User talk:SimonP/Archive 6

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Yasuke	13 Nov 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Hi Simon!

Request for Arbitration I hope I am doing this right. I would like to request arbitration and report gross abuses by the user/ adminstrator "Gwenol" who conducted a 1 WEEK block for an editor who made a good faith attempt to improve the "Jodie Foster" by adding just 3 words. Furthermore Gwenol proceeded to use page protection to gag the user from using his or her own talk page! Gwenol (or his allies) then took the extraordinary, unethical and unusual step of changing the history page record of the Jodie Foster article to erase even the hisotry of the attempt at improving the page and his revisions. Gwenol then threatened this user/editor, who was acting in good faith, with an lifetime ban! (Which I do not believe that he has the authority to do).

I hope the Committee will look into this along with the sarcastic, belittling and needling comments Gwendol puts about edits he does not like with the comment (to many good faith edits). "Thank you for experimenting with the page Jodie Foster on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed" He shuld know perfectly well these edits are not "experiments" but the hard work of peopkle trying to improve articles.

I believe Gwendol has abused his power as administrator to punish editors for content he does not like regardless of its relevance and truthfulness. I ask that Gwendol's SYSOPS and administrative powers be revoked or at the very least be suspended for 6 months. I also belive Mr. Gwendol owes me an apology for the intentional infliction of emotional distress he has caused me. Please consider my request for the betterment of the Wikicommunity and Wikipedia. Thank you very much. 71.111.117.99 09:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

REQUEST to Omura entry Arbitrators: THAT THE VERSION CURRENTLY PROTECTED NOT REMAIN DURING THIS PROCESS

I have spoken with Dr Omura today. He is deeply upset and troubled because of how he is being misrepresented on WP (by GenghizRat and Crum375). Dr Omura told me that many of the statements made by GenghizRat about him are gross misrepresentations that have no basis in reality. He wonders how someone who can remain without identity can be allowed to make such comments about him without him being able to address them via a lawyer as necessary.Richardmalter 07:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ceha and Operation Medak Pocket

I have seen that you also have been in quite a shit storm with Ceha on the article Operation Medak pocket. I could use your help in trying to get this ended once and for all. The dispute has gotten quite heated, and I have asked for RfC, which has had people come and state the ideas I had all along (and then of course Ceha says he agrees with them, but actions are different).

--Jadger 07:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dyslexic agnostic and T-man

I thought you should be aware of the latest developments: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Evidence#Fourth asserion. Dyslexic agnostic 16:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I HAVE HAD IT WITH CONSTANT ATTACKS BY T-MAN. The arbitration is just a further opportunity to attack and attack and attack, a relentless illegible onslaught. PLEASE JUST MAKE IT STOP! Dyslexic agnostic 05:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have expressed some concerns at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Proposed decision which you may wish to take a look at. Thanks. Dyslexic agnostic 20:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew

I've removed your 'ignore this discussion' comment from this page for what should be obvious reasons. The standard processes were followed here, the entire community was given a fair chance to say their piece, and, if you read the actual discussion, the consensus was VERY clear. Like it or not, until another discussion says different, that page should be considered an official guideline. --InShaneee 18:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it's been established that wikipedia policy can change over time and thus, as long as a clear consensus can be reached, the most current discussion should be considered the most relevant, and the only one to be used as a guideline. Secondly, this discussion was hardly clandestine, as it was posted on Wikipedia:Centralized discussion for weeks, which also means that any visitor to AfD could take a look at it. Incidentally, this is how I came across it, not because of any sort of advertisement. I have not removed your text again yet, but unless I hear a compelling argument, I plan to soon. --InShaneee 03:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking around to see what's been going on, I hope you forgive me for saying that I don't believe you may be acting in good faith here yourself. Without getting dragged into this mess myself, the long and short of it is simply that you were quite recently involved in a dispute with -Ril-. Also, it sounds ("He would also have contacted those who actually worked in the area") that you certainly have a vested interest in the topic as well (and for the last time, I don't CARE one way or the other on the topic, and I came across this on AfD as I'm sure others did). So, I'm still planning on removing that statement, but I would like to hear from someone not involved in all of this. I'll look into it on my own if you don't in the next few days. --InShaneee 03:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're missing my point. Now that this discussion is over, speedy reverting any such changes would be the innapropriate thing to do. Either way, I'm passing this issue off for a third opinion, but I still am going to recommend that the comment be removed. The bottom line remains: this discussion was put out for the whole community, and the results are plain to see. --InShaneee 21:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about 1993 Canadian election article

Hi, I was wondering which edition of Canadian Democracy by Stephen Brooks you used for the article Canadian federal election, 1993. I have the 3rd edition (published in 2000), but my page numbers don't sync up. Thanks, please leave an answer on my talk page. Andrew Levine 04:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NATO

I know that both the -ize and -ise spellings are used, but according to the Wikipedia MoS, the spelling of proper names should be retained. This applies to the British Labour Party, but also to the World Trade Organization (z) and to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (s). There are style guides that don't see organisation as a proper name, but this is a matter of perception. The Wikipedia guideline is very clear. NATO is officially spelled with 's', the organization even explains this policy on its website. SpNeo 23:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NATO itself freely uses both. If you search the NATO website you actually get more hits for "z" than you do for "s". - SimonP 23:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Many of the search results link to US-related NATO documents. If you look at the press releases, the "About"-section, the charter... you'll find that organisation is used consistently. SpNeo 23:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be right about the fact that both spellings are considered official by the organization. I'll stop changing the spelling in articles where -ize is used. But I'd still say that the -ise spelling is the preferred one. If you have a look at the main page at [1], you'll see that it's used in the title and all the sections of the website that are easily accessible. I guess it's NATO's house style to use organisation for the public and organisation or organization in internal documents and treaties. In the FAQ section, it says:

By tradition, NATO uses European English spellings in all public information documents. Common examples where differences occur between European and North American usage are the words “defence” and “defense”, and “Organisation” and “Organization”.

They are not quite right about that though, organization can also be used in Commonwealth English.SpNeo 09:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arab League template

Hi, then why did some countries such as Jordan and Tunisia already have the template to begin with? Some of the countries already had the template on there, so I figured I should add it to the rest of the Arab League nations to be consistent.

Also, why is the Gulf Cooperation Council template allowed but the Arab League template is not? This is double standards.

Thanks (MEA707 03:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Arbitration case

I've opened a new arbitration case against you. Please comment at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. - --Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 20:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Simon, an editor has been changing the order of the results of an election in riding article from the current standard (ordered by the number of votes the candidates received) to alphabetical order. I think we should develop a consensus. Given your past interest in these articles, your comments would be welcome at Wikipedia:WikiProject Electoral districts in Canada/Election results. Ground Zero | t 02:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Canada

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 04:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Hi SimonP/Archive 6, thanks for participating in my RfA discussion. Unfortunately, my fellow Wikipedians have decided at this time that I am not suitable to take on this additional responsibility, as the RfA failed with a result of 66/27/5 (71.0% support). If you voted in support of my request, thank you! If you decided to oppose me at this time, then I hope that if I do choose to reapply in the future, the effort I will make in the meantime to improve and expand my contributions to Wikipedia may persuade you to reconsider your position. All the best, Proto t c 10:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck

with your unfortunate arbitration case. The problem here is that there are three camps: people who have no problem with the articles, the mergists (who I have no problem with, though the merges will almost certainly have to be reversed in time), and the deletionists. And unfortunately some of the mergists have come under the misimpression that -Ril- is leading a campaign to merge bible verses. e.g. here. You'd think his six or seven attempts to delete all of them wholesale would clue them in. Anyway, best of luck and don't get too frustrated. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon: This is a minor point really, but I do think you should recuse yourself from arbitrating in a case against yourself. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 15:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Exactly how scholarly or amateur are those references you use for your Bible verse articles?

The article for 6:2 says:

There is no evidence that the Pharisees, and others seen as hypocrites, actually blew upon trumpets to publicize their giving, and Fowler feels it is unlikely they would have been so brazen. Lewis thinks the reference might be to the autumn public fasts, which would have been accompanied by the blowing of horns. Schweizer speculates that when the list of donors were read off in the Temple that especially large ones may have been accompanied by horns. Hendriksen thinks it unlikely that this would have been allowed. The expression "toot your own horn" for self-praise likely derives from this verse.

I've done a tiny tiny bit of googling on this and found out that:

trumpet is the word that the Talmud uses to refer to alms-boxes. In fact, the 13 alms-boxes in the Jewish Temple were shaped like trumpets (Sheḳ. v. 1 and Yer. 49, 3; 50b. 'Er. 32a and Giṭ. 60b, c.f. Josephus, "Antiquities of the Jews." xix. 61).

"Even the trumpet-shaped alms-holders seem to have been retained in the Church until the beginning of the fourth century, judging by the term conchœ"

"At any rate it is with an allusion to the trumpet-like form of the alms-box that Jesus said (Matt. vi. 2 et seq.)"

It's blatently used by Matthew as a deliberate parallel, and yet not one of your sources seems to mention it, if what you describe them as thinking is anything to go by. What they have come up with seems to be pure speculation - original research (on their part) if you will - and appears to have no basis in even the tiniest piece of academic research - I mean, how difficult is it to read the Talmud, or ask someone who has, or has done research on it, if you are an academic in the subject and really interested in finding out what the Jews did in regard to alms of the time? Especially when you consider that the information I found above is corroborated by some kind of famous Jewish public domain encyclopedia that's been around for decades.

And, while I'm asking questions, why are almost all of your sources Protestant? That hardly seems balanced to me. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 22:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. the expression is "blowing your own trumpet".

P.p.s.

You wrote (in the article):

"Fowler notes that some scholars argue that synagogue cannot here refer to the religious building, as charity was not distributed there"

This is the most stupid reasoning ever. Alms were collected at religious institutions, just as they are today all over the world. Of course it is referring to synagogues - its a reference to alms being collected in a synagogue - kind of absolutely totally obvious. Except maybe people whose reasoning is so clouded by religion that they are unable to accept that synagogues and charity could possibly go together. Do you know what they did with the alms that they collected? According to Josephus, the Talmud, and several other Jewish references (google can tell you a lot very quickly if you ignore all but the academic sources), they gave them out to synagogue schools to educate the poor. I.e. alms were distributed to synagogues - that was a major purpose of the alms - to educate the poor. So Fowler is doubly incompetant, and his/your use of "some scholars" seems like a weasly way to hide original research!!!!.

--Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 23:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And why do you go "Fowler/Albright/Bob/Dave/Alice thinks it means that people should X Y Z God A B C heaven", rather than "Protestants/Catholics/Whatever generally/officially/rarely think it means that people should X Y Z God A B C heaven" all the time? E.g. "The verse does not literally insist on pacifism" rather than "Although pacifists view the verse as being a clear indication that Jesus wished people to uphold strong and radical pacifism, others disagree". It strikes me that you are trying to assert a POV by selectively mentioning the viewpoints of commentators that agree with you or are straw men, and failing to mention the general views held by large religious groups on the matter. That's certainly one reason I can see for wanting to keep the articles split up into tiny verses so that there are thousands, rather than all in one noticable place that people can keep watch on. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 23:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Countship" (sic)

User:Fastifex is rapidly changing "county" to "countship", i.e. County of Foix, at every appearance. This strikes me as a particularly foolish Wikipedianism. What do you think? --Wetman 14:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deryni category

Thanks for categorizing my entries. Gaah, I didn't even think there was a category out there for it. I have more to enter to finish off the line of Kings and to add the pretenders, then I want to go back and add a succession box on each page and fill in the red links. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of help. - SimonP 23:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AUFORN Cleanup

Hi SimonP,

you've tagged the AUFORN article for cleanup which considering the content at the moment should probably be immediate deletion. I'm trying to introduce some Wikipedia newbies to editing Australian Ufology but we are having difficulty with the original contributor of the article, User:vufors. The newbies were met with IIRC 7 revisions in the space of 6 hours with no negotiation and immediate spam and vandal warnings to frighten them off, which it did until I stepped in.

The info they want added I placed in the AUFORN article to be edited for inclusion in the Aus Ufology article when things settle down. Unfortunately a new user User:auforn4u who I think is IP 202.83.73.188 also associated with the user vufors has defaced the page with inappropriate links to Amazon products and a long list of personal information they seem to have lifted from the AUFORN Yahoo membership. They also placed personal info and details on the Talk:AUFORN page concerning myself and are trying to stir up trouble.

I was going to wait it out for a bit and try negotiating with vufors but this recent vandalism is rather outrageous. Could you please step in and help sort it out?

