User talk:FloNight/archive 9

The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Flo, can anything be done to get a speedy resolution to the Peter Damian Rfar? I was rather hoping it might be just a quick motion to get a yes or no to whether he can edit mainspace. Is there anything I might be able to do to help? --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad asked for interested parties to provide statements quickly (within 24 hours) so that a speedy answer can be given. I'm hoping that since the deadline has passed, we will make some decisions soon. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks Flo. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi White Cat ;-) The main Merridew motion now passes. I want to let you know that the users that volunteer to mentor are Casliber, Jayvdb, Lar, and Moreschi. If you have concerns about anything related to Merridew, you can also contact me or Newyorkbrad, or make a request at AE or by email to the ArbCom-l, or contact one of the mentors. Our primary need is to find users that can work well with Merridew. Additionally in this instance, we need to include some users that you feel comfortable contacting if you have a concern. I think we have achieved this balance with this group of users. Take care, FloNight♥♥♥ 18:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping me posted. Jayvdb is a person I can comfortably talk to even though we had significant differences of opinions in the past. I had no interaction with Casliber before so I cannot comment on that. I'd rather not as the other two mentors (particularly Moreschi) for help. I feel the situation needs a 5th mentor so that any decision among mentors do not end up with a tie. I have no person in mind...

I have been trying to contact you on IRC over a completely separate matter for some time. I did even email the Arbcom-l mailing list over it. Do you think we can talk about it?

-- Cat ^chi? 22:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I don't think that they will be voting on issues so a tie vote is not so much a problem. They will not be final decision makers as much as monitors. We mostly want enough people to watch him adequately and give advice. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recall seeing an email. I'm bring it to the attention of the Committee. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FloNight, when this is ready to go, just let us know and we'll fire it through. Daniel (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lar has bowed out as a formal mentor. So we will go with the other three. Ready to go. FloNight♥♥♥ 07:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going now. Daniel (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lar bowed out. Jayvdb, Casliber, and Moreschi are the 3 mentors. Odd number now, okay? I instructed them to inform the Committee if they are going to be absent for an extended period of time so we can find a replacement.

I sent your other email through again. FloNight♥♥♥ 07:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hope the whole signature issue is resolved soon. People are still accusing me of things due to it. -- Cat ^chi? 20:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Flo -- did you receive my email of Tuesday 2 December regarding an oversight matter best discussed off-wiki? (Moderate urgency, high importance.) Please let me know. You can reach me via the email function on my userpage.

(note: When I emailed you, I used the same email-user function, but as of today that link is absent on your page.)

regards, Jim Butler (t) 00:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me look. FloNight♥♥♥ 07:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 September I sent an email to Arbcom, which can be viewed in its entireity here. I have repeatedly asked for a response from Arbcom, and I have yet to reply a single response in regards to the botched checkuser performed by an Arbcom member, which resulted in me having to out myself in order to show said Arbcom member that they had made a monumental mistake. All throughout the checkuser, I was treated in what I believe was an uncivil manner, particularly as an assumption of WP:AGF was never made. And I stated at the time that a simple apology would not cut it. As I stated above, I have repeatedly asked Arbcom for a response, with emails being sent to the Arbcom list on 21 September, 20 October and on 4 December. To date, I am yet to receive a response from Arbcom, except an email 5 days ago which stated that I would be gotten back to within a week. Given that Arbcom is absolutely aware of my case, as I brought it up at the Kuban_kazak Arbcom, here, and given that Arbcom does not have the common decency to even acknowledge it, one can't help but feel that I am being completely ignored. If I haven't received a response from the Arbcom by the end of the week, I will be opening a case in full view for all of the community to see, because as far as I am concerned, Arbcom members are not above the same standards that us mere mortals are held to. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 17:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request is at the top of my to do list for today. I can't promise a complete answer but I do want to give you an update by the week deadline that I gave you. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Just saw an IP release someone's personal address: [1]. If it's a real address, it is probably not his own, as he claims. Can you take care of it? Okiefromokla ^questions? 16:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for letting me know. Next time it would be better to contact Oversight <enwp.oversight@gmail.com> or Requests to permanently remove personal information from the English Wikipedia <oversight-l@lists.wikimedia.org> instead of publicly asking for oversight. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

K, thanks. Okiefromokla ^questions? 22:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, fixed.

