Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Researcher99 (talk | contribs) at 21:05, 7 November 2005 (→Procedural Guidance Requested). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Orville Eastland 23:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, The Epopt! Finally I know why Tussionex makes me stop coughing and feel soooooo good! --MichaelTinkler, bronchitic.

Hello, sorry to bother you but I accidentally deleted the Hawkeye photo you uploaded. I was on the phone and dropped something on the mouse, and hit "Esc" but the command was already sent. Koyaanis Qatsi, Tuesday, June 11, 2002

That's sounds like it would have been fun to watch. Was there a cat involved? --the Epopt

Eh, no. Just distraction because of the nature of the conversation and my general clumsiness. Thanks for reuploading.  :-) Koyaanis Qatsi

I'm so happy I could eat a small force-fattened bird whole!Ortolan88

Why did you move calibre to caliber? I thought Wiki has a policy of accepting an article in whichever version of english it is written. For hundreds of millions of english speakers, (British-English, Hiberno-English, etc) Calibre IS the correct spelling. Only American English uses Caliber. (Europeans often joke about 'American gun-culture' - I've often wondered, surely linking culture to guns is a contradiction in terms!!! - but does that extend to changing articles on guns to American-English spellings? I'm joking by the way. Please don't take offence like so many Americans do when the rest of the world expresses bewilderment at its gun laws! One American friend of mine couldn't comprehend the fact that Irish and British police don't carry guns, or that 95% of Irish and British people have never even seen a gun. He had his first in LA aged 11!!! JTD 18:59 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

I didn't move anything -- I simply created a redirect at calibre pointing to the already-existing article at caliber.

And I don't take offence at your not understanding our affection for guns. We citizens have always been willing to loan you subjects guns when you realize you need them, and I have plenty to spare. ;-> --the Epopt

Date Redirection Creation Script (not the Datebot)

BTW, check out the discussion Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) that I semi-inadvertantly instigated. It looks likely that it won't be necessary to transform all the dates from DANFS, and I've started just bracketing the day-month refs unchanged in the expectation that they'll point to something soon. Stan 00:55 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

OK, OK, we get the idea! You can mark all the rest of them as "minor" now, so that Recent Changes remains useful. :) Tannin (By the way, if you want a hand with doing some of them, sing out. I'd be happy to help.)

I appreciate the offer, but now that I've debugged myself, I seem to be averaging a very smooth rate of one per five seconds.  ;-> --the Epopt

moved from User talk:66.159.210.12 (an IP address that I own)

Hi! Erm, what are these supposed to be?

1. 07:21 Mar 2, 2003 This day, , this month (REDIRECT this_month this_day) (top)
2. 07:20 Mar 2, 2003 This day, , this month (REDIRECT this_month this_day) (top)
3. 07:20 Mar 2, 2003 This day, , this month (REDIRECT $this_month $this_day) (top)
4. 07:20 Mar 2, 2003 This day, , this month (REDIRECT $this_month $this_day) (top)

Apparently, a bug in your date-redirecting bot. Congratulations, you've also exposed a bug in the wiki. :) --Brion 07:46 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

Hey, could you please test your bots more thoroughly prior to running them? We have http://test.wikipedia.org/ available for this and other such purposes. (Make sure you send a 'Host:' header, we use virtual hosts.) --Brion 07:30 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

Datebot

moved from User talk:66.159.210.12 (an IP address that I own)

DateBot: you don't seem to be a properly registered bot; I don't see you on Misplaced Pages:bots under currently running bots. Could you do that? Thanks! DanKeshet

That's only for bots that make thousands of changes. --mav 21:44 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

How many pages will this bot affect? DanKeshet

Why are you changing dates from the form September 16 to the form 16 September? There is an ongoing discussion about this at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), which I assume you know about, and there is absolutely no consensus that this is the Right Thing to do. I'm am sorely tempted to revert all your changes. --Camembert

Ship Articles

Kudos for your work on the submarine articles. They are really shaping up! -- User:hajhouse

Second that! The Das Boot article is really good as well! :-) --Anders Törlind

Undocumented in Misplaced Pages: Unterseeboot 19 landed Sir Roger Casement in Ireland. Ortolan88

Unacceptable!  ;->

I like how USS Texas and its sub-articles are shaping up! But I have a question - should the hull type and number have a hyphen joining them or not? I see no hyphens on official Navy pages, not even on pages referring to old ships, but they are ubiquitous in DANFS, which suggests a policy change in recent years. Do you know the story? Stan Shebs 04:08 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

I was wondering how long it would take someone to ask that question. There seems to be no consistency anywhere -- chinfo.navy.mil sometimes uses a space, sometimes a hyphen, sometimes both on the same page! I've been using a hyphen (as you can tell) only because I think it looks best. --the Epopt

My God, I can't cope - there's no regulation? No "Norfolk Manual of Style"? :-) I bet there is a rule, just need to find it. It's going to matter a little, because the choice leaks into article titles thus affecting search results (though not Google's I suppose). Stan Shebs 05:27 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ships looks great! I added a bit of content recommendation. The general characteristics and other universal info could be table-ized and flowed alongside text, could spiff up the presentation a bit. Might be interesting to table-ize ships' comings and goings, but it would be more work. Stan 05:14 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)

I see my Beryllium table has again been adapted to serve yet another WikiProject. :) Have you given any thought to using different colors for the heading cells based on ship type? That would be cool. --mav

Beryllium? I swiped it from Vostok 1! The different colors is an interesting idea -- I'll give it some thought and discussion on the Wikiproject page. Any suggestions? --the Epopt 06:53 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)

Like I said the table has been copied all over the place - most people didn't even bother changing the heading color (or even realized where the table first came from - such is the power of wiki!). :) I dunno about the colors -- that will take some thought. It took a while to figure out the best color scheme for the periodic table and for the different Kingdoms, but those are areas that I know a lot about. This is the type of detail that can be worked-out later though. --mav

Nice disclaimer on the ships project! Tannin :)

See Talk:Richard Antrim. DO NOT CALL ME A LIAR!!!!! -- Zoe

Then don't accuse me of copyright violations.

