text:
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Improv

Howdy. I'm Improv, and have been on since late 2002 (initially under the username Pgunn). I've been an administrator for awhile, and a mediator since Jan2005 and an administrator since Feb2005. I also have been a Usenet moderator for a number of newsgroups for over five years. I should state that if I become an arbitrator, I will retain my post on the mediation committee, and continue to mediate as well, as I see no conflict in doing both (although I will abstain on any case that made its way through my mediation unsuccessfully). I don't have a platform, and promise only to be fair as I see it and to put in the effort needed in a timely fashion to prevent delay. All I can say on policy is that I think banning has a place, but I don't think it's possible to say anything useful as to how it should be handled in general. I will also suggest improvements that I think will be productive. I plan to write and make public an opinion on every case I participate in explaining my reasoning, things I have signed on to, and areas where I dissent. --Improv 00:28, 11 October 2005

Note: Added last sentence on --Improv 18:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Some questions being asked of all the candidates by jguk
''Q: How old are you and what do you do? (If student, please state what subjects you are studying.)''

A: I'm 27 years old, and I wear two hats at work -- I'm a neuropsychology researcher and a systems administrator at Carnegie Mellon University

Q: How many hours a month do you think you will need to be a good Arbitrator and are you really willing to put in the time?

A: I have no idea, and I'll put in what's needed.

''Q: If chosen, you will need to arbitrate on disputes arising from the creation or revision of articles. Experience of creating and revising articles yourself, particularly where it has involved collaboration, is very valuable in understanding the mindset of disputants who come to arbitration. With reference to your own edits in the main article namespace, please demonstrate why you think you have the right experience to be a good arbitrator.''

A:I've been a Wikipedian for a very long time, longer than probably anyone else running. I've edited on a lot of topics, created the notice board for Indian topics, etc.

Q: Please list out what other Wikipedia usernames you have edited under.

A:My first username was Pgunn, although I switched from that some time ago.

Request from Dragons flight
Arbcom is overworked and no fun. Please review these discussions:   Come up with a short list of suggestions for ways you would endorse for improving the arbitration process. Bonus points for actually managing to create new policy. Dragons flight 07:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm thinking about it. I'm not sure if candidate statements are the right place to work out new ideas though -- that process should come from open discussion (presumably on IRC) where objections can be raised and discussed immediately so people don't get too attached to ideas, rather than as part of a platform. --Improv 16:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Having thought about it a bit further, I'll summarize what I see as the issues in each discussion and my thoughts...

Discussion 1: How many arbitrators, and how to organise
I feel that the number of arbitrators should perhaps be given a bit of a bump, but the basic structure of arbitration should remain the same. Personally, I feel that the extremely open admin creation rules have led to serious dilution of what it means to be an admin, and I would hate to see that mistake repeated. Perhaps 20 arbitrators would keep things working smoothly. The only issue I see with this is that I'm not sure if there are enough prominent personalities on Wikipedia to step up for the post, and we may end up with some odd people elected because not enough good folk run. I think the overall structure is sound for the committee -- we need to make sure that there are not means for things to drag too long.

Discussion 2:Content Disputes
I feel that content disputes, when they get big enough, tend to trip over procedural lines which are themselves punishable, and that's a good way for things to work. For example, disregarding straw polls that make their way onto the village pump should be considered possibly punishable offenses, and that's not a content dispute per se. I am not comfortable with any of the remedies proposed.

Discussion 3:Running for Arbcom
I feel that it is inappropriate for me to comment on an election process that's going to judge me. If I am to successfully be elected, I will participate in such discussions afterwards.