Please look here [2] This time I have had enough of it, de-sysop her or get her kind off my back. Please. Giano (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano is trolling, please ignore him. He thinks he can get away with calling admins "stupid" and "idiots". --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just had to twice remove the above persons's ersonal attacks from my page - please block him. Giano (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please block Giano instead. He's personally attacking admins by calling them stupid and idiots. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it amazing how there is never an arb around when one is needed. Please stay away from my page, if you return you will be romoved. Giano (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email to me from Mat, please ask him to stop harrassing me on and off wiki:

Matt57 to me show details 3:32 PM (53 minutes ago) Reply

The admins should have banned you long ago.

--- This e-mail was sent by user "Matt57" on the English Wikipedia to user "Giano II". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

The sender has not been given any information about your e-mail account and you are not required to reply to this e-mail. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>.

Calm down now Giano. I'm not going to participating in your issues anymore as I said on my talk page. And what I did email was not harrassment, considering you have been blocked about 63 times by now and you have had civility issues since the beginning and you are still allowed to edit this website. Hopefully you will honour your commitment to not come back. You divide the admins and create nothing but problems on this website. Once again, I have withdrawn from the matter. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do stay away from it now Matt. You said you opinion and it's enough. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord, no. Matt57 is a very, very important admin. He contributes... well clearly he contributes being a very, very important admin. Seriously, Flo, -this- sort of crap from admins is what should lead to removal of the bit. "[you] create nothing but problems on this website"? OMFG, how self- important and delusional can one child get?220.236.160.55 (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the nice comment regarding my work on Joseph Desha. I found a few good references on all the Kentucky governors, and I have two weeks off for Christmas (higher education is great!) so I hope to expand some more governors. I think I can potentially get all of them from Shelby to Metcalfe to at least GA over the break (except maybe Madison, who died in office.) I'm thinking of running Shelby and Scott through an A-class review from the Military History project when I get done with them. Which ones in that group do you think have FA potential? Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! Getting all of these up to GA would be great. :-) Isaac Shelby has the potential to be FA because of the level of details that are available about him. Lack of information gaps in most of these Governors' lives because of documented military and political career makes most of them have FA potential. Having something colorful in their history means that more was written about them. That is the reason that Desha caught my eye as a potential FA. The stories about his son and his conflict with Horace Holley add quite a bit of flavor to the biography. John Adair's history is colorful, as well. My husband and I take pics of local historical sites, including graves, monuments, historical figures homes. We might have some of these already but I've not uploaded them. I have a backlog images to add to articles. If any articles would benefit from images let me know. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One picture that I know would be nice to have is the bas relief of the Good Samaritan on the grave of Luke P. Blackburn. Talk about colorful stories – a doctor known for compassion and philanthropy participates in a scheme meant to deliberately spread yellow fever to Union troops during the Civil War then gets elected governor! That article is GA already, but one day I hope to make it FA. I own Nancy Disher Baird's biography of Blackburn, so I should have enough material to expand it if need be. I think a picture of the bas relief and one of the Kentucky State Penitentiary (which he advocated for) would be the final touches. I'm only an hour or so from the penitentiary, so I can get that one without much trouble, but Frankfort Cemetery is a good two and a half hours away, plus an hour for crossing the time zone. If you go, consider checking out the newly-created Category:Burials in Frankfort Cemetery for other graves that might be worth photographing.

So far, Scott, Slaughter, and Metcalfe are already GA. Garrard, Greenup, Adair, and Desha are all current GA nominees, if I could get someone to review the dang things! That just leaves Shelby (who I've been working on) and Madison. As I said, I'm not sure if there's enough out there on Madison to even make GA. State auditors don't usually make headlines, even if they do serve for twenty years prior to becoming governor and dying in office in a few months!