On the subject of copyright, I notice that Stan Shebs refers to the RN website, saying that its info is often not good enough to copy. However, I have looked at the page for HMS Sceptre, the SSN, and I have found that your text was in large part a verbatim copy of the text on the RN website. True, you have inserted a great deal of extra material about the second HMS Sceptre, and the latest HMS Sceptre, but other than that, it seems pretty blatant copying. Since the RN website is under Crown Copyright, have you got permission to copy that? David Newton 17:19 BST Jun 20 2003

Yes, I do. If you look up the definition of a "Crown copyright," you will see that it can be copied freely as long as it is copied accurately and not dispargingly. --the Epopt 16:23 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I've checked on the HMSO website, and the waiver on Crown Copyright does indeed extend to websites, unless explicitly said so on the website. The RN website just claims Crown Copyright, it does not say that it cannot be reproduced, so I think that I was a little too zealous in my point. It's probably worth putting up what is covered by the waiver of Crown Copyright in the article on the same in the Misplaced Pages. David Newton 18:25 BST Jun 20 2003

Thank you for actually checking, and not just shrieking hysterically. ;->

Just to bring you fully up to date, I've gone through all of the RN warship articles, and those that use material from the RN website have had a Crown Copyright acknowledgement added to them. That should bring things fully into line with HMSO's policy on the waivers David Newton 20:00 BST 20 Jun 2003

Problem. IIRC the Crown Copyright and the GNU FDL are incompatible. We cannot say at the bottom of each page that "all text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License" when some of that text is first and foremost under the Crown Copyright. I'll ask the mailing list about this but I'm pretty sure we cannot use Crown Copyright text. --mav 19:58 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well, at least you'll be able to find the pages that have the material in them easily in the search engine now! I have also included a link back to the page that the material came from originally, so it can be seen what is Crown Copyright, and what might need rewriting.

I would certainly agree that Crown Copyright itself and the GNU FDL are incompatable. However, the waiver for Crown Copyright simply states that the text can be reproduced in any format or medium, provided that two conditions are met. One of those conditions is that the source and status of the material is noted. That is fulfilled by the links that I have put in. The other is that the material is not reproduced in a misleading context, and is reproduced accurately. Obviously, not reproducing it in a misleading context is no problem, since the articles are themselves about warships. However, the problem might be accuracy. The whole point of the Misplaced Pages is that dervative works of the original can be easily created. Does that make the reproducion of the text inaccurate, when quoted portions are interspersed with other bits of the article, as is the case with several of the articles that this applies too? David Newton 22:43 BST 20 Jun 2003

As I announced on the mailing list, I will query HMSO this week, explaining the GFDL and our project and (I hope) getting an official answer to this question from HM Government. L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace. --the Epopt 17:33 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

They should reply fairly quickly. When I had a copyright query and emailed their licensing department, they responded inside 24 hours. David Newton 23:20 BST 22 Jun 2003

So what was the outcome? I'm curious now. Plus some Canadian government websites are probably under Crown copyright. --Andrew 00:55, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

General Discussion

I've noticed the term Straw man being used often by users to mean "a bad arguement", which is not the proper definition. Please see the definition listed on wikipedia of Straw man for the real meaning. Hopefully this will clear up confusion in the future. Don't feel bad, this is a common mistaken use of Straw man.  :) MB 20:35 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I know I was just being picky, but thanks for fixing your error. MB 21:24 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

No problem. I was using the term in the sense of "you're shooting at the wrong target; even if you're right, it's irrelevant" -- which is a little better than "a bad argument" but is admittedly not exactly correct. --the Epopt 21:43 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

'Yards square' is equally correct as 'square yards'.

Vacuum

The 4000-ton submarine did not leave a debris field only 60x60 feet. The only interpretation of "400 yards square" that makes sense is 160000 sq yd. (To those of you wonder what the hell we're talking about, see USS Thresher (SSN-593).)

I've heard plenty of people use 'yards square' to mean the same thing as 'square yards'.

Plenty of people may *use* them interchangeably, but that does not *make* them interchangeable. "400 square yards" is 20 yards x 20 yards, "400 yards square" is 400 yards x 400 yards. Elde 18:16, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hmm... Your edit comment under Ohio Class leads me to think you wear the patrol pin. What boats did you sail on? Elde 09:47, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Two years in the shipyard watching her being built, then two years sea duty on Ohio (Blue crew) herself. --the Epopt, ex-MM1(SS)

Just curious as to why you think German aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin is a better name for the article? Wasn't the ship's name simply Graf Zeppelin? --Rlandmann 04:41, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

After much discussion, summarized at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ships, we settled on nationality type name for ships that don't have standard prefixes. The main advantage is readability -- "He served on the German aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin" is a good English sentence. Obviously, we can't simply title the article Graf Zeppelin.

MediaWiki Messages for Ships

I've put a couple of new MediaWiki messages into circulation. One of them is for DANFS, and the other is an experiment with the Iowa class battleships. Please let me know what you think. David Newton 23:08, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I like the idea of msgs, and I like the class-list msg, though it will probably be impractical for the larger classes; e.g., the Gato class submarines. I'm not quite so thrilled by the DANFS msg, simply because I hope that DANFS won't be the only source for our articles and having a hard-and-fast msg might actually discourage people citing other sources. Many of the Sturgeon class submarines have a stub in DANFS which must then be expanded using other sources. However, the message can be easily overwritten, so let her run. --the Epopt 01:48, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Good to know that you like the class message idea. I also approve of your suggestion of omitting the USS/HMS(although I haven't done any RN lists yet)/whatever prefix. On the DANFS message, I made it because so many places use DANFS material, and the copyright paranoid might be likely to blank such pages for copyvios. I altered quite a number of existing pages which pointed directly to the DANFS page, although I still left a large number of submarines to deal with. As for short articles from DANFS that need expanding, I'd say that's what the stub message is for.

Stan Shebs also expressed some concern over the larger classes of ship being impractical. He seems to like the idea as well. I actually beat him to creating a DANFS message. David Newton 20:06, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Frankly the message feature is starting to be way overused. Elde 09:17, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Michael T. Isenberg

I've been been reading Isenberg's Shield of the Republic lately, very interesting on postwar Navy details that DANFS et al kind of, um, leave out. Anyway, Isenberg himself seems to be kind of a shadowy figure, the only info I can find online is that he's written about a half-dozen books on random history topics, and that he was a USNA prof sometime around the late 1980s. In particular, Shield of the Republic is just one volume of a projected two, so what happened to the sequel? Anyway, was wondering if you knew anything more about him, maybe had contact at some point. Stan 05:59, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Porpoise-class submarine

Just noticed there is a MediaWiki for an American porpoise sub' class. Just wondering if both pages, when your Porpoise class is done, should be moved to British Porpoise class submarine and American Porpoise class submarine? I've moved the British Porpoise class already.

I agree, except that it must be called Template:United States Porpoise class submarine -- way too many hypersensitive people get all self-righteously indignant if a USian uses the word "American." --the Epopt 22:08, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Enh. Just go with what people worldwide use. Everyone uses "American." -Joseph 15:11, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)

old term?