--Zeug 15:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KJV

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KJV. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KJV/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KJV/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 16:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page name for temperature articles

To avoid flip-flopping between 'degree Fahrenheit' and 'Fahrenheit' or 'degree Celsius' and 'Celsius', I propose that we have a discussion on which we want. I see you have contributed on units of measurement, please express your opinion at Talk:Units of measurement. Thanks. bobblewik 23:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Shefman

(The last post seemed like self-promotion to me. No need for that on Wikipedia.) You guys have been blanking others for this reason like deputy Mayor Mario Ferri. How can you justify an interim local Concillor like Shefman be more worthy of a page than the Mayor, deputy Mayor, regional counillors or even "full-time" local counillors? Shefman's page is nothing more than a self promotion posted by his son and updated by himself.--69.156.151.42 03:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basicly you are saying this article of a "interim" councillor deserves to have the self promotion content but all other more senior positions "full-time councillors, regional councillors, Deputy Mayor and Mayor don't deserve this as you guys keep blanking there article. Also, why do you keep taking the "interim" portion out of this article to give the false impression that he is a full term councillor? If you insist that this article stays as is then revert all the other more senior articles. --69.156.151.42 16:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for monitoring the Shefman article, we also need to keep an eye on the Sandra Racco article, the guy has been blanking that one as well. pm_shef 00:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion

Hi, I hope you are not planning on indescrimnate reversion of my edits. It seems this is just the sort of behaviour that you are accused of in arbitration. Please also see Wikipedia:Administrators#Reverting. If you want ot discuss the meanings of the word, you had only to ask, rather than just say "I am reverting a few of your edits" then block reverting. Rich Farmbrough. 22:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. The distinction is not as clear cut as perhaps might first seem the case.

OED agrees that legal requirement is included in "oblige" (as opposed to obligate), in its lengthy articles. More accessibly the American Heritage Dictionary says " To constrain by physical, legal, social, or moral means." Mirrim Webster has "to constrain by physical, moral, or legal force or by the exigencies of circumstance".

Furthermore Webssters 1828 made the reverse distinction, saying of "Obligate" "Until recently, the sense of this word has been restricted to positive and personal acts; and when moral duty or law binds a person to do something, the word oblige has been used. But this distinction is not now observed."

There are of course cicumstances where "obligate" is to be preferred, in direct quotes and in the technical senses of the word from finance and more importantly biology.

Rich Farmbrough. 23:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Obliged" versus "obligated"

Hi. You might be interested in this: "Obliged" versus "obligated". --Doradus 13:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Help

I appreciate your help with my autocross disambiguation page. Would you be willing to look over my Geo Storm article and offer some constructive criticism? Evenprime 15:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zero

Here is some more proofs that Zero continue edit wars in the last 48 hours including removal of well sourced material .

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

This maybe of value:

[7] it is clear that Zero is using wikipedia against this directive in his case from 2004:

"Wikipedia is not a vehicle for political advocacy or propaganda, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not which states that Wikipedia articles are not to used for "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind".

Zeq 21:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T-Man ban

I also want to state that I think a six-month ban of T-Man is highly excessive, and further it is beyond the jurisdiction of this body at this time. His current one-month ban should be left, after which he is of course subject to scrutiny, and I hope would not conduct further personal attacks. A six-month ban all at once is unfair. I thought this was MY arbitration (see my name in the title: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Proposed decision?) It would be procedurally unfair to ban T-man without him having the opportunity to defend himself; he didn't know he faced sanction at all in these proceedings! His comments were dedicated to showing why I should be banned or restricted. I think it is very important that this ban NOT be put in place, since T-man is entitled to make answer and defence. Dyslexic agnostic 01:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

As a retalvly new user at Wikipedia I have only came accross this page Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes in part of your decision in my ArbCom case.

It is enfortunate that I was not ware of this page before cause it would have allowed me ways to seeq what i have ben looking for in the case of Artcle Palestinia_Exodus which is ways to get wider participations and mediators.

I have noticed that ArbCom is mentioned only as "last resort"

Therefor I would like to make a motion to suspend the ArbCom case and to first ensure the dispute over this article goes through all the steps mention in the Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes policy. If I am not mistaken it is actually a pre-condition to any ArbCom case.

Thank You. Zeq 14:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I have mentioned many times I would not mind voluntarlity banning myself from this article once a mechanism to make it NPOV is found.

Zeq 14:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian -> Islamic.

I noticed you have been changing back the edits of an anon editor who keeps changing Iranian to Islamic in articles. I see you are a trusted editor so I have been trying to change back any more of these edits I see, mainly now from 217.17.241.51. Zootsuits 11:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

De-stub inquiry.

Good day,

Thanks for the correcting the empty "Kansas" link at the Ottawa Board of Education stub.

I also noticed that you removed the stub tag from the article; could you please explain why you took that action? Folajimi^(talk)

My arbitration case

Hi SimonP,

As you know, I am one of the editors in danger of getting banned from 1948 Arab-Israeli War. I hope you will look examine the actual issue carefully before placing your vote. At least do take a look at some other proposed proposed decisions in the Workshop.

I know Zeq has been utterly counter-productive, at times rude during this case. I do not support his style, and tried to tell him to take it easy per e-mail a couple of times, apparently without success.

I hope that arbitration case stays on the issue, which is (for the 1948 Arab-Israeli War) the legitimacy of the quotations of Haj Amin al-Husayni. Two quotations are disputed, you will find sources here , and here.

With best regards, -- Heptor _talk 23:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Do feel free to contact me either on my talk page or per e-mail if I left something unclear. -- Heptor _talk 03:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

gonomad linkspam

Hi. I noticed you removed a lot of the spam from 71.195.200.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Just wanted to say that he's still at it, and I gave him a {{spam}} today. If you'll give such people the {{spam}}, {{spam2}}, and {{spam3}} templates, it'll help give them the message that they are not allowed to spam us and will not be permitted to get away with it. Sometimes people so warned simply give up.

You might also like to check out the linkspam brigade. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 19:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Match Point

Could you please follow-up at Talk:Match Point about that article's subtext section? Thanks. Kayaker 11:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Dead End Pages

Aaarghhhh!! You've erased all my progress on the WP:DEP!!! Just kidding. :D James084 16:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Hill moves

You were quite right to move Grant Hill back to Grant Hill (basketball) and Grant Hill (disambiguation) back to Grant Hill after I cut-and-pasted them to new locations. The move is legitimate, I feel, but the methods I undertook were not. So I put it up on Wikipedia:Requested moves. The reason I didn't do that in the first place is because there was already a move vote on the page, which passed, but someone unilaterally moved it back, so I figured (wrongly) there was no harm in cut-and-pasting. OK, well, that's all I had to say. Thanks for your time, and if you'd like to discuss the matter further, please drop a line on my talk page. :) StarryEyes 23:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alpa Discucssion expansion

Hi SimonP

I'm the author of most of the discussion on Alpa cameras.

I'm wondering what you'd like expanded.

I had edited the Alpa subject to include information about the Japanese Alpa cameras. Someone else edited my text to indicate these cameras had no connection to the actual Swiss Alpa company. According to my information, this was incorrect - after citing a book I feel is reliable, and waiting a week for rebuttal, I corrected the main Alpa page, and incorporated references.

I'm new to this, so hopefully I'm following protocol.

Regards,

Mark

Hostility

Can you please explain to me your hostility and why you persist in deleting everything I do around here??? I would like an answer.WHEELER 18:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External Links are just that External Links. I realize in the tight-parameters of Wikipedia, original research is not allowed. That is why I work in Wikinfo and not here. My work has a sort of permanence there that it wouldn't stand a chance on at Pseudopedia.
External links are for more information that Wikepedia will not allow as an article. I present those links so people have room to grow and learn. Let them be the judges. I don't see where you judge and executioner of "what is allowed or what is not allowed". Wikipedia says it is "open content". There is no problems with external links. The ones I have posted are legitimate areas of facts.
Furthermore, you complain of quality of material "not good enough". Things do improve over time. Quality can always be improved. That is what wikipedia is all about. It never asks for perfection right off the bat and for you to take this stand is hypocritical.
Now you can certainly waste precious server equipment and time with your childish games--that is your perogative. I hope other monetary contributors see you as you really are.WHEELER 20:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, you are not a classicist. You have NO ability to judge content of classical subjects. I, on the the other hand have proven my capability and ability thoroughly.

Second, from the rules on external links "Pages that contain a substantial fraction of factually inaccurate material or which contain unverified original research should not be linked to if there is scholary or scientific concensus about the subject and especially if the unverified original research contradicts this concensus" Notice the word: "unverified", the two links have extensive references. It is verifiable. Next, this all comes out of Prof. Muller's book. This is a professor who Prof. Werner Jaeger called "brilliant" a hundred years later. So it is NOT even original research.

Third, you accuse with "A website that you own or maintain", Wikinfo is NOT a private site nor is it maintained by me. It is a public site. It is a Wiki site. Just as valid as Wikipedia.

Fourth, Do you wonder why you need so much server space?? Why do you need so much money to run Wikipedia, is that most of the trouble here at Wikipedia is "edit" wars. This is simply caused by the Wikipedia policy itself but mostly by immature people. You are not a classicist, you could care less. I know that you are a British Republican and you have your POV which you seek to "protect" and I think you are just a tad bit hypocritical in that your POV is the basis of censorship. I have found with dealing with you that anything that threatens your British republican viewpoint---gets deleted.

The work I present is necessary for the understanding of Classical millieu. Which is lacking in the Wikipedia articles. It is fine if you don't want them here on Wikipedia, there is no problem with it being an external link. Wikipedia and Wikinfo exist to INFORM people. that is my purpose as well. I write about obscure things that people would be interested to know.

The Articles I put as External links ARE the NPOV to the slant of the Wikipedia articles.WHEELER 20:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You write: "because no one else believes that "Doric Crete is the progenitor of much of the institutions found in Doric Sparta." Now if you read down further you will find that I quote extensively from Prof. Karl Otfried Muller's TWO VOLUME WORK on the Dorians and their History. What have YOU READ??? So again this is baloney.

Will Durant who has done more work than you quotes Pausanius who said "Most Greeks believed that the institutions of Sparta came from Crete". Here is another source---a Classical source.

You are perfectly alright to go to Wikinfo and place an article for an opposing viewpoint. You can do that. That is the beauty of Wikinfo.

Secondly, I can not help if there is not a lot of interest out there for Doric History or their Culture. I can not help the situation out there that there are more people interested in that. I can not help if I am the ONLY contributor of those facts. It is beyond MY CONTROL. Wikinfo is open to all--you can also edit and contribut articles over there. There is not too many contributors there or here that can contribute to Classical studies; esp on Doric culture. So you complain about things, I have NO control over. (Remember, Wikinfo has different rules than Psuedowiki here. The ariticles can be written as SPOV.

Laconophobes like yourself, Paul Cartledge, Victor Hanson and Septronolis don't care for that culture and furthermore downright hate it. How can truth be written by Laconophobes? It is an oxymoron.

The Cretan/Spartan connection is an necessary article for understanding Classical culture and Doric culture. It is a necessity. I understand that it can not be allowed under Wikipedia rules that is why I am making it an external link. But you are not a classical scholar and you are not qualified to make any decision on it, but I guess that doesn't bother you nor the powers that be.WHEELER 23:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:votingtemplates

Thank you for alerting me, as I did not realize that at the time I created the templates. I will put a message up on the page I am using them on to alert the users not to use them elsewhere; I do ask, however, that you allow me to continue using them until the debate on this page is over, as the templates are the only things showing the votes. I apprecite your compassion in advance. Thank you! --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 20:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wheeler

I debased the Doric truth of banausos, so I might not be an improvement. In any case, while I'm glad to help revert, I'm already dealing with two True Believers Septentrionalis 01:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shefman AfD

Hey, someone recently nominated the Alan Shefman article for deletion. This is despite the fact that the community had previously agreed that all members of Vaughan City Council are entitled to Wiki Articles. I'd appreciate if you voted to keep in order to maintain the integrity of the Vaughan Council series of articles. pm_shef 05:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reform

Wikipedia began as an open effort to create an encyclopedia of the people, by the people, for the people. Sadly, its bureaucracy has put an end to those goals. To this end, we must promote a peaceful revolution to reform it. We must eliminate the undue influence of certain people and remake Wikipedia as a people's encyclopedia. We, the reformers, are led by TJWhite who endured only briefly before suffering an indefinite block. Visit his user page to see our ideology, roughly outlined. I for one do not condone his call to vandalism. Instead, by using the power of the people, we can reform wikipedia. Join us to recreate an encyclopedia where all are equal; an encyclopedia that does not strive to become Brittannica, but rather seeks to be a one of kind encyclopedia for all of the people of the world. Please pass this message in some form to as many people as you can. Secondly, petition for the unblock of TJWhite, the one who began our glorious movement. Finally, link to his page from your user page and express your sentiments for reform on your page. Thank You, fellow wikipedians. LaRevolution 15:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- As per your comments on my talk page, yes Wikipedia has always aspired to be better than Britannica. However, it has never been Wikipedia's goal to do so by becoming Brittannica. Wikipedia is and was a unique kind of opportunity for and by all, not an encyclopedia to be dominated by a handful of obssessive personalities as it is becoming. Wikipedia will never become better than Brittannica at doing what Brittannica does, it will become better by winning at its own game. It is the openness of Wikipedia that makes it great; an oppenness that is disappearing. LaRevolution 15:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Furthermore, I do have a fairly good idea about what are and are not encouraged practices, but I do not view spreading my message as spam, and there is no other way to spread my message. LaRevolution 15:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amyloblast