Also, Scott is undergoing a peer review by the military history project. I plan the same for Shelby when I'm done with him. Both of those should be FA candidates at some point. I agree with you on Desha, but I worry about the rest of them being considered too short for FA. It kinda bugs me that you can use all the reliable sources available on a subject and still not make FA because the article is "too short." Oh well. I've currently got some interlibrary loan requests out with an eye toward getting Beauchamp-Sharp Tragedy, Solomon P. Sharp, and Jereboam O. Beauchamp to form a featured topic. Hope I'm not biting off more than I can chew! Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've visited Frankfort Cemetery several times and have taken pics of many graves there. Many political figure's graves were moved to Frankfort. I'll spend some time looking through them today to see which ones I still need to upload or add to articles. I'm interested in reading the GA and Military project reviewers comments to see how much more detail is needed in their opinion. Since I live in Georgetown, I'm close to both Frankfort and Lexington. Both cities have several libraries with reference material that could be used to beef up the these articles or tie up loose ends if questions arise on a detail. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great news about the Blackburn grave. Would you just drop me a line when you get it uploaded to Commons? I don't work over there at all, even though I probably should.

Also, since you mentioned libraries and being near Lexington, do you know if the public can check out books from Transylvania University library? There's a book over there I really want to get my hands on, but they won't let it out on interlibrary loan because it was published in 1850 and is probably too fragile. It's only 28 pages, so I'm hoping someone can check it out, scan or copy it, and send it to me. Let me know if you think that's a possibility. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you could find that book at Transy, that'd be awesome. Here's the info I have:

The life of Jeroboam O. Beauchamp : who was hung at Frankfort, Kentucky, for the murder of Col. Solomon P. Sharp. Frankfort, Kentucky: O'Neill & D'Unger. 1850.

No author is given, but WorldCat says Transy has it. If you can get it electronically, I'll send you my email address. If you can get it hard copy, I'll send you my mailing address. Be aware that there is at least one illustration of Beauchamp and his wife, Anna Cooke, that would make a good addition to the article on Beauchamp if we get a clean enough copy. Thanks in advance for your efforts. I'll add the picture of Blackburn's grave ASAP. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found it in the Special Collections at Transy. On Tuesday, I'll call and see if I can get an appointment for Thursday. The weather is suppose to warm up on Thursday, after snow and freezing rain the next two days. I'll let you know when I find out. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The copies arrived today. They look great, and the illustrations of Beauchamp and Cooke look to be of sufficient size and quality to add to articles related to this topic. The one of Beauchamp being hanged may also fit nicely into those articles. This was really above and beyond IMO, so:

		The Special Barnstar
		For devoting time, effort, and some actual money to help me obtain access to The Life of Jereboam O. Beauchamp, I award you The Special Barnstar. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 23:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Acdixon. I was glad I could help. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Beauchamp-Sharp Tragedy was promoted to FT this morning. Couldn't have done it without you. Also, wrt the governors, if all my current GA nominations are eventually promoted, every governor from Shelby to Owsley will be at least GA. (Except Wickliffe; it seems to me that article still needs something, but I can't put my finger on it. I'm thinking of listing it for a peer review.) Thanks for your help! Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful news. The Beauchamp-Sharp Tragedy topic is extremely well done. :-) Glad that I could be helpful. Looks like you were able to clean up the images from the copy alright. I appreciate the effort that you are putting in by taking these and the KY Governor articles through the GA and FA evaluation process. During January I looked in a few times to see how they were progressing. It can be slow going since there is a backlog most of the time. Hope you survived the winter storms with little disruption. Keep up the fantastic work! FloNight♥♥♥ 15:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for all your help with this. I'm so glad that's over. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. ;-) FloNight♥♥♥ 12:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In light of votes to close and this passing, may I ask if you have seen this alternate proposal? If you have seen it, could you post your vote there, with a rationale? Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flo, you mentioned on the Arbcom page that you would prefer a full, not a conditional unblock of Moreschi. FT2 in his block notice had explicitly said that he would accept a fellow arbitrator unblocking. Ryan's conditional unblock came probably minutes before a full unblock for which a clear intention and consensus among several other (non-arb) admins had been forming (see especially LessHeardVanU's declared intention). Right now there is a bit of an incertainty in what form such a consensus should be declared and enacted at this point, given that technically there is no more to do. Perhaps you, with your status as an actual arbitrator, could help out and make it "official", to spare people the procedural awkwardness? Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that would be very much appreciated Flo if you could clarify for us. I did a standard unblock to allow participation in the RfArb, but it would be good to get something official either from the committee or FT2 to allow Moreschi to edit again. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had already raised the issue internally and was awaiting a reply from FT2 and other arbs. I see that FT2 has commented on site on Moreschi's talk page about the unblock. It is my understanding that Moreschi now has no editing restrictions. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On your promised reply here. See also here. ---_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, per [3]. DuncanHill (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the thinking there? I've always considered you one of our most right-thinking arbitrators, and I'm mystified by this. A non-problematic administrator makes what the committee feels (and the community seems to disagree) is a bad unblock, so you put him on three month "no unblock" probation? What is gained by this? In lieu of such a restriction, wouldn't a simple, but stern, warning (in the form of a motion) be adequate? And then if the perceived problematic behavior continued, further steps could be taken. Where is the downside in restraint here? SDJ 18:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, per [4]. What a recused arbitrator voting on a motion does to a majority I don't know. DuncanHill (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear FloNight