Jguk's question

 * Why do you think the purpose of ArbCom is to punish? Isn't it to resolve disputes? jguk 06:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think ArbCom does not have the purpose of punishment, but, unlike RfC, punishment/penalty is at least on the table for those who act in a way that is antisocial and harmful to the project. If elected, I intend to use my judgement, informed by precedent, on when it is appropriate to give an opinion for punishment and when it is not. I would hope that it would not be necessary often, but when it looks like it is, I have no problem with its application, and would note that the way we would like things to work is not always the way things actually work. To suggest that the court should never need to impose penalty is akin to suggesting that the court system of a nation should never need to impose penalty -- it wins points for idealism and optimism, but loses points for practicality. I realise, however, that you may have interpreted my mention of punishment as an indication that I view it as the sole remedy available to ArbCom. Given the brevity of my candidate statement, that's an understandable misunderstanding, but understand that I don't feel that it is the only remedy, or even the preferred remedy. So long as it fits with the duty to safeguard Wikipedia, the minimum force needed should be used, with later escalation happening if people do not react appropriately. And, of course, it is important to be fair on disputes and not assume corrective action to be necessary in all cases. --Improv 00:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Commitment
How many hours per week do you serve on the Mediation committee? How thorough are you in reading all statements? If you realized that you had to spend 30 hours per week in order to give what was needed on the Arbcom, would you be willing to put in that many hours? – Quadell (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Mediation is an off-and-on thing that doesn't typically require much time of me. If Arbitration requires much more, then I'll provide much more. 30 hours a week would be excessive -- I would suggest changes to the structure of the committee to find ways to reduce the load on individual arbitrators if I felt that that is what the current structure demands. I could see myself giving an hour or two every day if need be, but I do have a reallife job, sleep, and other things I enjoy to take care of too. Just like with surgeons who work excessively long hours, mistakes in judgement and burning out are bound to occur if you ask 30 hours a week to people who are gainfully employed. --Improv 00:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Form question by Snowspinner
Being an arbitrator requires a finely tuned bullshit detector. What in your life has prepared you to detect bullshit with ease? Phil Sandifer 21:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I did volunteer social work in a shelter in downtown ColumbusOhio some time ago, and worked with a mix of clients. I think that taught me to read people decently well, because there was an interesting mix of people there. I think that detecting deception is larigely a matter of being aware of rhetoric and the power of words to shape people emotionally. I've read and digested a lot of arguments of many kinds in political and philosophical debates (I've debated a few people when I was an undergrad) and reading philosophy. Finally, as a usenet moderator over many years, I've dealt with the usual bunch on Usenet. I think I'm pretty decent at picking this stuff up. At the same time, I'm not sure how much this trait is actually required in Arbitration -- unless people are making pleas for clemency based on facts external to Wikipedia, I don't see how the trait comes into arbitration. You may be right that I'll need to use it if elected/assigned/however Jimbo decides things should go, but as of right now, I can't imagine how that might be. --Improv 22:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Form Question from karmafist
Many policies contradict and overlap with each other, and then WP:IAR makes things even more complicated while making them paradoxically more flexible. When two or more policies apply and conflict, what do you do? karmafist 18:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's hard to answer this kind of question beforehand. I suppose I can say that I see IAR as a policy of last resort, and think it has almost no practical input into decisions one might make and might easily be used to justify things that are clearly against policy. When rules conflict, I tend to judge situations by a few metrics:
 * Principle of Maximal Meaning - Try not to interpret conflicting policies in a way that completely nullifies one of the policies in all of its possible contexts (unless said policy is not actually a policy, instead being a restatement)
 * Keep promises and confidences, otherwise try to be as open as possible - sometimes balancing these two may be difficult, but I tend to lean towards the first even when the cost is high. This is probably more relevant to mediation than to arbitration
 * Ask for advice (when it/in ways that) won't breach any promises/confidence when in doubt. I sometimes hop onto IRC and ask some people I trust about how they would handle situations or ask them, as a sanity check, if they think something I'd like to do seems kosher. My thanks especially to Sannse (although I've talked with others too) for occasionally being a sounding board or more when I wanted to chew on something.
 * It's, thankfully, usually pretty clear how policies interact with other policies. --Improv 16:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions from User:-Ril-

 * The following questions are for each candidate, and do not specifically target you

''Do you hold any strong political or religious opinions (e.g. concerning George Bush, Islam, or on which end you should break a boiled egg)? If so, would you recuse yourself from cases centred on these?''

How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?

Do you view all requests to re-address cases, particularly requests made by those most penalised, as being automatically without merit?

''In the case against Yuber, it was decided by the arbitration committee that it is the duty of arbitrators to investigate, and rule on the behaviour of not only one party involved, but all of them. Do you support this decision? [if current arbitrator] Does your visible behaviour on recent cases reflect this decision?''

--Victim of signature fascism 16:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

 * On strong opinions, I do have some (as, I think, do most thinking people, even if they're normally phrased in mild terms). I will recuse myself if I don't think I can handle the case properly. My opinions have never yet, in real life or online, led me into having problems of this nature, but I suppose it's possible that they may in the future, and my respect for the integrity of the Wiki process would stop me from staying on a case if I felt I could not deliver a good judgement.
 * I won't pretend to concur with other mediators if I don't actually agree. However, if I've had my say and other people still don't agree, I won't make trouble beyond that. This actually came up on a disagreement internal to the Mediation committee where we disagreed on some rules we go by -- I used a veto power to force a discussion, we all talked, and it turns out that the consensus was to go the other way. Given that we at least had the discussion, I didn't make any more waves even though I didn't (and still don't) agree with, what was decided.
 * I am not intimately familiar with policy/tradition on re-addressing of cases. If it is permitted, I don't see any reason to frown on it -- I am inclined to initially trust the judgement of the Arbitration committee, but see no harm in reviewing things they have done, and if something doesn't seem right, I see no harm in talking with the arbitrators involved and possibly re-address past cases. I would think that most of the time things would not change -- we don't want to constantly be digging through old cases, but there may be exceptions. There are at least a few possible reasons for someone being frequently having judgements against them in ArbCom, from systematic bias, severe communications issues, disagreements on interpretation of policy, bad attitudes/expectations on part of the user, etc.
 * I am not presently an Arbitrator, and am not familiar with the case on Yuber. I think, however, that actions by others might play a small role in how cases on a user should be considered -- it should not excuse unacceptable actions, but might help in their understanding. The goal of punishment, when needed, in Arbitration should be to protect Wikipedia and give people warnings and time out from editing (sometimes only on problem topics). When people are involved on topics or with people with whom they can't productively edit, it is better to provide distance from that topic on a short or long-term basis than to apply a more general punishment (such as a general-purpose block). I think the latter are usually better reserved for when the person does not respect the topic-specific decisions of ArbCom. --Improv 20:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * update on Yuber -- I haven't learned any more on Yuber, but I've thought more about this question -- actions by others are important in that they help put the actions that people do into context -- judgement of ill will and motivation for behaviour should play a role in how things are handled. --Improv 18:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Ted Wilkes question
Do you support the creation of a Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct as I have just now suggested at User talk:Jimbo Wales? - Ted Wilkes 18:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No. Many of these are good ideas, some are not, but the rules will, I think, eliminate a tradition of relying on good judgement for these things. The proposed recusal policy in particular seems to be badly broken. --Improv 06:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Someone created the article without my knowledge. As such, would you mind offering some input? Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 18:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Question
I'll probably end up posing this question to all whose views I don't already know: What is, in your opinion, the proper use of WP:IAR? When, if ever, should the rule be invoked to justify administrative action? Xoloz 17:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