I noticed you edited this article once just recently, and thought you would be as good as anyone to tell. I think the article is meant to be talking about ameloblast, which as we can see already has its own article (though granted a stub). Now, I do not know everything concerning tooth development, but when I added the info to the tooth development article I never ran across anything called an "amyloblast", but there are for certain ameloblasts. Maybe amyloblast is a mispelling or an alternative spelling? In any case, would you agree that amylobast should be deleted or used as a redirect to the older article, ameloblast? - Dozenist talk 04:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ment Kao Pechita

Thanks for finding that Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than two years redirect - that was good detective work. GRuban 14:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Russell Hotel (Ottawa)

The LAC seems to believe the fire and the demolition were both in 1927... and the extlk at the article gives a 404. Lupo 15:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zero is edit warring.....Again

Zeri is edit warring again. This is what one editor had to say about the propeganda sources he is using:

[8]

ArbCom should have acted in a more equal way and you can still fix it before closing the arbitration. Zeq 05:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blog link - LVM Instititute Link

SimonP - I looked into the CSB project as mentioned on Talk:Somalia. I wholeheartedly agree with the principles. I'm not quite sure what it has to do with the LVMI link. I would love to hear your thoughts. In any case I won't reference it again. You are an administrator. If a reference made by multiple users is so far from policy you would know better than me. Cheers. HSchickel 00:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the quick response. I'm still a bit confused about the rules. WP Guide...External Links seems to allow POV linking if it's referenced in the article or as a source or for further reading. Somalia is currently a very interesting place to many people. Economists are especially interested. The majority of them have a strong POV. It seems we could write about topics that contain POV in an NPOV way. I'm curious, if the article read something along the lines of,

"AUTHOR/ECONOMIST/NEWSPAPER/JOURNAL stated the following about Somalia, 'STATEMENT, STATEMENT, STATEMENT.'" and other "AUTHOR/ECONOMIST/NEWSPAPER/JOURNAL stated the following about Somalia, 'STATEMENT, STATEMENT, STATEMENT.'" w/ references and external links for backup...

Would that be acceptable? Or does Somalia's status as a country mean POV topics cannot be discussed in even an NPOV way? I'd love any suggestions you may have for a proper (CSB/NPOV) way of handling this type of information in articles (especially if some articles work under more stringent rules and this is an example). HSchickel 22:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Ghost

Why did you alphabetise Amanda Ghost in Category:British musicians as "host"? JIP | Talk 07:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed your reversion of this template; I created it as I was finding instances of people using the talk-page {{expansion}} on article pages. If there has been a consensus to keep expansion templates away from article pages – which seems odd to me – then I'd appreciate your directing me to it. In the meantime, perhaps {{expansion}}'s mention of being "on [a] talk page" needs to be made more apparent? Regards, David Kernow 19:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have continued to find use of {{expansion}} and {{expand}} on article pages, so have amended {{expansion}} for use on either article or talk pages. Hope that is a workable compromise. Regards, David Kernow 11:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew 1:9 on AFD

I have listed it there to see if there is consensus for the redirect per Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/200_verses_of_Matthew. kotepho 20:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Doris Anderson's date of birth.

I've changed it, but if you have a better source[9] please change it back or add that there are conflicting sources. Thanks. -- Jeandré, 2006-03-18t11:43z

History of France

Simon- could you have a look at whats going on with France in the nineteenth century and France in modern times? I'm not in agreement with the changes, but could use your insight. --NYArtsnWords 20:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bible-text articles

I stumbled on the articles you've made about some Bible chapters and verses (Matthew 1, for instance) and it's really impressive what you've done. Thank you!

I see that some editors don't think Wikipedia is the right place for it. I don't know what the outcome of that discussion will be, but I know one thing: this is great stuff and should be kept active. If it ultimately doesn't remain in Wikipedia, I hope you'll put it up as a Wikibook.

Greg Price 07:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of Message at User talk:Mushroom

I am the wife of User:Danny B. (usurped), as he advised the Wikipedia Welcomer User:Wiki alf and we log in from the same office computer. We don’t contribute all that often and so it came as quite a surprise to Danny to find himself blocked by you and this message on his user page:

This user is a sock puppet of Ted Wilkes, as established by Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser/Archive/March 2006#Ted Wilkes (talk • contribs) and related accounts,

Because you provided no explantion for your actions on his talk page, it took me some time to track it down. At the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard [10] you wrote:

"See this request for CheckUser: Ted Wilkes, Danny B. (usurped) and Karl Schalike are the same person." Mushroom (Talk) 06:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I note that this statement by you was posted immediately after Danny complained on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents [11] about vandalism by Onefortyone which you did nothing about.

However, at Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser/Archive/March 2006 User:Sam Korn who did the checking said only:

"Ted Wilkes, Danny B. (usurped) and Karl Schalike appear likely to be the same."

Your action appears to have been based on a message left on your talk page by User:Onefortyone [12], someone on probation who I see has been banned by User:Stifle from editing certain articles for a time as result of his repeated violations of his probation and someone that numerous others have complained about. (User:MrDarcy, User:Arniep, User:Lochdale, User:Func, User:DropDeadGorgias and if I looked a little further, I'm swure I would find plenty more).

Mushroom, I think it is right to assume that a Wikipedia:Administrator has the responsibility for stating facts, not making quick guesses to spin there own version of what User:Sam Korn who did the checking said. Your rush to judgment has forced me to do a lot of searching all over Wikipedia for no reason. I will unblock my husband and place copies of this message on the talk page of each member of the Arbitration Committee.

Just for the record, because my husband has an interest, I am the one who pointed him to the non-encyclopedic material being pushed by User:Onefortyone after I came across a nonsensical contradiction in on of the articles he edited. I also come from a small city with one of the highest number of writers per capita in Canada and where Wikipedia has a high profile and where I know from the local newspaper(s) and business/social associations that there are a number of Wikipedia editors. - Cynthia B. 19:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, Cynthia B. is identical with User:Ted Wilkes alias multiple hardbanned User:DW alias User:JillandJack. Both Cynthia B. and DW/JillandJack or Ted Wilkes contributed to the following articles: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19],etc. This suggests that DW alias Ted Wilkes has created many more sockpuppets, as DW did in the past. Onefortyone 23:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Societal Attitudes Towards Homosexuality

Simon,

The article "Societal attitudes towards homosexuality" is being used, not for the benefit of the reader, but to promote the agenda of a well-organized group of gay advocates. I can provide you with many examples if you would like. I have gone through all of the proper channels to raise a red flag about this.

The first item on the "workshop" page is a request to "remove the article" [20]. But, so far, that option has not been added to the "proposed remedies" section of the "requests for arbitration" page [21].

I hope that you will seriously consider adding this remedy to "proposed remedies" section, as that is the only remedy that will actually correct the problem.

Best Regards, Lou franklin 03:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Economic impact of AIDS

As you are a member of the WikiProject Business and Economics, your help is kindly requested in the section of the AIDS article linked to above. Any help would be appreciated. --Bob 18:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turnout.png

Hi,

By any chance could you redo the graph Image:Turnout.png with the origin at 0? I think we should strive to be accurate in depicting trends, and putting the origin at ~45 distorts what's happening.

Thanks! Tempshill 02:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agapetos Arbitration

I'm sorry to spam your talk page, but this seemed serious enough to directly put on your talk page. I have evidence that AiG has actively had employees push their POV on the AiG page and possibly on related pages. I have added a new evidence section in the Agapetos arbitration to that effect, explaining the evidence. Due to the very serious nature of this accusation and its possible implications for Wikipedia, I decided to directly alert all of the ArbCom members. JoshuaZ 01:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JoshuaZ retracted this in evidence because it was erroneous, but failed to mention it on your talk page. agapetos_angel 07:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's highly inaccurate. I qualified the evidence in question. The user wasn't an employee but was specifically asked by an employee. See my evidence section and Standon's for details, and Agapetos, please don't put words in my mouth. JoshuaZ 13:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good day

I'm having a bril iant day! --Doc ^ask? 15:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

I am conducting a survey on Wikipedia and would like to invite you to participate in the study. I've posted a message on wikien-l, but here is the link again in case you are not subscribed to that list-serv. Thanks a lot for your time! ----Mermes 22:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save "List of school pranks" From Deletion

Hi, the article List of school pranks has been targeted by the Wikipedia Thought Police™. Please help preserve this marvellous testament to human inventiveness—and cruelty—from certain extinction by voting Keep at the article's deletion page if you haven't already done so. May algid reason never reign supreme! Thanks, Maikel 15:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC) PS: This is a generic message that has been hand-posted to you as a former contributor—hope you don't mind.[reply]

Gospel of Judas

You may be interested in the Gospel of Judas [22]. KI 19:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom

Greetnigs, Simon. Noticed you hadn't been active on arbcom for a while; over a month, in fact, so I moved you to the inactive list. (I don't blame you for wanting to edit the main namespace more, mind! :-P) Just letting you know so you could move yourself back when you participated again. Cheers, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Again

Just reminding you to remember Hidden Lake Academy. I'm back and been keeping my eye on it, but check out what IP 166.102.251.209 attempted yesterday. --Yodamace1 19:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi see this afd:here

Your userpage

Hi Simon, your userpage seems to have been duplicated by another user. I have asked him to fix the issue but I thought you'd like to know. — mark ✎ 11:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Matthew?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. Shaunckennedy (talk · contribs) appeared and created this article (on Hebrew Matthean primacy) and a userpage from scratch. So not a new user. Someone has afd'd the article. I've not had time to look at the content. But I smell trouble. Incidently the user appeared just as -Ril- vanished. --Doc ^ask? 22:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St James Town

That's a cool picture of my neighbourhood you uploaded for the article on Saint James Town! Do you live in the area too?--Sonjaaa 06:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Plan

This is an excellent article, but I have a comment nonetheless... :-) IMHO the importance of the MP was that the victors in World War II actually learned from history and did not want to repeat the mistakes of the Treaty Of Versailles. This is mentioned in the body of the article, but perhaps there could be more emphasis of it? Especially since the initial overview mentions questions of motivation and effectiveness. While the MP might not have been a miraculous salve to Europe, it sprang from an attitude that the losers should not be kept in total submission. I don't think that effectiveness of this attitude can be dismissed? I don't have the command of the material to write this myself. I'm also posting this in the article discussion. --Postagoras 18:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baptism of Jesus article

Hi,

I've made some edits to the Baptism of Jesus article -- some shallow, some deeper. I'd like to get consensus on them.

Thanks, --jrcagle 02:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KJV

A final decision having been reached, the above arbitration case has been closed.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 23:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arb Case Mistake

Hi, im confused about something said in a report on the Arbirition case against me.

In this report, it states that i had warred on Gothic Metal, and been placed on Probation. It also says i violated WP:CITE. I want to know how this came about, when both myself and User:Parasti provided diffs to me citing sources. It also says this as a 'finding of fact'. In which case, here is the speficic sections which falsly accuse me of not providing sources, and the evidence that supported this, and the accompnying diffs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Leyasu#Failure_to_cite_sources_and_original_research

Finding Of Fact Contrary To Provided Diffs

Diff from Evidence, Diff from Evidence, Diff from Evidence, taken from Parasti's Evidence. Diff from Evidence, taken from [Evidence] Diff from Evidence, taken from Leys Evidence. Diff from Evidence, Diff from Evidence taken from Leys Evidence Diff from Evidence, Diff from Evidence, taken from Leys Evidence

I even went as far as to quoting and explaining the sources on the talk page, [23].

I got all these diffs from the archive of the Arbirition case, Here.

I just want to know why all eight claimed i provided no sources, even though another involved party provided diffs of me providing sources, and i repeatedly gave diffs of me supplying sources. Im not having a go, im just confused how 8 Arbirrators managed to claim a 'finding of fact' despite over 10 diffs from two different users =\ Ley Shade 15:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Freguesias of Portugal

Hello! Probably you don't remember, but in January of 2005 you created the Category:Freguesias of Portugal. I decided to move it into Category:Parishes of Portugal as it is a good translation, present in the best Portuguese-English dictionaries and it also the common translation here in Wikipedia. Maybe you have something to say, or a good motive to name it like that, maybe you don't even remember it. Anyway, say something if you want. Thanks! Afonso Silva 20:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need to list it? From the Category redirect template I understood that it was enough, sorry. Anyway, I'll only list after moving the articles to other category, and that can't be done by a bot (I think) because I'm not just moving them from Category:Freguesias of Portugal to Category:Parishes of Portugal, instead, I'm moving them to . Thanks for you diligence! Cheers! Afonso Silva 19:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		You've probably got millions of these somewhere, but I figure you deserve yet another. Here it is: The Tireless User Barnstar. Jared W 10:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

regarding "civility"

I was disgusted, but not terribly surprised, to see that six members of the Arbitration Committee -- Dmcdevit, Fred Bauder, JamesF/James D. Forrester, Sean Barrett/The Epopt, Charles Matthews and Jayjg -- condone hate speech and hateful epithets directed at the mentally disabled, and consider condemnation of that hate speech to be unacceptable behavior on Wikipedia -- behavior, in fact, so unacceptable that they say they find it a compelling reason to punish me.

