User talk:Bigtimepeace/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any comments to the current talk page.

Black Power

I am so glad you are working on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmilligan (talk • contribs) 12:08, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

DMA

Do you have any personal experience with Delaware Military Academy? Falcofire 00:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Something wrong with the server?

I see you are editing the "black power" article as well at the moment. Can it be that something is wrong with the wiki server? I always end up with a different version than the one I actually edit/see in the edit window.

Good to know that you have the same problems! I was very irritated as well, wondering if my computer has a problem or the wiki server. 84.178.234.240 19:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits to Black Power

Oh okay, my bad. Just remove the parts you think are inappropriate and I will then try to rephrase the remaining text. 84.178.234.240 19:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Intellectual history

Thanks for filling in Marcuse; it's not my field. That red link had been there for two years! - Fayenatic london (talk) 08:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

get real

Wikipedia is a WWW site that can be edited by all human beings, NOT a forum for wiki-nazis like yourself to determine what is relevant and what is not. Please provide sources before editing. "Assume Good Faith" indeed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.80.19.161 (talk) 08:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

See my reply, and the message that prompted this pleasant note, here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Bigtimepeace! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego ^talk 16:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

what's up

I couldn't help notice you edited Delaware Military Academy (obviously it's on my watchlist). I was just wondering if you had any affiliation with the school. I have several dear friends that attend the school and anything you could do to enhance the article would be great. Thanks.
Falcofire 22:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for the userpage revert. Cheers! Tony Fox (arf!) 05:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Article up for AfD

An article you help work on, David MacMichael is up for deletion. 68.91.252.148 18:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:DDP AfD

Hey, thanks for wishing me a happy day, I hope your day/night is great, too. About the Afd, I closed this one as keep basically because I take the view that the Eye Weekly source makes him notable. I could see you raised your doubt with the fact that it was the only source, as the reference from The Globe and Mail didn't mention him. So I'd searched the site, and found this. The entry confirms what is said at the beginning the article "He is one of two grand prize winners of the Robinhood Fund ...", which means he is well-known for something, hence not badly non-notable. You're correct that this article needs heavy cleaning up to get rid of the non-neutral and not yet verified material, however, I'm of the opinion that the subject is notable, thus the result is keep. ~ Best regards, Peacent 14:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

O'Reilly

There is no doubt that the whole Bill O page is just an attack on his credibility. Cutting of mics is not proven. What is proven is that Media Matters and Bill O have a "feud", and I don't think it would be fair to cite comments from Media Matters on Bill O, and vice versa.

Just admit you have a bias against Bill O, and are on some kind of strange vendetta to discredit him. To maintain the NPOV you shouldn't be sitting on the article and destroying any changes to it that make it more neutral. Though the criticism of Media Matters on the article is marginalized and weaseled out as usual, it is just opinion, and not FACT, which cutting of mics is. Garric 03:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

warnings removal on talk pages

Hi, I just wanted to drop you a quick note about User talk:Garric. In fact, it is generally agreed that editors can do what they want to content on their talk page with regards to removing it. If in doubt, check the user talk history. This was the consensus in the now-deleted mediation case. See also the rejected proposal about prohibiting the removal of warnings, and the deletion review regarding the templates. Cheers! -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I used to do the same mistake for a long time (probably until I discovered the templates were deleted) ;). I suspect the guideline is blurry because all tries to write something ended as no consensus, there are some strong arguments on both sides. So right now, you can remove whatever you want of your talk page, but that means that you read and acknowledged it. If you get an other warning, it should be firmer. That's a reason why I am using WP:TWINKLE to issue warnings. That way, a quick glance at the history shows that I issued a warning and its level. Arguably, I don't often check the page history but vandals are not very smart and often blank their whole talk page, so it's easy to assume there was something there before ;). (not having too hard a time living with someone almost French? I remember my Canadian friends saying "French people are soooooooo weird". The good part is that I'm one of the rare Frenchmen able to take criticism as much as I criticize the other cultures ;)) -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Nikki Keddie

Thanks for the heads up. Done now. My head must have had been somewhere else. :D --soum ^talk 09:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Your recent AIV report

Thank you for making a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. Your request has been rejected because the vandal is not currently active, please only report active vandals on AIV. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandal report

Thanks for your message on my talk page re: my AIV report. What exactly constitutes "recent vandalism" or an "active vandal?" The editor I reported vandalized four hours ago, and I was offline when it happened (I've been following his/her vandalism because it's an article I've watchlisted). The user has vandalized the same article repeatedly and already been warned three times. How soon after vandalism must a user be reported? 15 minutes? An hour? It seems rather arbitrary to say that 4 hours is too long, and 20 minutes is not. It's almost as though if someone did not catch the vandal right then and report them for it, then it essentially did not happen and they cannot get in trouble for it. If this person vandalizes again and I miss it and no one else reports it then they'll be in the clear. Seems odd to me. I'm no stranger to rv'ing vandals and to AIV reports, but if you could clarify the policy on "active vandals" I would appreciate it. You can reply here or on my talk page. Thanks.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

What I meant by active, to my standards, has at the most vandalised within the last 10 minutes. Blocks are meant to prevent disprution to Wikipedia. The vandal you reported is inactive, and blocking the vandal serves no purpose. Remember, blocks are NOT punishments, it is used to prevent disruption to Wikipedia. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand what blocks are for (i.e. they are not punitive), but that way of dealing with vandals seems completely bizarre and unhelpful to me (it suggests that if the vandal only disrupts Wikipedia sporadically and does not get caught right away, then it's not disruptive enough to warrant a block). Ten minutes? You might only revert a vandal edit 8 minutes after it happened and by the time you're done checking their vandalism history and filling out the AIV report we could not block the person if they happened to go offline and stopped vandalizing at that moment. You're saying they could come back online one hour later and do it all over again ad infinitum so long as they were not reported in that 10 minute window? I've never heard of that before, and such a policy would not help prevent disruption to WP which is, as you say, the whole point of a block.

The vandal I reported vandalized four times on June 16th, and before that many times on June 1st. You say they are "inactive" but by that same token I was "inactive" for the last few hours until I got back online. I really don't think this is a very rational approach, and I'm wondering if this is your interpretation of it (i.e. 10 minutes) or an official policy all admins follow. In the meantime I guess I'll just have to hope I'm not offline the next time this person vandalizes (yet again) after their last warning.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The 10 minute thing is just a rule I use for myself, and of course, it's just a number, usually I just apply common sense. The vandal is not causing any immediate damage as of now, so there is no reason to block him for that right now. However, if the user continues on this trend, then I would consider a block, but so far the user made 1 edit after he received his last warning, and there has been no edit since then. Block serves no purpose because we do not know if the vandal will vandalise again or not, in this case it's very questionable. If there is a solid proof that the user is a persistant vandal, and when it comes unquestionable that there has been previous records of vandalism and the user is not stopping, then it would be approperiate to block without giving a warning. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Had I reported him right after his last vandal edit (which was after his last warning) would you have blocked him? Sorry for beating a dead horse but I'm really trying to understand this.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Assume if you actually reported him "on time", then yes it will probably get blocked. However, there is another factor which plays in if we make this assumption. If you have caught him eailier, and he was online at the time, he would of caught that his edit has been reverted. If he did not continue after the revert, he "may" be blocked, but if this is the case, the block itself really has no other meaning than enforcing a period for the vandal to cool down. If he goes on and continues to vandalise dispite you reverted his vandalism, then he "passes" the line which a block to prevent disruption would be needed. In either case the vandal is blocked. However, in this case, we do not know if the vandal will stop or continue, that's why I did not block. But as I said, if the vandal later on starts to show clear evidence of not stopping, then that is when I will block. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that does explain it better, though I'm still not sure I agree with this way of looking at. But no matter, I'll leave it there, except to add a thank your for all your work dealing with vandals. Best.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

A&P

Just what i was hoping for. It's time we took a more serious approach to this sort of article. It will be a good example. DGG 03:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Yep, it looks fine to me now. Thanks for putting some time in to make it a keeper! ;) *Cremepuff222* 22:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Columbia Revolt

Hi, I'm afraid I don't know either. But Wikipedia has no shortage of tech-heads who would know. Maybe post at the Village pump? Badagnani 08:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

My fault on US Terrorism

Wow, I totally missed this as a full-on AfD. I thought it was a review - this topic seems like a given? I mean, I personally think the allegations themselves are crap, but there's no denying that they exist and that they're made by very real sources. I'll adjust my edits accordingly. Thanks for the heads-up. CredoFromStart ^talk 17:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

eldridge clever libertarian?

http://politics1.com/parties.htm

Thanks

For the revert. :) Acalamari 02:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

610 am

are you allowed to advertise?

I'm afraid I don't know what you are talking about, but no you are not allowed to advertise on Wikipedia.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Read Wikipedia:3RR. If you continue to revert, I will report you.Ultramarine 09:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do know about 3RR, no need for me to read the policy. I have not violated it and will not (though I came closer than I thought as I had forgotten about an earlier edit I made--I would have only made one edit had I noticed that, as I generally make no more than 2 reverts in a 24-hour period). You'll notice I have not been much of a revert warrior in terms of the content of this article. Your inclusion of the term "Communist Cuba" is what set me editing. Avoid weasel terms like "communist" (even though it's obviously accurate for the most part, it's just an unnecessary and loaded adjective) and your edits are much less likely to get reverted. Anyhow thanks for the warning.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

POV language

Your accusations is strange, considering that the article contains graphic rape and torture scenes in order to defame the other side, despite only the remotest connection to US policy. As well as repeatedly repeating the very POV and inflammatory word "terrorism" despite not being mentioned in the sources.Ultramarine 10:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to add a sourced opposing view, fine. As per NPOV, views from both sides should be included, inlcluding those critical of Chomsky's claims regarding terrorism.Ultramarine 10:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Guatemala

Replied on the talk page.Ultramarine 19:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: State terrorism by the United States edits

A few points:

1. My edit occurred before his admonition.
2. I did not agree to this "deal"; I expressed my willingness to discuss but also the likelihood that edit warring will continue (with or without me).
3. My complaints were not limited to mention of the coup.
4. I am aware of 3RR policy.
5. I have not reverted the article three times even in light of my previous IP. The first edit (under the other IP) was not a revert, it was the initial edit where I deleted the disputed material. However, I am keeping hands off for the moment. --72.65.92.47 02:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I had a few pages open at once and mistook the user page for talk. --72.65.92.47 02:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I replied on your page.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Trees don't die

I used to know a bigtimepeace. We attended classes together.

Seriously, weird to see your name pop up on recent changes. You should have something better to do at 2:30 in the morning on the 4th of July (as should I). You should also come to our reading group; I miss having you at the opposite end of the table from me.

I tried to get into Wikipedia editing around Christmas, but it got too byzantine for me; I spent more time reading policy than editing articles. Glad you've found your way through.

Happy Fourth of July... Merkinmuffly 06:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Christ, I'm in the middle of a super annoying edit dispute right now. Who is this?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not looking to distract you. It's Jim. If you're still in the same place you were at the time of your housewarming, we actually don't live that far from one another. We should catch up sometime when you're not flaming Chomsky detractors, or something. (Didn't you and Carl hash all that out on the rooftop a couple years ago anyway?) Merkinmuffly 06:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I can´t sign my posts, I access from a cheap cybercafé

and I don´t want to doint it either. And why you get angry for a simple reference to CleverasaLibertarian?. Him was libertarian, like it or not!. Thereare no a purity comitee signalizing who is and who is no a libertarian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tioeliecer (talk • contribs)

I certainly did not get angry at Talk:Eldridge Cleaver. You may think Cleaver was a libertarian, but you need to provide a source which establishes this. If you do not, we cannot put it in the article. It's that simple. To sign your posts, just type the character ~ four times. There's no reason you cannot do this from a cybercafe.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks

... for the revert on my userpage! Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 07:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: State terrorism by the US

Nope, I reverted because an editor who seems neutral to me requested that I wait until a few more editors weighed in. I didn't disagree with his assertion. east.718 07:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You said "undo. Raggz, you added the tag and THEN mentioned it on talk- you did not gain consensus first or even wait for anyone to discuss it." Is consensus required to add a tag? Raggz (talk) 02:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Mongo's Arbcom in progress

You may be interested in this: User:MONGO/arbcom ... Seabhcan (Here we go again!) 13:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Legend of Zelda - Vandalism Edit

Hey

I just wanted to say thanks for the speedy fix. I have been surfing wikipedia for a couple of years now and it disgusts me to see people randomly vandalise and article (especially one of my favorites!). I have never had to time to look into editing or reporting such incidents before but this one prompted me to begin looking up how to remove such a comment. However by the time I found the articles on how to deal with vandalism you had already taken care of it.