Chief_of_Naval_Operations you say that this position is responsible to the Secretary_of_the_Navy yet, that page is a redirect to SecDef which says that SecNavy and others were combined into SecDef. Any reason i shouldnt change it to SecDef on the first page i list. Hfastedge 10:36, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I wonder if Gordon England, current Secretary of the Navy, knows that he's been combined with Donald Rumsfeld? Secretary of the Navy does not (and should not) redirect to Secretary of Defence, so I don't really understand your question. --the Epopt 03:36, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

HMSO

Hi, just seen your letter requesting permission to use HMSO content. Did you ever get a reply? If so, as well as satiating my curiosity, perhaps you'd add a note to the page. Regards, --bodnotbod 11:11, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

Done.

Good edits on articles

Great edits on supercarrier, USSR aircraft carrier Ulyanovsk, and blue water. What else did you edit at the time that was related? -Joseph 15:10, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)

Thanks! Just adding links from other articles to maritime geography, unless you're interested in USS United States (CVA-58) and the Revolt of the Admirals.

Re: Rex071404 John Kerry ban

Given the extreme pro-Kerry condition of the John Kerry page when I began editing it and the furious reaction of the entrenched editors there, I am not surpised that Arbitrators would leap to their defense. I am however, surprised that you do it so easily based on what amounts to their half of the story of a tit-for-tat battle.

With election 2004 underway, the ponderously slow process of the Arb committee means that my "temp" ban is in fact a death sentence.

For your information, I was patiently and thoroughly tallying details (many already submitted into evidence) about Neutrality, etc's equally agressive efforts as mine.

But alas, this Wiki has turned into bascially a pro-Kerry farce - with only the aggresive "anti-Kerry" editors being banned. The pro-Kerry crew it seems, can do no wrong.

Rex071404 17:00, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Note: this is a cross-post - I have responded at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404. Martin 22:16, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Being accused of pro-Kerry bias is the funniest thing that has happened to me all week. Thank you for the belly laugh, Rex071404. --the Epopt 17:04, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Falls of Clyde

Most excellent! Now that there's more text, there's room for a couple of my photos taken onboard a couple years ago! Re dups, yeah, I'm spending more time these days knocking down free links that are just different spellings/phrasings of existing articles... Stan 05:34, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sub Articles

Hi there, Epopt!

Just wanted to ask you something. In your article on the Soviet submarine K-3, you wrote:

"On June 17, 1962 К-3 reached the North Pole underwater, a feat performed nearly four years earlier by USS Nautilus..."

My sources tell me that the Soviet "K-3" didn't "simply" reach the North Pole, it surfaced and fixed the Soviet flag and the Navy pennant in the ice. Looks like a "simple" underwater journey under the North Pole wasn't enough for the Russians :). This was a great achievement as well, wouldn't you say? Do you know anything about this fact? If yes, do you think we could insert it in your article? Thanks!

KNewman 23:03, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long to see your comment -- I don't usually read my user page. I'll look into K-3's mission and make sure they get the credit they deserve. --the Epopt 04:50, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

While K-3 may need to be given greater credit, let's not forget that Skate surfaced at the pole only a few months after Nautilus went underneath it. Elde

Hey there Epopt,

I was just about to do an article on the USS Pipefish (my dad's submarine) and you beat me to it by about two hours. Any reason you decided to do the article just now? Any connection? Rsduhamel 04:20, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yep. I saw your spelling correction, and decided to put the DANFS article up, hoping it would inspire you to add information from your father's patrols. --the Epopt 04:50, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Alphabetization of, well, you

I recently alphabetized Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians somewhere unspecified in the United States of America, but I wasn't sure if I should put you under E or T. Please correct me if I fouled it up. Thanks. -- SS, a Wikipedian living somewhere unspecified in the United States of America, 15:41, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You did it correctly; file me under "E" for "Epopt."

Great! -- SS 04:39, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

CSS Oregon

I may be confused somewhere (wouldn't be the first time ...), but you seemed to have added the following to USS Oregon:

and one ship of the Confederate States Navy ) have been named USS Oregon, in honor of the 33rd state.

I can't find a dependable reference for a Confederate ship, presumably the CSS Oregon. Can anyone help me here? Did such a ship exist?

Any why would the Confederates name a ship for a Union state? I'm confused.

dino 02:00, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The answers can be found here. --the Epopt 04:02, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

USS Thresher

I just wanted to say thanks for catching that vandalism. I guess I didn't read what I was reverting to as closely as I should have. Cavebear42 17:47, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

DANFS

You might be interested in my comments on DANFS conversions at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ships/DANFS conversions. Gdr 14:49, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

Ensigns or jacks?

You were the first person to add flags to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ships. So you would be the best person to answer User:Tkinias's question on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ships#Flags as to why some navies are represented by their jack and some by their ensign. Gdr 12:49, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)

Back when I was the only one doing this, I chose to use jacks because they are specific symbols; c.f., the various colours of the ensigns of the Royal Navy. Where a given Navy didn't have a jack -- or I had trouble finding a good image of the jack -- I used the ensign. As others joined me in working on ships, they added whatever they felt was appropriate. I do not think we should replace any naval jacks with national ensigns. The jack is the symbol of the Navy; the ensign is the symbol of the entire nation. Precision is valuable. The popularity argument doesn't float for me -- an encyclopedia's job is to be right, perhaps even educational -- not made inaccurate to avoid surprising the ignorant. If anything, we should replace the fifty-star USN jack with the one currently flying on the warships of the US Navy. --the Epopt 15:49, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A request for you to change your signature

May I ask that you change the bit of your signature that says "of the Cabal" (crossed out)? Whilst I appreciate it is meant to be a humorous comment, I'm not sure it is a good thing for an Arbitrator to use, especially when voting on arbitration disputes such as the one raised by CheeseDreams against "a cabal of "fundamentalists"". On a more general point, I doubt I am alone in thinking it's a bad idea for Arbitrators to include jokes in their decisions. Cheers. jguk 13:19, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your concern. Can you describe a potential scenario in which my signature could cast doubt on my impartiality? ] 00:15, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with his signature CheeseDreams 18:36, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ArbComm Stuff

Herschelkrustofsky

Hi, I'm writing about a decision made by the Arbitration Committee regarding activism on behalf of Lyndon LaRouche in Misplaced Pages; see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision.

If you have time, would you mind taking a look at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision? Herschelkrustofsky, who is one of the LaRouche supporters the decision involved, has initiated a query of the Arbitration Committee for clarification of the ruling (under Regarding this Arbcom ruling, as it applies to the dispute between SlimVirgin and HerschelKrustofsky).