I was a bit more surprised when an earlier form of this letter (differing only in describing the status of the pending arbitration, aside from this paragraph) was banned without explantion from the Wikipedia mailing list where such topics could supposedly be discussed. But I was appalled when discussions on that list, regarding a named editor, turned to open derision of the editor's supposed emotional/mental impairments, and that one Arbitration Committee member participated in the abuse.

As someone who has been involved for more than thirty years, professionally and nonprofessionally, in attempting to protect and to advance the rights of the mentally disabled, and as someone who for many years has served, and continues to serve as a guardian for such disabled members of my community. I find the use of such epithets grossly offensive; they are clearly inconsistent with Wikipedia's supposed commitment to civility. They form no part of civil discourse in any circumstances. They are particularly deserving of condemnation because they are directed toward, in very real terms attack, and have the greatest tendency to injure, a class of people who are less able, sometimes unable, to defend themselves, to resist the impact, or to respond on equal terms. [And, as a note to the politically correct, it is for that reason that I will not use the abominable term "mentally challenged," because it denies (sometimes grossly minimizes) the imbalances of social power that inhere in the relationships between the mentally disabled and the "unchallenged" elements of any community.]

It should be no secret, no obscure facet of social fabric, that the mentally disabled, particularly the mentally retarded, are at greater risk than almost any other segment of a society. More likely to be the victims of physical attacks. More likely to be neglected by governments, particularly when their needs are greatest. In the relatively rare instances when they have substantial assets, they are more likely to have their assets stolen, particularly at the hands of those actors on whom a government has conferred power over them. They are more likely to be degraded and exploited by industries which purport to protect them and to serve their interests. More like to be the victims of sexual assaults, particularly of organized, group sexual assaults.

The casual use of such hateful epithets does not only harm the individuals it targets. It causes pain, often great pain to many others. It regularly inflicts pain on those with brothers and sisters, with parents, with children, with friends, with acquaintances, even with clients, who are abused and dehumanized by such behavior. It regularly inflicts pain on so many of those who deal, day by day, with lesser mental and emotional impairments, whether they choose to acknowledge those impairments, publicly or privately, or not.

I am quite proud that a self-styled community which apparently condones such behavior and condemns opposition to it finds me such a danger to it and its values that it is preparing to forcibly separate me from it. Nothing I have contributed to this curious place makes me more proud, and I doubt anything else could.

Monicasdude

Not licensed, no rights released

Hinduism in France

Ever considered starting it?--Dangerous-Boy 20:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candy Punk

Just a heads-up I started working on the Candy_punk stub again and hopefully I can get it up to full article status by the end of the month.--Lzygenius 19:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irgendwer RfC

I've filed a request request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Irgendwer and your input would be appreciated. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 05:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War accident

Hello your edit on the war article got altered by me out of accident. I can not duplicate your edit because then I will fall victim to the 3rvert rule so go back if you so wish to the war article and make your edit again (Deng 00:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Just in case...

Moulder has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

You might be interested

As someone who has edited List of Canadian heroes and heroines you might be interested to see that it has been suggested for deletion (or some other form of bastardization). Care to join in the discussion? Sunray 00:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Kerma

Why did you remove the cleanup tag by removing that one paragraph? I'm curious as I think the short paragraph has some worthy information, if not as interesting as other aspects.

Yom 15:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me. — Yom 00:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:College Park.jpg

Thought I'd let you know that one of your images has been tagged. --Skeezix1000 12:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. I don't usually watchlist my images, so I might not have noticed that I forgot to tag that one. - SimonP 14:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Arbitration Duties

Now that you're back to regular editing, do you intend to resume your arbitration duties anytime soon? Editor88 21:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from repentant vandal

Thank You Bacl-presby 00:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC) 00:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiLove!

Here's a pizza for you! Pizzas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others using Template:smile! Happy editing! ~Linuxerist (talk · contribs)

Riding Names

Are you confusing a hyphen and an en-dash? I'm changing to en-dashes, not hyphens, and I've done it to a ton of pages. An em-dash is for other purposes entirely. I think we'd better talk before any more moves are made either way. OZLAWYER talk 19:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for causing trouble. :( OZLAWYER talk 20:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

I think you may know I started creating articles about the Guantanamo detainees, starting with Canadian detainee Omar Khadr.

When the DoD released the names, and ID numbers of the detainees on April 20th that made it possible to cross-reference the names with the 6,000 pages of transcripts, to locate each detainees transcript(s). Correlating the documents, located in 75 large .pdf files, with the list of names, by the detainee numbers was a lot of work. But I did it.

I then started articles on every detainee who attended his Combatant Status Review Tribunal, with links to their transcript(s). I thought this was important. I am not aware of any other place on the internet that allows a reader to find a detainee's transcript. I've summarized the testimony from many of those transcripts. And I plan to summarize the transcripts from all of them, if other's don't beat me to it first. But at the rate of a couple of dozen per week, the task won't be finished for months -- if I am the only one working on it.

Well, yesterday, someone from the recent changes patrol, and the new articles patrol, nominated the Shaker Aamer article for deletion, and announced their intention to delete all articles about Guantanamo detainees, if that {afd} succeeds. I guess that the the nominator doesn't realize the appearance of bad faith and malice it offers, since they made no effort to discuss their concerns, or even indicate their dissatisfaction with my efforts, back in April, before I put another hundred hours or more into the task. If they are on the new article and recent changes patrol they presumably noticed my activities back then.

Anyhow, I am guessing that you might be someone who would support the efforts to document the circumstances of the detainees' incarceration, the allegations they faced, and their testimony in their defense. -- Geo Swan 20:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your Northwest Passage edit

I went to make the same edit and you had beaten me by 2 minutes! Absolutely concur with your comment on Menzies: "not really a source we should be directing people to for creditable information". I hate to think of what the ice would have done to a fleet of non-hardened, wooden ships had they really gone up into the Arctic. --A. B. 21:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks

I have responded to the note you left on my talk page. I would ask for further clarification of your position on that talk page in light of your mass reverting of my last contribs.

-- Argon233 ^T C _{_@ ∉} 21:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the dispute in Health insurance, so I created a stub for Fee-for-service if you guys would like to check it out. Cheers! -AED 23:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism Images

Thanks for the heads up. I've changed the liscensing for the pair of images, Image:Police in Pickering.jpg and Image:Toronto SWAT Agent.jpg. Theonlyedge 22:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Domar aggregation

Hi.. i put update notice coz the model has to be derived without which article is incomplete,as im bad with economics derivation i hoped sumone will drop by.. Thankyou --Sartaj beary 23:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey.. thanks for the info, i actuly confused {{update}} with {{expand}}.i also go with your view on stub, see you around.--Sartaj beary 21:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of international terrorist attacks in Canada

Hi there, I've added some comments to the talk page of this article regarding your revert of my page move. Your response would be appreciated over there. Thanks. -- cmh 15:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg new revert war at Ahmadinejad and Israel

I would like you to take a look at the removal by Jayjg of a section in the article. [24] This section was first inserted in mid April, when the speech was widely reported internationally. Jayjg removed it not only without suggesting an alternative, but did not make any mention of the fact that he had removed it in the discussion section. That major change was first discussed after two reversions by other people when I brought it up in the discussion section. I restored it to the state it had existed for six weeks pending a compromise being reached in discussion but it was reverted by a different user. I removed all quotations except one so that the section fit better with the others. Jayjg reverted that also.[25] I find this behavior offensive from anyone, especially an arbcom member. TopRank 16:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section in question was just a near verbatim reproduction of an uninteresting speech by Ahmadinejad; as part of a cleanup of the article I removed it and explained clearly why in my edit summary. It was subsequently moved to Wikiquote. The removal has also been discussed at length on the Talk: page. None of that constitutes "Jayjg new revert war", and your spamming of this duplicate message on the Talk: page of every single ArbCom member is highly disruptive. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I always I admired your work

I always thought you were a pretty good editor, though at times I have strongly disagreed with your judgement. I have been blocked for 3 months for one instance of personal attacks. I'd like to be unblocked so I could run for adminship. So far no admin has been willing to help me, mostly because I dont think there are any who dont hate me for one reason or another, most justifiably so. My current account, User:Tchadienne, was indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of the account I've been using for the last several months (User:KI), and my KI account was blocked for 3 months after I revealed who I am. Unblock me, por favor. freestylefrappe 00:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems more like a persistent series of personal attacks than a single instance, but I do agree that a three months block after several months of good editing is excessive. I'll talk to the admin who blocked you and see if they will lessen it. - SimonP 01:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I'm blocking KI permanently and then reblocking his new account for 1 week. That should be enough. Sasquatch t|c 01:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Election arbitration

You ask "We have certainly imposed restrictions against user behaviour at certain articles, but have we ever ruled that an article was of such low quality that it needed an Arbcom enforced drive to improve it?"

The nearest case I can recall is the Neuro-linguistic programming arbitration. There it was decided that:

Inadequate sourcing
2) Most of the cited sources in the article do not meet minimum standards for reliable sources, lacking information regarding page number and identification of edition.

Passed 9-0

Ascribing points of view
3) The article could more closely conform to neutral point of view by ascribing controversial viewpoints such as "NLP is pseudoscience" to those who have expressed such opinions, rather then presenting them as bald statements of fact.

Passed 9-0

On that occasion a mentorship team was assembled (remedy 5 in that case) for the purpose of ensuring cooperative editing on the article. --Tony Sidaway 16:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is very helpful. - SimonP 16:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

200 verses of Matthew, again

It appears that Rich Farmbrough has created blank (redirected) articles for all the verses of Matthew. While this isn't problematic in itself (though it seems pointless), Rich has also started wikilinking to redirects (which I thought was to be avoided in the first place) as opposed to using one of the bibleverse templates. Because this issue has come up in the past, I am announcing it to those who are concerned either for or against these moves. I'd like to hear anyones imput on this matter. Thanks!--Andrew c 20:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Bauer

In case you hadn't noticed, Bill Bauer has been proposed for deletion. NickelShoe (Talk) 02:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the warning. - SimonP 03:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A heartfelt ArbCom thank you

For performing thankless duties in the ArbCom with great skill and tenacity, I award you this +5 Barnstar of ArbCom Resilience. May it serve as a constant reminder of the gratitude and appreciation of the community for the work you perform. Yours in gratitude, Snoutwood (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

election arbitration 2

I would like to draw your attention to:

as you are part of a committee that is ruling on what I have stated and/or what i believe, and these are statements that I have made, and expressions of my beliefs. let me know if you have any questions. thank you. Kevin Baas^talk 23:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a fair look...

Thanks for taking a fair look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaker Aamer.

Two more articles about Guantanamo detainees have been nominated for deletion:

Would you feel up to taking a look at them?

Shall I let you know if other articles about Guantanamo detainees come up for deletion?

Thanks. -- Geo Swan 01:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probation

If I am to be included in any probationary measures, I request that you explain what, if any, evidence has been presented against me that influenced your decision to include me. Even after I made a specific request for evidence of any bad acts I've committed,[26] the only time I've even mentioned on the Evidence or Workshop pages is one instance in which I characterized SPUI's page moves as being akin to vandalism,[27] a characterization I subsequently retracted after reviewing the relevant policy.[28] Other than that, no one has presented any evidence against me at all.

My position is that I have responded to SPUI's page moves every time by seeking advice and assistance at WP:AN/I, rather than by reflexively warring with him; have only reverted SPUI's moves on a small number of occasions after being confronted with clear and convincing evidence of overwhelming administrator indifference to any such moves; and that I stopped moving pages entirely after an admin asked me to disengage from the move war as a unilateral gesture of conciliation. I can provide diffs to prove all of these things on request. —phh (^t/_c) 03:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LCBO

I noticed you removed the "Organized Labour" paragraph. Looking back, it was placed by a pro-lcbo, pro-labour anonymous person. Nothing wrong with that. Why did you remove the paragraph? POV? rasblue 04:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph was quite POV. It was filled with editorializing and POV wording. Moreover it made sweeping allegations and generalizations without any evidence to support them. - SimonP 04:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Man Who Claims to Know Everything, Knows Nothing!

The wise word above 10th century Persian philosopher is applied here to SimonP.

SimonP, claims to be specialized in all the fields of knowledge; -from African history, to the Iranian Revolution, from Russian Culture, to US politics, and so on and so forth. He spends most of his time in here as editor, censoring, communicating, leaving senseless messages, and still he has time to learn to convoy his knowledge to others. He must be either superman, or another Albert Einstein; -and that is hard to believe!

From the style of his writing he mustn’t be older than 30 years of age. Let’s hypothetically say, that he started reading and leaning as soon his mother gave birth to him, and since then he has continued to pursue his knowledge without being in need of eating, sleeping, and other necessities to survive; -he still could have not enough time to gain all these knowledge that he quite arrogantly claims to have an absolute authority in all of them. We have a word for these people like SimonP, the ”Impostors”.