To be frank, I dislike the rule. When rules are unclear, there are circumstances where we need to use our judgement and go with what works. Others can challenge our handling of the situation as needed, and at that point discussion ensues. There are limits to how much interpretation is acceptable -- when people go far enough from the range of reasonable disagreement, especially when they have a pattern of doing so, then asking (or eventually forcing) them to stop may become necessary. In an ideal world where people communicate well and are receptive to criticism, things never go much beyond the discussion (and possibly polling) stage. It is very possible for people to disagree without ill will, and one hopes not to lose many people due to disagreements on principles. Admittedly, IAR is all about suggesting that judgement is involved in making decisions on Wikipedia, as I interpret it. However, it is easily interpreted to mean other things, and its self-referential attempts to be cute don't help things. --Improv 17:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions to many candidates by PurplePlatypus
(sig was PurplePlatypus 09:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC))

 * 1) How do you view the role (and relative importance) of WP:Civility in the process of building a factually accurate encyclopedia? How do you view editors who are normally correct in article namespace, but who may be perceived as rude – including to longtime, popular editors and admins – on Talk pages and the like?
 * 2) *I view civility as being pretty important - although Wikipedia is not a social club (and people sometimes go way overboard with civility like thanking anons who vandalise articles), editors need to be steered away from the heavier forms of abusiveness. Wikipedians cannot afford to be very thin-skinned -- the normal human instinctual ties that keep us from being very bad to each other in person (seeing someone's face, hearing their voice) are absent, and it's too easy to occasionally slip. However, repeated patterns of sufficiently bad abuse will have to be dealt with as part of dispute resolution. In my opinion, "bend over for the newbies" is not something to be encouraged, but there's a wide range of acceptable and productive behaviour that may range into being a bit gruff that the project should tolerate. Strong/frequent personal attacks or treating editors in good standing like peons should not be considered acceptable even given a long history of very good contributions.
 * 3) Do you have an academic background of any kind, and if so, in what field? How do you handle critiques from your peers and professors (assuming those aren’t one and the same), which may be sharply worded or otherwise skirt the edges of WP:Civility even if they are correct? Considering those professors who have recently had you as a student, what would they tell me if I asked them the same question about you?
 * 4) *I do neuropsych research at Carnegie Mellon University, having done my undergrad in Computer Science (minor political science) at Ohio State. I don't consider myself expert enough in what I do usually to gainsay anyone else within the field - I typically go back to the relevant papers when my view is challenged to determine if I feel I am correct, or ask advice from others. It's important to note that academia is more of a harsh and critical environment than what we're trying to do at Wikipedia - one can reasonably expect to be able to criticise a colleague using academic papers in ways that would be completely off base here, because academia's style of collaboration is less cooperation-centric. I suspect the standards would have evolved to different ends if people thought they might be writing papers together even with people they strongly disagree with. We should not expect academic standards for interaction to work on Wikipedia, and likewise we should never consider it our jurisdiction to attempt to shape discourse and behaviour that is not strongly tied to Wikipedia.
 * 5) What are your views on the proposed policy Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct? Whether you think it should be a formal policy or not, do you believe you would generally act in accordance with it? What aspects of it do you think should not be there, or to put it another way, are there any proposals there which you can think of good reasons to ignore on a regular basis? (Please date any replies to this question as the proposal may well change over time.)
 * 6) *Someone else already asked this to most candidates, including me. Please read my responses above. --Improv 02:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed ArbCom code of conduct
On second thought, this is actually a good question that may be helpful. I only glanced at it before. Looking at the proposal:

 * With regards to recusal, I would simply and solely use my own judgement on when I would recuse and when I would not. I suspect that, if we have a larger number of arbitrators, there will be some reworking of how much of the committee is involved in each case, but even if not, I would generally recuse if I have had dealings with the parties involved that would cause me, in my judgement, to be unable to handle the case in ways consistent with my principles. As a mediator, for example, I am bound by confidentiality to keep mediation content private, and I would thus be inclined not to take Arb cases where I had mediated for a party in the case if mediation content would inform my positions. In unusual circumstances, e.g. if most of the other arbitrators were also to recuse, I would probably feel the need not to recuse purely to make sure that the committee can function, but I would feel the need to treat even more lightly in such a circumstance. I may choose to arbitrate in case that deal with close friends and family if I felt it were needed because I have never had a problem telling friends and family that they are wrong. As a matter of proper form, I would almost always recuse if I felt the need to submit evidence relating to the case, although if, for example, someone in a case were to email all of Arbcom telling them that they suck and that their judgement will be ignored and similar, I feel that that would be a circumstance whereby it would not be verboten for arbitrators to bring things up. If relevant, I see no harm in seeking out people not presently in the case and asking them to present for it. Purely having significant dealings with a person before should not be a major issue with me -- I believe I can be fair in those circumstances. In either case, Wikipedia is a small community -- there's a relatively small group of major personalities (probably about 50-100 people) who do big things, grab more people for the encyclopedia, propose policies, etc. Membership in that is open, but only so many people have the time, vision, proper attitude, or vision to participate. That group has members interacting with each other all the time, and it's too great a burden to tell members not to take cases on others within it, because the group tends to have a few ... controversial people as well. I don't have time to respond to the process section right now -- I'll get back to it later today if I have time. Sorry for not reading the question deeply the first time. --Improv 14:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