I agree that clarification is needed, because I feel the wording of the ruling has left loopholes that the LaRouche supporters are exploiting. I have therefore written up a long response to Herschelkrustofsky's query and have requested clarification from the Committee on three specific points, as I feel this is an opportunity to put the matter to rest. I wondered whether you'd be prepared to comment on the page. If you don't have the time or inclination, however, don't worry about it. Many thanks, Slim 05:24, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDream's Questions

One Question

In most legal situations, policemen whose conduct is undergoing criminal investigation tend to be temporarily suspended from duty.

Since Fred Bauder is currently undergoing arbitration himself as to his neutrality or accurate reportage, should he actually be allowed to take an active part in other cases?

CheeseDreams 18:37, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, he certainly should be allowed to continue his duties. Any other answer will allow denial of service attacks on the ArbComm — simply opening disputes against each of us would shut the committee down. ] 20:54, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fair play

According to the RfAr against me, these are the arbitrators

• Accept Fred Bauder 18:48, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Accept. →Raul654 19:32, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Accept. ] 21:19, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Recuse. Jwrosenzweig 21:42, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Accept. Delirium 23:24, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

so why is James F voting on the proposed decision? CheeseDreams 19:09, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Because he's an arbitor. Surely you don't think that only the first few arbiters who vote to accept your case are allowed to vote on the decision. ] 21:54, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da yu

How long? 30 days or 90 days? So much for my work on Australian articles and computing articles, and my attempts at fixing up Historicity of Jesus. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I've already voted against your ban, but if you insist, I will go back and change it. ] 00:06, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sigh. It looks like I'm wrong (again). I must be having a bad day. I think it's time for me to logout. Sorry for the message. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:29, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

AndyL

Wouldn't tempbanning me be a case of blaming the victim (or at least punishing the victim?) Why would anyone bring any matter to the ArbComm if doing so puts them at risk of being tempbanned for simply being a disputant? What, exactly, have I done to justify a tempban from *any* and all articles related to vexillology, fascism or Canada? If I've done nothing to justify such discipline (for what else would one call it) then how can the ArbComm justify such an act?AndyL 23:53, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

At the very least if there is a "temporary injunction" it should be restricted to the articles Red Ensign, Flag of Manitoba and Flag of Ontario as those are the only articles that have been the subject of dispute or, at most, all articles dealing with flags. Including any article related to Canada bans me from editing thousands of articles indefinitely and is uncalled for. As for fascism, the disputants have not been involved in any dispute on articles on fascism so having a temporary injunction on those articles makes as much sense as having one on all articles related to toxicology. AndyL 00:08, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No one is discussing banning you, even temporarily. If it passes, you will still be welcome to edit in other areas. That said, one of the practices the ArbComm is developing is that of enjoining all participants to stop all actions associated with the dispute until it is resolved. As long as the ArbComm can keep up the pace of processing our cases, these injunctions will not hinder the innocent any more than a page-protection would; your word "indefinitely" is completely incorrect. Finally, please remember that arbitration is not something that people should want or feel good about doing. It is a serious step that can result in a Misplaced Pages Death Sentence; if these temporary injunctions make disputants decide to try a little harder to avoid bringing their squabbles before the ArbComm, so much the better. ] 00:21, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We're talking about what would effectively be an indefinite ban on thousands of articles which have nothing to do with this dispute. If that's the effect of my bringing a complaint of being personally attacked then I will simply withdraw the complaint. AndyL 00:34, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That is, of course, your prerogative. ] 01:08, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If your interest is in stopping all actions associated with the dispute then your injunction should be limited to the three articles in question, Red Ensign, Flag of Ontario and Flag of Manitoba, and no other or *at the most* all articles related to vexillology and flags. An injunction on all articles related to Canada or all articles related to fascism (when no disputes have occured in fascism-related articles) is absurd and overly broad. AndyL 00:37, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since the injunction will end the instant the case is decided, you would help your situation more by presenting evidence than by instructing me on how we should arbitrate. ] 01:08, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have already presented all the evidence on the evidence pages. I, however, don't see the justification of an injunction on my editing thousands of articles that have nothing to do with the dispute, particularly when arbcomm cases often take weeks or months to deliberate before there is a decision. Certainly if the ArbComm is to issue an injunction against the *complainant* (something that would be considered highly irregular in any other judicial or quasi-judicial setting) the complainant should have a say in the matter and, frankly, if there is going to be such an injunction my inclination is to withdraw my motion for arbitration. Also, frankly, if this sort of action becomes the norm I don't see why anyone would ever bother requesting arbitration if the effect of requesting arbitration is to effectively be punished through a temporary injunction AndyL 01:17, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since it appears that my colleagues on the Committee agree with my proposed injunction, our discussion here is clearly not theoretical. As for the "weeks or months" of deliberation, I will only point to the relative speed with which this temporary injunction passed. I have hope that a final decision can be reached just as quickly. None the less, please feel free to withdraw your complaint, which will release both you and Armchair from our judgements. More generally, I assure you that I, at least, intend to continue using temporary injunctions that you will feel are "absurd and overly broad" in many, if not most cases. I strongly encourage you to complain about that practice widely and to discourage others from seeking arbitration. If you can build a consensus against us, we will either change or be replaced. (By the way, you are very wrong when you state that temporary injunctions against the complainant "would be considered highly irregular in any other judicial or quasi-judicial setting" -- read up on traditions of law other than Anglo-American Common Law.) ] 04:58, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If the purpose of the injunction is to halt the activity leading to the matter being arbitrated what is the purpose of including articles which are not the scene of dispute (or even activity) by both parties? Don's only interest in wikipedia has been in flag-related articles. What then is the purpose of including articles which do not relate to flags in the injunction particularly when I have now said that I will not engage Don during the course of the ArbComms deliberations no matter where he edits?AndyL 13:30, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please see Proposed Decision 2.1. I have e-mailed the Committee asking them to expedite their votes. ] 14:18, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ciz

Ciz and arbitration:

Since referral to ArbCom 24 hours or so ago, Ciz has made the following posts to the article:

• Added category ABUSE (edit titled "Art") then again in a seecond edit
• Deleted a referent website to non sexual zoophilia as "irrelevant"
• Added template NPOV (note: the article is already tagged with a template describing that some matters may be disputed)

I hate to ask it but now it is officially in ArbCom hands, can a temp injunction be undertaken until the ArbCom hears this matter? Or should I post this on the ArbCom page? Or ask my local sysop? Suggestions whats best? FT2 17:59, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

