subject to the organised complaint management system of Arbitration enforcement ...." John Vandenberg 11:52, 25 September 2011

This would have made a difference if I could have read it before today. This is the answer to questions I had not yet thought to ask.

Please consider adding the underlined sentences in the decision so that a wider readership will have the opportunity to read them.

At Discretionary sanctions, please consider incorporating this phrase in "organised complaint management system" which encourages administrators working together. If I had read this phrase in January 2011, it might have helped mitigate some of the problems in Senkaku-related talk pages.--Tenmei (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The general public should read and follow WP:TALK. Our decision is not a place to try to inform the general public about how to edit Wikipedia.
The 'organised complaint management system' (WP:AE) is only available to problems which have already been through arbitration, so it would not have helped you in January 2011. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Bathurst Meetup

Sorry I will be unable to attend.Cgoodwin (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of A Graphics Language

The article A Graphics Language has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable programming language with no references tagged for sources since January 2007

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Filter 394

A long time has passed and the stated purpose of this filter when it was created has not materialized. Sole Soul (talk) 11:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

My sandbox

I find your editing in my sandbox to be quite disturbing. Given your association with certain individuals, I would think you would leave well enough alone. IF a certain group of individuals has a problem with my creating an article maybe they should talk to me, instead of sending their Admin to do their dirty work.
Your actions are extremely interesting given your conflicting actions following this edit[2] of your own. Next time why not post "your" concern on my talk page? It is a shame that when it comes to "certain" groups of individuals that all of Wikipedia's policies seem to fade away. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Nobody sent me to do this, and I am not associated with anyone related to the topic. When looking at the recent Arbitration Case I noticed organisation name come up, and I googled it. Your draft is in Google. If it isnt notable, it will need to be deleted. I am not confident that it is notable, but I am happy to help try to find sources in order to establish notability of these organisations. If you dont want other people collaborating with you on Wikipedia, you shouldn't post your drafts to Wikipedia. As for policy, please see WP:UP#OWN which says "Other users and bots may edit pages in your user space". John Vandenberg (chat) 03:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Whatever. A simple request on my talk page would be the courteous thing to do. IF I thought the article met notability I would have already created it. Since I believed it did not meet notability, it was very useful as a mousetrap.
mus in pice.
Cheers. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Some fun for you

How about taking care of this[3]. Or does, "Kansas Bear is not american . he is working for racist governments", not qualify as a personal attack? Cheers. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Another attack[4]. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Brian Camelio and Journey

John: Once upon a time (July 2007) you commented in an discussion for deletion that Brian Camelio was a member of Journey (band). This observation was added to the article without a reference and ironically enough, is causing a fair amount of current controversy. I don't suppose you remember what the source of that information was do you? I checked the Journey page as of that time and didn't see a mention of it.--Nowa (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Very interesting. I am not able to recall where I saw this. I am inclined to think it was allmusic as my comment on the AFD followed my edit that added allmusic to the page. allmusic does not currently mention this, and Wayback Machine doesnt have an old version of this page. That explanation depends on a reference to Journey being removed from allmusic sometime in the last four years. I dont know how else it could be explained.
The editor who added this[5], Tlogmer (talk · contribs), may be able to help, but probably not. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I sent a note to allmusic to ask if they keep records of discography edits. It's not a big deal, but I want to satisfy my curiosity.--Nowa (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion sorting tool not working.

I have Twinkle, and I've installed the scripts for the DelSort tool in my vector.js file. Although I have restarted my browser, bypassing the cache, the tool does not work. Delsort appears on the dropdown menu, but when I click it, I get the text "javascript:DelsortFrame()" in the status bar and nothing else happens. Please help! RolandR (talk) 10:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello John Vandenberg/Archive 13! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Free Knowledge

Hi John, I just got back from a meeting with Siska. Starting tomorrow, I will be her guinea pig to see how the Free Knowledge program works on English Wikipedia, and she has asked that you assist in scoring the article(s) submitted. I am waiting on the scoring sheet, but once I have it I will send it to you. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Good to know this is going ahead well. I will of course assist where I am able. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Seriously...