Thank you for your dedication to the site a lot of people I know question the validity of "wikipedia" as anyone can edit it but the speed at which the Zelda vandalism was dealt with always reassures me that even though there are plenty of funny people who make idiots of themselves on here there are also plenty of people like yourself who is dedicated to preventing such acts.

Keep up the good work.

- Wiki-Fan ChuckJones

P.S. If I placed this message in the wrong place I appologize as I just made this account this morning and this is my first post. Thank you.

Thanks for the reply I'd love to look into helping out the best I can however I am pretty new to all of this so it might take some time haha. Any advice would be great. I'll read through the page you linked me and hopefully be able to help out around here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChuckJones1989 (talk • contribs)

Re:

Thanks for the kind words. Right now I live in the Bronx, around a mile away from Crotona Park, although I'm more a fan of shit like the purple tape though. ;) east.718 08:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Fordham by any chance? I'm a recent alumnus. east.718 08:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Generations reformatting

I posted to the tfd and the talk page a suggestion to reformat this awful table into a useful navigation box. I'd be interested in your thoughts at these pages.  ∴ Therefore  talk   05:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

'RFC' on Ultramarine?

I am thinking that the only solution is an 'RFC' on Ultrmarine. His questions have all been answered and he asks them again and again. He is arguing in circles and making nonsense objections to the smallest things. He is using 'tendentious' arguing. He usually picks a non-important source as his link and name for objections. Like only 'The Nation Magazine' objected to The Torture Manuals. Trying to 'reason' with him does nothing. He is trying to 'owning' the articles by writing his own version and saying that his is the version we will use without objections. I have gotten some changes in but even the smallest true change he wants to argue and argue about. This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Do you know how to file an RFC on him? Should we ask for 'mediation' too? Thanks Bmedley Sutler 19:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Re e-mail?

Hi Bigtimepeace, 1) did you send me an e-mail? (I try to verify on-wiki the first time.) 2) In my opinion, these are almost certainly different writers.Proabivouac 08:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 22:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Church of the Nativity page; problem with your edit reverts

Some of the content added under the Church of the Nativity page is HIGHLY opinionated and does not cite any sources for the statements in contention. In light of that, I made several attempts to edit the page (i.e. remove the non-cited opinions) and was thwarted each time by your account, which reverted all of my edits to previous states. There was nothing controversial or opinionated about the edits I placed. Sounds like censorship to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magrip (talk • contribs)

Fossett

Flight plan information is on CNN.COM and yet you constantly take it off. Have a clue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.146.173 (talk • contribs) .

I do not see that information on CNN.com, but if you can find a link let me know. I said before (in an edit summary) that the information needed a source and you did not provide one. The AP quoted an FAA spokesperson who said Fossett did not file a flight plan, which is currently in the article (sourced as you can see). If you believe this is incorrect that's fine, just provide a source, and please try to stay civil.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		My RFA
		I thank you for participating in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 60 supports, no opposes, no neutrals, and one abstain. Edison 15:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Congrats, I'm sure you'll make an excellent admin.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Generations project

Hey there, thanks for the note about the massive Generations (book) merge. Last tasks: merge Strauss and Howe and probably rename the whole thing. Silent generation is also of dubious worth, but we're keeping it for now. Anyway, if you have any insight into a merge of Strauss & Howe plus Generations (book), your help would be mucho, mucho appreciated! :) Cheers, --Dylanfly 11:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies

Sorry to make you chase a ghost but I had to prove a point. Chaz requested an IP in a move I knew was not to exonerate me. Much like he claimed that if I knew the tell-tale signs of Zer0's editing it would prove I was not them. This was another bad attempt. Had I provided such signs, as if I know them, then he would have claimed only zer0 would know zer0 that well. Same with the IP. I knew it was being requested so they can find a gap in editing, a similar article zer0 edited etc, to draw more artificial links. Again sorry, but I think I proved my point well enough on the Arbcom page. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology, but that was a very bad move in my opinion, and I don't think you proved your point on the ArbCom page. I have replied there as well.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the recent vandalism on San Andres Mountains and my user page. Much obliged. -- Spireguy 03:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Hi. I don't agree with many of your points per our previous discussions, but I thought that you should be aware of some changes 'we' are discussing over on the talk page for WP:NOR. The full context can be viewed at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Proposed_change_at_WP:NOR. As this could (should in my opinion), spill over into the 4 main policies, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:BLP, your input would be appreciated and probably be beneficial. What we are proposing is a simplification of a very contentious 'section' in the policy, by eventually moving it out into it's own 'guideline' that the other policies can use as well. The 'sourcing' issue is very contentious about what it means, etc., and each policy has it's own variation, leading to many disagreements about what it really means, since all policies need to be taken together. In their current form it's very confusing at best. Thanks. wbfergus ^Talk 14:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 01:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you know

On 26 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article PHASE 2 , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 01:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

PHASE 2

Thanks for that. I'm not too hot on copyright either. It ought to be there for a week though, so it will serve as an illustration for the time during which the page is linked from the main page. Pyrope 09:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

PHASE 2 Image

The trouble is that we really do need the name of the copyright holder of the photo to use it. One of the criteria for valid fair use (both legally and in terms of Wikipedia policy) is that the use must not detract from the ability of the owner to commercially exploit it. That's not a judgment that can be made (or at least, made with a high degree of certainty) without knowing who that owner is.

The author of the "How to read Graffiti" paper lists his bibliography. I know he put it up in 1999 -- and hopefully his email address still works -- but perhaps if you contacted him he can give you the photo credit listed for it wherever he found it. The only alternative would be to find a book on the subject with a picture of a tag same by the same artist and scan it instead.

Once you have a photo where we know enough about it to consider using it, you'll have to tag (so to speak) it with {{non-free fair use in|PHASE 2}} and add a "rationale" explaining how it meets the 10 criteria given here. (Shouldn't be hard; most of them are a slam-dunk in this case.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I'm glad to be of help.

Interesting that he documented his work like that, but then who else would be better placed to? Apparently the book can be had from here for $20, although to judge from the scans it may be a photocopy. Or maybe they're just crummy scans; it's hard to tell. Phase 2 is listed as an editor.

The source of the image isn't meaningful wrt copyright ownership. In this case, the photo is clearly fair use (at least) in your source since it's attached to extensive critical commentary on the subject. This doesn't affect copyright, but Wikipedia does want you to say where it came from in the fair use rationale, so you need to mention it.

Since the photo was taken before 1978 (right?), it's important to know if it was also published before that year, and if so whether there was a notice attached to it. (The book was published in 1998, but the photo may have been published elsewhere earlier.) You don't have to know this, but if you don't we have to assume it's copyrighted when in fact it might not be. The state of the law at the time was that work published with no notice is public domain. If it was unpublished until after 1978, that's a different story.

Either way we needed to know the photographer. You can credit him as Phase 2 since that's what his editor credit for the book says. Pseudonyms don't affect copyright claims, and copyrights are registered under pseudonyms all the time.

So here's the situation:

• If the photo was first published before 1978 without a copyright notice, it's public domain and you can tag it {{PD-Pre1978}}. Explain how you know this is the case in the licensing section of the image description.
• If the photo was first published in the US from 1978 to March 1, 1989 without a notice, and it was not subsequently registered, (copyright of the book wouldn't affect its status in this case) it's public domain and you can tag it {{PD-because|it was first published in the United States without a copyright notice between January 1, 1978 and March 1, 1989 without a copyright notice, and it was not subsequently registered}}, but you'd need to explain in the image description how you know for sure that a copyright was never registered.
• Otherwise -- that is, if the photo was unpublished before March 1, 1989, or was first published from 1978 to March 1 1989 with a notice -- then it's copyright to Phase 2. Unless you can somehow get in contact with him and he grants a free license (GFDL, cc-by-sa, cc-sa, Art Libre, etc.) we can only use it as fair use. The only thing stopping you from doing that earlier is that you didn't know the photographer, and now you do. Tag it {{non-free fair use in|articlename}} and attach a rationale as I mentioned earlier.

If we don't know the photo's publication history for certain, then we have to assume it's copyrighted to Phase 2 and use it as fair use. If it was first published outside the US before 1978 we should also assume it's copyrighted. It might not be, but figuring it out is complicated. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Article

If you send me a blank e-mail, I'll send you an e-mail from the account I'd prefer you to mail to. I like restrict access to my wikipedia e-mail if that's ok. John Smith's 22:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Done, no problem.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I found it very interesting. Though in some ways I'd heard a lot of the comments before, just not in as much detail. :) John Smith's 13:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd actually be interested in reading the article, too. :) Thanks.Giovanni33 15:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Korean War article

Yeah, that word did seem 'wierd', but it was straight from the source. I don't really have any objections to it going though, so no big deal either way. wbfergus ^Talk 16:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

BLPs

Re our previous conversation in the Don Murphy AfD, it now emerges that, for nearly a month, we said of Paul Danan

On 11 september 2007, it was reported that Danan and his business partners were planning to set up a series of holocaust-themed fish-and-chip bars in the far east, provisionally known as "Arbeit Macht Fry."[1]

It strikes me that articles already known to be problems may well be watched, and libel quickly removed, but those that aren't are real dangers to their subjects. That particular edit is probably enough over the top for at least some readers to recognize it as a misguided joke, but how many things are there like this which aren't as obvious, and more damaging for it? Diffs like this convince me that we have no business publishing bios. I would say that a fundamental change is definitely needed, starting from the premise that eliminating them all is a less-than-ideal but acceptable outcome, but libeling anyone is not.Proabivouac 23:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Obama's Car Accident

I wish you would have waited more than a few hours to delete that whole section. Given Wikipedia's well documented reputation for political bias (whether you think that's a fair rap or not) it plays straight into it when you just yank wholesale sections from her article that came straight from the newspaper. It smacks of trying to make her look good and protect the campaign much like the Kennedy's did wrt to Chappaquiddick back in the 70's. It won't be hard to defend your your actions on ostensibly reasonable grounds, but the speed with which you just...had...to...pull it suggests something else at play. We'll see. I'll keep an eye on your edits and see if this is a pattern... Thanks for listening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.70.140 (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Obama's Car Accident Part II

Well, we don't know all the details. The quote attributed to the driver's 'friend' seems quite suspicious to me. My experience is that, if there is indeed a 'there' there, it will come out. So, no worries. But you, along with the mainstream media, seem a little RUSHED in trying to put this story to bed. It seems like we need to dig a little deeper. I wonder what you are afraid of and why you would conclude what you have based on so little information beyond the initial reportage.

You ask me to ASSUME GOOD faith. I did when I first began here. But it was NOT reciprocated. In fact I soon found out that liberals GAME the system routinely. They engage in gang editing and calling people out on the 3R rule only to respond by saying 'Nah Nah Nah You have to assume good faith!' If that doesn't work, they drag in some liberal administrator to put the hammer down. It happens to conservative editors (whatever there are that's left here) over and over again. Wikipedia's ideological bias is so pervasive it is the on-line equivalent of a societal apartheid. And I use that term only because I can't think of anything stronger.

Sorry, any good faith I may have had was lost about a THOUSAND articles trashing Conservatives ago.

It now has to be earned on a case by case basis.

I would ask if you can even type with a straight face that the smell test or standard that you apply to Karl Rove is the same as you would apply to Obama - be it Michelle or Barak.

Finally, you should know that when you type the following:

"You should know that for every hundred editors who believe Wikipedia skews to the left, there are another hundred who believe it skews to the right."

It lowers your credibility to the level of Iran's Prime Minister when he said 'There are no gay people in Iran.'

Sorry...I know better.

Way better...68.42.70.140 12:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply here. Please take your future concerns to the article talk page rather than posting here again, thanks.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Please leave no more crazy comments on my Talk Page which of course is my perogative. Everything I said is true wrt to you being a liberal who pretends otherwise, or using a ridiculous criteria to define yourself out of that camp. The Washington Post did not necessarily make up that quote and I deeply resent you suggesting that I stipulated that. I have edited at Wikipedia long enough to know that my apartheid comments are not only NOT offensive, but very apropos. Jim Crow Era treatment is another metaphor that rings true. Having been the victim of such harsh treatment, I know what I'm talking about but doubt you do. I would ask you to address any further comments to the Michelle Obama talk page and, most importantly assume good faith, even for those whose political beliefs you have obvious contempt for. Thanks!

Ps Ooooh! I just found another gem directed to you on your talk page from an objective user.They write "Just admit you have a bias against Bill O, and are on some kind of strange vendetta to discredit him." So, I guess we're both wrong and you're right, huh? Can you say busted, Mr. NON-liberal? lol 68.42.70.140 22:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

New York City Meetup

New York City Meetup Next: Saturday November 3rd, Brooklyn Museum area Last: 8/12/2007

The agenda for the next meetup includes the formation of a Wikimedia New York City local chapter. Hope to see you there!--Pharos 20:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello badge

Hi. I made a Wiki Hello badge in case anyone's interested in using it for the Meetup. It's on the Meetup page. Nightscream 16:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

NYC meetup change of schedule

You've expressed an interest in the upcoming New York City Meetup for Saturday, November 3. I'd like to update you on an important change of schedule.