As noted on the ArbComm page, I support a temporary injunction, but since the case has not yet been accepted, I don't think we have assumed control yet. Please nudge the other Arbitrators and let them know the urgency you feel. ] 18:43, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily

Did you put any thought at all into these arbitration rulings against me? Did you even examine the evidence? Or are you just recklessly following the crowd? VeryVerily 19:31, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. Following the crowd isn't reckless, it's safe. Bucking the herd would be reckless. ] 20:04, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(I can't decode the intent of this comment.) So you're surrendering your own judgement? Could you not then replace your slot on the ArbCom with a bot that says "I agree"? I don't think that's the reason we have multiple arbitrators; each one should bear responsibility for evaluating the case. VeryVerily 20:41, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The intent of my comment was to point out that "recklessly following the crowd" is an oxymoron. On a completely separate subject, if you feel I was derelict in the performance of my ArbComm duties, I strongly encourage you to have me impeached. ] 21:08, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Crowds - especially of two or three - can be very wrong. I suppose Nazi analogies would be over the top, but following the crowd can obviously sometimes be reckless, and the oxymoron comment is just dumb. My guess was that you were derelict, but that's why I came to you to ask, in hopes you could clarify, which you have not done, preferring what seems like heavy sarcasm. As for your latter advice, we both know how impeachment would go, even though - as you feel the need to say over and over and over and over again - there is absolutely no cabal. VeryVerily 21:16, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ciz

The main evidence page is now completed. I note that Ciz was been told (Dec.17) he is expected to add evidence or a statement. FT2 05:03, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz's misbehaviour

Hi, according to this remedy (i.e. the fourth) in the recently closed arbitration case against Gzornenplatz et al., the arbitrated editors are required to discuss pages before making reverts to them, or risk being banned. As you will notice from these links, mentioned before on the evidence page, Gzornenplatz - while restricting himself to one revert a day - has in fact continued to revert without discussion for a number of image-articles during and after arbitration, effectively making around 20 reverts a day every few days, and causing other editors (ie me and a couple of others) a lot of uneccessary, time-wasting work over the past 2 months; if this could be stopped as soon as possible, it would be much appreciated. -- Simonides

Crown Copyright on an image

Hi Epopt. I want to upload an image of the British signpost for a roundabout to improve the Roundabout_intersection article. I've found an image at the Highway Code (Dept. of Transport) site which says it is Crown Copyright. Does that mean that if I upload it, and add the crown copyright tag that should be fine? I mean, that will acknowledge HMGov as the copyright holder, and an image is not going to be edited... PaulHammond 14:44, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is no hard-and-fast answer. On the first tentacle, our use of any material under Crown Copyright is fine -- we use it accurately, not disparagingly, and so on -- but we then license that material for others to use under the GFDL, which does not include those limitations. Someone could take the image from our site and somehow use it inaccurately, disparagingly, and so on, and claim that we had given him permission to do so. We don't have the right to give that permission. On the other tentacle, we also include material by claiming "fair use," which other people may or may not be able to claim. Somehow, people have decided that slapping the GFDL onto material that we only have "fair use" of isn't a problem. On the third tentacle, I am not a lawyer, so this is not legal advice. The only thing I know for sure is that HMSO sent me an e-mail message stating very clearly that Crown Copyright and the GFDL are not compatible. ➥the Epopt 17:57, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We do not have any rights to license Crown coyright material. Only HMSO and those to whom HMSO has delegated authority have the right to do that. Anybody using Crown copyrighted pictures from the Misplaced Pages must obey the same stipulations as the Misplaced Pages or risk being sued. David Newton 18:47, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not Being a Dick

I just wanted to say, no VfD vote in a long time has made me smile and laugh quite as much as yours. Snowspinner 13:52, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

List alphabetization

I see you're altering the ordering of the USN submarine list. I would contend that you are doing it incorrectly. For example, you put USS George Washington after USS George Washington Carver. It is clear to me that the addition of Carver to the name places that variant after plain George Washington in an alphabetized list. A c is after nothing in the alphabet. David Newton 17:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but open-paren comes after a C. I did the alphabetizing by means of the Linux "sort" command, which compared "USS George Washington (SSBN-whatever)" to "USS George Washington Carver (SSBN-whatever)." The result is clearly incorrect in this case. I was entirely interested in getting all of the -boats in the right place, and didn't think to look for the side-effects you found. Well done! ➥the Epopt 21:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

New ship table template

I've spent the last few days working on a new ship table template to enable us to centralise the editing of things like weapons outfits for a particular class of ships in one template (so with the Fletchers or Gearings or other big classes you only have to edit in one place to alter a mistake rather than in dozens or hundreds). Please have a look at the WikiProject Ships page's talk section and see what you think. I haven't written the instructions for using it yet, and I want to see whether there are any table cells people would like me to include that aren't present yet. There are two example tables, one with all the optional cells present, and the other with some excluded. David Newton 14:03, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jealousy

You have a collection of Lensman source material ? You lucky son-of-a-gun ! What sort of stuff have you got ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:27, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

As well as every word Doc published, I have a few obscure books, such as New Lensman and The Universes of E.E. Smith, several biographies, a starkly wonderful stack of correspondence with Doc's daughter, Verna Smith Trestrail, and notes from interviews with a few of Doc's contemporaries. I accumulated most of it during my tour of duty as Historian of the Lens. ➥the Epopt 21:53, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Soviet/post-Soviet navies

Hi and thanks for your co-operation offer on my talk page. I hope to present you my plan of joint "attack" soon. Generally, I lack English military (especially weapons) terms, as well as deep professional understanding of military issues. I'm only a military fan who grew up into a journalist and contribites on the army issues from time to time. Best wishes, AlexPU

Hi. I've posted my first suggestions on the navy. Would you take a look? AlexPU

My case pending in ArCom

Hi Epopt,

I saw your disclaimer above. But I believe, since my case is in the ArbCom and you are one of the ArbCom members who investigates this case currently, you wouldn't mind me posting a brief note in your talkpage concerning my case. Please, visit Baku Ibne, et al. talkpage where I give update on recent attacks. Also if you have further questions or need some additional info, please, post it there as well. I hope to see some concrete changes soon, because the more these people are left unpunished the more aggressive they will become. --Tabib 16:06, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Epopt, did you read my recent message Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Baku_Ibne,_et_al.#Rovoam_exposes_his_real_face._What_next_for_Tabib.3F. I just was wandering did you cast your votes after reading this message or did you miss somehow my message addressed to all ArbCom members? I am going to notify just in case other ArbCom members about this recent message too. Thanks. --Tabib 15:22, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration votes

Either you've been editing logged out, or an anon has been trying to impersonate you. See Special:Contributions/192.85.47.2. If it was you, I'm afraid all of the edits have been reverted, so you'll need to go back and restore them. --Michael Snow 22:09, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Biweekly special article

Dear Fact and Reference Check member,

After many months, the biweekly special article has been brought back! The article we will be referencing is Titan (moon). Please do your best to help out!