 * With regards to process, while I think that private arbitrator-party communication is questionable in most cases, I am not quite convinced enough that it has no place to be comfortable with a ban. Presuming innocence is one of those statements that is both unrealistic and hard to quantify. I would suggest instead that arbitrators keep an open mind, especially because occasionally people make it into power who probably should not have, and those people sometimes need to be kept in line. There are cases where people have a pattern of misbehaviour, and it's not inherently problematic to treat things as such, provided one stays alert to other possibilities. I actually would tend to judge people in power a bit more harshly than normal editors because, having taken the position they have, they should know better. The retribution thing clause is very relevant and important, and I wouldn't need rules/guidelines to oppose retribution judgements. As for adequate explanation, I will strive to, time permitting, write a summary of my thoughts on each case and the judgement reached, as a supplement to the normal judgements reached, as an experiment in openness. More on the last bits of that proposed policy later. --Improv 17:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Finally, on decision guidelines, I think the no Ex Post Facto rules is a bad idea. It is useful to be able to learn from the present situation and set new precedent in a case, especially when it comes to how to interpret existing policy. This should largely be constrained to matters of interpretation though, not so much to actual new regulation, and the general spirit of avoiding rule revisionism should be an intent, even if an explicit policy is not a good way to get there. On Lese Magesty, there are plenty of fine lines that should be considered -- simply disagreeing with a decision should not be a big deal if it's done respectfully in a way and place that's not disruptive. Expressing an unwillingness to abide by arbcom decisions is very different, as are vandalism and allegations of serious abuse. Not knowing all the details behind it nor having investigated it very deeply, I am on first glance concerned about the recent Arbcom case where a user was sanctioned for simple disagreement with the committee's judgement, although I have not looked deeply enough into it to know if my concern is nothing or a problem. On the third part, I would be very reluctant to mandate userpage/talkpage content, and while I will not rule out the possibility of doing so, I will state that as of present I cannot imagine a circumstance where I would do so. --Improv 20:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, weird
I just noticed that the edit times for the three parts of my reply are done almost exactly three hours apart. Bizarre! --Improv 21:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights?
Do you support User Bill of Rights? (SEWilco 05:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC))
 * No, I don't. Some of the rules seem to be better (such as 6 and especially 7) than others (virtually all the rest). --Improv 14:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions being asked by Titoxd to all candidates

 * 1) How much of your Wikipedia time do you plan to spend on ArbCom business?

 * 1) If you were elected and had to spend most of your time in ArbCom delibations, which projects would you consider to be the most negatively affected by your absence?

 * 1) To what extent would those projects be affected?

Tito xd (?!? - help us) 06:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Answers:
 * I don't know. I suspect that, depending on the number of people on Arbcom and the feasibility, Arbcom might reorganise itself a bit to make things go more smoothly. I have no idea how much of a burden it would be, either under current rules or under revised rules. Unless I knew, it'd be hard for me (or anyone else) to answer that question.
 * I am not presently involved with any deeply immersive projects. Mediation is a busy-notbusy kind of activity, but I don't see it being much affected. --Improv 07:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality question and Censuring questions from -Ril-
(Being asked of all candidates)

Do you believe that regardless of Jimbo Wales' own views on the matter, the community should be able to strip arbitrators of their position under certain circumstances, and if so, what circumstances?

As a corollory:Do you believe, regardless of Jimbo Wales' view on the matter, that a large number of signatories (e.g. 150 requesting censure against 50 supporting the arbitrator) to an RFC against an arbitrator is enough that the arbitrator should be judged as having been rejected by the community in light of their actions, and consequently for them to be forcibly stripped of their post?

''wikipedia has a policy of NPOV. Excepting straw men, have you ever introduced a substantial opinion or fact that contradicts your own political or religious viewpoint into an article on a topic of which you have strong opinions, and if you have, how frequently do you do so compared to your other substatial edits to articles?''

--Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 02:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

As to the first question, I've been struggling with this issue as part of a larger set of musings on Wikipedia on my personal BLOG. It boils down to what we see as being prime guides for our actions, which has recently led to great controversy that you allude to throughout your questions.. The proper ranking of the following elements is the issue: I understand that there is disagreement as to how we should structure these into how things are run, with different prominent members of the community weighing them differently. There are also concerns based on these values, like maintaining the integrity of the project against organised "invasion", whether that be from corporate marketingfolk, people who would use Wikipedia as the next GeoCities (presumably voting to allow that en masse), etc. There are some cases where the democratic institutions may become twisted by organised subversion (the two above are not the only ways this could happen) whereby democracy doesn't work so well. Fortunately for us, we have a tradition of disregarding votes by particularly new users, and also fortunately for us, Jimbo does not get deeply involved in many disputes, so we haven't run into this much yet, thankfully.
 * Jimbo's wishes/what jimbo is willing to declare by fiat rather than just argue for as a respected community member
 * Core policy
 * Goals of the project
 * Rules that we've lain down for ourselves
 * Respect for autonomy
 * Meritocratic judgement of individual editors (presumed to be aimed towards the goals of the project?)
 * Civility
 * Democracy of the now
 * Legal concerns