I came to this conclusion recently, when I have corrected and added some historical facts to the Article “Iranian Revolution”, in which he has relentlessly deleted all my contribution! He has claimed that my work has no historical back-ups, which in contrary to his observations, I have included references and bibliography at the end of each event that were mentioned in that article. He claims that my editing are “allegations without support”, and when I’ve provided him with a list of books *[29], and urged him to read them, all of sudden he went absurdly quite.

I was a misled-participant in that so-called revolution, and being involved in researching the event since then. As a result, I am able to claim (to some certain degree), that I know about the topic, while, he claims that he knows it “in detail”.

SimonP, portrayed one of the rootless revolutions in human history as a peaceful event with democratic values, that led Iranians to a prosperity; -the prosperity that he promotes and propagates here, has taken over 1.2 million lives, hundreds of thousand of political prisoners, left a county with a bankrupt economy, and the worst record of human rights, as well as supporting terrorism. I don’t wish to accuse SimonP, but if someone supports a revolution that created the Islamic regime in Tehran, he must be either a super-gullible, or have a tendency to oppression, terrorism, and Islamic fundamentalism/fascism.

I believe that his editorial purgatives should be removed, and he should be replaced with someone who is open-minded, tolerant and respects other peoples’ beliefs and thoughts. Wikipedia was established as a “Free Encyclopaedia”, and closed-minded, mislead, dictator-like individuals like SimonP, who subscribe to “My Way or Highway” school of though, transfers Wikipedia to become like other Encyclopaedias controlled by Media Empires and world propaganda machines Surena.

Norm Coleman

Hi, I am sending this message to serious contributors who may be interested in articles related to U.S. politics. I believe I am receiving an unreasonable response-- and at times insulting and rude-- from the editors of Norm Coleman article, who refuse to remove a section that may offer some interesting trivia for Wikipeidia users, but is irrelevant to people interested in reading an encyclopedia article on a member of U.S. Senate. If you have time, please take a look at the article. Regards. 172 | Talk 03:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick

I particularly hate when people rush things but there is an issue arbitration commitee must look at urgently.

Moby Dick has ceased editing as of 7 june (Special:Contributions/Moby_Dick) and logs making checkuser posible will expire in about a week. These logs must be kept at least until the case closes. The fate of the logs will be depending on the outcome of the case.

I am just concerned about the posibility of moby dick returning with a new sock continuing the behaviour I complain about.

--Cat out 07:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Order of sections on History of France subpages

SimonP - There is discussion underway on the order of sections in the History of France subpages. I'd appreciate your input, if you have a chance. Go to Talk:History of France#Sections in sub articles. Thanks- NYArtsnWords 22:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Guypaulmorinpaintingfromnationalgalleryofcanada.jpg

Hi,

thank for alerting that. The tag has been changed since I uploaded ut. Originally I had tagged it as the now deleted tag Canada-Copyright as a figured it was owned by the National Gallery and therefore could be used under Crown Copyright...however as I said that tag was removed for being too vague. You are correct to point out that the image is not public domain. However, as it is owned by the National Portrait Gallery to serve as a portrait of Morin I think it is still fair use. Keep in mind this was one of the first images I uploaded and I am now getting more experienced with this. I will look and see if Library and Archives Canada has a better images that we could use. thanks for alerting me to this. Dowew 01:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My ban from Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

I'd like you to note, that by banning me from Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy you will support User:MX44 and User:Netscott, who consider it productive to avoid discussions and to display only a lunatic fringe minority "Muslim" POV on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. See [30] Raphael1 15:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear on this, Raphael1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is continuing to dwell almost solely on this article and I in effect counciled User:MX44 to no longer engage Raphael1's continuing "discussion" relative to it. Netscott 15:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

commons:Image:Bookmobile.jpg

Hi, I am about to use this pretty image in he:ספרייה (the hebrew language article about libraries). I managed to work out that the Bookmobile is part of a library in Ottawa. Does it belong to the city's Public Library, or is it part of some other library? Thanks, DGtal 10:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. DGtal 14:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UCRGRad RfA clarification request

Per the Arbitration policy, I request that you provide a rationale for your vote of "Reject" in the UCRGrad RfA request. Thanks! --ElKevbo 21:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Castrotrudeau.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Castrotrudeau.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Circeus 23:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stanfordandson RfArb

Hi SimonP. Can I ask you in what way I didn't deal with the user in question ideally? He systematically makes subtly-inappropriate edits as a way to test the system, and after seeing previous warnings (and continue warning him) I decided not to tolerate it further. There is no content dispute, despite his claims, and the example disputed edit posted by Tony Sidaway is not at all representative. I admit that the issue seemed so open-and-shut that I didn't work very hard to defend myself, and maybe that is a source of confusion. If you've looked into the case and you have constructive comments for me, I would very much appreciate them. If you have not, I fear you may be feeding a troll. -- SCZenz 12:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Central Asia

WikiProject Central Asia has finally been created! If you're interested, please consider joining us. Aelfthrytha 21:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Village pump

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Resolving_content_disputes. Please help me to find the answer to my questions. Thanks.--AndriyK 14:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I wasnt really expecting anything back but its great to receive a compliment like that. Note about the deleting requests noted, thanks again. :) - Deathdust 01:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Georgia Move

As a past participant in the discussion on how to handle the Georgia pages, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at Talk:Georgia (country)#Requested_Move_-_July_2006. Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. --Vengeful Cynic 03:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael1

[[31]]

I entirely agree with you that supermajority is not necessarily consensus (I happen to believe the outcome is wrong, that we should use :Image: rather than Image:, out of politeness if nothing else). On the other hand, there is consensus that edit-warring is not the way to fix that. It is the consensus against edit warring and unilaterally pushing a POV which I saw Raphael1 as violating. I'd have been happy to support him in civil debate on the issue. Just zis Guy you know? 11:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom and JzG

You rejected the case but agree that "both sides could have behaved better". I do not care if an arbcom case or another way to solve the dispute is chosen, but protecting articles and blocking users when in a conflict of interest over a content dispute is abuse of admin power. All allegations are sourced, claiming that they are libelous is absurd, and this view is supported by Phil Sandifer, too. [32] [33] What kind of dispute resolution do you suggest? Currently another admin without any discussion reverted back to a version that lacks much well sourced information. Socafan 20:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer as the conflict is going on and no arbitrator has yet helped to resolve it. Socafan 02:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom

Thank you for your comment. Yes, I could have avoided at least some of the issues, I am discussing with Phil some of his hoary old-timer's advice for the clueless. Please be assured of my best intentions; I think this much is clear whatever the outcome. Just zis Guy you know? 20:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this is ok

You forgot to put "Accept" in front of your name in the arbcom case, so I added it for you with commented-out text explaining my actions. I hope this is ok with you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Arbitrators.27_opinion_on_hearing_this_matter_.283.2F0.2F0.2F0.29 --mboverload @ 22:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I should be more careful in future. - SimonP 22:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

about the picture

I made the picture myself. I scanned it. Try to examine the picture and you'll see it's not taken from television or a monitor. Why do you care anyway?

Barnstar

I tried adding a Barnstar to your userpage but it didnt work. So I'll try adding it here

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		For all the pictures you took for Wikiproject:Ottawa, here is the photographer's Barnstar, because your pictures are a great contribution. Deenoe 17:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Deenoe 17:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. We need more articles about Ottawa-French community, since we're a bilingual city. --Deenoe 17:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfAr/Warren Kinsella

May I ask for an explanation for your recusal[34]? - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Spadina

Did you work on the 2006 O.C. campaign? Pete Peters 17:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy

Hi there! I've noticed that you've edited articles pertaining to the Eastern Orthodox Church. I wanted to extend an invitation to you to join the WikiProject dedicated to organizing and improving articles on the subject, which can be found at: WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. This WikiProject was begun because a need was perceived to raise the level of quality of articles on Wikipedia which deal with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

You can find information on the project page about the WikiProject, as well as how to join and how to indicate that you are a member of the project. Additionally, you may be interested in helping out with our collaboration of the month. I hope you'll consider joining and thank you for your contributions thus far! —A.S. Damick ^talk ^contribs 01:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Please check yours. Danny

user:Coolcaesar Requests for arbitration

I ask that you kindly reconsider your vote for user:coolcaesar and change it to accept the case. After he made his apologies on the arbitration page, he has gone on to offend two more Wikipedians in just 3 days. I know that there has not been alot done previously, and mediation as well as dozens of notices to him were the actions that were taken. But, after he apologized to the ArbCom, he continued again to do this. It shows that even a pending ArbCom case is not enough to change his actions. I kindly ask that you reconsider your vote for he flat out lied, and that comes after all the horrible personal attacks he committed. I posted the links on the Arbitration Case that relates to him. I would appreciate it. Thank You. --69.227.160.83 00:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Central Asia

I have seen that you are the author of Image:Central Asia borders.png. To my surprise, you include a "common modern definition" matching Central Asia with the current borders of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Such "modern definition" would leave e.g. Bukhara and Samarkanda out of Central Asia. It is probably a lapsus calami, but in any case none of my sources (from the old but still wonderful Grousset's L'empire des steppes to Soucek's A History of Inner Asia, Cambridge University Press, 2000) agree with such definition. Could you please provide some sources for your "common modern definition"? (which, at least, is not so common ;)) Thankyou, Cinabrium 19:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I'm a user here at WP in English, but not a very active one. If you can reply in my talk page in Wikipedia en español, I will greatly appreciate that. Cinabrium

After reading your message and checking again (and again) the map, I'm guessing that the problem lies not in the definition but in the graphical representation of it. As it stands now, it could be read (and that is the way I've read it -- from there, my astonishment in seeing Bukhara, Samarkand and the Ferghana Valley out of "Central Asia") as if the "common modern definition" covers Kazakhstan only, instead of all of the former USSR republics. It seems that a little adjustment in the map's legend would suffice to clear the ambiguity. In fact, if you put the color representing Kazakhstan and the color representing the other former-soviet republics together behind the legend, it would be quite clear.

It reads now:

|///| Soviet definition |\\\| Common modern definition ||||| UNESCO definition

Suggested change:

|///| Soviet definition |///|\\\| Common modern definition |///|\\\||||| UNESCO definition

We could enter into a byzantine argument about such "modern definition" (I would insist upon the need of including Mongolia and the Chinese Autonomous Regions of Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia on ethnolinguistic, political and economical grounds), but we could safely agree that the set of the former soviet republics is the bare minimum of "modern" Central Asia.

Warm regards from Cinabrium 04:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC) (please contact me here)[reply]

Halifax photos

Thanks for uploading all those great pictures! I was especially looking for one to replace the deleted Granville Mall image. Ouuplas 03:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Workman

I noticed your comments on the topic of Joshua Workman a few months ago. Please have another look. I have updated it to make it seem like much less of a biased article. Although someone seems desperate to change it back....

Arb case:Kehrli

I have been waiting patiently for some response by the committee regarding this arbitration case Kehrli. I do not mean to solicit but it seems necessary or even helpful to bring this to the attention of the committee members directly.

Thank you--Nick Y. 18:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arb request extensively updated, including input by another editor and recent threats and administrator impersonation.--Nick Y. 18:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please email

Hi SimonP. I'm a local reporter doing an ariticle on wikipedia and am looking for very active local users.

Was hoping you'd pop an email by. jgerson(at)thestar.ca

Thanks! JenG 21:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Jen[reply]

Globe and Mail

Great piece in this morning's Globe. Well deserved. --Skeezix1000 11:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Skeezix1000 got here first. Ditto. --Grstain | Talk 12:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very impressive - congratulations! BFD1 14:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Damn. Congrats! Bearcat 14:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be late to the party... :-) Mind matrix 17:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you all very much. I am actually currently at Wikimania, it is very interesting to finally get to meet many of the legendary Wikipedians in person. It is too bad that not many other Canadian Wikipedians could make it, but perhaps in a few years we can hold the event in Toronto or Vancouver. - SimonP 18:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, congrats. Did G&M not post your usernam on purpose? I had to look in the edit history of Military of Canada. -Ravedave 14:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

N/m I just needed to read closer...-Ravedave 19:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on being interviewed in the Globe & Mail, nice for the media to recognize the people who make the 'pedia a Good Thing Roleypolinde 06:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, I actually had a friend ask me "Hey, what does the name SimonP mean to you?" and I was like "umm...the Wikipedian?" and they laughed and showed me the fact you apparently had an article about you. Not sure what that says about our newspapers, but cheers and congrats :) Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honest apology

Crossposted from Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun/Proposed decision

Note to users: I don't know if this is the right place to state this, but I justthink its important you know this : I've stopped doing thesr things (about 1-2 weeks ago) and am making good edits, please ask a couple of other editors, particulary the ones who commented on my talk pahge (including the archives) and the Pokémon Collaborative Project. I am about to apologize to HighwayCello, im being truthful about this, so please read my contributions, cheers —M in un ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 18:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologized [35] —M in un ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 19:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AR1

Simon, I am one of the people working on WP:AR1. You seem to be pretty cluey and I'm relatively newy.

Many of the items are only linked by the Userpage of one user. e.g. User:J_heisenberg/A_list_of_economics_terms_not_in_Wikipedia and User:Rikurzhen/biology. They have very long lists of technical terms. Should we regard this lists as being "their project" or what? Ordinary Person 12:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your advice and kind words, Simon. Ordinary Person 07:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon in the news.