• It's been agreed that we should have a 2-hour formal meeting period to start organizing meta:Wikimedia New York City, and this will be held at the Pacific Library (note this is different from the Brooklyn Central Library, which was discussed earlier) from 2:00 PM – 4:00 PM.

This will be in addition to the previously scheduled roving activities at the Brooklyn Botanic Garden (this activity has also been cut short a bit) and at the Brooklyn Museum. For full details, see Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC. Ask any questions at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/NYC. Thank you.--Pharos 21:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

NYC meetup tape recorder

It would probably be a good thing if you could bring your tape recorder (and blank tapes) tomorrow. Thanks for your help.--Pharos 00:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

As to the meeting room at the Pacific Library, if you don't see us the group of us immediately, just ask the librarian.--Pharos 00:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		My RFA
		Thanks for participating in my request for adminship, which ended with 56 supports, one oppose, and one neutral. I hope to accomplish beyond what is expected of me and work to help those that lent me their trust. east.718 at 02:25, 11/4/2007

Notes from meetup

Just of note, I'll get those notes up tomorrow, as I have the day off from school. I'll have it done by 11 AM I promise, for you and Pharos to discuss.^Mitch32^contribs 02:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Empire's Workshop

Thanks for the seconding of my research recommendation. The book is truly great, although I'm still reading it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitank (talk • contribs) 18:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Meeting Minutes and Next Meetup

Thanks for your appreciation, and for your help and productive participation in keeping the meeting going.

I have already added to some of CComMack's notes. Mitchazenia has posted his notes at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/November 3, 2007/Mitch's Notes, and they remain to be integrated.

There have been some comments going between myself and User:ScienceApologist about the next meetup, which he is setting up with Columbia. Please feel free to join in at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/NYC/Main.--Pharos 18:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Chairman Wao

Thanks for your kind words. We have been able to move the article forward in no small part to your efforts. If I had been discussing the article with you rather than Giovanni I doubt things would have got that messy, but that's life. If you want some neutral input on another article you want to work on after your wikibreak just drop me a line.

Lest we forget. John Smith's 10:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Bigtimepeace. I agree with you we did make major needed improvements. Thanks for all your help. I'm actually on a bit of a wikibreak right now myself. And, I'll be camping this weekend, tooGiovanni33 21:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a wikibreak where you check pages and revert changes without doing as you've been requested on the talk page. Not really a wikibreak then, is it? John Smith's 22:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandal?

I got a message from you, saying I vandalised a page. Just mentioning now, I did not to it, and the IP Address is shared. I'm only here for research, not editing. Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.55.211 (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries. If it's a shared IP then I'm sure it was someone else. The article they vandalized is the article on the main page so it attracted attention, and it's standard to give out warnings in that situation. Even if that person vandalizes another article, it would not have an affect on your ability to read Wikipedia. If you ever decide you want to edit, it's easiest to just create an account. Best.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You're invited!

...to the next New York City Meetup!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday January 13th, Columbia University area Last: 11/3/2007

In the morning, there are exciting plans for a behind-the-scenes guided tour of the American Museum of Natural History.

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues (see the last meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback request

After reviewing your edit history, I believe it's appropriate to grant your request. Happy vandalfighting! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on becoming a Rollback! To learn more about the feature click here. Have fun crushing vandals!!!--Kushan I.A.K.J 12:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome! When you finish it you will get a little "gift" and also how to help users needing your Rollback action...--Kushan I.A.K.J 12:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Raggz comment

My understanding of policy is:

• That every editor is free to edit the articles so long as they comply with policy.
• That any other editor is free to challenge such edits if they seem to not comply with policy.
• That the WP consensus policy requires all editors to work together in good-faith sincere effort to reach consensus. It does not (to my recollection) formally require that edits be pre-approved, but apparently there is an informal consensus for this? Now that my edits have been challenged, I am required by policy to work to resolve any issues (which I would do anyway). Don't worry about an edit war. I view these as pointless and even counterproductive, and in addition they violate policy.
• That the Five Pillars require me to BE BOLD.
• I am obliged to delete SYN and OR errors, even without consensus. I should however seek consensus whenever possible.
• That your deletion of relevant material supported by reliable sources violated WP policy for supported material, and was done without first discussing your concerns or attaining consensus.
• That you were obliged to review each and every edit for merit before deleting it, and that each and every revert was a good-faith decision that it did not comply with policy? It requires consensus to delete material UNLESS the material denies some policy?
• That you were required to address your policy concerns for every reversion in TALK.

Do we agree about policy? There is much to learn at WP, and I may misunderstand policy. What part of the above might you believe that I misunderstand? I'm addresing the revert issues above as though you had made them, even though it was another editor, because you support these.

Do we agree on policy?

Why not make a list (on talk) of the three issues you wish to address first?

• The covert 1848 and 1851 US invasions of Cuba are possible examples of State terrorism by the United States.
• The new text offers the Reader a necessary context: The begining of a chain of events that led to the Cold War issues that are raised in the section. Still missing is the fact that Cuba articulated a well known threat to deploy and use weapons of mass destruction against the US. The article does not offer the context that the US was then under a real threat of nuclear destruction.
• One of my primary prior criticisms is that the Cuban material lacks even one reliable source connecting the US to Cuba following the Bay of Pigs. I now have done the research to resolve this, have now offered the FIRST reliable source linking the CIA and the Miami refugees. By deleting this reference, you reverted the entire Cuban section back a synthesis policy violation again. We had sources that there was terrorism by Cuban refugees. None of these sources are relevant to THIS article without a reliable source linking them to the US. Now we have this source - but you deleted it. Why?

We can work on all of this. I look forward to doing this. Raggz (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

For this revert. dissolve^talk 00:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Castro

Time for UntoldStoriesOfLife to be blocked I feel? Paste (talk) 09:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Editing fun

Hi, I see you've met Raggz! --Nickhh (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful. I am however deeply appreciative that you withdrew your original opposition. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 05:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Black Power

Really was trying to prove a point through ignorance. The white power entry is protected from vandalism why isn't this. Also if white people is tampered with, even with facts, its changed within seconds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imstuck (talk • contribs) 06:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD

Bigtimepeace,

It appears that common consensus dictates the article regarding me be taken down. I respect this decision of the Wikipedia community and will not say anything else regarding it. However, I would appreciate it, if this decision is standing, if you could take the article down as soon as possible, which would enable me to get on to other matters. Thank you for taking this into consideration.

Also, please ignore RMX2445's hotheadedness, as on the deletion debate page. He is not too familiar with Wikipedia's etiquette and how things go down here, as well as with what is acceptable and what is not acceptable.

If you need to contact me regarding this, you may do so on my User page by posting a comment.

Thanks, Andrew KingAndrew King (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Bigtimepeace,

Thanks for returning my comment. I harbor absolutely no feelings of resentment over this--don't worry. Looking back, I find that I initially took this whole thing too seriously, and viewed it as something almost personal, which of course it is not. Thanks for the comments on my writing abilities. I am working hard--maybe one day that page will meet the requirements to come back up. We'll see, I suppose. Until then, thanks for being so amicable about all of this. And I will stick around Wikipedia, thanks for the invitation. It seems like it would be a good experience.

Hope you have a good rest of the week. Peace.

Andrew KingAndrew King (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

barn star

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I award you this in recognition of a combination of praise worthy scrutiny, scholarly precision, and community service for the betterment of Wikipedia. Your fine contributions and moderating role in defusing silly conflicts, while always keeping a cool head, is greatly appreciated, and a great service to the community. You would make an ideal administrator.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Arb-comm report

I didn't dig to find it - I noticed it very quickly when I had a look at the page history to see what had been going on in the last few months.

I'm not interested whether Giovanni is blocked or not (I didn't ask for any action), only that a formal record be made of his behaviour. And whether reverts are related or not doesn't matter - it's whether Giovanni unilaterally makes reverts. If he had gained consensus for either edit I wouldn't have given it two thoughts. John Smith's (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've already suggested something like that when he complained on the admin board. Indeed I suggested a formally agreed proposal, but he ignored it. If you can get him to agree to something, please do. But I would want it enforceable and clear-cut. John Smith's (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ending a dispute

John and Giovanni, if you want maybe we can discuss trying to set up some kind of arrangement whereby y'alls are able to avoid each other all or most of the time. It would be separate from your ArbCom case/restrictions because there is no changing that. I would envision it as something you would both agree to and I would be the third neutral party. I don't think that there could be formal enforcement mechanisms but if it worked all or most of the time that would not be necessary - regardless it would probably help to reduce drama. Here's a few initial suggestions and I would then need you to say what you think and answer some specific questions. I have no training in what I am about to attempt so this could end up a disaster!

1. From this point forward, neither of you will follow the other to an article, talk page, policy page, AfD, etc. Obviously it's possible you could end up commenting on the same hugely important issue - voting in an ArbCom election or something like that - but as a rule you would simply not follow one another to new pages. This would limit the scope of the dispute
2. That's relatively easy I think, but the question remains to as to what is to be done on pages you both edit on right now. I would say that as much as possible you should try to have only one of you work on the pages on which you've crossed paths. However this will probably not always be possible. In the section below maybe you can both list out all of the pages you have both worked on. As many as possible would be only be edited by one of you. For others (I'm guessing the Jung Chang related articles) you will probably both want to stay there. For those articles we would work out guidelines for how you will interact.
3. Ideally this would result in both of you interacting hardly at all, and civilly when you did. To the extent that problems come up, you would first come and tell me about it. We would discus and adjust the guidelines as needed, making the best efforts to avoid escalating the dispute. If this type of informal process did not work either of you could of course seek more formal dispute resolution, but again the goal would be to avoid that.

These are my initial thoughts. If you are both amenable to at least discussing this maybe we can start out by agreeing to number one and then listing out the articles on which you have crossed paths. I would imagine the most difficult part would be determining how to deal with pages on which you will both continue to work.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

List of pages you have both worked on

(I'll start listing the ones I know, Gio and John can add more. Once the list is complete we can discuss the specifics).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean a bit more clearly? Do you mean any article we have ever both edited or something else? There are pages we have both "worked on" and pages we have edited at one time or another - they're not the same thing. John Smith's (talk) 10:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added a number of pages I can remember us both editing at some time - this is even if it was one edit. If you want to filter such pages out I need more specific instructions. John Smith's (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This seems fine - I would want to err on the side of more articles rather than less, even if the interaction was trivial.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Mao: The Unknown Story
• Jung Chang
• Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States‎
• State-sponsored terrorism
• Cultural Revolution
• Luding Bridge
• Great Leap Forward
• Korean War
• Bruce Cumings
• The War Against the Jews
• Theory of everything
• Mao Zedong (not sure if we've had conflict, but we have both edited it)
• Type 45 destroyer
• Republic of China Navy

Comment

If either of you show up at an article related to Mao: The Unknown Story or Jung Chang that the other is editing, I can completely understand. Articles like that are related to your ongoing disagreement. But to show up at Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States‎ or User talk:Stone put to sky just because you "suddenly" developed an interest? I'm sorry, I don't buy that at all. Go ahead and tell me I'm not assuming good faith, but I doubt many people who know about your ongoing dispute will disagree that your actions are suspect. You two just need to stay away from each other. If this means giving up editing some articles, then so be it.