All that being said, I have come to some conclusions as to how to rank them (note that these are specific to the wiki, and do not bear much resemblance to my real-life politics):
 * Jimbo's fiat is absolute. If he declares something to be so, the community should get in line or eject members who do not. He's our philosopher-king, and one of the two people we recognise as founders. He has further shown a history of good judgement. Besides, he runs the foundation and could turn off the project without much difficulty. :)
 * The law is a close second (although if it really comes to a conflict between Jimbo and the law, we should probably all leave the project). Exposing ourselves or Wikipedia to legal risk is not acceptable.
 * Core policy comes next. These are not-negotiable, cannot be voted on, and are the foundation of trust for the encyclopedia and its community. If it were to change significantly, a good number of people would probably give up on the project because these rules are foundational.
 * Keeping the project on-topic is very important (although it's difficult to separate from core policy cleanly). We don't want to slowly become the entire world-wide-web, google, or a web directory. We need to stay fairly close to topic (avoid creeping featurism)
 * Rules we've lain down for ourselves come next. Votes on specific matters are not an acceptable way to overturn decided policy. We should generally understand and obey these rules, and work to overturn them rather than IAR them. That said, some people have reasonable concerns that working with the current system to lay out new rules is an exercise in futility. I am undecided on the impact of that.
 * Looser, personal interpretations of project goals should come next. I suppose this puts me, in most cases, against use of IAR to justify everything, but permits its usage to defend core policy and keeping things on-topic.
 * Civility comes next. This does not mean bending over for the newbies, or to let people insert crap articles into Wikipedia, but it does mean that when we are being firm, we should also be polite. Note that this notion of civility is different and more difficult than the limited civility mandated by the rules/policies. We should strive to outdo the minimum civility that's mandated.
 * Democracy of the now comes last (straw polls, etc.). It's a good way to decide an issue that doesn't come down to matters of policy.

You will notice that respect for autonomy and meritocracy don't figure into my ranking. Personally I don't give the first more than token concern because I don't think it really is important on an encyclopedia. Other people disagree on that. I also don't give meritocracy specific weight because I don't think that experienced or long-time users should be able to throw their weight around in that way. Other people disagree on that. Long-time editors are more emotionally invested in the project, and may be presumed to have better judgement of its ends and knowledge of its policies, but only the judgement and knowledge are what have weight, not the length of the contributions itself (beyond a certain point, perhaps 3 months of registered editing). I am divorcing myself of a certain kind of pragmatism that I know some other editors have -- I think it is more important to be fair than to get the best contributions in the long run that we can.

Back to your specific question, I would never ignore Jimbo's fiat. If he decides something, it goes. Arbitration evolved out of Jimbo not being keen on handling all the judging stuff itself, and so I think of it as a devolved power from Jimbo. As such, it's up to Jimbo who is an arbitrator. If he decides to delegate that to the masses, or to consider their votes to be advice, that's his business. I don't think it's my place (or anyone else's) to tell him that the community will have someone removed. Wikipedia is not a democracy except to the extent Jimbo says it is, and I am comfortable with that so far.

On NPOV, I generally don't tend to edit that often on topics where my personal opinion comes into it, and I feel, as per my Rules of Thumb, that people should not be able to tell your politics by your edits. There have been a few times where I probably have done things roughly like you describe. For example, on God, at one point there was a section on neurological findings on belief that was removed because it was extremely POV and dismissive towards religion. I reworded it to be less POV and restored it, and with some negotiations with Codex Sinacticus, got it sufficiently neutral that he was comfortable with it. Eventually I came back to review it (I like to review areas where I've had conflict to make sure I feel I've done the right thing), and decided that I should not have restored it after all because it was off-topic for the page, so I left another note on the talk page and removed it. In real life, I'm a strict materialist and an atheist, and de-POVing (and eventually re-removing) the anti-religion stuff from God probably suggests I'm not a POV-pusher. My long history of edits should substantiate this (remember to check my old account, bypassing the redirect, too). --Improv 17:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Recusal, Code of Conduct, Expansion
I am asking these questions of all candidates:

1. Do you pledge to abide by the proposed recusal guidelines at Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct?

2. Are there any parts of Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct that you do not agree with? If so, please describe in detail how you would improve them.

3. Will you please pledge to support expanding the number of seats on the Arbitration Committee? If not, how would you propose alleviating the present arbitration backlog?

4. Have you voted over at Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Proposed modifications to rules? If not, why not? If so, please summarize your votes.

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. —James S. 06:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