Just letting you know, I have switched back to Confident for you on the ArbCom feedback page. I shouldn't have switched over one vote of yours which I disagreed with. For the most part, you've been fine. I'm particularly impressed with your latest efforts re. Checkuser and Oversight.

Thanks,

Majorly ^talk 20:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you have time, I'd appreciate any feedback on a slightly crazy idea I had at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Committees. It's related to the Arbitration Committee. Thanks! rootology (C)(T) 18:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. :-) FloNight♥♥♥ 20:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Don't let me be too presumptuous here, because I haven't been involved enough with ArbCom to really understand how it works. But I couldn't help but notice your abstention on the basis that you oppose sanction. Motion #2 states that "community discussion appears sufficient to solve the matter at this time." Doesn't that, implicitly, mean that the motion is in opposition to sanction? Thus, wouldn't it be a motion you support?

If I'm wrong, consider it an opportunity to enlighten another Wikipedian about the nuances of ArbCom. :) Randomran (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My preference is to stay completely silent and have no motions at all, so that is the reason that I abstained. Does that make sense? FloNight♥♥♥ 20:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that a "motion without sanctions" is still a motion. So if I understand you correctly, you're not just against sanctions, you're against any motions at all? Randomran (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! I see no point in having any motion that describes the issues at hand if we are not giving out sanctions. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! Although I would add that a motion that merely describes the issues can be helpful for information purposes. Since this editor keeps on coming back to ArbCom, a little information might be very helpful to prevent another hearing on the issue unless absolutely necessary. But that's just how I see it. Randomran (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point. But my preference would be for us to promptly reject any clarification about TNN unless he clearly breaks a specific policy. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I suppose that's what you were getting at with your other statement. Speaking only for myself, I care less about whether or not we sanction TTN, and more that we stop revisiting this issue like a broken record. Anyway, thanks for clarifying. Randomran (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I think we should either have Episodes and characters 3 or an Rfc/U on TTN. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're trying to be helpful by advocating for your viewpoint. But this discussion was between me and an arbitrator to clarify and understand their position. Not to persuade or debate with them, let alone start a debate between me and anyone else. You've suggested a more appropriate location for this discussion. So I'd ask you politely and in good faith to try it somewhere else, instead of following me here where it doesn't belong? let's move this somewhere else. Randomran (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the comment below yours; however, my reply is specifically to that one comment. Deindenting it does not indicate which comment I was responding to. I can refrain from adding anything new here, but none of us own any of these discussions and so others are permitted to comment if they have something to add. Again, I do not want to edit war with you any further here, so for my part, I will not comment further in this topic on this page, but please for your part respect my post by not moving it further. Thank you and have a good day. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He does seem to be engaging in tendentious editing by nominating articles with the same copy and paste rationale that says no sources exist even on articles that end up kept due to the existence of sources in some cases that were on the article when nominated. He also seems to be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point by the shear number of nominations that overwhelm various projects' efforts to rescue the article and that flood articles for deletion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and Dosiego, as they say in Poland! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and to you too! Jayjg ^(talk) 23:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a great bell tower (: ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 00:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 15:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Happy new year, and have a good year ahead! - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 15:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks Flo, happy new year to you too. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 18:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the good wishes, and the same to you. SDJ 18:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Happy new year, FloNight! Hope the new year will bring great things for you! Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Happy new year! Good luck at arbcom... Randomran (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear FloNight,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Happy New Year to you also, hope it is a good one for you. Cheers, --Russavia ^Dialogue 02:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear FloNight, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Day, and that 2009 brings further success and happiness! ~ YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]