I'm asking all members to verify at least three facts in the article, and I'd really appreciate it if you could try and help with this. We have about 19 members, so if even 3/4 of us try and fulfil this 'dream', that'll be 45 references!

If you need some information on how to use footnotes, take a look at Misplaced Pages:Footnote3, which has a method of autonumbering footnotes. Unfortunately, they produce brackets around the footnotes, but it seems to be our best alternative until they integrate the footnote feature request code into MediaWiki. You may be interested in voting for the aforementioned feature request.

Cheers,

Frazzydee|✍ 20:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

USS Sealion

Hi,
Could you move USS Sealion II (SS-315) back to USS Sealion (SS-315), as per Talk:USS Sealion II (SS-315)?
—wwoods 07:58, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Littoral Combat Ship

Your edit comment, Freedom, has nothing whatsoever to do with the contents of your edit, which simply changed capitalization of two links. It makes it difficult for me to go through my watchlist when people don't bother to leave edit comments. It really isn't so difficult. Please play nice with the other users. Avriette 16:34, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The main change I made was to add a link to USS Freedom. ➥the Epopt 18:06, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Littoral_Combat_Ship&diff=prev&oldid=13518445 ... Perhaps you should be more clear, or make separate edits. The latter is common practice when large groups of people are working on a shared piece of information with version control (eg in software development). Besides, what is your opposition to adding two words ("changed capitalization")? Brevity is not an advantage in edit comments. Avriette 18:12, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Greetings! I see you recently deleted the article David Habbin (since restored) as a speedy. This looks to me like stretching the criteria for speedy beyond where they ought to go; I can understand speedying borderline cases rather than putting them through VfD, but this one was too far past the borders. The original author of the article has emailed Misplaced Pages asking why her article was deleted without comment and I can't give her a good reason other than to say it was by mistake and that there should have been discussion first. Please use better judgment with this in the future. Thanks, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Revolt of the Admirals audio

The quality is superb! Great work. DanielHolth 28 June 2005 21:30 (UTC)

File:Usjack large.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Usjack large.png, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion. Please see the ] to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. This image has been obsoleted by Image:USN-Jack.png. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 30 June 2005 05:32 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Naming conflict

I've written up a new policy proposal, with assistance from Ed Poor, to set out some guidelines and basic principles for dealing with naming conflicts of the Gdanzig type. Could you take a look at Misplaced Pages:Naming conflict and let me know what you think? -- ChrisO 1 July 2005 22:14 (UTC)

Viperfish

Howsabout http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/lineart/viperfish.jpg (a drawing), from , which I guess is USGOV-PD. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk July 3, 2005 14:11 (UTC)

Cantus' request for arbitration

Hi The Epopt, in Cantus' request for arbitration, would you consider applying an extension of Cantus' second case, which states Cantus is limited to one revert per article per 24 hour period. Should he violate this, an admin may ban him for a short period of time (up to a week), the extension being one revert per 24hr period to any page in any namespace? I feel that the current proposed decision will once again not make it clear to him that refusing to discuss and reverting without edit summaries is not acceptable. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 18:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Strange speedy

Hi there. I noticed you speedied Labrador Adventure Route which I had previously removed the speedy tag from. I know you're not supposed to remove speedies, but that was clearly not a candidate, I thought: it is mentioned in the two articles it linked to unless that was just wikilink spamming. But it certainly wasn't a neologism and that is not speediable anyway. Was there some other reason for speedying it (perhaps it had been vandalized and looked like a speedy by the time it was retagged?), or should I take it to VfU?

I speedied it because it was tagged, and the article itself included the line "The name is not an official moniker, rather, employed by a Misplaced Pages contributor to describe a series of highways that tie together across spectacular, unspoiled wilderness." That made it an idiosyncratic neologism, qualifying it to be deleted. If I'm wrong, I'll be happy to undelete it myself, correcting my own error. ➥the Epopt 16:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I see. I think the first time I came across it, that line wasn't in there (but doing RC patrol, I might not have spotted it). In that case, it would be an obvious delete so there's no point in VfU or anything. Still, I'm not sure that it qualified for speedy deletion (and it had also been listed on VfD by the original tagger). -Splash 16:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Merging my article with your copy

Hi! I was in the process of writing a wikipedia article on The Navy Hymn. After posting my article ("Eternal Father Strong to Save"), I came across yours. I'd like to possibly discuss what parts of the articles we should merge. I know you posted a bit more info than my article, though I have added a few bits that the US Navy's FAQ doesn't have. (Biblical references, film and TV uses, plus an additional verse on Space travel). user:Orville Eastland

Many many thanks

Thank you for contributing to the USS Trigger (SS-237) article. My great grandfather, William Zugecich, was aboard that submarine when it disappeared in the pacific. The information you and others have provided are very much appreciated by everyone in my family. This is the most thorough record of the Trigger's voyages that I have yet seen, and is a wonderful dedication to those who died to protect the freedoms of our beloved land. Salva 01:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

War of the Worlds

I have to say that your article of the Sacrifice of Thunder Child motivated me to do some modest additions, as well as add additional WoW battle references. It's a great book and the chapter regarding HMS THUNDER CHILD one of the best chapters of it. Expatkiwi01:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Help me defend Misplaced Pages noble principles of Consensus decisions by Principled Negotiation, not Tyranny of the Majority

Bananas is leading a cabal with Blowbite and and CarBite and others to impose a Tyranny of the Majority on Truth True Epistemology and Knowledge. They make personal attacks against me. All their comments are ad hominem/poisoning the well type fallacy. They commit the fallacy of conflation of belief and knowledge, two completely different things. This is part of their Obscurantism. They refuse to include my view that the only reasonable thing that can be said about truth is that "Snow is white" is true is redundant in as much as it says nothing more than is said by "Snow is white", so truth is just something that is in accord with an actual state of affairs in the particular case. They started a Request for Arbitration against me. They started an injunction against me to unfairly prevent the minority view from being presented. They block me at the drop of a hat because I am in the minority. Please ban all of these users, so Misplaced Pages can return to the noble principle of consensus decisions by principled negotiation and no personal attacks. The cabal has others user:Curps user:Jtkiefer McAttack FoolWagon JimWae Byped Canderson7 Essjay Meelar Spangineer CryptoDerk Asbestos BaronLarf Veratien Ancheta Wis WhiteC Ravenswood Asbestos Christofurio Kzollman Gkhan