James, somebody else already asked this question. If you could scoot up a few entries, you'll find my responses to much of the spirit and specifics of your questions. Pledges are also problematic -- it is better to ask about people's judgement, not to bind them with promises that may be based on incomplete information. I want to comment particularly on your third question though. I feel that expanding the seats on Arbcom will likely only be productive if arbitrators become in the habit of not individually taking every case. Otherwise, having more arbitrators will not help things at all. That said, I think that adopting that habit would be a good idea combined with an expanded Arbcom. If we have enough people who are suited to Arbcom, splitting the load would be a good thing, and a bigger arbcom (maybe 20 members) would work. We don't want it to become too big though -- an ever-expanding arbcom would swiftly become a mess. --Improv 17:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Form question from Simetrical
What's your opinion on desysopping as an ArbCom penalty? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm. That's an interesting question. I initially took it for granted, but I suppose I can see what the question is getting at -- is it appropriate for ArbCom to be able to apply a penalty that overturns what once was, presumably, consensus to apply a role and privileges to someone? Even more interesting, could Arbcom strip a bureaucrat or a steward of their role? I find myself wondering if the other language wikipediæ have their own ArbComs... I guess I'll just keep it simple and focus on admins. Admins are given a few additional abilities that normal editors don't have. Most editors don't have a particular need for the admin abilities -- as an example, I didn't seriously look into becoming an admin for several years on Wikipedia because I didn't feel I needed the added tools or responsibility to contribute well to the encyclopedia. The tools are primarily intended to fight and prevent vandalism and protect the encyclopedia. However, the tools require good judgement and trustworthy use, because they can easily be abused. It has been rare that users have lost their admin privileges by any means on Wikipedia (hopefully this means that the judgement of the crowd that keeps an eye on RfAdmin is pretty good). However, just as it should be possible for something similar to RfAdmin to stip an admin of their power (hopefully for very good reason), I don't think it's an abuse for Arbcom to be able to do it as well. Arbcom is a powerful committee on Wikipedia, but its members are only powerful because they are presumably given a mandate by Jimbo and/or the community -- as far as I know there are no additional software-based privileges involved in being on Arbcom. I imagine Jimbo keeps an eye on Arbcom, and will always be capable of deciding if they've overstepped their bounds. I can't think of a principled reason that removing admin privileges should not be an available remedy for ArbCom, and while I am undecided if it should be limited to the cases where admin privileges were abused, I can certainly see that being an area where it can be fairly necessary in order to keep the project working. This is, however, a very interesting question, and if you want to put together an argument (use my talk page) that another way of thinking about it is better or if I've missed some critical line of reasoning, I may be swayable to another perspective. --Improv 07:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Currently, as you say, there is no effective community-consensus way to remove admin privileges from someone. The ArbCom is the only way. Given that the ArbCom never bars those it desysops from reapplying for admin status, how abusive do you think an admin should have to be before being removed? What exactly would abuse be, anyway? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC).
 * I think clear misuse of admin powers (by clear, I mean going well beyond the line of reasonable disagreement) would be a good case. As for other situations, I honestly haven't thought enough about it yet, as the previous question is what first got me thinking about it. My present inclinations are to be pretty shy about use of this penalty, considering it only if and after short-term blocks are not effective or for large breaches of community trust that admins would generally feel justified in using long-term bans for. --Improv 16:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Medcom
Quadell got me to think of a possible concern with being both on Medcom and Arbcom at the same time. There are issues with concentration of roles into too few a people, both for reasons that it could begin to resemble a cabal and that on the off chance I should be hit by a car, it would reduce fault-tolerance of the project too much. I therefore intend to take no new cases for MedCom, either resigning or becoming inactive once any cases I am handling at the time wrap up, while serving on ArbCom should I be elected. --Improv 23:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Concerns over personal attack templates
User:Improv, who is also a candidate for the arbitration committee, has placed the following statement on Village pump (policy):

 * I am concerned about |recent templates surviving AfD that appear to contrast with established policy. In particular, I feel that these templates are Poisoning the well when it comes for how we treat our fellow wikipedians. There are circumstances where knowing too much about one's neighbours politicises how one deals with them. This is, to an extent, unavoidable in society, but wearing signs of hate as badges on our shoulders takes what is a small problem that we can usually deal with into the realm of being damaging to the community. Already, there have been signs of people refusing to help each other because they are on different ends of a political spectrum -- this seems likely to get worse if this trend continues. Some people cry that this is an attack on their first amendment rights (if they're American, anyhow), but that doesn't apply here because Wikipedia is not the U.S. government -- it is a community that has always self-regulated, and more importantly it is an encyclopedia with a goal of producing encyclopedic content. We have a tradition of respecting a certain amount of autonomy on userpages, but never absolute autonomy. We might imagine, for example, templates with little swastikas saying "this user hates jews". I am not saying that such a thing would be morally equivalent to this template against scientology, but rather that we should aim to minimise that aspect of ourselves, at least on Wikipedia, so we can make a better encyclopedia. The spirit of NPOV does not mean that we cannot have strong views and still be wikipedians, but rather that we should not wear signs of our views like badges, strive not to have our views be immediately obvious in what we edit and how we argue, and fully express ourselves in other places (Myspace? Personal webpage?) where it is more appropriate and less divisive.

I am inviting all candidates, including Improv, to expand on this theme on their questions pages. Do you agree that this is a cause for concern as we move into 2006? How do you see the role of the arbitration committee in interpreting the interpretation of Wikipedia policy in the light of this concern? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