If you continue disputing and wikistalking each other, you might risk further sanctions. But let's assume you fly just below the radar enough that you manage to keep disputing until the end of your currently existing sanctions. What then? Eventually you'll just bring on another ArbCom case. Seriously, just let it go. If you're just addicted to online drama, there're plenty of forums out there for you. WP bureacracy might be slow, but the more you dispute, the more people you'll annoy, and eventually there will be enough momentum of editor opinions that wish the two of you will just go away. I've seen the both of you make valuable content contributions, so please just end it and don't wait for a couple of admins to come together one day and decide they've had enough of you. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hong I agree with you obviously and though I don't think we've ever interacted directly I know you have interacted with both John and Gio quite a bit and have tried to get them to squash their dispute which is my goal as well. I'm basically attempting to open up an extremely informal mediation here (which Gio and John both expressed at least some interest in) and if you wanted to help out as a fairly neutral other party that would be much appreciated (if not, that's totally fine and understandable). In a way I think it could be more constructive to work out an agreement informally on the talk page of a non-admin who is familiar with the dispute and wants to help end it. The higher levels of dispute resolution have not worked so far. Anyhow it's up to John and Giovanni if they want to try to put an informal agreement together in this thread.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, as well. I'd like to pose a question before we invest too much time in the fine details so as not to waste our time: Will JohnSmiths agree that coming to the Allegations of State Terrorism article was a mistake, and will he now retract that step and not go there while I'm making that my main page that I continue to work on? If he answers in the affirmative, then I think we can move forward successfully, and I'd of course adopt a reciprocal standard. In other words, this article does not fall into the category of the other China/Mao articles in which we both share an equal investment and activity in (although I've reduced my time there in an effort as part of my avoidance efforts). However, the allegations article is one of those cases where clearly one editor followed the other to, and that, in our context, should be an action that is reversed for the sake of reducing the ongoing levels of conflict being us, a conflict that doesnt have anything to do with helping the article, per se--and in fact has been disruptive for progress on the article. The talk page took a clear sour turn after JohnSmiths arrived due to our poor dynamic. Even users like Raggz did not cause this level of petty and insulting level of interactions, and no one ones should have to put up with that kind of uncivil discourse. So lets avoid each other, and map out some territories for avoidance. Wikipedia with its over 2 million articles is big enough for the two of us. The question is, will you leave the town of US terrorism related articles that I work on?Giovanni33 (talk) 09:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't really agree on anything until we have worked out the details. If it facilitates an arrangement between us, yes I will agree to leave that particular aticle - I would do the same for others we could work out. However I would insist you leave the Mao/China articles alone because your interest in them is primarily geared towards your views on Chang and Halliday. On the articles about Chang and her works, I don't think you're out there to really improve the pages just get the criticism as you like it. But I don't really see what there is left you could want to change, so maybe you should just leave it alone given that was our main source of conflict. I was, after all, on both those pages long before you were. John Smith's (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I edit conflicted with John there so am now changing my comment. John jumps right to the point, i.e. that he would want Giovanni to swear off the Mao/China articles. This is a rather large request as I see it (given the past dispute), but it seems worth considering for Gio. The Mao/China articles seem relatively stable at this point, and if Giovanni was willing to swear off such articles I think the whole problem would largely evaporate. That John would then swear off the "Allegations" article of course goes without saying. Thoughts Gio?

Also to both of you, if there are other articles you have debated on please list them above (including peripheral Jung Chang articles). If not I'll assume the three articles listed are the only ones on which you have debated.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

So any article we have both edited and had conflict on? John Smith's (talk) 10:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, just for the record so we can agree on which pages were problematic in the past. It seems important to put that all up front. You can just list the article titles above.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There may be more, but I think that's a fair number. John Smith's (talk) 10:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

To answer that question, no, I would not willing to swear off the Mao/China/JungChang articles at this time. I've invested too much time and effort, and have an ongoing relationship with various academics who are writing new books on that very controversy, that I will work on further in the future once they publish. I also have an interest in China's history, politics, and Mao, as I've studied in these areas significantly. However, I will in the meantime drastically reduce my activity there, but reserve the right to jump in should things become unstable and start to get way out of shape again. I agree for now they are stable and so I don't feel a need to edit there, esp. when I would only butt heads with JS. I don't feel the Allegations/Terrorism articles are on par with the Mao/Jung Chang articles. I would be happy to swear off the other articles JS has complained about me being on such as the military articles, Navy, etc. That would be a more fair comparison.Giovanni33 (talk) 10:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not good enough. I'd be willing to make room for you on related articles not just ones on state terrorism, but if you are free to wander back to the Mao/China/JC articles when you like this will just kick off again. If you had been there before myself I would accept your point, but I was working on those pages a lot earlier and actively seeking to work on them properly, rather than just boost the criticism sections. Saying that you will reduce your activity there is rather moot given your current activity there is next-to-nothing/zero. Also I'm not sure how your statement tht you have an ongoing relationship with various academics who are writing new books on that very controversy means you need to keep editing the page. If you're refering to Gao then one could interpret that and earlier statements from you that you're ready to act as his proxy on the page. Indeed if you have a relationship with him and others (who I am sure are all critical of Chang and Halliday) it's another reason for you to swear off the articles.

I have not seen you edit any articles on Chinese history bar a little on the Communist era, a little on politics and Mao. Generally it's been about Jung Chang when you have.

I have shown some real interest on the terrorism issue, whereas you have only turned up on the military articles to revert me and then disappear. In no case have you tried to actively improved the articles. John Smith's (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, i.e. Gio's reply which we can explore further. But let's take it back a step first and try to agree on something which is easier to agree on. Can we all agree on the first suggestion I made above, which is to say that from here onward neither of you will follow the other to new articles? Let's agree on this first as a confidence building measure if at all possible.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree with that.Giovanni33 (talk) 10:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

In principle, yes. But any agreement here needs to be enforceable, so it needs to go to one of the community pages. John Smith's (talk) 10:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about an informal voluntary agreement here. Thus, its not enforceable other than demonstrating good will, integrity and honesty with our own public commitments. We don't need blocks hanging over your heads--or are you saying that you can't be trusted and would need to be forced in order to abide by your own agreement (or that I would?). If you are not, then your point is moot.Giovanni33 (talk) 10:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I can be trusted - the problem is I am not sure you can be. I tell you what, I won't necessarily insist on an enforceable solution, but I will ask for specific terms (e.g. length, definition, etc) so that any violation of the agreement can be seen clearly. If it's vague then I don't think it will work. We can agree that neither of us will "follow" the other on to another page as a principle, but we need to work out the rest before we finalise anything. John Smith's (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That is perfectly reasonable to me. No wiggle room or loopholes.Giovanni33 (talk) 10:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

So that is one principle. We will need to agree how to define that later, how long for, etc. John Smith's (talk) 11:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

How about indefinitely, until both parties agree to change the conditions or rescind them. That means, pretty much for me, forever. :)Giovanni33 (talk) 11:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If the length of the agreement is indefinitely, is that for just this, or for any principle we agree on? I don't think we should talk about terms until we agree on the principles. Let's move on to the next point. John Smith's (talk) 11:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well other than following to new articles, I would also include making reports about each other, or discussing each other.Giovanni33 (talk) 11:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What does "discussing each other" mean? As for reports, clearly we would need to able to report for a violation of the arb-comm ruling on revert parole for articles we were both editing. We should also be able to point out if either had broken this informal agreement - otherwise we might break the agreement by telling someone about an incident when someone had not broken the agreement. Just to ensure that if someone makes a mistake we can argue to keep this going. John Smith's (talk) 11:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The "discussing each other" aspect will presumably be complex and warrant detailed discussion. I think we should save it for later and figure out where the real article disputes are first. The latter is more concrete and therefore easier to discuss.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 11:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, you would not need to report me. There is no such "need." The real need is for you to avoid me, including avoiding talking about me, tracking what I do, and yes, making reports about me. We don't need to discuss each other. If there are any violations that need intervention, let other editors worry about it. You don't need to.Giovanni33 (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly if one is working on an article and the other comes along and breaks this agreement/their revert parole, there is a need. I often work on articles where no one watches the pages, or they have not been involved in our affairs so would not know you could be reported for reverting twice in a week - so there wouldn't necessarily be any other editors to "worry about it". John Smith's (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you can get other editors to worry about it instead.Giovanni33 (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If I did that it would break the spirit of the agreement. There's no point in saying we will not report each other if we can prod someone to do it instead! John Smith's (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is since you will not be the one taking the action. Another editor,fine. You, no. Dont worry about it. That is what I'm saying.Giovanni33 (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Not agreed at this stage. Let's move on, please. John Smith's (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are interested in working on resolving this dispute you both need to move on to the next thread and the specific questions I'm asking there. This will work much better if you disengage from one another and use me as an intermediary. Remember that I'm operating as a third party here and you should be looking to my comments - not to one another's.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 12:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that - the next stage is more important. John Smith's (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Its 4 am here, and I have to get up early tomorrow. So I need to get a few hours of sleep at least. I will be getting some REM henceforth, for this evening. I look forward to taking the time needed to stick with this process as I believe it can save a lot of time and trouble in the long term.Giovanni33 (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I know it may sound anal-retentive of me, but can we further clarify what is meant by "Neither editor will follow another on to an article"? I know that statement already reads pretty clearly. But I think in the past, both editors have stated that they suddenly just happened to take an interest in an article or Talk page where the other had been editing, after they were accused of wikistalking. We need to make sure we avoid a repeat of that. So how about this?

• Editors will stay away from articles and Talk pages to which the other editor had made significant contributions. New edits made to such articles will be considered wikistalking. If edits was made under such circumstances as a mistake, the editor should be notified and given a chance to self-revert.

I don't imagine many mistakes will be made under that agreement. The only common editing interest the two of you have are the Jung Chang-related articles - I'm not counting the articles on which you've wikistalked each other. Also, I suggest the both of you stay away from Jung Chang, Mao: The Unknown Story, and other related articles. Those are the articles that ultimately lead to the ArbCom case, it's unreasonable to just ask one editor to stay away from them - unless of course the editor actually agrees. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

We can discuss details later - I was putting up the principle. Also "significant contributions" is very subjective. As for the two articles you mentioned, I've put serious time in and I was editing those pages a long time before Giovanni showed up. John Smith's (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, whatever the details, we really need to nail it down so that we don't come back to this back and forth rhetoric of "He wikistalked me!" - "No, I happened to take an interest in the article!" And if I understand the dispute correctly, you and Giovanni were not disputing until your arguments on Mao: The Unknown Story and related articles. They're what ultimately led to the ArbCom case, and they're the main battleground of the dispute. This is why I suggest you both stay away from them. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to have an argument with myself. If Giovanni focuses on the pages he is currently working on and acknowledges he has already contributed as much as he can to the two articles in question and leave me there, there won't be any conflict. John Smith's (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed principles

• Neither editor will follow another on to an article.

Stage 1 of further negotiations

I got edit conflicted like five times there so I'm just starting a new section. Let me suggest that, while we discuss, both of you avoid replying directly to one another in a knee jerk fashion (or perhaps avoid applying directly to one another more than once at all - or at all). I see from your last comments that you both seem to agree on the principle of not "following" one another to new pages which is good progress I think, and now I see it is the first point in an "agreed principles" section which is great. John provided a good list of the articles on which you have interacted (which I'm guessing is fairly exhaustive). I think the next step should be for both of you to break down (very briefly, without editorializing) those articles into four categories:

1. Articles you both edit and which you assume you both want to continue editing whether you like it or not (this is the tricky one--but be honest)
2. Articles the other (John or Gio) has primarily edited on and which you are willing to avoid
3. Articles which you (Gio or John) has primarily edited on and would want the other to avoid
4. Articles which are somewhere in between the other three groups

Please answer without regard for what the other person might think, even if they answered first. I look forward to reading your answers [broking down into 1), 2), 3), 4)] but must point out that I will go to sleep at some point soon. Let's keep focused on resolving the dispute even though it may take us a few days.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 11:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Korean War
2. Theory of everything, The War Against the Jews, Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States, State-sponsored terrorism, Bruce Cumings
3. Type 45 destroyer, Republic of China Navy, Jung Chang, Mao: The Unknown Story
4. Cultural Revolution, Mao Zedong, Luding Bridge, Great Leap Forward

I'm using 4 as a holding area for articles that I'm not sure about. Maybe Giovanni and myself would both want to carry on editing those articles - perhaps not. John Smith's (talk) 12:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks John, I look forward to Gio's responses manana.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 12:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here is my first take at creating a list, I added some more description to make it clearer as to the categories.

1. (legitimate co-interest):Mao Zedong, Great Leap Forward, Korean War,Bruce Cumings, Jesus, Cultural Revolution, Luding Bridge, Long March, Nanking Massacre, Hundred Flowers Campaign,Jung Chang and Mao: The Unknown Story.
2. (JS domain where I've stepped in but shouldn't)The Rape of Nanking (book), Type 45 destroyer, Republic of China Navy
3. (Gio domain where JS stepped in but shouldn't:)Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States, State-sponsored terrorism, CIA activities in the Americas, Human rights and the United States, Covert U.S. regime change actions,Foreign relations of the United States.
4. (JS stepped in but I don't mind): Theory of everything, The War Against the Jews, Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Che Guevara.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You've left out Jung Chang and Mao: The Unknown Story. Also I have never edited some of those pages you mentioned in 3. John Smith's (talk) 07:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Opps, I left out the most obvious ones. Thanks. I thought you did edit all those at some point. I could be wrong, though.Giovanni33 (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind checking, please? John Smith's (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I checked and I was only mistaken about Covert US regime Change Actions (recently changed to CIA sponsored regime change). But I was right about all the other articles.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Stage 2

Sorry, I didn't get a chance to edit yesterday. Let me try to summarize what was listed in the previous section. First I'll list articles which you have agreed to stay away from. I'm only listing those on which there seems to be agreement. Here's the list for now:

• Giovanni will not edit: The Rape of Nanking (book), Type 45 destroyer, Republic of China Navy
• John will not edit: Theory of everything, The War Against the Jews, Bruce Cumings

Note that Giovanni does not seem to mind John editing Theory of everything, The War Against the Jews, and Bruce Cumings, but since John is willing to avoid those articles I think we should try to agree to that.