All the best FloNight for another year of AC! Happily retired...YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's TTN not TNN (as you have it) in your reject notice. :) SirFozzie (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it is. Thanks :-) FloNight♥♥♥ 19:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flo, currently you are both Supporting and Opposing the desysop of Hemanshu, did you mean to indent one of them? MBisanz ^talk 21:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year too you too. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an attempt to reassess the scope of the rfar. Was this what you were looking for when you said you'd reconsider your vote? -- Cat ^chi? 14:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

At your convenience, please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Committees#Content authority: a different approach. It builds a bit on some thoughts you voiced earlier on that page, although I was thinking more about a committee addressing content disputes and you were thinking about a committee addressing policy, the common idea is to help the community make a decision. -- Noroton (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flo. I'd appreciate further information about whether or not we will be having regular elections or not, in regards to my latest comment at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight appointments#Discussion from Lar.27s comment. If you have a moment... Thanks. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The case was closed on 2009-01-04. Attempts to achieve consensus regarding Remedy 1 began shortly thereafter. It is now 2009-01-18, and no consensus has been achieved. Will the ArbCom now proceed with Remedy 2, please? -- Evertype·✆ 10:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best typo ever. Wouldn't it be nice if disputes could be solved with a warm blanket and some hot cocoa?--Tznkai (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. :-) FloNight♥♥♥ 18:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you hadn't seen my reply to Luke's rejection and similar, would you mind reading that and replying with your thoughts on the RFAR proposal? My scope proposal is significantly different than Will's. rootology (C)(T) 16:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did. ;-) FloNight♥♥♥ 16:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flonight. I don't understand how voting can start [5] without the independent review of the evidence by Arbitor Cool Hand Luke being completed [6]. Isn't that totally against proper procedure? I am afraid this is not fair at all... Cheers PHG (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitor Cool Hand Luke has now completed his independent review of the evidence here. It basically shows that my contributions have been based on proper sourcing and are not even "undue weight", contrary to what has been said. Isn't it then highly unfair to ask for continued restrictions? It would be a shame if the Arbcom followed (and encouraged) the lingering enimities and unwarranted accusations of a few critics, rather than pass a fair judgement about my work. I strongly appeal to your sense of justice in this matter. Best regards PHG (talk) 07:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if this will help you with your question, but this might be of interest. It might help shed light, I don't know. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FloNight. I strongly object to the wording of one of the proposed decisions:

"Prior damage in topics related to Mongol alliances with European nations. When PHG's editing was unrestricted, the user caused extensive damage, which resulted in strong bias being introduced into dozens of articles related to medieval history of the Mongol Empire and related events in Europe and the Middle East. Cleanup efforts are still ongoing."

This statement was not present in the previous findings, and has been disproved by the independent review of the evidence made by Arbitrator Cool Hand Luke [7]. It is essentially a copy-paste of Elonka's claims [8]. The review shows and states that my representation of the sources is essentially proper and my contributions are not undue weight. Elonka's claims of POV-pushing, Undue weight or "massive damage" are therefore unwarranted, and there is no justification for the Arbcom to repeat them. Since the Arbcom March 2008, Elonka has set up her own interpretation of the Arbcom findings, establishing a supposed "cleaning list" [9], from which supposed "POVs" had to be eliminated in order to repair alleged "damages" that would have been made, but this is absolutely not grounded in the 2008 Arbcom finding, and certainly not the application of an Arbcom mandate. It seems Elonka has been using the Arbcom as a pretext to set up her very own policing operation, and has been using it to constantly misrepresent my contributions: especially, insinuatory list-building seems to be one of Elonka's favourite techniques and has already encountered huge opposition on Wikipedia [10][11]. The actual perusal of Elonka's interventions shows massive deletions of properly referenced material, which CHD has kindly qualified as being faithfull to sources and not undue weight [12]. In many cases, valuable, referenced, not undue weight information is thus altogether eradicated from Wikipedia [13].I urge the Arbcom to kindly consider proposed decisions that are actually established by impartial inquiry, rather than a simple repeat of inexact claims made by critics. Best regards PHG (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FloNight. Justice please! Cheers PHG (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am leaving. Cheers PHG (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 08:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you or your hubby take any pictures of an abandoned train station in Georgetown? I just did an article on the Frankfort and Cincinnati Railroad‎, and supposedly their station still stands in Georgetown. Thanks.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 05:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a street address, but looking at http://www.abandonedrails.com/map.asp?c=833, my guess is that they'd want ther ndepot close to where they crossed another railroad, so the corner of E Main and Maddox Street or corner of Maddox and Mattox are the most like spots.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 20:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We took a picture of a warehouse close to there, iirc. Maybe it's still there but not in use. We'll drive by there tomorrow when we're out and about. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image on your page is named "McConnell Springs, amphitheater with Eduction Center in background." Eduction? Very cool pics, btw...  :) Xenophrenic (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Xenophrenic, for telling me about the typo. Luckily, it was not in the image name but in the caption on my user page so easy to fix. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) FloNight♥♥♥ 21:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiology task force is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Cardiology on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of participants at Cardiology task force Participants. ECG Unit (Welcome!)