Congrats on publicty (which you probably already know about.) --Tony Eberly 17:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. congrats!! dposse 01:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I too would like to offer my humble congrats to you. You certainly deserve this! --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 06:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top stuff, Simon. :-) Ordinary Person 07:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff, Really ! You're stuff is relayed on french computer science website ;) //// Bon travail, vraiment. Ton travail est relayé sur les sites informatiques français ;) ___ A french Wikipedian. (7 August 2006)

Simon_Pulsifer

You might want to have a look at this Simon_Pulsifer. Oh, and perhaps this: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Simon_Pulsifer --Xyzzyplugh 19:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo !

Bravo pour ton couronnement ;) I am not a number 08:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice meeting you

And having the lunch conversation. My research on WP I mentioned is here and also spoken of on my blog. If you'd be willing to speak to me further, please email me when you get a chance. --Reagle

"Other uses" discussion

You were previously involved in discussions relating to whether the wording of templates such as {{otheruses}} should simply say "For other uses" as it currently does or should read differently. I've started a discussion on the issue at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#"Other uses" of what? and thought you might be interested. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for Work?

SP, I'd be interested in chatting with you about your job search. My firm (based in T0) is a growing technology company in the financial market and we're looking for a writer for our website. Post to my user page, if you'd be interested and we'll work out a way to get in touch. -- BJH

JzG RFC

I want to start an RFC against JzG but when I tried to start the page... it showed up weird... can you delete/fix Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG? Also, I'd like my talkpage unprotected immediately. Tchadienne 23:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy sure has gone down the drain. Nice job. Tchadienne 15:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Hull, Daniel Alfredsson

Please do not remove maintenance notices from pages unless the required changes have been made. If you are uncertain whether the page requires further work, or if you disagree with the notice, please discuss these issues on the page's talk page before removing the notice from the page. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of a page. Thank you.

Please note that neither article contain in-line citations; nor do they list the full set of references where information was obtained. --Madchester 16:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The burden is actually on the tagger to give some explanation of why the standard references section is not enough. - SimonP 20:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Munter

Are you still working as Munter's computer guy as it says in the Globe and Mail? If so, I'd like to add it to the article on you. Also, good choice of candidate, I plan on campaigning for Munter. Does he have a campaing office up? -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing articles, arbCom case

Simon,

RE: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Proposed_decision#Editing_your_guru's_article

While I agree that the intensity of an editor's identification with the views of a group of like-minded editors has a bearing on this issue, my argument is that there should not be a distinction between the strong identification of an editor that is a disciple of a spiritual teacher, and an ex-disciple editor that is a vocal critic and activist against his former group association, or an editor that has strong political, religious or other strong views. Otherwise this proposed ruling could be seen as a precedent and used to:

warn Jews about editing articles about the Holocaust, while not warning white supremacists about the same
warn Castrists about editing Cuba, but not warning anti-castrists
warn devoted Christians not to edit Christianity, but not warn Islamists
Warn adherents of a religion about editing the article about their religion, but not warning apostates about the same
etc.

My argument is that yes, there are possible problems when we edit articles about which we have passionate views about, (and you would agree surely, that most editors will be drawn to edit these, rather than the occasional random article), but that a distinction made between supporters of a spiritual creed, and its critics should not be made in this respect. Both passionate pro and con editors need to abide by Wikipedia content policies and be made aware of the challenges related to articles about which we have strong views.

So I would appreciate if the the text of the proposed decision at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Proposed_decision#Editing your guru's article is changed to "Editing an article about which you have a strong involvement", as to not make such inappropriate distinction and setting a precendent that single students or disciples of spiritual teachers, but not others that may have as strong or stronger biases. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response.

You wrote: Your proposed "strong involvement" test is, to my mind, too broad as it could affect too many good editor

If the concern is one of "inherent bias", I would suggest to change this ruling to "Editing your guru or ex-guru's article." Otherwise we are acknowledging inherent bias on the part of a student of a guru or spiritual teacher, but failing to acknowledge the inherent bias of an ex-disciple, in particular when that ex-disciple is an active and vocal critic of his ex-guru. I don't know, but maybe it would be better to strike that ruling altogether. It treats students of spiritual treachers or gurus differently than other editors that may have as strong or stronger views on the subjects they edit. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look forward to your response on the above, whenever you have some time to look into it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Implications of this ruling

In thinking this further, the implication of this ruling would be:

Tibetan Buddhists could be discouraged from editing the Dalai_lama and Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama articles
Sikhs could be discouraged from editing Ten Gurus, from Guru Nanak Dev to Guru Gobind Singh
Ravidasis could be discouraged from editing Raidas
Followers of Vedānta, yoga, tantra and bhakti schools could be discouraged from editing articles about their teachers
and so on

All this when there are no discouragement or limitations for

Roman Catholics from editing the Pope_Benedict_XVI or Jesus related articles
Orthodox Jews from editing articles about their rabbis
Sufis from editing articles about Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Rumi
and so on

Don't you think that this ruling could be construed as a dangerous precendent of discriminating against followers of Eastern faiths? What do you think Hindus, Sikhs, Budhist and others will feel about Wikipedia when their edits are challenged based on the precedent of this ruling by the ArbCom? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 07:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you like? :)

I made this box for awards. I placed all your awards in the box and in order by date.. I hope I am not missing any? Pete Peters 18:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is very nice, thank you. - SimonP 18:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

80,000 edits, not 80,000 articles created

Simon, I notice the Globe and Mail (complete) article is gone (better to link to the cached version, right?) but did they not screw up bigtime by stating that you've "created" 80,000 articles, when it's more like 80,000 edits? How sad is it that in 2006 a major mainstream media outlet such as the Globe and Mail doesn't know the difference. While 80,000 edits is a huge number, creating 80,000 articles is much more work. Or am I missing something here? Best regards. Barry Wells 22:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were a couple of mild inaccuracies in that article, but they did get the edits right. The exact quote was "78,000 entries edited and 2,000 to 3,000 new articles to his name." - SimonP 22:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK. I just read the sub-headline on-line at a friends's place and didn't get an opportunity to read the entire article. If memory serves (a tricky proposition at my age), the sub-headline said, "80,000 articles created." Congratulations in any event for your outstanding contributions. Ol' Jimbo must be somewhat jealous since most of the arse-kissing wags around here think that he's the King of WP. Best regards. Barry Wells 23:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, you're famous in Toronto also. My boss read your article on the way to work and was amazed. He has been heaping praise on you ever since. Not knowing I was on wikipedia but knowing that I was from Ottawa, he asked whether I had heard of you. I just chuckled. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 01:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Is there a link to that online article? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Never mind. Found it Prolific Canadian is king of Wikipedia. With more than 80,000 articles under his belt, Ottawa man is the on-line resource's busiest contributor ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just want you to know, that there is an article about you in the german speaking swiss newspaper "Tagesanzeiger", you can read it here. --APPER 15:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homey

Simon, your comments about HotR are somewhat off the mark, and I can only assume you haven't been following the case. He is the most disruptive editor of former regular editors that I've known in my time at Wikipedia. His sole reason for being at Wikipedia appears to be to cause political and personal conflict, and he has been singularly successful at both. He has engaged in highly abusive sockpuppetry, engaging in behavior such as pretending to be another banned user in order to cause confusion (straw man sockpuppetry); filing at least one false 3RR report; following editors he doesn't like to articles they edit a lot in order to cause disruption there; and a host of similar incidents. It has been highly distressing to some of those on the receiving end of it, and has been going on for months. That is not even to mention his abuse of his admin tools, his frequent 3RR violations, his aggressive e-mails. People have considered leaving because of him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, you clearly have not been following the case; I'm not at all "emotionally invested"; and you have no idea what my political views are. Homey has been doing nothing but cause trouble for months, and possibly a lot longer: I only started to notice it myself about six months ago. Just because you've had a positive experience in one area doesn't mean there haven't been serious problems in other areas; and I can assure you, the problems could hardly have been worse. It isn't helpful when editors who don't have all the information step in with opinions, not least because all it does is postpone dealing with the situation, which others to have to cope with in the meantime. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go. Homey is now claiming [36] that User:Schroedinger the Cat — a sockpuppet of Homey's used in such a way that it appeared to be banned User:WordBomb, in order to cause confusion about whether WordBomb was evading his block — was not, in fact, Homey after all, but may have been WordBomb all along. But Homey previously admitted that he had created Schroedinger the Cat to harass me, because he thought WordBomb ought not to have been blocked.

This is what he's been doing for weeks. He creates half a dozen sockpuppets and uses them to harass editors he doesn't like. But he does it on topics and using language that makes him appear to be some other banned user. The editor he is harassing responds by lengthening the banned user's block, or tagging the sockpuppet as belonging to the banner user. Then Homey pops up admitting that the sockpuppet was, in fact, him all along, and laughs at how inept we all are at tagging sockpuppets. The check user results confirm that it's likely him, so the sockpuppet is re-tagged as Homey's. Then a week later, he'll say it was actually his roommate, and then a week after that he claims his computer was "compromised," and it was probably the original banned user after all, but somehow using Homey's computer. I think he even sugggested at one point that other Wikipedians in Canada were flying to Toronto in order to make edits that appeared to be from his IP ranges (and that they mysteriously knew where he edited from). I kid you not. This is the level of the shenanigans we've had to put up with, and the above doesn't even begin to cover it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, it was not my sock. I was making light of how it once was pronounced as such, and when I said it was not I was reverted, and apparently later unceremoniously absolved.

See, this sort of thing happens all the time. It's my way of poining out a shortcoming in your way of resolving disputes.

Whether is belongs to Homey or not I have no idea. But it's not mine. --Herschel Werdbaum 23:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ex-Homey

Simon,

Could you please review the current situation at User talk:Ex-Homey? CJCurrie 06:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFC/Slim

-Ste|vertigo 15:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor trying to contact you

On the Help desk Warren M. Hern, M.D. wanted to contact you to give you some information about abortion (diff).--Commander Keane 18:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom case

SimonP,

I created this subpage to address the diffs which Dmcdevit had put forth as evidence for the finding of fact against me. User talk:Timothy Usher/re proposed finding. If there is anything else I can address, please let me know.

For a number of reasons, I can and will no longer be involved in any of the articles in which the referenced conflict occurred. I again petition the Arbitration Committee to accept my resignation from Wikipedia generally in lieu of the proposed finding and remedy.Timothy Usher 22:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania 2007: Toronto?

I presume resubmitting a bid for U of T would be useless, considering our proximity to Boston? -- Zanimum 19:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is much reason to put in a bid for 2007. I doubt they will select two North American cities in a row, and I personally feel that next year's should return to Europe or perhaps go somewhere in East Asia. I do think Canada should try, and would have a good chance at, winning the 2008 conference. - SimonP 19:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's was my opinion also. Thanks! -- Zanimum 14:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

commons:Image:Marshall Plan.png

Hi, may I ask if you created this map? The map was deleted locally but somebody uploaded it to Wikicommons without giving credit. If you did create it, would you please write that explicitly and remove the "no source" tag? Thuresson 00:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid/Proposed decision#Negotiation

Hello SimonP :-) Looking at this arb case and noticed that you did not vote on this Proposed remedy. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid/Proposed decision#Negotiation The whole case is close to closing and your vote on this Remedy might make a difference one way or the other. Take care, FloNight ^talk 15:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I give you a heads-up?

Can I give you a heads-up? There is another test {afd} against the Guantanamo articles, filed yesterday -- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ibrahim Daif Allah Neman Al Sehli. I thought you might take a look at it, and offer an opinion. Thanks! -- Geo Swan 22:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Opiniion On Article Merge Requested - Priority: Low

Should knockout mouse be merged into and become a section of gene knockout? Answer here --Username132 (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:TaxGraph1.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:TaxGraph1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Wwagner 22:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Economy of Africa

Hi, you were a contributor to this article, which is on the verge of being delisted as a FA. Can you return to help? Urgently requires inline citations and enhanced information in a few places. It's been copy-edited nicely by Peirigill. Tony 04:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How much time would you need to add in-line citations to the article? Joelito (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, I don't have a huge amount of time free for editing just at the moment. - SimonP 18:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your contrib to Heather Erxleben

Many thanks for your addition to the article. --EarthPerson 22:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon, could you please address the questions on the article's talk page when you have time? Thanks. --EarthPerson 01:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heqong AArbitation case

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Heqong/Proposed decision#Locus of dispute

I just happened to read on the Arbitation page. You wrote "He actually seems to be advocating the view that the Republic of China is the legitimate government of China, quite a different view from the pro-independence one."