 * It's a bit hard for me to expand on my thoughts because I think I've said most of my thoughts in the above paragraph. I do think it's a concern, yes, and that it has the chance to do considerable harm to the community. It would be better if userboxes had not not come about, because although I think the greater harm to the community is the long-term effect of userboxen, there is friction generated by their removal. I hope to find ways to prevent the damage that userboxes will do while causing minimal additional friction, which is why I hope a careful discussion can convince people to see them as harmful (although the possibility of convincing Jimbo to act is also worth considering). When it comes to Arbcom, I hope that a case like this never enters Arbitration, because although Arbitration is about dealing with grey areas with user conduct, I don't think that the particular grey areas involved are usually on interpretation of fuzzy areas of policy like this. There is a related matter where I believe ArbCom has spoken, which is on licensing issues (fair use in userspace), but that is, in my judgement, not fuzzy at all. Personally, I would probably seek the advice of Jimbo on the matter if such a case entered Arbitration (I sometimes ask advice of people I trust when I feel it might help), and in the end, I would consider the relevant policies (if they say anything), general core policies, and good of the project, and come to some sort of a decision based on that. Wikipedia is not exactly a democracy, it's a project that uses some democratic means to decide some policy. Given that our goal is not a democracy, we should not feel like we're being evil when we don't act like one in all respects. At the same time, having an open, careful, and honest discussion on policy is generally a good thing. So long as people don't assume that they'll always win if the discussion is "fair", they'll be more satisfied if there's at least a discussion, even if it's not a vote. It is, unfortunately, difficult to do that from ArbCom because by its nature it's differently structured (because it generally has different goals). It is my hope that at the very least, my plan to publish an opinion on every case will end up smoothing tensions (and possibly act as a springboard for further conversations that I hope I have the time for). (I should note that I'm not sure this answer is organised as much as I'd like -- I may come back and clean it up if I can find a way to make it a better answer) --Improv 05:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Opinions
Your platform commits you to write an opinion on every case you are involved with. Given the increase in ArbCom workload, and the fact that even Supreme Court justices don't do this (instead more often than not endorsing other justice's opinions), don't you think this is too big a commitment? How much additional time do you think this will involve? --- Charles Stewart 21:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I will do my best to do it. I don't consider it as strongly binding as a promise, but I will endeavor to do so, at least partly for my own purposes. I believe in radical openness, and think that opinions would be useful both for the general public and for me. It would be good for the general public for transparency and because the consensus documents generally don't really capture any consistent single reasoning or contain an argument for what was decided. For me, it'd be immensely helpful should the need to revisit a past case come up (I understand it sometimes happens). As an added side benefit, the Wikipedia public will possibly get a better understanding of the kinds of decisions ArbCom makes, so it can have a better handle on if it's working right, and if not, why. I suspect the burden on me would be less than most people because I write a lot on a regular basis, in my personal blog, for projects at work, and in other circumstances. In sum, it's important to me but if it doesn't end up working out, I will not do it. I don't know how much time it will take nor how long such opinions would end up being -- one might depend on the other. --Improv 04:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Would it seem too much time if you found yourself spending, say, a third or a half of the total time of your involvement in an ArbCom case drafting the opinion? --- Charles Stewart 05:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I suspect the drafting the opinion would happen after the case is largely or completely closed, and I could imagine it happening a bit after so long as it's still fresh in my mind. I really don't think it's time so much as effort that decides if it'll be doable. The thing is, I'll be thinking about it while I'm getting ready to write it, and the actual time I use to write it could be quite brief. I wish I could give you a direct answer to your question, but I don't think about time that way, especially with regards to things I write. --Improv 05:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've supported your candidacy so far, but what you've said here has made me doubt that you have the time management skills to be an effective ArbCom member. If you found yourself spending 60 hours a month on ArbCom and still felt that you were failing to do several cases justice, what would you do? --- Charles Stewart(talk) 05:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The cases obviously would take precedence over the opinions. If it turns out that I can't do the opinions justice, I either need to spend less time on them or stop doing them. If you're talking about things unrelated to opinions but instead to the core business of ArbCom, I would talk to the other arbitrators and see how they manage time, and make adjustments as necessary. I understand that I'm not being very specific here, but not having been an arbitrator before, I expect that if elected I will learn the ropes at that time, and will hopefully make decisions that are right for the role. --Improv 06:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, sounds fair. You're within 2% of 8th place, so you've got a fighting chance of putting your skills to the test... --- Charles Stewart(talk) 06:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


text: User talk:70.105.100.71

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:70.105.100.71


text:
Hot Rod Lincoln

"Hot Rod Lincoln" is a song by American singer-songwriter Charlie Ryan, first released in 1955. It was written as an answer song to Arkie Shibley's 1950 hit "Hot Rod Race" (US #29).

It describes a drive north on US Route 99 (predecessor to Interstate 5) from San Pedro, Los Angeles, and over the Grapevine which soon becomes a hot rod race that ends with serious consequences.

Song details
The car race is described between two hot rod cars, the narrator's Ford Model A (with a Lincoln motor) and a Cadillac. The song says the Ford's "got 12 cylinders", overdrive, a four-barrel carburetor, 4.11:1 gear ratio, and safety tubes. The narrator ends up being arrested by the police for his high-speed driving and describes the exasperation of his father: "He said, 'Son, you're gonna drive me to drinkin' / If you don't quit drivin' that hot rod Lincoln!'"

Ryan's original rockabilly version of the song was released in 1955 through Souvenir Records under the artist name Charley Ryan and the Livingston Bros. A second version was released in 1959 through Four Star Records, credited to Charlie Ryan and the Timberline Riders. Ryan based the description of the eponymous car on his own hot rod, built from a 1948 12-cylinder Lincoln chassis shortened two feet, with a 1930 Ford Model A body fitted to it. Ryan raced his hot rod against a Cadillac sedan driven by a friend in Lewiston, Idaho, driving up the Spiral Highway (former U.S. Route 95 in Idaho) to the top of Lewiston Hill. Some say he incorporated elements from this race in his lyrics to "Hot Rod Lincoln", but changed the setting to Grapevine Hill (a long, nearly straight grade up Grapevine Canyon to Tejon Pass, near the town of Gorman, California) to fit it within the narrative of "Hot Rod Race".

Johnny Bond version
Another version of "Hot Rod Lincoln" was recorded by country musician Johnny Bond and released in 1960 through Republic Records, with Bond's lyrics changing the hot rod's engine from a V12 to a V8, among other changes. It reached number 26 on the Billboard Hot 100 in August 1960. Bond released a sequel in the same year called "X-15", set in 1997, about an air race in an X-15 plane.