How obvious does a john254 sock have to get on [wp:rfar] pages before you lot recognise it :). Unless glottal stop is Tony Sidaway, of course... although, to be honest, what's the difference, really?101.118.50.41 (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Start an SPI if you think there is a resemblance, or email me the evidence if you dont want to start an SPI. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Female sportspeople cats

A few of the articles you have tagged as female were actually male. I have undone your edits on Bobby Despotovski, Gene Bates and Sam Hill. Out of interest, are you going to be creating corresponding cats for male sportspeople? Hack (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I plan to categorise all males in Category:Australian sportspeople after the females have been categorised under Category:Australian sportswomen. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
No worries, sounds like a pretty big job. Hack (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

A DYK for Jack Venman

I notice that Jack Venman has been moved to mainspace. Might be kind of cool if we can get a WikiAcademy article to the front page... what do you think? Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC).

Aye. --John Vandenberg (chat) 10:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hello John Vandenberg,

I have just returned from a month long ArbCom block for such onerous reasons as wikistalking and edit warring. It was administrator Ironholds who blocked me, (and I had never heard about him before he blocked me anyway), under the pretense of adding a block entry to the ArbCom board that contains 4 diffs that do not show much of anything [6] without formal proceeding and without giving any direct explanation on my talk page about in which way my edits violated anything that was to enforce upon me[7].

In my opinion, "stalking" is a serious allegation, and is not possible substantiate by 3 diffs as it requires very serious proofs. And ,albeit, the moot 3 edits I made at 3 distinct articles within the same period of 24 hour were reverts [8], it would not have been possible to issue an ArbCom block for edit warring ,however, unless there is a valid revert restriction type of ArbCom resolution I am placed under, and I hadn't been blocked for even edit warring from 2009 up until last month by this very ArbCom block. If the administrators were to handle the cases by that logic, they could apply digwurren blocks to anybody who ever did a revert on an article and that would make the edit warring board utterly unnecessary.

Would it be possible to request arbcom members to consider reverting this block entry [9] on the grounds that the block does not make much sense and that the diffs within the block entry do not substantiate wikistalking and any edit warring to which a digwurren block should have been applied?--Nmate (talk) 09:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nmate, the committee has recently revised the wording of that case by this motion which requires a warning, and the blocks should be "up to a week" for the first five problems. Unfortunately this comes too late for you. With these changes, your next four blocks would be only a week long. You can appeal your last block at WP:AE or WP:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification. Please read a bit about those two processes. If you need help to write your appeal, please contact one of the clerks or we can keep talking about it here on my talk page. --John Vandenberg (chat) 10:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for your advice.--Nmate (talk) 09:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

WP Academic Journals in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Academic Journals for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 04:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed up delsort.js

Hi John,

Just so you know, I forked delsort.js and have made two changes to it. The latest change to it has fixed the issue with use of the toSource method which is Gecko (and thus Firefox) only. My version should now work in Chrome and Safari and IE etc.

The other change I've made is to wikipage.js, a dependency. It changes how delsort works: it now shows the table of contents for the delsort list, but it does now work on the HTTPS mode. It's a very clumsy hack, and it'd be great if someone could clean it up, but the important thing for me is that it now works even if it doesn't work well. Thanks again for the script. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Do you want to take over maintenance of it? .. please! ;-) John Vandenberg (chat) 21:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Perceived dishonesty