First point of business would be for both of you to agree to these lists.

Next thing after that would be for Giovanni to check his list in number three as John suggested in the previous section. See what John has edited and what he has not and adjust the list accordingly.

Once that list is accurate we should: 1) See if John is willing to avoid whatever articles listed by Giovanni which he has not already agreed to avoid (we have to wait to see which ones he has actually edited in the past); 2) Come to agreement with what to do on the Mao/Jung Chang related articles (the tricky part). John has suggested that Giovanni avoid a couple of these, but Gio rejects this as of now. Let's leave that to the side for the moment and first agree on the Giovanni/John will not edit list and wait to hear from Gio on an updated list on number three.

You can both signal your agreement with the above list in this section and Giovanni just post a note here when you've update the list in number three above.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. I have also verified the accuracy of my above list (only one article listed where JS did not already edit, as I thought he did). Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, not agreed. I agreed on my list, not parts of it. I am willing to sacrifice an interest in certain articles, but that doesn't mean I will do so come-what-may.

I am happy to discuss a mutually acceptable list, but the Mao: The Unknown Story and Jung Chang articles are key for me. I am not happy if they're to be only dealt with afterwards. Even if no agreement can be reached on them, I need to know that now rather than later. John Smith's (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm very much hoping to reach agreement on them - I'm not trying to ignore that issue at all (indeed it is the key one to address). I'm trying to take this piecemeal and agree on the easiest stuff first (the above list is certainly not a final list, so I hope I did not give that impression), which I think is a good way to proceed. We can be discussing the Mao and Jung Chang articles by tomorrow or soon after. We won't know whether there can be some agreement until we actually discuss them. Even if we don't come to agreement about the Mao/Jung Chang articles (and I do think that is possible, so long as you both show a little bit of flexibility), don't you think it would be useful to agree to some restrictions? For example we already seem to have an agreement about not following each other to new pages which I think is helpful. Agreeing not to edit certain articles would also be useful I think even if it is just the uncontroversial ones. I would ask John to reconsider and try to view this as a negotiation which has to unfold and the above list as merely a stage in that negotiation - not at all as something definitive. I am simply trying to clear out all of the things we do agree on before focusing on what is difficult.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If we're talking about the easy stuff first then my "will not edit" list would be Theory of everything, The War Against the Jews and Bruce Cumings, assuming Giovanni's list is as you mentioned. Three articles on either side for the moment seems fair. John Smith's (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you are shrinking your #2 list, then?Giovanni33 (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

All right, I've shrunk the list of what John will not edit to three, and assume at this point we are all in agreement on these.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Stage 3

Okay, I'm trying to move on to the more substantive issues since John seems pressed to do that. But let's try to take it slowly and really try to be flexible. I'm going to break this down into several categories - if I've gone astray in categorizing these let me know.

Articles Giovanni has primarily edited

• Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States
• State-sponsored terrorism
• CIA activities in the Americas
• Human rights and the United States
• Covert U.S. regime change actions
• Foreign relations of the United States
• Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
• Che Guevara

Mao and Jung Chang Related Articles

• Jung Chang
• Mao: The Unknown Story
• Mao Zedong
• Great Leap Forward
• Korean War
• Cultural Revolution
• Luding Bridge
• Long March
• Hundred Flowers Campaign

Other

• Nanking Massacre
• Jesus

I'm guessing that a lot of the contact on these articles was incidental. I'm hoping John would be willing to forego participation in some of the articles in the articles Gio has primarily edited, preferably as many as possible (and would note that so far John you have only agreed to avoid participation in articles where Gio has said he did not mind you participating, whereas Gio has agreed not to participate in a couple of articles you asked him to leave). Giovanni, please look through the "Mao and Jung Chang Related Articles" and list as many as you possibly can that you would be willing to leave. I understand you might have a legitimate interest in all or most of those, but am asking you to think about which ones are really important to you and which you can safely take leave of. I don't think this will work unless you are willing to forego participation on some of those articles. John might well have to as well but I would like to see your list first.

As to the "other" articles I don't know where they fit in, but if one or both of you can agree to avoid them that would be good.

So basically I want you to both increase the list of articles you are willing to avoid - we need to weed some stuff out here. Then I think we can move directly into the key issues surrounding the Mao articles.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. In the interests of progress, I am willing to add these to the articles I'm willing to forgo:

• Korean War *Hundred Flowers Campaign *Nanking Massacre, and I'm willing to include Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki since the section I was interested in has broken off into its own article. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, given that John is on UK time he's probably turned in for the night but we'll see what he says later.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Can't say as I am especially interested in any of those at the moment in relation to the Mao/JC articles - the key ones are Jung Chang and Mao: The Unknown Story. As for the Hiroshima page, I'd be willing not to edit the Che page in return. John Smith's (talk) 07:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, give me a bit of time (like a day or maybe two, I'm going to be busy) and I'll propose some thoughts on how to address the issue with the Chang and Unknown Story articles. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't want it to seem like I'm complicating the process, but let's take a look at what's happening here. Am I the only one that thinks it's suspect for John to push for Gio to avoid the articles that are the main area of dispute, and which ultimately led to the ArbCom case in the first place, before he's willing to go on with the rest of the negotiation for the two to stop wikistalking each other? Of course, if Gio agrees to that, then this is a non-issue. But not following each other to articles that one is editing should be a given in the first place. And I really don't like this trading of articles to avoid on a one-to-one basis. The history between the two has been that they follow each other to articles and pages that are not related to the main area of dispute in the first place. So they've agreed to avoid this article and that article, but what about other articles that are not listed and articles that neither have yet to edit individually? So the two editors have seemingly agreed not to "follow each other to new articles". But what does that mean? There's already a guideline telling us to avoid wikistalking, so what does "not following each other" add to that? I feel like unless we nail that part down, this one-for-one trading of articles to avoid is meaningless. Let's say one editor currently actively edits 5 articles, and the other, 3 articles. That means there're really only 3 articles to trade avoidance. Does that mean, then, it's OK to wikistalk to the other two articles that the first editor edits, but which did not get put on the table here? The problem is not limited to this particular article or that particular article. The problem is that they wikistalk each other. That's what they need to agree to stop doing. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The agreement that "Neither editor will follow another on to an article" is basically a re-enforcement of the rule about Wikistalking. Both John and Gio have followed one another to pages in the past (even recent past) so the goal is to avoid that happening in the future and thus contain the dispute. So John can't follow Gio to article X or page Y, and John can't follow Gio to page W or article Z. That this was agreed on is at least some progress and a departure from past behavior.

John is indeed pushing Gio to avoid the main articles of the dispute and Gio is so far resistant to that. Obviously this is where the issue lies, so there will need to be an effort made at compromise. It may or may not work out, but if all that comes out of this is a strong agreement to not follow each other (and I think both are committed to that) and an agreement to avoid certain articles that could expand the dispute than that would be an accomplishment. Again I'll post some suggestions about how to move forward in the next day or so.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

So what does "follow" mean here? We've already experienced in the past the two editors accusing each other of wikistalking, only to have the other defend himself by asserting a sudden interest in the articles/pages. How does this new agreement prevent a simple repeat of that rhetoric? What I'm predicting is, "You followed me to that article!" "No, I'm interested in it." Anyway, whether or not the issue with Mao: The Unknown Story and related articles is resolved, an agreement needs to be hammered out whereby the editors do not spread their edit-warring to other article spaces. This is why I raised an eyebrow at John pushing for Gio to avoid those articles before he's willing to get on with it. If they can't reach an agreement on that point, does that mean they'll keep wikistalking each other? That's insane. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hong, I suggest that you leave BigT to manage this by himself for the moment. We are trying to get basic principles/issues thrashed out - we will come to define specific points later such as the issue of "following" editors around the project, when we are ready to draw up a complete agreement. We can't get everything agreed at once. John Smith's (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine. But I need to know - if you and Gio can't agree on what to do about Mao: The Unknown Story and related articles, does that mean the whole deal is off? And how much time will we allow to debate on that issue? One week? Two weeks? A month? Because I'm seeing a whole lot of wasted effort here if you and Gio just get stuck debating that issue over and over without moving on to the issue of wikistalking. We've seen this before, you and Gio debate on and on, and then no concrete result came out of it. It took an ArbCom decision for you two to stop edit warring on those articles, and even then, the two of you have reverted each other within the limits of your sanctions. With the issue of wikistalking, however, I at least see a bit of progress being made already. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for Giovanni, but I am willing to "agree to disagree" such that we move on to what we can agree on. John Smith's (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That's great to hear. How about we set a time limit by which we discuss a possible solution to the issue of Mao: The Unknown Story and related articles? If no agreement is reached by the time limit, we move on to other areas of this resolution attempt. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is an idea I"m just throwing out there: how about we both recuse ourself from the articles of contention? I'd be willing to if John would be willing to. Leave it up to other editors to improve. That why neither one of us needs to feel compelled to act as a check on the other. I guess this could still be done via proxies, much like the Cold War, no direct confrontation between superpowers. heheGiovanni33 (talk) 06:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've offered this before in the past, and I'll offer it again - if both of you agree to stop editing Mao: The Unknown Story and related articles, I'll personally make any edits on which the both of you can reach an agreement. Under this agreement, I myself will not make any edits unless it is something on which the two of you agree. This of course excludes vandalism reversion for everybody involved. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I recall that, and as before, I'm completely in favor of such a proposition. I believe JS opposed it, but perhaps he will be more amendable now?Giovanni33 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. Your comment about proxies is troubling. If we are to both not edit certain pages, we should leave them alone - period. Getting other people to work on them on our behalf would be against the spirit of any agreement. Maybe you do use proxies, but I do not - I edit or I don't. However, if you find the use of proxies acceptable, why not ask someone like BigTimePeace to raise points with me and other users on the talk page? Although I do not bear you any ill-will, he is an editor who is good at editing in a way that all parties can agree on and might be better able to gain consensus. John Smith's (talk) 12:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't use proxies either, but their use is much better than us doing it ourselves. So if we can agree not to revert each other--ever---then that is major progress (yes, even if others will act on our behalf.) I"m not looking for perfection here. About your proposal, so are basically saying you don't trust Hong but do trust Bigtimepeace? I note that it was Hong who has volunteered for this service, and I don't want to further burden BTP (although either are fine editors who are trustworthy).Giovanni33 (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hong did not offer to edit on your behalf, he offered to edit where we both agree on a change. It depends what you want. Do you wish for someone to:

a) do what you want/edit instead of you?

b) represent your views on the talk page in order to gain consensus/lead to changes?

c) edit the page instead of both of us where we still use the talk page?

d) something else?

As for BigTimePeace, let him say what he is willing/able to do. John Smith's (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please hold off on any further discussion for a little bit. I'm drawing up some formal proposals which will be posted shortly.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The heart of the matter

Okay, consider this an effort to deal with the crux of the issue, the two articles Mao: The Unknown Story and Jung Chang. I get a sense that most of the other articles will be relatively easy to deal with if we can agree on something here. The comments in the preceding section were encouraging so maybe we can work something out, and I appreciate Hong's efforts to help which could prove very useful in the end. I'm going to offer a few different options here which for now we are only discussing in terms of these two articles but which could well be applied to others if need be. Initially at least, I would want John and Gio (and Hong, inasmuch as a proposal relates to him) to simply state which of the following they would or would not be amenable to and why or why not. You can also suggest slight changes or new proposals but try to keep it brief. Once you have both weighed in with your initial thoughts I'll take stock of what was said and then we can discuss further.

Proposal One

In a nutshell, neither John nor Gio edit Mao: The Unknown Story or Jung Chang. This would basically be a permanent restriction. Now there are several different ways in which this could play out which I will list out. I would say at the outset that this would probably be the "cleanest" solution so to speak and quite possibly the best one but also possibly the hardest to swallow since it is the most restrictive. Here are some different scenarios for how this could unfold. Note that one of the important issues as I see it is whether you would absent yourselves from both the article and talk page or merely from editing the article.

1. Neither of you edit either the article pages or the talk pages. You have no "proxies." You take the articles off your watchlist and basically try to completely forget about them (of course you could consult them for information, but you should really avoid the talk pages at all costs). Basically you both make a clean break.
2. You both stop editing the articles, but are welcome to comment on talk pages. You do not have any official or unofficial "proxies" who edit for you. You simply make your points on the talk pages and hope that other editors take up your cause.
3. Neither of you edit either the article pages or the talk pages as in number one. However, in advance of leaving, you both designate one or two editors who you see as good advocates for your position to watchlist the pages and make sure that nothing bad (from your perspective) happens to them. This scenario is very similar to number one in that you would basically completely forget about the articles other than to consult them for information. However before leaving you would at least feel that one or two others were keeping an eye on them for you. Under this scenario it would definitely have to be the case that you could not e-mail or talk-page message your "proxy" editor(s) and say "hey can you go fix this issue for me." The whole point is that you are not participating at all in any of the discussion and work on the article but have a trusted person or persons do this for you.
4. As in number 2 you both stop editing the articles, but are welcome to comment on talk pages. As Hong suggested above, you could have discussions with one another on talk pages and when you reached agreement Hong would make the necessary edits. This would have the advantage of allowing you to both participate pretty fully on the articles and the disadvantage of basically allowing the dispute to continue (albeit only in discussion pages and with a mediator).