I do not understand the "government of China" part. Do you mean that RoC (and not PRoC) is the "legitimate" government for the whole China, mainland and Taiwan? SYSS Mouse 01:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I interpret Heqong to be advocating. - SimonP 12:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When are you/arbcom going to stop His Excellency... and his attacks

His Excellency... has continued his racist attacks, now he has forced Pecher a longtime editor to leave completely, are you going to do something or should i start using the same tactics to force His Excellency... and like off wikipedia. He's posting his hate via the Amibidhrohi sock puppet at the moment, again do something.Hypnosadist 11:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats another user has left because of H.E. keep up the good work! Its User:Timothy Usher if you are interested!Hypnosadist 12:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, User:Ericsaindon2

Hi. I was wondering why no arbitrators have added the information from the workshop to the proposed decision about Coolcaesar. I know that we are two different people, but you said that you would consider what he has done in making this decision (since he did initiate the whole thing). Yet, only the stuff presented against me is open for voting. I think you need to add the other stuff that pertains to Coolcaesar that was left out. Plus, I apologize, and have been very productive the past few weeks. Since my ban ended, I have not engaged in edit warring, and have been constructine in my edits. Please reconsider your votes, for I know I did do all that stuff, and I am truely sorry, but know that I have changed from doing that, and I do not get into personal conflicts with others, edit wars, etc. Thank you. Ericsaindon2 00:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about ArbCom vote

Hi, I am the initiator of the ArbReq about the Gillberg affair. Would you elaborate on the reason that the examples given in my statement are not evidence of an NPOV violation? What sort of evidence would be needed? —Daphne A 07:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon, thanks kindly. You say that "Wikipedia's systems of debate and consensus will, in time, lead to NPOV articles", but consider my situation: I believe that the two other main parties are extremely POV; I request mediation; one of the parties ignores my request, and the other declares that there is "no dispute" and removes the POV sticker. How should I move forward from there? My statement also now gives an example where I reverted unsourced material, politely explained why I reverted in Talk, and had my revert reverted without explanation. Again, how should I go forward?

Additionally, there is an admin, Fred-Chess, involved who demonstrates (according to my understanding) that he does not comprehend WP:Verifiability (for evidence, see the third point in his statement) and also seems to believe that WP:NOR applies to Talk pages, both even after I explain things in Talk. I could give other examples of what seems to be either bias or not understanding.
—Daphne A 14:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Press inquiry

I have another press inquiry for you, Simon. But your contact information is on another machine... could you resend it to me? amgine@saewyc.net - Amgine 16:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inadvertent omission in ArbCom vote?

In voting on the St. Christopher's arbitration, you did not cast a vote on Proposed Principle 1 (the very first item on the Proposed Decision page). I thought that might have been inadvertent, so wanted to call your attention to it. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 12:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noticing that, I did skip it by accident. - SimonP 13:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I had never thought I would see myself posting evidence in an ArbCom case, but the conduct under review there was egregious. Newyorkbrad 13:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help On Sathya Sai Baba Article

The Sathya Sai Baba article is the subject for dispute resolution on ArbCom. Andries and his fellow Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba associate == Purple Barnheart ==

		The Purple Heart
		I, Smee, award this barnstar to ProEdits for getting a bad rap for being a good editor. Thank you. Smee 11:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for this recognition. The bad rap came very largely from three POV pushers who were banned indefinitely from Wikipedia, namely, SSS108, FreeLanceResearch, and Wikisunn. I am inclined to add here - in the exact words of an infamous former Wiki-editor "For resons of transparency, I am the webmaster for the following site:" http://robertpriddy.com and also http://www.saibaba-x.org.uk/ and the blog robertpriddy.wordpress.com Anyone interested can view the Wiki biographical page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Priddy ProEdits 10:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC) (Robert Priddy) are attempting to dominate the article with controversial edits without any form of consensus by experienced editors. Please help resolving these issues. I am not sure if ArbCom and collectively help to resolve them. See the Talk Page. ProEdits has also been maliciously making highly defamatory attacks against me. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unref-talk

Hi,

Since you contributed to Template:Unref-talk, I'd appreciate your comments on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#Citing sources about revising and/or merging this template. --SteveMcCluskey 03:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering if you could...

Use your oversight powers to delete my user page history? There is sensitive personal information on there that I would like removed. Everything up to the most recent edit? Magic Window 14:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism Report

User:68.7.68.168 has vandalized the History of Egypt, a second time after you reverted his edits and posted a notice on his Talk page. I have already reverted his most recent edits. --TommyBoy 05:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have given up now. - SimonP 13:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panama Canal

Simon, I want to draw your attention to what appears to me to be a case of POV pushing. As you may know there is shortly to be a referendum in Panama on the expansion of the canal. Coincidentally an article has been written upon the proposal. All well and good. However it appears that anyone who refers to criticism of the proposal is having their material reverted whether it is referenced or whther it conforms to the NPOV or not. The Panamanian government is strongly in favour of the expansion and has been working hard on getting a yes vote. It seems to me that it may have spread its efforts to Wikipedia [37]. Would you mind taking a look at the history and seeing what you think ? The article is Panama Canal Expansion Proposal. -- Cheers Derek Ross | Talk 18:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming

See: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 14# Orthodox Christian categories. IZAK 16:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Television

I won't say much, in case you are trying to preserve your anonymity (though you wouldn't have agreed to be on television if this was the case), but I saw you on the news... Congrats! My grandparents are quite impressed that "That Wikipedey-site-thing" is newsworthy. Maybe my Wikipediholicism will be taken in a different light; they're already suggesting I should try to get a job working for a politician. ;-) — E ditor at Large ( talk) 22:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German press inquiry

Hi Simon. I'm working in the Wikimedia Press Team Germany. We have a question from an editor of the woman magazin MAXI. They like to do an e-mail interview with you and like to have a photo. If you are interested, please write to press-de@wikimedia.org mentioning ticket number 2006091910003916 and I'll establish a contact. --Avatar 09:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maraba Coffee

Hello! As you're a Wikipedian interested in African topics, I'm writing to notify you that the Maraba Coffee article is now a 'Featured Article Candidate'. Please feel free to evaluate the article and write your support or opposition at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Thanks — SteveRwanda 15:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William S. Laughlin

I've marked William S. Laughlin for deletion, but since you had made an edit to that article earlier, I thought you might have some information on why he is notable. If you do, feel free to add it. Cheers, --Vectro 03:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your article

Hi Simon, I was wondering if you could provide some Solomonic wisdom here...your article is currently a problem, because I tried to delete it, and I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids who think I should I should follow process and policy. I notice you didn't comment on the AFD about it, but just out of curiosity, what do you think should be done? (I hope you do not take offense that I consider you just some guy who has not become notably simply by editing Wikipedia.). Adam Bishop 03:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, meddling kids. :-). It looks like the article will survive, yet again. Given that, it seems to be missing an easily provided thousand words worth. Would you happen to have a photo of yourself you could contribute under the GFDL? You shouldn't edit your own article, but I'd be honored to put it in for you. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked him before if I could take his picture, I get the impression he doesn't want it taken. :( -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia 2008 deadline approaches

Apparently, Wikimania 2008's host city will be decided this winter, despite 2007 just being awarded to Taipei. Would you mind working your connections to see if the Bahen Centre would host us? One user's just asked me if there's any reason not to promote the bid to the community just yet. -- Zanimum 18:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maple toffee?

Hi Simon, I've spent near to 50 years on a family farm producing maple syrup. Never heard this term toffee, for sugar on snow, and emails and a call to sugarers in Wisconsin, New York state, and Ohio all say the same: never heard of the term. My suspicion is that we have direct transliteration of the Quebecoise french term. Several folks here too on that pages talk section say the same. Will you please share your thinking on this? Thanks. CApitol3 04:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green Tortoise

According to the history page, you are one of the editors who helped create the Green Tortoise article. Right now, somebody is trying to destroy your work. A self-indentified Green Tortoise employee signing in under the name "Here" has stated, on a page linked to from the Green Tortoise discussion page, that his employer "freaked out" about the article, feeling that while it was OK for some of the authors we cited to have written articles critical of his business, it was not OK for others to know about those articles or for us to tell people about them. On this basis "here" has demanded the right to remove links to any material critical of his employer, doing so in the name of NPOV!!!

How far has this gone? We've already seen pro-Green Tortoise graffiti posted to the references section, ad copy taken directly from their site used to overwrite the article, and the employee, in at least one case, create a sock puppet account (GTWebmaster) and then try to claim that somebody was supporting his position. He has threatened to file frivolous complaints against anybody refusing to go along with what he wants, as he engages in vandalism.

None of which probably sounds like anything you'd want to be around for, and I wouldn't blame you if you didn't, but it bothers you to see your work destroyed and replaced by ad copy posted by someody who has come out and said that he is a corporate shill, now is the time when I hope you will speak up. I hate to see companies find that they can turn Wikipedia into ad copy, in this case quite literally, but I can't fight this one alone. If you'd be willing to help, your help would be greatly appeciated and needed. One lone editor vs. an entire company is not a fair fight, and sooner or later you know that this guy will bring in his coworkers. -65

Guidelines on article names for controversial events

Hi Simon, You mentioned in a recent arbitration case that there is a tension between the "use common names" and "use descriptive names that do not carry a POV implication" guidelines. There is a discussion and proposal in Wikipedia talk:Naming conflict to formalize priority for common names. It also gives guidelines for use of strong words such as "massacre" and "genocide" in article names. I'd really appreciate your comments on these concepts. Kla'quot 16:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request to re-open case

I'm involved in and edit-war with a user who is just reverting every thing I do. I'm getting very frustrated. This is not ment to be a personal attack, I'm just getting tired. I picked you because you are listed Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hunger as on of the arbitrators and I'm currently trying to correct an unreliable source on this page, refer discussion page. Mark1800 23:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Munter

Hi! I've seen on your talk page that you we're supporting Alex Munter and Earl Andrew told me that you have done some phoning for him? Maybe we've already volunteered together. Anyways, just like to let you know that your edits are very valuable to Wikipedia and keep up the good work! You must have seen your lot of disputes. --Deenoe 20:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I never said you did any phoning. :-p -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My bad! But anyway, unfortunatly I don't know when I will be avaliable due to school projects and such, but I should contact Jordan, the volunteer coordinator probably Saturday. --Deenoe 00:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Alex Munter from User talk:JForget

Thanks! That's unfortunate that I cannot vote for Ottawa's mayor (i'm living in Gatineau) so not sure they would take volonteers from Quebec.--JForget 21:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary User "SimonP"

Hello Simon.

A User has been created recently on en.Wiktionary in your name. There is some evidence that it is not really you. Could you confirm or deny this please. Jeff Knaggs 09:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC) (SemperBlotto - sysop on en.Wiktionary)[reply]

Image:Butchart Gardens.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Butchart Gardens.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you.

Take A Look

Hi. I saw you on CJOH CTV about a month ago, and I heard that you were an experienced Wikipedian.

I mainly work on the Embrun, Ontario page, because that is where I live (it is about 20 minutes out of Ottawa).

I heard that you've contributed to over 80,000 different articles and that you had a lot of experience. I was wondering if you could read over the Embrun, Ontario article. Then, I was wondering if you could get back to me, and let me know what you think needs to be changed, and what is a really good part of the article. I think your opinion would be quite valuable. I know that my friend, and quite a few others have worked hard on it.

Loghead1 20:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Rossier

Hi, I recall that you contributed to the FAC discussion for the article on Felice Beato that I nominated some time ago, and I'm wondering if you now wouldn't mind checking out the Pierre Rossier article (on another 19th century photographer in Asia), which is a FAC? It's been languishing on the FAC page for several weeks and has four "support" votes (with none opposed). Thanks for your help! Pinkville 02:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mayoral Endorsments

Hey Simon,

I was wondering if you could take a look at the list of endorsments at Ottawa municipal election, 2006 and let me know of anyone I should add/take away from the list. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clive Doucet supports Chiarelli!? Wow... What about Marianne Wilkinson, I thought I read something in regards to who she is endorsing. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon, would you be able to find me some proof of Doucet's support of Chiarelli? Henri would like to see it. -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual classroom, please drop in...

I've started a Virtual classroom for Wikipedians to learn by each others' example. We will be covering many subjects, and currently we are comparing the user interfaces we each use in making use of and work on Wikipedia (operating systems, programs, browsers, extensions, scripts, settings/features, navigation set ups, etc). You are a very experienced Wikipedian, and I hope you will stop by and share with us how you have your computer set up for working on Wikipedia, so the rest of us can learn by your example. [User:Interiot|Interiot]] has been kind enough to help get things started by describing some tools and techniques he uses, and I hope you will too. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 04:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources

SimonP, can you kindly tell me if Salon.com qualifies as a reputable or reliable source as per WP:BLP & WP:RS? Salon.com is an internet "magazine" that does not publish a newspaper, magazine, or anything else in hardcopy form. On the Sathya Sai Baba article there are numerous mentions to Michelle Goldberg's article entitled "Untouchable?". Needless to say, this article has only been published on Salon.com and has never been published in reputable media newspapers, magazines or the like. Since this article contains critical, negative and potentially libelous information about Sathya Sai Baba, how can it be used as a reputable or reliable source when it has never been published by reputable media? It is only available on the internet as an online article/resource. To me, this appears to violate WP:BLP & WP:RS. I have asked other admin for their opinions and none, so far, seem willing to give a response. Not sure why. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asthma & Asthmatics

You put asthma medication into the category named 'Asthma. I have surgested that it should be merged into Allergic Asthma. Allergic asthma seems to have disappeared. Can you help? Alec - U.K. 15:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similar medication is used to manage allergic and non-allergic asthma, though. Guy (Help!) 14:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Lerner Ban

Since there seem to be enough votes to ban me from editing any article that I am expert in, I just want to make a few points to each of the arbitrators personally so there is no excuse that they don’t know what they are doing.