-- MifterBot I ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 20:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maen. K. A. (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you prodded this article - I've boldly redirected it. Could you have a look at the talk page to see whether you agree? Thanks. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect is a good solution. :-) Thanks for giving your attention to the article. Fuller reply on the talk page. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FloNight, I've sent an E-mail. Best wishes. Acalamari 22:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you have another. Thanks again. Acalamari 23:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FloNight,

Could you please let me know why the reference to Justin Packshaw was taken off Wikipedia? Thank you so much an I look forward to hearing from you.

Kindest regards,

Justin Packshaw —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin J Packshaw (talk • contribs) 10:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about this discussion on Billy G's talk page? The IPer desperately wants pre-emptive protection due to the future status of Kentucky's coach. My take: While there have been a few vandals this week, the article should not be protected except in the case of actual long-term vandalism. Your thoughts??? Thanks, Willking1979 (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look and reply on the article talk page. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Wikipedia:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On March 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alligator (steamboat), 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.

Thanks for the contribution Victuallers (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) Gatoclass (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though this project is inactive, you can help with : M.c.A.T (random unreferenced BLP of the day for 1 Jan 2025 - provided by User:AnomieBOT/RandomPage via WP:RANDUNREF).

well, any input would be good - green is a good comparison. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to clarify what you misunderstood about my question, and asked another question in return here. Would appreciate a response prior to it being archived - if you can let me know when you've responded, that would be great. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers; however, I don't believe you've responded to the scenario+question I posted in response to your comment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just extending out an olive branch to you. I know I've said things, mainly in anger, that I'd not normally say. I just wanted to apologise to you personally. Steve Crossin ^Talk/₂₄ 02:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No apology is needed to me. I hope your return to editing goes smoothly. Take care, FloNight♥♥♥ 17:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Would you be interested in volunteering some time and expertise to help the Wikimedia Foundation in a collaboration with the National Institutes of Health? I unfortunately do not have a lot of details to give at this time, but in short, I'm looking for a group of Wikimedians (primarily US or UK based, but that's not a requirement) that have interest or expertise in various medical fields, to help participate in a Wikimedia Academy event with the NIH. Even if you don't think you'd be able to attend the event, but would be interested in helping out online in any capacity, I'd love to hear back from you. Please leave a message on my talk page at User talk:Swatjester if you are interested. Thank you. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 14:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i challenge you to find more than 1% of a sample of unsourced BLP articles from the backlist that are harmful and have not been caught already, and where the harm was introduced from the start. DGG (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If you read my words carefully, you will see that I support a process that deletes all BLP articles if most of the content is not sourced, including older BLP articles. If you look through BLP articles many will have some type of source added. But they do not provide adequate sources that I expect in a reputable reference work. Since we are talking about living people, the standard of sourcing should be very high. I started reviewing BLP a month ago. The first day the first article that I looked at I found an article that merged the identity of two people with the same name. The sourcing of the article was poor. Further review showed that the article was a hoax. And the information about the other person was included by chance. Previously, it contained unreverted vandalism for an extended period of time. We can to do better than this. I refuse to accept the lousy product that we are displaying to readers. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