If there are other slightly different possibilities which ultimately involve both of you not editing the articles I welcome them. Also let me know if any of the above is unclear. I highly recommend giving strong consideration to some form of this proposal. Bear in mind that the Chang/Mao pages seem pretty stable now. In what is perhaps a bit of an irony given the intensity of the dispute, they are both fairly well-sourced, useful articles (especially considering the relatively obscure nature of the topic). You have both contributed to that and thus might consider whether you are okay leaving them as they are for now and letting others add more material as it becomes available.

Proposal Two

You split the articles. One of you gets to edit on Jung Chang and the other gets to edit on Mao The Unknown Story and you can't edit on the other article at all, either in article or talk space. So long as you could agree on who gets what article (which might well be difficult) this would have the advantage of evenly dividing the spoils so to speak. The main disadvantage as I see it is that it probably makes sense to have these articles in some communication with one another which would be difficult. I think it is worth considering though if some of the other options seem unworkable.

Proposal Three

The least restrictive. You both continue editing both of these articles (I would want to come to full agreement though on a list of other articles you will not edit, though I want to do this regardless). However you agree to never undo or alter (in whole or in part) any edit made by the other from this point forward. You could still argue on talk (or an alternative would be to add that you not interact on talk at all either) but could never change anything the other does from here on out on the article. Basically you are both there, but in point of fact you have no contact with one another at all on the article (and possibly on the talk page). This would have the obvious advantage of preventing you from disputing, but it could make editing the article awkward for both of you and even for others.

These are just my initial thoughts and other suggestions or alterations of these proposals are welcome in the following "initial response" section. I would ask John and Gio to rank these proposals in order of preference and also give brief thoughts about each so I know where you are coming from (be sure to differentiate between the subsections of the first proposal by using 1.1, 1.2, etc. and rank those in order of preference among one another and proposals 2 and 3). Hong could offer general thoughts (not a ranking since he would not be party to most of these) and assent to 1.4 which would obviously require his help. Then I'll see where there seems to be possible agreement and we can pursue what seems like the most plausible and useful course of action.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Initial Responses

My preference would be for the first proposal in this order of preference:

• 1.4 (of course Hong himself is not restricted, i.e. he could make edits he agrees with on his own initiative as an editor, independently of acting as our proxy.)
• 1.2
• 1.1
• 1.3

The reasons for these preferences is based on wanting to allow for participation and article improvement, while reducing conflict and eliminating any possibility of edit warring on the article. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if Gio and John can agree with 1.4, I will only make edits that have already been agreed upon by both editors, with the exception of vandalism reversion. Which means any edits I make to those articles will be results of Gio and John discussing and reaching agreement. This is to preserve my own neutrality in the matter. I already have not edited those articles for a long time now, to the best of my recollection. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I would be satisfied with 1.4 on condition that Hong would institute reasonable edits if the other user does not attend talk page discussions. It would be left to his discretion, but if someone is not on wikibreak and not giving feedback on proposals (say after two weeks) I think it's fair to allow changes to go ahead. John Smith's (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be fine if I'm given notice on my talk page.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Say leave 1 week after raising the point on the article talk page, chase up on the user's talk page after that and then leave another week. Edits are made by Hong through mutual agreement. Though of course neither should block reasonable changes to non-controversial sections. Do you want to make it a total prohibition, i.e. we wouldn't even make grammar/spelling changes? I trust you wouldn't mind reverting obvious vandalism. John Smith's (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with limiting this restriction to only things that will be controversial, i.e. fixing grammar issues (and with no objections raised), or vandalism, etc. would not fall under the need for this protocol. Agreed about a week notice on user talk page as sufficient notice.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This is great! Good to see progress. I would add one thing to the allowance of "non-controversial" edits - if there are any objections to edits made under this condition, you ask me to revert it instead of reverting it yourself. And I will revert any edits made under this condition if objections are raised by the other party, so that you two can discuss it first instead of letting an objectionable edit remain in the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Also if you would revert any controversial edits made by other users who don't gain our agreement on the talk page - though again that's your discretion. John Smith's (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I could revert edits that both of you object to - but that's only if both of you object to them - this will basically function the same way as me making an edit that the two of you have agreed to. So I'm going to assume good faith and ask the two of you to please do not try to individually edit the article through "proxies" or "recruit" other editors to get involved in order to get a controversial edit to stay. Also I will only do as many as 2 reversions if another editor insists on an edit that the two of you disagree with. I don't think I need to be pushing 3RR as a result of my agreement here. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Formalizing this

Wow! I think we are really close here, thanks for being so collegial about all of this. I have formally written this up below and now we'll see if it's agreeable to everyone. One thing on the "non-controversial" edits. I'll put some specific language about this in, but I think you will need to err very heavily on the side of caution here. Only revert incredibly obvious vandalism (for example an anon just deleting a source would not count - it would have to be really blatant) and only make edits that are purely grammatical. Even replacing one word with a synonym is a bad idea. For the most part I would avoid even non-controversial edits unless (as would be the case with heavy vandalism) someone had done damage to the article. Anyhow a formal wording follows. You can signal you agreement, and then if it works for everyone we can move to wrap this up by tying up some of the loose ends.

User:John Smith's and User:Giovanni33 both agree to make no edits to the articles Jung Chang and Mao: The Unknown Story (with the very rare exception of reverting blatant vandalism and possibly making extremely minor grammatical corrections - if the other party disagrees with one of these "non-controversial" edits they will express this view on the talk page and the edit will be automatically reverted by User:HongQiGong). Nor, under any circumstances, will they recruit other editors (either overtly or covertly) to edit for them or advocate their point of view on the articles' talk pages. Both editors are welcome to propose and discuss - with one another and/or with other editors - possible changes to the articles on the article talk pages.

If both John and Giovanni agree on a given edit or edits, User:HongQiGong will make the necessary change or changes in the article. In order to preserve his neutrality, Hong will make no edits to the articles in question other than those changes he makes on behalf of John and Giovanni (excepting reversion of blatant vandalism). Hong will edit in such a manner that he does not breach 2RR within a 24 hour period - that is, John and Giovanni can not jointly force or implore him to make more than two reversion within 24 hours.

If either John or Giovanni are absent from the article talk pages for one week after the other editor has proposed a change, the absent editor will be informed of the proposed change on their user talk page. If they do not respond within one week of the posting of the talk page note, the editor suggesting the change may ask Hong to implement said change to the article.

User:Bigtimepeace will keep an eye on both Jung Chang and Mao: The Unknown Story. While he will not participate in any of the discussions between Giovanni, John, and Hong (nor take suggestions for editing from any of these editors), he will be on the lookout for changes to the article which are at least somewhat questionable (aside from edits by Hong, with which he will not interfere) and which were not discussed first. In a number of these situations he may revert the edit in question and ask that the change be discussed first on the talk page given the contentious nature of the article.

Simply by writing this, I believe I have accidentally passed the New York State bar exam. Anyhow we'll have to discuss some other things but this seems the key part to me. Feel free to suggest wording changes if you think they are important. Otherwise just let me know whether or not you agree (Hong too, just for the record).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

One addition to the "non-controversial edit" part. If any such "non-controversial" edit was made by one party, and the other party objects to it (probably because he views it actually as controversial), I will revert it. This basically conforms to the golden rule of editing the article only when the two parties agree. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

So amended. A bit wordier now but I'm not going for style points here and agree it is worth making this explicit.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. Before the two parties agree to this, I want to make sure they are aware of the implication of this agreement.

• If a third party makes edits to the articles, edits that have not been discussed by either of the two parties, I won't be automatically reverting such edits. I would only be reverting edits by another editor if both parties object to them - this is in-line with me making edits only when the two parties agree. This is why it's so important that neither party try to edit the article "by proxy", in order to maintain the integrity of this agreement. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hong, if you don't revert edits that at least one of us disagrees to, the whole agreement could be violated by someone using a proxy. It's all very well you saying neither party should do so, but if there's no downside because you won't revert then why not say one thing and do another? I'm hardly suggesting you edit-war - maybe revert a few times a week. John Smith's (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do realise this. But, if one of you really is editing by proxy, me reverting only a few times a week would hardly stop the proxy. Here are two possible ways I see it:

1. If an editor is one of your proxies, that editor will probably revert any reversions that I make to his edit anyway. What will that accomplish?
2. If an editor is not one of your proxies, he'll either be opened to discussion, or he'll be a stubborn editor and revert my reversions. If he's opened to discussion, then great. If he's not opened to discussion, then my 2RR restriction placed on the agreement won't do you any good anyway.

Basically, I'm just not sure if anything can really save the integrity of this agreement if one of you choose to use proxies. I mean, one of the purposes of this resolution is really to stop edit warring after all. I'll basically be acting as one of your proxies in an edit war if I revert based on objections from only one of you. I think this may be something we'll have to assume good faith on, but yes, I know that may be difficult at this point. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all the editor may not be a proxy but an unhelpful editor - many introduce POV edits and then disappear. Second if it is a proxy then their behaviour may provide evidence for a sockpuppet/meatpuppet report. However, if their actions are unchallenged they will just disappear and rely on the fact neither party can revert. John Smith's (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Their actions would not go unchallenged if both of you actually object to them. An editor being "unhelpful" is actually a reason why I don't want to revert unless both of you agree to it. What may be "unhelpful" to one party in this agreement could be viewed as "helpful" in the other party's eyes. What then? I would be making an edit on the behalf of only one of you if I revert based on the objections of only one of you. Plus, You and Gio disagree on a lot. These articles could be held in a perpetual state of paralysis if I revert any and all edits that only one of you disagree with. Other possibly well-meaning editors shouldn't have to be penalised by this agreement. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Hong. The whole point is that we neutralize each others disagreements on the articles content, and only edits were we both agree to can be effected by Hong. Otherwise, we can use the talk page to gain consensus for what we want to see changed and then another editor may make the edit; Hong will only act for us when we both agree--absent that we are impotent to make changes other than advocacy on the talk page. The exception is uncontroversial/obvious vandalism as described above by BTP.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

A key part of this is that you John and Gio agree not to use proxies on either page. Obviously in this entire agreement there is a strong element of trust, and I think you have to trust one another a bit that you will hold to your promises to not find someone else to edit for you. I am quite confident though that you will both do this since you both seem to have a strong interest in ending this dispute. One other thing that may be helpful is that I have both of these pages watchlisted. I don't want to assume a role similar to Hong's, but perhaps I could remain completely detached from discussions by the three of you on the talk page and simply keep an eye out for revisions by other parties which are POV or otherwise problematic. John or Gio would not point these things out to me, I could just be another party watching the page and cleaning out stuff that didn't belong and they would have to trust that I would do a decent job of this (if we wanted to do this I would pledge not to add any new material, rather just remove stuff or undo edits which were unhelpful...obviously I would never undo one of Hong's edits since John and Gio would have agreed on that). This is just a suggestion which may slightly allay John's concerns. On the other hand, I would also be willing to completely forego participation on those pages in order to preserve my objectivity re: this agreement. I guess I mainly need to hear now from John as to what specific concerns he still has and how he wants to proceed on this issue.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why Hong is so reluctant to revert unilateral changes from time-to-time when he did so frequently in the past when I or someone else who supported my edits did it. What exactly is the point in me agreeing to this if someone conveniently comes along and then starts making lots of changes that I don't like but Giovanni doesn't mind? John Smith's (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand where Hong is coming from on this. He wants to maintain his neutrality. If someone came in and made some changes and then he reverted them out of hand, either you or Gio might object and question his objectivity. If he acts only as a proxy for edits agreed on by both of you then you should both have confidence in him. True, there is the possibility that someone will come and make changes which you do not like and which Giovanni does like (or vice versa), but this is pretty similar to a situation where you want to make a change but cannot convince Giovanni of it (or vice versa). In the latter situation Hong would not edit, and in the former he arguably should not edit either if he is to remain truly impartial. If Hong reverts "unilateral changes from time-to-time" there is a risk that this could damage the agreement he has with you and Gio and I think that is a real issue.

The key thing here is that neither of you use proxies and as I said I do think we have to be trusting here, but I really don't think either of you will violate that. If you both hold true to the agreement to not use proxies, bear in mind that the odds are fairly slim (given the relative obscurity of these articles) that someone will swoop in and do something you really dislike (note that on Mao:The Unknown Story I count only 11 edits in 2008 and in Jung Chang only 15 - a number of which came from you or Giovanni).