Not one of you have said what the difference is between my case and that of a climate researcher editing an article on climate research, which is specifically allowed by the Wiki conflict of interest policy. Any professional scientist by definition has a financial interest in the funding of his or her research. Climate researchers "make money off of" climate research. Especially in any controversial field, they must appeal to the general public to generate political support for the governmental funding decisions that they depend on, if they are at universities.

Like myself, anyone working for a corporation has a financial interest in that corporation raising money from the public, both through the sale of products and the sale of shares.

Arbitrator Bauder has said that Bill Gates should be allowed to edit the article on Windows as an expert, yet in no way says how the same rule would not allow me to edit “aneutronic fusion” as an expert.

Aneutronic fusion using the plasma focus is NOT just my work. I am one researcher among quite a few in all these fields, just as a climate researcher is one among many. Nor is that the only approach to aneutronic fusion. Someone who thinks aneutronic fusion is a good idea could, for example, invest in TriAlpha’s Energy, which has a competing approach, or a Congressional aide might be inspired to allocate some money to University of Illinois' effort on the plasma focus.

The case is even clearer with "plasma cosmology" because I never have, unfortunately, gotten funding for this work (except my brief stint at European Southern Observatory.)

Quite clearly no general rule seems to be operating here, at least none that any of you have chosen to defend, that distinguishes my case from that of any other professional expert who makes a living from their research.

My only conclusion is that the intent is simply censorship—to eliminate all those promoting certain viewpoints, specifically on cosmology, from Wikipedia. I assume that if I am banned for conflict on interest, anyone who in any way supports a similar viewpoint will be banned as my “meat puppet”.

If I am mistaken and you actually do have some way of showing how a general rule would lead to my banning, but not the a banning of every other professional scientist, I hope you will post it on the proposed decision talk page.

Eric LernerElerner 00:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aww noes.

You're just not familiar with fun, Simon! Do you teach at OTHS? If so, then all would add up! (Momus 05:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Non-Notability

You state that notability is accepted at AfD, but that this is a subset of the Wikipedia whole. That is true. On the other hand, WP:CSD clearly requires at least a claim of notability, and User:Uncle G/On notability points out how notability, the concept, is bound to policy and guidelines. I think the dispute centres more around the level of the notability bar rather then aht need for some bar to inclusion. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa election

Hi Simon, I got a phone call last week about my map book, and I tried going to the office on Friday to pick it up, but it was closed. I'm not sure if they still have it, and I left a message on the machine Friday asking what times it was open. (Haven't heard anything back). I was wondering if they'd still have it, and if not where I can go to get it back. Also, I was wondering if you still have the poll maps. Elections Ottawa has sent me the poll by poll results, so I'd like to do some analysis. Thanks. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the ward maps too? How does Saturday sound? BTW, Alex won my poll :-D -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When will you be back in town? -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I better wait until December due to pending assignments. No hurry, really. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, would you be available maybe on Sunday anywhere from noon to 5:30? -- Earl Andrew - talk 08:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanese-Canadian

There is still something a bit off about only half of the 50,000 Lebanese-Canadians living there permanently. We evacuated only 15,000, and that included 7,000 who went back right away (probably because they lived there). So only 8,000 (if that many) of 25,000 summer tourists returned home? It doesn't add up. Either the 50,000 figure is bloated or a lot more than half of them live there permanently. Not that we should do any original research, but we should keep an eye out for better info if we can find it. Deet 03:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YO SIMONE, WHAT'S WITH ALL THE BEEF?

Why do you insist on contributing to the OTHS wikipedia entry? I mean, sure, it is being "vandalized" quite a lot, but it is all being done by students of the school, and in light-hearted fun. What drives you to keep reverting it back to it's boring stub-osity. Do you think your some kind of wikihero? Standing up for all that wikipedia believes in when you try clean away anything you believe is unsuited for this site, so that you can get some kind of wiki-recognition? Let the kids have fun, they obviously aren't having any at OTHS, and this site allows them to express themselves in a public forum. Are you even employed at OTHS? If so, what is your role? I can't imagine any of the "important" faculty getting this involved in such an utter useless waste of time.

Yours truly: RagingHoboNumber74

Hello I am User:SuperDeng and have been indef blocked by an admin

To make a long story short

The admin who has a personal grudge against me, had made up some very nice stories about me and has continuously blocked for me 6 months. And a few months ago one of blocks ended and I made a grand total of 0 edits, but then a new char whos ip was not possbile to check appeared started makeing similar edits to mine so he was accussed of beeing a sockpuppet and I got blocked again. Now this can not be a sock puppet since I Superdeng did not do any edits and even if we were the same person then that dosent matter since superdeng was makeing zero edits the new account was created one week after my block was lifted. Bahh this is not a short story it is long. Anyway all I want is a fair trial on the arb com board where I have a chans of defending myself and not where everyone of the imaginasions of the admin is percieved as fact.

So what ever policy i violated has been served in full after 6 months.

Riverdale Riverdale

|RIVERDALE!!! Pete Peters 02:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Pulsifer

You may wish to review your entry, in light of a crudely-named newcomer's changes. CJCurrie 06:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess

Dear Simon—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 01:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have a rest

The Xing aknowledges your hard work, and offers you a rest in his garden.

The Xing 19:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desysopping proposal

Just to be clear...these are the reasons I am to be desysopped?--MONGO 22:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RBC and RBC (disambiguation)

Someone changed the RBC page from a redirect into a disambig and copied over all the material from the disambig. Maybe the right idea, but we should now delete one of them and if we delete the disambig we lose more history (although presumably fairly unimportant history). Do you happen to know the right way to handle this? Deet 00:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Fage Links

I am not sure if i had the discussion with you, but this is the format i suggest for all references in a book, To most users they would have no idea who or what f a g e is African Slave Trade ^[1]

Wikipedia Logo

Hi, I'm a graphic artist and I would love to oversee a project where we would change the wikilogo for special days like world cancer day. There are lots of graphic artists here and we can make it into a contest wiki feature style. I recently started the new Category:Awareness Days. Google do something similar to mark special days as I'm sure you've seen. [[38]] a link. Please advise. FrummerThanThou 03:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan

Please be aware that there is active, ongoing work on proposed decisions regarding this case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Workshop. Closing may be premature. Please review that page. Thank you. --Durin 13:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Well Done

</sarcasm> - Well, the scum over at ED (Encyclopedia Dramatica) are certainly lapping up the ArbCom decision to desysop MONGO. Hope your very happy with the situation you've helped create over there, and which I do hope you and the other members of ArbCom will be happy to clean up on your own when it spills over to Wikipedia. If it wasn't impossible, I'd take the ArbCom to Arbitration since you may have made one of the most damaging decisions on Wikipedia and are in danger of causing more damage to the site than MONGO ever could. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 02:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External Link deletion Angola

The Unearth Travel link was there because our wiki content is of use to the travel user. It has as much legitimacy as Wikitravel's link as we both use the same CC licence. Obviously the reason actual content could not be added is because of the incompatibility the licences. As it happens we also have more content than Wikitravel, which adds to our legitimacy. We have no ads or anything of a commercial nature. Thank you for your time, please advise of next step. PSBennett

SomaliaInternet.jpg

Why did you deleted the image SomaliaInternet.jpg?? Maybe someone remove they GFDL? I saw it there before. Someone removed the GFDL from the [39] but I just put it back. I know that these are free picture. I know the person who took the pictures and put them on his website. He gives these picutures freely to anyone who ask. Please put the picture back.

Woohoo!!!

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1570732,00.html User:Zoe|(talk) 07:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noticing that. I was interviewed and photographed several weeks ago, and was wondering what had come of it. Things like this are always a useful demonstration to family and friends that I am not wasting my time by spending so much of it on Wikipedia. - SimonP 08:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I was beated to it... In any case, well done. I've posted a link to the Time article on Wikipedia Signposts' tipline so that it can be mentioned in the next edition. Mikker ^(...) 16:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Wow, that's pretty cool. Something to tell the grandkids about, in any event! Have a great day! Gozel ^talk 21:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, just read the article. Congrats - not everyone gets in Time. It's even pretty balanced and informed! ;) JoeSmack ^Talk 16:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo!! (Do you have a web cam, and would you consider speaking to Amber MacArthur from Citynews International, presuming the Time article is her story for today's segment, and presuming I can convince her?) -- Zanimum 14:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly be interested in doing an interview, but unfortunetaly don't have a webcam. - SimonP 15:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hmm... I think she only does via webcam. Though wait, there's an A Channel in Ottawa, so maybe I could convince her to set up a satellite link... dunno. I'll let you know if anything develops. -- Zanimum 15:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Grats. Durova^Charge! 23:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WTF they totally should have interviewed Bluebot! This is bs! :P --- RockMFR 03:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wanted to drop you a "congrats" after reading the snippet in Time (I read it in the physical copy... I know, how 1999 of me). EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Louis de Jaucourt

Hi Simon, Louis de Jaucourt was the most prolific encyclopedist of the great 18th C French encyclopedia Encyclopedie, contributing close to 25% of the entire work, about 8 articles per day for years on end, and not paid a dime for his efforts (he even had to buy his own copy of the Encyclopedie when it was completed). Our Wikipedia article on him is "ok" but (I don't read French) the French Wikipedia version looks much better and more up to date. If you have any interest in doing a translation, I couldn't think of a better person to ask. Thanks and congrats on your Time profile. -- Stbalbach 03:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SimonP from Mumun man

Hi I am listening to you on the radio. Good :-) Just wanted to say hello. Mumun 18:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radio? Please let the Signpost Tipline know... -- Zanimum 19:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Person of the Year 2006

Hi Simon. I am not sure how much you are into userboxes, but due to your Time article you definitely deserve the {{User Person of the Year 2006}}. Congratulations! -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

request for clarification of the decision by the Kosovo arbitration committee

Hi Simon, I have entered a request for clarification regarding remedies that were taken against me (sorry if that's incorrect grammar) in the Kosovo arbitration case in October last year. As you were one of the administrators on the Kosovo arbitration committee I would very much appreciate if you could take a look at my entry and answer my questions. Regards Osli73 13:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2009 ICF Canoe Sprint World Championships

Since you live in the Halifax area, do you plan on attending the 2009 ICF Canoe Sprint World Championships in Dartmouth at Lake Banook? If you are, could you please provide images of this. It would be greatly appreciated. Chris (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already have done that. Sorry about that. Chris (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^ Slavery, Race and Ideology in the United States of America (Modified from 1989 Bantam Classic text ed.). Charlottesville: New Left Review. 1990 [unknown]. Retrieved 1990-06-22. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

[DuBois-1] Slavery, Race and Ideology in the United States of America (Modified from 1989 Bantam Classic text ed.). Charlottesville: New Left Review. 1990 [unknown]. Retrieved 1990-06-22. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

[1]

REQUEST to Omura entry Arbitrators: THAT THE VERSION CURRENTLY PROTECTED NOT REMAIN DURING THIS PROCESS

User:Ceha and Operation Medak Pocket

Dyslexic agnostic and T-man

Question about 1993 Canadian election article

NATO

Arab League template

Arbitration case

Request for comment

Wikimedia Canada

My RFA

Good luck

Question

"Countship" (sic)

Deryni category

AUFORN Cleanup

Page name for temperature articles

Alan Shefman

Reversion

"Obliged" versus "obligated"

Thanks for the Help

Zero

T-Man ban

Dispute resolution

Iranian -> Islamic.

De-stub inquiry.

My arbitration case

gonomad linkspam

Match Point

Grant Hill moves

Alpa Discucssion expansion

Hostility

Wheeler

Shefman AfD

Reform

Zero is edit warring.....Again

Blog link - LVM Instititute Link

Amanda Ghost

{{expandarticle}}

Matthew 1:9 on AFD

Sources for Doris Anderson's date of birth.

Bible-text articles

Copy of Message at User talk:Mushroom

Societal Attitudes Towards Homosexuality

Turnout.png

Agapetos Arbitration

Good day

Survey

Save "List of school pranks" From Deletion

Gospel of Judas

Arbcom

Hello Again

Your userpage

More Matthew?

St James Town

Marshall Plan

Baptism of Jesus article

Arb Case Mistake

Category:Freguesias of Portugal

Barnstar!

regarding "civility"

Candy Punk

Irgendwer RfC

War accident

Just in case...

You might be interested

Your Arbitration Duties

Thanks from repentant vandal

WikiLove!

Riding Names

Greetings!

your Northwest Passage edit

Redlinks

Terrorism Images

Domar aggregation

List of international terrorist attacks in Canada

Jayjg new revert war at Ahmadinejad and Israel

I always I admired your work

200 verses of Matthew, again

Bill Bauer

A heartfelt ArbCom thank you