coming back to this, I want to say that I agree with your general project. You are right: there is unfortunately nothing easier that adding one or two not very relevant or accurate sources to an article, and we have probably a million articles in just that state. . But fixing this means essentially fact checking every article in Wikipedia . Agreed we need it. But how.? if we hired a professional, he could probably do 50 small articles a week. If a number of us did it--well, if I thought i needed to pay no attention to ASfD, I could probably do 5 small or one large article a week, though not to professional journalism standards, but reasonable ones for a work like this. If there are a hundred of us doing it, which is optimistic, we could do only 5,000 a year, so the question is priority. The small unsourced BLPs that don't seem particularly controversial are my idea of a medium to low priority, because they dont do any active harm or confuse many people. The ones that are controversial, and the major figures--that's the priority among BLPs. Treating them all equally has a negative effect--it prevents concentration on the real problems., DGG (talk) 05:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The small unsourced BLPs that don't seem particularly controversial are my idea of a medium to low priority, because they dont do any active harm or confuse many people. The ones that are controversial, and the major figures--that's the priority among BLPs. Treating them all equally has a negative effect--it prevents concentration on the real problems., DGG (talk) 05:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)"[reply]

I agree that the solution is fact checking every article. We need to focus where harm is most likely to happen, so BLP articles are a top priority. The articles that are on the fewest people's watchlist are a big problem and need to be a priority. Most of these articles are about non-public people. Many of these are unsourced or poorly sourced, and outdated so their value to readers is not huge. They are often stubs or brief articles. The most practical way to deal with them is to delete the ones that are stale, and without sources, then move the content into another article that covers similar content. Consolidating the information on fewer pages makes it easier to watch for problematic additions. As well, a central article makes it easier to present the notable information in a context that highlights it while not leaving us with articles that will be stale if not updated frequently.

If we dial back the number of articles that we have, then we have a better chance to review all of them in a timely manner. Getting active wikiprojects to help would be good because many of them are focused on developing high quality content. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wonder if you could help me out with some WPBiography experience on the above article. The background is that it came up at AIV and I responded to what initially appeared to be a battle over the addition of contentious material that had BLP issues. Due to the potential for those and the warring I protected the article and directed both sides to talk. Once the material was properly laid out it seems to be really about undue weight as the material (aside from some initial OR problems from the contributor that I have dealt with and they now understand) is well sourced. What it now boils down to is whether the subjects involvement in the collapse of IndyMac in the Subprime_mortgage_crisis is worthy of so much in depth discussion in their bio article. The two editors (Dlawbailey (talk · contribs) and Coasting (talk · contribs) that are proposing its inclusion seemed to be coming at it from a bit of an investigative journalism point of view but they understand now what needs to be done to make the material suitable for inclusion. The opposing editor FredEthelMertz (talk · contribs) is an SPA (who has, despite being asked multiple times, yet to confirm any COI on their part) who claims that the material is prejudicial and may cause damage to the reputation of the subject, although it is all a matter of public record at this point so its really back to WP:UNDUE. There is an RfC out but at this point it is still me and them. I have been keeping out of the content argument and sticking to keeping both sides appraised of relevant guidelines and not breaking policy. It would be good to have more informed opinion on the bio side of this as well as another set of eyes and fingers on keeping them all working to fix it amenably. At this point everything is fairly amicable. I have proposed removing the weeks protection earlier as the BLP problems are really a non issue and the weight problem can be solved by the regular editing process. The opposing editor would like more time to find sources as he claims he can't spend much time on wikipedia. I do still suspect he is in some way connected with the subject or his current or former organizations. There's a chunk of relevant discussion on my talk as well as article talk. Anyway if you are too busy maybe you can recomment someone else WPBio who might fit the bill. thanks. Mfield (Oi!) 03:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you are handling the situation well. I'll be glad to to keep an eye on it, too. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is arbcom aware of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MZMcBride_2 ? Viridae^Talk 12:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Some one sent us an email about it soon after the RFA opened. Thanks for letting me (us) know. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was wondering if it was possible for you to have a look at the case, being a checkuser. Thanks in advance. Licqua (talk) 07:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]