Also as I said above, if it would help I can keep an eye on these articles (though I will not be as active in the months ahead) and deal with what strike me as bad edits while staying out of whatever discussion you and Gio are having. I'm not sure if that be useful for you, or if you would rather I stay away from the articles all together (either is fine with me).

There's an element of trust and taking the plunge here obviously. By agreeing to this restriction you might at times be unable to do anything about edits from other users with which you disagree. My guess is though that those occasions will be few and far between, whereas there would be real benefits to agreeing to the restriction.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The point was that Hong would revert if either of us objected - so it would work both ways. But if you promise to keep an eye on the articles I am willing to accept this. Though I hope Giovanni will avoid being tempted to support unilaterial edits that change the balance of the pages. John Smith's (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that is the best solution. And I would say that I would see any role I would have as largely trying to preserve the "status quo" so to speak. If someone came in and made a fairly radical change that was somewhat questionable (and that had not been discussed on talk), I could revert it with an edit summary like "this might be a good addition, but it should be discussed on talk first given the article's contentious nature." This would hopefully push it to the talk page where the change or changes could be discussed by all (after that I don't know what would happen and would not expect to revert any changes made after discussion had occurred). Again though, I think (hope) I will seldom have to act in this manner.

I've added an additional paragraph describing the role I will try to fill on the articles. Again if John, Gio, and Hong can express their agreement, suggested changes, etc.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, although I don't want anyone to act to counter something just because John disagrees with it on talk. I agree it should be discussed--and we can both articulate our views--but simply disagreeing is a not a basis for Hong or BTP to revert it. I see more their role as one to implement changes we both agree with, not stop changes we don't agree, provided they are from outside parties. I think we all understand that.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

John Smith's - I did give the issue some thought before I clarified earlier above what the implication would be in this agreement. If I were to revert any edits that only one of you disagree with, that would basically make this agreement an attempt to halt any progress on the articles that do not have approval from both of you. An example situation would be - editor comes in to make an edit, one and only one of you disagree, I revert, and then the two of you will discuss for a long time whether or not to allow the edit. So in that way no progress will be made without both of you agreeing. But I don't want this agreement to become that. It's supposed to be a solution to you and Gio's edit warring and reverting each other, not an attempt to halt progress on the articles. True, another editor might come in, make an edit that you disagree with but that Gio does not, and in that way the edit may get stuck. But the vice versa could also happen, an edit might get stuck that Gio disagrees with but that you do not. The terms in this agreement applies evenly to both of you. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Hong's point about the risk of halting article progress (and note that the proposal above is in line with his thinking on this obviously). Just to clarify to Giovanni, yes, if just one of you disagrees with an edit by an outside party that would not be cause for Hong or I to revert it. Indeed while Hong will be aware of and/or participate in your discussion on the talk pages, I really won't pay attention to this at all. If I revert something it will be completely of my own initiative and would only be to semi-controversial (at the least) edits that were not discussed on talk. There would be no recourse for either you or John to say to me "why didn't you revert this, it was a bad edit?" I will just be an extra pair of eyes on the page to catch possibly problematic edits and direct discussion to the talk page, which I think helps to allay some concerns of John's expressed above. I would do this as sparingly as possible and preferably not at all.

I'll note that Gio and Hong both seem to be in agreement with the above wording at this point (please correct me if I'm wrong) so I'll just need to hear whether or not John is in agreement with it as well.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

So you're not going to mediate between us? If it's just me and Giovanni discussing things it will probably go the same way as it has always done. John Smith's (talk) 09:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I would definitely not be mediating on the article talk pages. Hong would be at least somewhat involved with any discussion you and Giovanni might have, though I don't know whether or not he is comfortable with being designated a "mediator." Remember that what will be different is there will be no way for you to edit war or indeed encounter each other at all in article space. This is what has got you both in trouble in the past, and indeed what still holds the possibility of getting you in trouble in the future - i.e. a peevish admin coming in and, given your past records, perma-blocking one or both of you over some new mini-edit war (by contrast I don't think you would ever be blocked for arguing on talk pages, so long as it was civil of course). Your discussion in talk space would be limited to a small set of articles (maybe just these two, we will see). The main objective of this process, as I see it, is to separate you as much as possible. Because there are a couple of articles which you both have a strong interest in we are devising a method where you can both do work there without coming into conflict on article edits. I don't think this requires any mediation on my part and indeed I simply cannot commit to something like that. You and Giovanni are going to have to figure out ways to come to agreement on certain controversial issues in order to get changes made (via Hong). This might not be easy, in fact it will probably be hard, but the proposal would end the edit warring which is extremely important I think. Does this make sense?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine, fine. I'm willing to give it a go. John Smith's (talk) 10:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, awesome. Give me some time (I'm going to bed finally now and we're having a party tomorrow night that will require some preparation most of the day and then some considerable tippling most of the night - probably not any John Smith's though) and I will try to help wrap this whole thing up since I now see us as having agreed on the largest issue. Basically I'll take stock of where we are and deal with a couple of remaining issues, but it might not be for another 36 hours or so.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

John Smith's - at times I can be involved in discussions to broker compromises and calm things down when a debate gets too heated. I definitely don't want to get so involved that I lose my neutrality in the process - both Gio and you know that I'm not some zen master that can keep my cool at all times. Yes, I do expect a lot of debates between you to get stuck and go nowhere. But that's a whole lot better than having you edit war and revert each other, which invariably gets us nowhere except more edit warring and ArbCom involvement. We can work out agreements where you do not edit war with each other, but I have no idea how to get you to agree with each other more often. I'm not trying to sound like I stand on some higher moral ground here, but in my opinion, you need to be more willing to compromise with each other on content disputes. And that's really up to nobody else but yourselves. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On February 8, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thomas E. Latimer, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Echoes

Foucault's pendulum, yes maybe. I had John Hawkes' The Beetle Leg in mind; and like I said, Thomas Pynchon. Thanks for your kind words, and entering into the spirit of it!--G-Dett (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't blame you for bowing out of the article talk page. But looks like Ultra is ignoring consensus and reverting again, on the Japan section (I think he is at 4RR just over 24 hours, too). There does not appear to be even a single other editor who support these changes.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

hey

I am sorry to see you bowing out of editing the U.S. state terrorism article. I think your contribution to the article was great. We had some minor differences, naturally, but I want you to know that I really appreciated your intelligent presence on the talk pages and in the editing process. I wish you the best and you are always welcome back. BernardL (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I hope it just a wikibreak. We need him, and editors like him, as the voice of sanity. I can't believe I actually stayed up all night going around in circles with Ultramarine. Next time I will opt to sleep, and let him have the last word. :)Giovanni33 (talk) 07:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

New mailing list

There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the New York metropolitan area (list: Wikimedia NYC). Please consider joining it! Cbrown1023 talk 20:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

P0 Protein

The poleroviruses are an agronomically important genus of plant viruses which can infect a wide range of hosts. Their genome is a single-stranded plus-sense RNA. The 5’-terminal ORF encodes the 29 kDa protein P0, a strong suppressor of Post-Transcriptional Gene Silencing (PTGS), an important antiviral defense system in plants. A yeast two-hybrid screen of an Arabidopsis thaliana cDNA library identified two closely related Arabidopsis SKP1-like proteins (ASK) as a cellular partner for P0. ASK is a component of the SCF class of E3 ubiquitin ligases involved in the protein ubiquitination and degradation pathway. A conserved F-box like-motif was identified near the N-terminus of P0, suggesting that P0 is a viral-coded F-box protein. F-box proteins are the components of the SCF complex that specifically recognize target proteins. The targets are then usually polyubiquitinated as a marker for proteolysis by the 26S proteasome. P0 mutated in the F-box motif did not interact with ASK and conferred low pathogenicity to the virus in plants. Nicotiana benthamiana in which SKP1 levels were knocked down by virus-induced gene silencing were resistant to polerovirus infection. The F-box motif was also essential for silencing suppression activity of P0 in an agroinfiltration assay. Transgenic Arabidopsis expressing P0 under control of an inducible promoter showed abnormal phenotypes. A subset of miRNAs in the induced P0 plants accumulated less abundantly than in non-induced plants and miRNA-targeted endogenous transcripts were upregulated, indicating that P0 interferes with the miRNA pathway. P0 also suppressed IR-PTGS at a step downstream of Dicer (DCL) activity, suggesting that ARGONAUTE1 (AGO1), the slicer protein in the RNA-induced silencing complex (RISC) might be the target of P0. Indeed, P0 specifically provoked AGO1 degradation in both transient expression experiments and in crossed P0-FlagAGO1 Arabidopsis. A physical interaction between P0 and AGO1 was demonstrated both in vitro and in planta, favoring the hypothesis that AGO1 is the direct target of P0. The data support a model in which P0 acts as an F-box protein, recruiting the post-translational modification system to overcome the post-transcriptional gene silencing system. In this model P0 interacts with SKP to constitute a SCFP0 complex which addresses AGO1 for ubiquitination and degradation by 26S proteasome. This is the first example of a suppressor of RNA silencing that acts in an SCF complex to promote degradation of an essential component of the silencing pathway, thereby, inhibiting the plant antiviral defense.

References: 1. Bortolamiol D., Pazhouhandeh M., Marrocco K., Genschik P. & Ziegler-Graff V. (2007). The Polerovirus F-box protein P0 targets ARGONAUTE1 to suppress RNA silencing. Current Biology, 17(18):1615-1621

2. Pazhouhandeh M., Dieterle M., Marrocco K., Lechner E., Berry B., Brault V., Hemmer O., Kretsch T., Richards K.E., Genschik P. & Ziegler-Graff V. (2006). F-box-like domain in the Polerovirus protein P0 is required for silencing suppressor function. PNAS, 103(6):1994-1999. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.79.19.183 (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You are invited!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday March 16th, Columbia University area Last: 1/13/2008

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

You're also invited to subscribe to the public Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates.
This has been an automated delivery because you were on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Name

Pardon the name change, I've just seen this a couple times now.[2] I'm pretty sure you meant me. Thanks also for your comments, many of which I've agreed with a great deal. Mackan79 (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"Mackan" actually means "the sandwich" in Swedish, so you're not too far off. A bit less pronounceable in English, unfortunately. Have you ever tried to have a conversation with someone using Wikipedia names, by the way? It's kind of funny realizing which ones you have no idea how to say. Mackan79 (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries

Why did you delete my edition (Nevada primary)? Was that sth wrong with my edition? 84.40.210.164 (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate it. I added A More Perfect Union to WP:DYK for March 18. Hopefully this deletion crap will go away quick and we can get this article to stand the test of time. conman33 (. . .talk) 06:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of A More Perfect Union

An editor has nominated A More Perfect Union, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A More Perfect Union (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 10:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Awarding Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Aprils fools day was a blast. Loads of users lightened up to have good old fashion fun. I want to thank you for taking part in editing this page in particular and even though I may not know you, embrace the same talk pages, or even edit with you in the near future, I'd like to award you this Barnstar for making Wikipedia a fun environment in which to contribute. Until next year. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Phase 2 edits

Hello Bigtimepeace. I want to verify to edits made to the page. Back in 1971 I was a graffiti artist. I am a former member of the writing crew "EX VANDALS" Michael aka Lonnie as well as Thomas aka Lee were my neighbors. We all lived in the same projects. Forest Houses between Tinton and Trinity Avenue.(Bronx) We were in our teens and Michael never liked his real name. It just wasn't cool enough so he caleed himself Lonnie and the rest was history. Now I wasn't as crazy as he was. I just was not going to go down on the subway tracks just to write my name. I was more of a hit it while i'ts in motion guy. Therefore I never did any pieces and for the most part didn't get as much recognition. Ocasionally I'd write with some of the guys who were more known like SLY II, AMRL, Stay High, AJ 161, and the list goes on and on. If you need more info, let me know. But I'm tellin' ya, his real name is not Lonny Wood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.156.88 (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for getting back to me. That's very interesting information you provide, and I fully believe you that Phase was originally known as Michael Marrow but took to calling himself Lonny. Ideally we would mention both names, but as of now we don't have any sources that give Marrow as his birth name. Since he later took to calling himself Lonny (and perhaps still does - I don't know if you still know him), and since we have sources that attest to that being his chosen name (aside from Phase 2 obviously), I think we should stick with that for now (it would be different if the Lonny name was completely inaccurate, which is what I was thinking when you first changed it). The way I have dealt with this is to reword it from "real name Lonny Wood" to "aka Lonny Wood." That seems to be accurate and sourced. If we have a reliable source that gives his birth name as Michael Marrow then we can put that in - let me know if you know of anything. I know Phase published a book on graf but it seems you can only get it in Europe.