How can you say you will not help? You are an Admin. It is your responsibility to defend noble principle of consensus decisions by principled negotiation and no personal attacks. --DotSix

I can say I will not help like this (now watch closely as my keys go up and down): I will not help you. I am not only an admin; I am an arbiter. Bring your case before the Committee and we will judge you. (Including your oh-so cute listing of your alleged attackers as ...] ] ... oh my goodness, that's persuasive; how can I refrain from leaping to the defense of someone who makes such terribly clever personal attacks?) Until you appear before the Committee, I will not get involved. As my banner states, do not post requests for help in fighting other Wikipedians here. Doing so will not help your cause. ➥the Epopt 15:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

R'lyeh/Pohnpei distance

Hey Epopt, are you sure the distance numbers you added to R'lyeh and Pohnpei are correct? I don't have the books handy at the moment, so I cannot check, but 5000 miles is a quarter of the distance around the globe and definitely not a day's voyage for even a very fast ship :P .. Ferkelparade π 09:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, the location and the distances are correct, and who am I to contradict the stories that say they traveled for only one day? You're right: the ship would have to make over 200 knots to get there in time. ➥the Epopt 13:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It's been ages since I read the stories, I always assumed the distance from Pohnpei to R'lyeh was supposed to be maybe a couple dozen miles...but if these numbers actually appear in the text, then of course we should also list them in the appropriate articles (and maybe add a note that these numbers, however improbable, are actually based on the Lovecraft texts) -- Ferkelparade π 13:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Yuber arbcom case

Hi, FYI SlimVirgin 06:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I have changed this, but on the off chance you did oppose, please check it. Fred Bauder 12:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Caution

While vigilance is a good thing, and as an allophone I sincerely hope native speakers of English will help polish mine where needed, I must insist you (double-)check your facts before 'correcting' an error, as in the case of my article Fustuarium where it was quite easy to find out, e.g. via gauntlet (disambiguation), that gantlet is NOT another, better word but merely an older form of gauntlet.

When you do find things that need mending, please consider linking to a useful source. Fastifex 07:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Not only have I (double-)checked my facts, but The Columbia Guide to Standard American English (1993) apparently has as well. See http://www.bartleby.com/68/8/2708.html ➥the Epopt 12:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, while a quick reading on Bartleby may be confusing, it clearly states that both are alternate spellings of the other, and relies on a 1924 dictionary (which seems rightly out of favor). Had you followed the link to http://www.Etymonline.Com, which supplies far more useful information, the whole (word hi)story would have become clear - a usefull diagnostic tool to add to your favorites? Fastifex 10:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Доверяй, но проверяй.

I babelfished this, on the Cool Cat proposed principle 4, "Stalking", and it said "Entrust, but check". Could you put an English translation in brackets? I'm pretty sure most English speakers wouldn't understand the Russian. --Tony Sidaway 00:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I would have, except that someone deleted it. It is the original form of the phrase popularized by Ronald Reagan, "trust, but verify." ➥the Epopt 02:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah now I look at it, the words do have some symmetry, like a proverb. Thanks. --Tony Sidaway

Transliterated: doveryay, no proveryay." ➥the Epopt 13:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm rusty, but would't it be "doveryah, no proveryah"? (Or is that pesky й messing with what I remember?) - Tεxτurε 17:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't argue with you, Texture -- I transliterate Cyrillic by typing on my keyboard while jumping on my pogo stick. What I have above seems to be popular on Google, tho. ➥the Epopt 00:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I missed this and have not found it; care to point me at it? — Davenbelle 03:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Tony pointed me at it... — Davenbelle 04:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom elections

Hello, The Epopt. In case you haven't noticed, I'm writing a special series on the upcoming 2005 ArbCom elections for The Misplaced Pages Signpost. In the October 17 issue, we will be profiling the current ArbCom members. Note that this should not be a platform for re-election; rather, it should serve as an insight into what you feel about the ArbCom, and your opinions of it are. Thus, I hope you don't mind answering a few questions. Many thanks!

1. Are up for re-election this year?

No.

2. If so, do you plan to run for re-election?

If I were up for re-election, I probably would not run — I don't think judges should be chosen by popularity; I'm certainly not on the ArbComm to make friends. Also, I'm not sure this job is worth going through the Hell that was last year's election.

3. How do you feel about serving on the ArbCom?

Tired.

4. What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom?

We have been given something close to carte blanche to build our own jurisprudence — we are not bound by any procedure or precedent that we have not chosen ourselves. This freedom has allowed us to design a process specifically tailored to our mission of protecting Misplaced Pages without being distracted by noble but irrelevant concerns.

5. Weaknesses?

Sloth — it is an unpleasant, thankless task that is easy to put off; alas, this means that cases take several months to resolve.

6. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?

I would dramatically increase the number of arbiters, so that when half of them get tired and disappear, the Committee isn't paralyzed by lack of quorum. Of course, finding that large number of arbiters is much easier to type than to do.

7. Do you regret accepting your position? Why or why not?

No, this is a necessary job, and one that could easily go astray. I'm glad to have had the opportunity to get it started in the right direction.

8. If you could say one thing to the current ArbCom candidates, what would you say, and why?

You're full of fire and ready to make a difference now, but will you still be so determined in six months? Don't sign up unless you're prepared to go the distance. Arbitrating is not a sprint, it's a marathon, through the mud, and there's no glory in it even if you do finish.

9. Do you think your job is easy? Hard? Explain.

Both, of course. It is hard to make sense of the mountains of argumentation we're given as evidence, but once I've read through it, a decision is usually very easy. There are exceptions, but most subjects of arbitration are clearly liabilities to Misplaced Pages.

10. Looking in retrospective, is there anything you would have done differently?

No, I don't have any significant regrets. There are cases I would have handled somewhat differently, if I knew then what I know now, but only in degree, not kind.

11. Do you feel that the ArbCom is appreciated by the community? If not, how do you think that could be changed?

I don't think the ArbComm is noticed much by the community, and that's the way it should be. While being appreciated is nice, before working on that, I'd rather work on getting the community to be more reluctant to involve the Committee in their affairs. Arbitration should be a painful last resort, only invoked when all other avenues of reconciliation are exhausted.

12. What is the most frustrating thing about being on the ArbCom? Enjoyable?

The most frustrating thing is the difficulty we have in closing cases, caused by vanishing arbiters. The most enjoyable is successfully removing from our community those that hinder the creating of a 💕.