Georgewilliamherbert said that he was filing to get clarification on blocks & first mover advantage. All of the Arbs who initially said to accept the case said it was regarding that as well, yet the motion that you put forward dealt basically with MF's perceived incivility. I can't speak for MF, but I imagine that is what he is referring to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.167.170 (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Please be aware that I didnt put forward any motions. I want either a full case, or that it be rejected. Differences in perceptions of civility is an important element in this requested case, because there is much more difference in opinions about civility (esp. when the perceived incivility is from a good faith contributor) than about many other aspects of the project which cause blocks. There is obviously a broad range of opinions within the committee about civility regarding when and how to deal with it. SirFozzie put up a motion, with one section entitled "Civility", and I dont think we can do 'civility' justice by way of motion. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I misspoke, it wasn't your motion, but your comment to SirFozzie's motion that I was referring to. I agree that there are many opinions on what constitutes incivility. There are also many opinions on how to enforce it. I disagree on the importance of civility, I think respect & effective contributions should be considered more important. Unfortuneately I don't think that is something with an easy answer or compromise. 63.230.167.170 (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

William Elfving

The article William Elfving has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JOJ Hutton 19:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Why? John Vandenberg (chat) 23:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, John Vandenberg, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that some editors are discussing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Elfving whether the article William Elfving should be in Wikipedia. I encourage you to comment there if you think the article should be kept in the encyclopedia.

The deletion discussion doesn't mean you did something wrong. In fact, other editors may have useful suggestions on how you can continue editing and improving William Elfving, which I encourage you to do. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Help Desk.

Thanks again for your contributions! JOJ Hutton 23:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Kittens love you! :D Keep up the good work. :D

LauraHale (talk) 10:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Hi John. No, you're name hasn't been mentioned (yet ;) ) , but after a bit of investigation, I just wanted to let you know that I have opened up a sockpuppet case about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Destinero. Just giving you a heads up! SarahStierch (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I missed you

G'day John,

Sorry I missed you just then... I tend to react slowly to IM until I've figured out who someone is. Part of being a teacher around web-savvy kids. :) ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 09:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, John Vandenberg. You have new messages at User:John Vandenberg/Deletion sorting tool.
Message added 19:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Logan Talk Contributions 19:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Abortion remedy 11

Hi John. Just checking to see whether you meant to oppose or abstain from Remedy 11 of the Abortion proposed decision. Your vote is currently in the latter section, but the vote reads more like an oppose to me. It's likely no big deal, but I thought you might want to take a look. Best, NW (Talk) 16:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You've correctly guessed that I am leaning towards oppose there. However, the remedy is only 'reminded', so I dont want to go as far as opposing it when so many arbitrators have seen something to be concerned about. afaics, the comments on the /Workshop we'rnt strong enough in their direction for me to gauge whether this editor contributed to the problems and the /Evidence is very sparse wrt this editor. Thanks for checking. Please cluebat me if I am missing something obvious. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Weatherbase discussion

John...

I wanted to let you know I posted a response to Bidgee's notes. I also wanted to apologize for getting a bit hot in the conversation. I have no issues with someone questioning motives. That is in the end opinion. But I do get very sensitive when someone questions the quality of the work I've personally invested more than a decade in, just in an effort to make their point, particularly in the manner being done now.

I want to reiterate (I know I've said this multiple times) if the decision is the community would prefer me not to post this data, I won't. Wiki editors have found this data on their own to cite, and the initiation of this effort a couple of weeks ago on my personal part was that the data was sometimes posted incorrectly, and sometimes cited incorrectly. As you can appreciate with any passion project, the effort itself and the personal knowledge people use your work product daily is the reward unto itself.

However, I would greatly prefer the data I presented be evaluated either way. I don't want people, or the Wiki community, being left with the impression that because I decided (and depending on the outcome, it may have been an inappropriate decision on my part) to fill in articles lacking climate data with climate data, that as a result Weatherbase as a whole is poor quality. That is most certainly not the case. There are dozens of sites out there that simply download the WMO 30-year normals and publish them, and these sites are also cited all across Wikipedia. Nothing wrong with it, and completely legal, but it's a republish. Weatherbase's data is copyrighted specifically because the work product that goes into it actually verifies, combines and normalizes the data, targeted at end users who are not meteorologists. It's a fun intellectual challenge. Had I started this 5 years later, I probably would have skipped making a site and just done this direct in Wikipedia. But Wikipedia didn't exist when I started this.