Again, thanks for getting back to me and please let me know if you have any other suggestions.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

On Galt

I found and added additional information about Galt. A few articles and some Keynotes and dates. Have another look please. Peace Artsojourner (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Oops forgot I wasn't signed in My goodness lol 67.101.159.242 (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand. Artsojourner (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy

Hey there thanks so much for your comments on the article's talk page. You said there that you oppose a merge; I do too, but I was wondering if you could officially register that opposition by restating it in boldface. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II The Sith Lords

i changed it to RFCmedia what now? --Beyond silence 14:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Make love to angry fish! Surreality ~

Surreal Barnstar

		The Surreal Barnstar
		Thank you, Bigtimepeace, for all your support during 10 frenzied days of editing Mulholland Dr. Moni3 (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

I have filed a request for arbitration which involves you. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#ScienceApologist.2FJzG. John254 04:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I would rather not have been named as a party, but I'll leave a comment there. The LaRouche thing got dropped which was all I was there to discuss. I don't see a need for arbitration.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

private

hi BTP, is there a way to talk to you private? thank you, matonge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8matonge8 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 18:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

RfA nomination

Best of luck with it and try not to get stressed out by the process. WjBscribe 22:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Good luck! You'll do a great job. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you expect this? :) I've left some questions for you, which I hope you'll answer - I am interested in what sort of duties you will be taking up/what "sort" of an admin you want to be. John Smith's (talk) 10:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Support all-wiki like PHASE 2! 86.44.28.245 (talk) 05:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ray McGovern

I like the larger size of the picture. He's a forceful speaker; why not convey this in a photo?Mwinog2777 (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Rfa concerns

Hello. I made a suggestion on your nomination page. Although it shouldn't really be necessary, I'm sure that it would deal with any concerns some editors may have about what you would do as an admin. And being the sort of person who wouldn't jump in blocking here, unblocking there, protecting here and unprotecting there, etc I thought you wouldn't mind anyway. John Smith's (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Charles Whitman Page

Finally, maybe a voice of reason. Your remarks for undoing my edit were fair, unlike CambridgeBayWeathers. I posted as an external link, a newscast on YouTube about the officer, Houston McCoy, who is referenced in the article as a major figure in the killing of Charles Whitman. It was removed as a "possible" copyright violation. Since another Youtube video is linked in the page of a Chet Huntley news broadcast, my editing in the other broadcast appeared to be "fair" game, since Fox7 gave me the video without restriction. I reposted the video with an explanation. It was removed by Sherurcij, a jealous guardian of his own interpretations of the event. "Fair is fair", if the Huntley video is not a "possible" copyright violation, why is my posting of the Houston McCoy video not allowed. A reasonable explanation would be appreciated. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.203.161 (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

watching talk page nonsense

I notice that you have put Talk:Lil Wayne on your watch list due to the nonsense that tends to accumulate there. Because of some things that have happened between Lil Wayne and Birdman (rapper), you may want to keep an eye on that page as well. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright and Whitman Page

Hello again, per your post on my talk page, here are a few copyright issues: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#fnv

1. From the US Copyright Website -Transfer of Copyright

Any or all of the copyright owner’s exclusive rights or any subdivision of those rights may be transferred, but the transfer of exclusive rights is not valid unless that transfer is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner’s duly authorized agent. Transfer of a right on a nonexclusive basis does not require a written agreement.

A copyright may also be conveyed by operation of law and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.

Copyright is a personal property right, and it is subject to the various state laws and regulations that govern the ownership, inheritance, or transfer of personal property as well as terms of contracts or conduct of business. For information about relevant state laws, consult an attorney.

Transfers of copyright are normally made by contract. The Copyright Office does not have any forms for such transfers. The law does provide for the recordation in the Copyright Office of transfers of copyright ownership. Although recordation is not required to make a valid transfer between the parties, it does provide certain legal advantages and may be required to validate the transfer as against third parties. For information on recordation of transfers and other documents related to copyright, request Circular 12Recordation of Transfers and Other Documents.

Argument - I granted the interview to Fox7 in Austin, Texas in August of 1998. The interview involves Houston McCoy and myself. The interview is about McCoy's involvement with the UT Tower Tragedy. The content contains my intellectual product. The interview makes no claim of endorsement by Fox, nor did Fox provide any of the photos, information or written agreement with us that we could not distribute the information we gave; that would be preposterous. So, in effect, I am stating that the information in the video, is my intellectual property. Also, this portion of Wikipedia is a not for profit organization, and I am not looking to sell or convey the posting of the video for any monetary value through YouTube or Wikipedia.

2. How long or when do copyrights go into effect? Again from the Copyright Website:

Public Law 102-307, enacted on June 26, 1992, amended the 1976 Copyright Act to provide for automatic renewal of the term of copyrights secured between January 1, 1964, and December 31, 1977. Although the renewal term is automatically provided, the Copyright Office does not issue a renewal certificate for these works unless a renewal application and fee are received and registered in the Copyright Office.

Since the above is the Law, the 1966 Youtube Broadcast of Chet Huntley, is also protected by copyright since it dealt with assessments of the tragedy immediately after the tragedy in 1966, within the copyright protection provision of January 1, 1964.

Therefore, I am asking that you replace my intellectual property back to it's original state (undo click should do it. And remove the Chet Huntley video from Wikipedia, until such time that someone can argue their own "fair use" agreement.

Thanks Again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.203.161 (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Your Reply To Copyright Laws

Your right about the newspaper interview. However, they don't have the right to take your information and then turn around and use it, without giving you credit for the information, unless the information was already in the punblic domain, that would be plagiarism. It's a case by case issue. I removed the Huntley link as a fair play issue. You might want to consider removing the Time, Life, and Houston paper images also, the copyright laws extend to them also. The only reason they haven't made an issue of it, is that they can pick and choose who to enforce the copyright laws on. In this case, they get publicity and hope it adds up to future sales. The same can be said about the YouTube videos as well. YouTube contributions would be about 1,000 videos to choose from if all the copyright holders enforced their copy-rights. Lol!!! Let me guess, the NYC paper sound bited your interview and put a few things out of context, right! It happened to me in several cases, some of their errors are in the Whitman articles in the reference area. Oh well, I don't give interviews anymore - without some editorial control - so they don't bother after that. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.203.161 (talk) 05:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair Use Rationale and Reversions

I don't have a problem with your interpretation of "Fair Use", I was using the this as a means to protect the article:

§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works38

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:Italic text (This is the language)

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphicItalic text, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

End.

Perhaps as a suggestion, to try and further avoid these discussions and issues for the whole Wikipedia Community, Wikipedia's Council could get a blanket "Fair Use Agreement" from compliant copyright holders, such as Time, Life and other commonly used sources, to allow, within general exceptions of copyright violations, a firm standard for the use of copyrighted material. This would eliminate these types of discussion, and allow the flow of uninitiated users the freedom to post the material, and remove all contingency language. We could go on and on about the case by case and thought by thought issues forever, and both be right or both be wrong. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.203.161 (talk) 08:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA was successful

Congratulations!

Congratulations, I have closed your Request for Adminship as successful and you are now a sysop! If you have any questions about adminship, feel free to ask me. Please consider messaging me on IRC for access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel. Good luck! --Deskana (talk) 01:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! I hope that you will be able to spread your level-headedness and positive drive for consensus throughout the project! TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. The inherent value of project in both a quantitative and qualitative sense has just been augmented; that is, to the degree that this promotion to adminship enhances his ability to contribute to it. No doubt it will, as the tools enable him to play a role in areas previously left to others. Even if it makes no real impact tool wise, its a recognition that is long over due. So, it's a great day for Wikipedia, and I'm happy to have played a small part, even if through providing an opportunity for BTP to display his considerable negotiating skills amongst disparate and rather entrenched parties. :) I make a toast to many more productive years ahead! Bravo.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well done. Best of luck with the new tools. Don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any questions. Will (WjBscribe) 01:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What, you mean that wasn't what you had in mind when you chose your username? ;-) WjBscribe 01:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations biggy. Well deserved. 11:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

About your RfA

The admins' T-shirt. Acalamari 01:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful request for adminship. I am glad you passed, and you are welcome for the support. For information on using your new tools, see the school for new admins; you will find it very useful. Good luck! Acalamari 01:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the lame text. You'll make a great admin, Malinaccier (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the bear-garden, and congrats. of course, it's all downhill from now! --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! Thanks for the response on mine as well, and best of luck! VanTucky 01:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on your adminship. Hope you don't break Wikipedia anytime soon. --Sharkface^T/_C 01:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Congrats and good luck. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your promotion! (And making fancy thank-you templates is not really a necessary part of being an admin, good prose is much more useful.) :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. ;) Congrats! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! If you need any help, don't hesitate to contact me, but I have a feeling you'll be just fine doing it your own way. east.718 at 16:48, April 26, 2008

congrats from me too! Nice work. Also, if you haven't already, and based on the number of threads on your talkpage, you need to set up an automated archive bot (if you haven't already). Your talkpage is huge, and will only get bigger now that you'll be deleting pages/protecting pages/blocking vandals. All that to say congratulations, welcome to admin world! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice job, good luck! Spencer^T♦C 21:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

In relation to

Without going into specifics, in relation to one of your existing conversations, the section on the bottom of this page User:HooperBandP/Sandbox2 is a trimmed version I created that Ultra agreed to, and no one disagreed with. 30% dedicated to the refutation, and as I told Ultra, if he can find more we can bring it to an equal 50%. I was surprised to see it all removed following this latest agreement. --I Write Stuff (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipages in need

Wikipedia is strictly buisness (mostly) so I am sending you this message for Wikipages in need.

Plain White T's needs a lot of help. It is a sketchy article.

8- inch floppy disc also needs help. There were a few notes that floppy disk was too long so I made a new article from part of that one.

From, --RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

22 April Tuesday

I took the liberty of adding the "subst:ab" at the bottom of the page for these AfD's:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of the temple: the tenth crusade
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Ken Idenouye
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GMC Terradyne
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dejan Lopez

If the subst template is not there, it will assume that anything under it (the rest of the log in this case) falls under the "subst:at". No worries. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 07:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not a problem at all. But in echoing of Keeper76's comment above, you might also want to look into an archival system for your talk page. Werdnabot is the one I use, from Werdna. Its does everything by itself and is completely easy. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 08:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll be archiving soon - specifically on the traditional May 1st spring archiving date, huh? - and I'm just going to do cut and paste jobs for the time being.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive time?

Hey, your userpage is getting a bit long. For some users with slow computers it takes a while to load, it would be great if you would archive some of it. :) Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 19:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Okey Dokey, :D Tiptoety ^talk 19:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations on your promotion to becoming an administrator! Hope you do well as an admin! Cheers! - DiligentTerrier (and friends) has given you a WikiCake! WikiCakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of cakes by adding {{subst:GiveCake}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

23:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Closing AfDs

I think you need to review how to close AfDs properly; you've been putting the {{at}} template on the bottom and forgetting to add a {{ab}} template on bottom, which has messed up the that shows all of them. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 14:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Jaina Solo

Good closing statement btw. Dorftrottel (complain) 16:29, April 29, 2008

Adeyto

Can I have this recently deleted article placed in userspace. I think I can improve it and remove it from the advertising classification. --I Write Stuff (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem and I understand. I actually did get the page off of Guy's talk. Someone was complaining it should not have been deleted, I went and looked to see if I could finding supporting sources online, of which it was easy to find a few. I wanted to see the article to see if what I located was already in the deleted version, or if there is confusion over her name, as Adeyto is not the name she is credited as in movies, which is Laura Windrath. I will ask on the appropriate forum however, thanks and not hard feelings meant to yourself for not, or Guy for deleting. I may end up looking over it and realizing there is not much for me to add. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

LOOK!

whats utc

We Are The Ocean

Yeah, I can see how you got there. I also think AfD is the right place for this one. Thanks. Erechtheus (talk) 11:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sequoia diangelo

Hi Bigtimepeace; I don't mean to step on your toes, but I've taken this article to AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sequoia diangelo. I think the article should be deleted on grounds of WP:N and WP:V, but thats a matter for AfD rather than A7 (the article at least asserts importance). Hope you don't mind, thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Stanley Franks

Greetings,

I have taken this to AfD, but I should note that per WP:ATHLETE, simply being signed isn't good enough to establish notability--they actually have to play in a regular-season game. The author of this article created several similar pages for other undrafted free agent signings, few if any of which will actually make the team. Playing a single down in a single game is already a fairly loose standard IMHO, and these guys don't even meet that. Thanks, and take care. --Finngall ^talk 15:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The Heritage Trilogy deletion

About the Heritage Trilogy deletion, the page was still under construction (complete rewrite). Please restore it so that it can still be worked on. Thank you. JoshuaKuo (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)JoshuaKuo