I hope you didn't mind me bombarding with you with questions; by no means feel obligated to answer all (or any) of them. Thanks for serving Misplaced Pages, and for taking your time to help a Signpost reporter! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 14:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 19:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Merkey RFAr

Hi, The Epopt

I'm posting here because I couldn't seem to find out if there was a proper place in WP:RFAr itself for comments on arbitrators' opinions. I wanted to bring to your attention that although Merkey has made numerous legal threats in the past, he does appear to have withdrawn them for now. His current talk page says, "I will not be pursuing any legal action against Wikimedia, its founders, Misplaced Pages, or any authors on this site." --Exabit 04:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

On an unrelated note except that it's to do with the same ArbCom case - Epopt, you might want to sign your vote... PurplePlatypus 18:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Accusations?

Hello, I would like some information regarding the arbitration case against me. It says (quote): The case has beeen opened mainly to consider the behavior of REX. What does that mean? Which particular aspects of my behaviour are being considered? How do I defend myself against unknown accusations? I added a rather extensive statement with justifications for my every possible action which the arbitration committee could have been referring to; the problem is that it now exceeds the 500-word limit. If you tell me what I am being accused of, I can remove the redundant parts, because I suspect that no one will actually read it all. I do think that I have a right to know what I the arbitration committee will be looking at so that I can arrange an appropriate defence. When I asked User:Fred Bauder on his talk page Fred, I notice that the case I had filed has a different name now. Why is that? What am I being accused of specifically? The heading is very vague? he said The change of the title from the arbitration case reflects recognition that the focus of the matter is on the behavior of REX. What is that supposed to mean? What I would like to know is what am I being accused of. I am not being unreasonable. Every other arbitration case has specific accusations against the "defendant". Why not me? It seems very unfair. REX 19:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I can see that you have been active since I made my inquiry. Why haven't you responded? What is going on here? It's a simple question: what am I being accused of? There are specific accusations in all other arbitration cases, why not me? you did accept the case, didn't you? You must have some idea. REX 20:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The edits I made while eating breakfast this morning were simple ones that did not require thought. Then I packed my bags, checked out of my hotel, and drove from San Diego to Los Angeles (with a leisurely stop for lunch in Orange County), all while not thinking about you or editing Misplaced Pages. I agree that the dispute in your case requires clarification. When I answer you, it will be on your arbitration case. ➥the Epopt 21:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, you're right, I'm sorry. I just panicked, there was no specified complaint to answer to. REX 21:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:RFAR/SV

Re: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Stevertigo/Proposed_decision#Ommision_of_fact

I understand that some are quite busy and may have missed recent discussion and questions regarding my Arbcom matter. Ive taken the liberty of posting here to remedy any inadvertent oversight regarding my case. Sinreg, St|eve 22:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The Signpost

Hello, The Epopt! I just wanted to deliver this week's issue of The Misplaced Pages Signpost, which features the current ArbCom, directly to your front door. :-) Also, if you wish to read your fellow Arbitrators' full and unabridged responses, you can find them here. Thanks again for all your help! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 21:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Help! I am being hassled by what appears to be a sockpuppet vandal

Please take a look at the edit history for Accountable 1135. Please help if you can. Rex071404 01:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• That's funny, becasue I too have what appears to be a sockpuppet vandal troll following me, only mine is named Rex, fancy that, what a coincidence--anon editor 02:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:FierceSnake Olive.jpg

Only articles can be speedied as blatant copyvios. Please review WP:CSD. Thanks. Superm401 | Talk 02:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I did. I also reviewed WP:IAR. There is no doubt the images I deleted should be deleted. More will follow. ➥the Epopt 03:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Greetings! I hope you’re well. I would like to thank you for declining my request for arbitration and accept ArbComm’s decision unequivocally. Your decision, after all, demonstrates the validity – or not – of both my and Chris Bennett’s positions, while supporting neither, and the importance in Wp that users can diametrically differ yet still continue to grow Misplaced Pages. What was mildly irksome was how Arbs Fred Bauder and Kelly Martin characterised their decisions (particularly before CB submitted his statement), not the decisions themselves: as neutral third-party arbitrators, there is an expectation to not be diminutive and offer more indifferent or no commentary, as Mindspillage and you have done.

As I’ve stated, I believe my decision to RfArb was and is correct but was not taken lightly: I opted for a “nuclear” option as I believe CBs behaviour required it, was escalatory, and would not change with other modes of resolution; I am familiar with them and garnering positive results. I am a paragon of neither virtue nor linguistics, and am not faultless. As I hope my long contribution history demonstrates, however, I’m not a “bully”, “racist”, or unilateral in nature (as CB has characterised me), having constructively worked with others to help enhance this ingenious project of community.

I will disengage from CB until the Big Crunch (if this event occurs, given current theory) and hereafter exercise more caution when discussing fallacious user decisions in the first place.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Thank you again for your consideration; take care!

Yours sincerely,

E Pluribus Anthony 04:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone/Proposed decision

Would you please answer my questions on the Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone/Proposed decision page. Thank you.

Your username

I saw the stuff on Lightbringers talk page. Even with out reading you user page it's obvious that Mason Boyne (Orange Lodge member) is a made up name. CambridgeBayWeather 14:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Did you know that if you spell ‘Mason’ backwards you get ‘Nosam,’ which is a five-letter word beginning with ‘N’ like ‘Nitwit’? It's all there if you just shoogle the letters around a bit. ➥the Epopt 14:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Who's side are you on?

I didn't see you make any comments or ask any questions in my ArbCom workshop, but you displayed extreme animosity in the findings, so I wanted to know what you think I could have done better. --Zephram Stark 04:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

You might begin by reading the RfC against you. ➥the Epopt 04:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Lightbringer

I've blocked Lightbringer indefinitely. --Scimitar 21:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Behavior of Ted Wilkes

User:Ted Wilkes is still removing my contributions to the Elvis Presley article, though they are well supported by credible sources. See and . He also aggressively continues to make personal attacks against me (and some other users) on the Talk:Elvis Presley and the User talk:Onefortyone pages and repeatedly violated the 3RR rule. I think the arbitration committee should place a note about this behavior on his talk page. 80.141.255.90 20:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Procedural Guidance Requested

As I have been preparing the Evidence for my Arbitration case, I have made three TALK posts on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Polygamy/Evidence.

• My unique problem, Guidance Requested
• OK to "Yield" DIFFs in DIFF-Count?
• Items Still Pending in Preparing Evidence

While I wait to hear back from my AMA advocate, your procedural guidance on those issues will be very much appreciated. Thank you. - Researcher 21:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)