I'm happy to discuss offline, or via Skype. Right now, I'm far more concerned about having the data railroaded by someone who's been looking at this a day and was clearly annoyed by my approach than I am about permission to post, as you can tell.

Let me know. Thank you again.

Frisch1 (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Frisch1

Thanks for pausing the operation Frisch1. We'll look at the data and continue discussion. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
No worries. I've opened threads in the WikiProject Meteorology area as well as the Village Pump (Idea Lab) to solicit feedback on the topic, with full disclosure of the actions to date and links to the original threads. Appreciate you taking a look. There was a further thread on the data with some more information. Frisch1 (talk) 03:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Frisch1

Engaging User:Virago250

I just saw the ArbCom request and fully understand why it was turned down. I do hope we can find someone to engage with and win the trust of this new user. He (I think it's a he) has identified a number of really useful sources, but isn't yet able to work out how, within policy, they can be used to enhance our articles. I would really like to see this material used properly. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

you might be interested in this

I've mentioned you here [10].Bali ultimate (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I wont be commenting on this matter or the ANI thread until Fae has had a reaonable amount of time to comment. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Potential Vandalism on your page

John, going through the Recent Changes, there was some edits to your page by an IP that didn't seem productive. I've revert it. If this was you (just not logged in) accept this as an apology. Achowat (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It wasnt me. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

ANI thread needing your help

Archived ANI thread

Back in 2009, you blocked User:Afteread as a sock of a banned user. User:Scientryst is claiming to me that there is a new incarnation, User:Physicrocks. I can't see in your block log or on the user talk page who the alleged master for Afteread was, so I don't know enough to figure out how to proceed. Could you take a look at WP:ANI#Banned user? and provide any insight you might still remember? I'm very soon going to be on a wikibreak, so I won't be able to follow up in a timely manner. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Ive had a very quick look, but I'm also leading offline for the next two days. I've notified arbcom. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Qwyrxian must have gotten confused by my statements. There are two separate masters; two different people. The first is so banned that he apparently should not be named. (Which strikes me as an odd policy, as it makes it difficult to know what is going on.) For the other, it is not clear whether he is banned or not; but there is a page showing one of his accounts to have been blocked for belonging to a banned user.-Scientryst (talk) 07:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Happy new year to you both. I'm particularly interested in the second master you talk about, and the account which is blocked for belonging to a banned user. It will be easier to discuss this via email. I'd appreciate if you can shoot me or Philippe a short email about this, or send an email to functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org or arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org in order to engage a larger set of people who are familiar with this problem.
Alternatively, if you want to avoid email, let me know here onwiki which account you are referring to as "blocked for belonging to a banned user" and I'll attempt to clarify the situation, in public if possible. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC) p.s. im about to archive this talk page, however please feel free to continue this discussion on my archived talk page.
Thank you, John, I'm especially interested in the user related to this deleted page, because they have been quite a problem recently, with lots of POV dumping on several pages from anonymous IPs. As you can see, it says they are a banned editor. But I don't see that name on the list of banned editors. So if you could clarify the situation, that would be helpful.-Scientryst (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
John, can you say whether the first master is a banned user? The second clearly is.-Scientryst (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I am still not sure which accounts you would like more information about.
re user:Physicrocks, they arnt blocked, and there isnt strong evidence to support them being blocked.
re Elliot McGucken, the users user:Verbapple and user:Detogain are the same person, and special:contributions/76.89.158.190 is very likely to be the same person. This person is banned, and their username (which is comprised of parts of their real name) is listed on WP:BANNED. This person has persistently been a real-world problem for the WMF and community members, which means WMF and English Wikipedia functionaries have been limited in what we can/should say publicly. The most extensive discussion on-wiki is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive 57#Strange edit summaries by Golumbo. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Vandenberg/Archive_13&oldid=1143092963"