Commander Cody version
A 1971 version, by country rock band Commander Cody and His Lost Planet Airmen on their album Lost in the Ozone, became the most successful version of "Hot Rod Lincoln", reaching No. 9 on the Billboard Hot 100, No. 28 Adult Contemporary, No. 7 in Canada, and was ranked No. 69 on the U.S. Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 1972. The song peaked at number 45 in Australia. This version maintained most of the lyrical changes from Johnny Bond's version but changed them further while maintaining the original story.

Weekly charts

 * Charlie Ryan
 * Johnny Bond
 * Commander Cody

Other versions
In addition to Johnny Bond and Commander Cody and His Lost Planet Airmen, many other artists have recorded "Hot Rod Lincoln" in the decades since its original release, including:
 * Pat Travers, on Pat Travers (1976)
 * Asleep at the Wheel, on Western Standard Time (1988); this version reached no. 65 on Billboard ' s Hot Country Songs
 * All, on Allroy's Revenge (1989)
 * Jim Varney, on The Beverly Hillbillies soundtrack (1993)
 * Les Claypool, on Crank It Up (2002)
 * Roger Miller, on A Man Like Me: The Early Years of Roger Miller (2006)
 * Lawrence Ramsay, on Blowin' Cash (2010)
 * Chris Casello, on Chris Casello Trio (2013)
 * Bill Kirchen (lead guitar in Commander Cody and His Lost Planet Airmen) on Hot Rod Lincoln Live (1997)
 * George Thorogood & the Destroyers

title: Hot Rod Lincoln


text:
Talk:Rogaining

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

move to Rogaining. — Nightst a  llion  (?) 12:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC) The '(sport)' was for disambiguation with the pharmaceutical Rogaine, but is now unnecessary. jonon 08:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Support. Sensible move. Rogaineboy008 07:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect spelling from the entry on the WP:RM page. Freakytoe 05:58, 11 October 2005

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~

 * Support. Definitely the spelling used in Australia. Mark 14:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. I agree with Mark. Felix Dance 13:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments

Be bold and move cases like this yourself. Except I have done this one for you. --Henrygb 21:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * All well and good, except "Sport" should be lowercase: Rogaine (sport). 24.17.48.241 06:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pubgaine

 * Pubgaines are not mythical, I competed in one a couple of weeks ago! See Shogun 01:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Lengthy history
After finding a rather pathetic and lackluster history here on the wiki and then finding a substantial and well refenced version of the sport elsewhere, I brought over much of the history to add to the Historical section of the page, overwriting the sparse paragraph history. There is an external link with a much more in depth history, but I felt the added information was most relevant to the development of the sport on a worldwide level, without adding other countries histories. Anyone else have input on how much history is appropriate? I'd just love to see this get past start article status. --Bendavis97140 23:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Copyright violations are not accepted on wikipedia. If you are interested in writing this section properly I will help you. :: maelgwn - talk 00:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Instead of reverting, how about (1) asking the source site for permission to use it here and/or (2) rewriting? --Una Smith 02:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. The source site does not assert notability. As for 2. well um errr ... I probably should :-P. Either way it needed reverting. :: maelgwn - talk 02:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"The source site does not assert notability." What does that mean? --Una Smith 03:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:Notability says A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Using the Australia Rogaining website does not count as independent of the subject. Agreed it is better than nothing in some ways - but is not enough in itself. :: maelgwn - talk 03:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Rogaining itself is without question notable: international federation, international competitions, and independent magazine articles and newspaper stories about it.  There also is the matter of reliable sources (WP:RS).  For the history of rogaining, you cannot get more reliable than that site. --Una Smith 13:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

 * 1) Reliability does not mean notability. Even if the subject of the article is notable, everything on the website of the subject is not notable. 3rd party references give some idea of the notability of certain aspects.
 * 2) First party references are of themselves unreliable because they are written from a certain point of view. It is written pushing the success of the founders and the organisation and not seeing all points of view. Your link above says Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. :: maelgwn - talk 12:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Orienteering
WikiProject Orienteering has begun; please stop by. --Una Smith (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Team size
I do not think minimal team of 2 is always required. I run rogaines alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.214.97.255 (talk) 04:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Surrey-Thomas Rover Crew
The sources about the involvement of the Surrey-Thomas Rover Crew in rogaining are now longer working and that articles is being proposed for merging. That Rover Crew is certainly notable if it was heavily involved in the creation of rogaining, but it needs good sources. Does anyone have such sources? They are needed at Surrey-Thomas Rover Crew and here. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  20:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rogaining


text:
Hope Aldrich Rockefeller

Hope Aldrich Rockefeller (born May 17, 1938) is a retired American newspaper publisher and businesswoman.

Rockefeller was born on May 17, 1938, the eldest daughter of philanthropist John Davison Rockefeller III and his wife Blanchette Ferry Hooker. She is a great-granddaughter of John D. Rockefeller. Her paternal grandparents were John D. Rockefeller, Jr. and Abby Aldrich Rockefeller and her maternal grandfather was Elon Huntington Hooker.

Early life and career
She grew up in New York City and Mount Pleasant, New York. Hope pursued a career in journalism and has worked for Long Island's Newsday, Beijing's China Daily, New York's The Village Voice, and the Washington Monthly. In 1978, she joined Santa Fe Reporter in Santa Fe, New Mexico to work for Richard McCord as a news reporter. In 1988, she acquired the newspaper from him, and became a publisher.

Personal life
Rockefeller married John Spencer (born February 3, 1930) on July 5, 1959, in Irvington, New York. They resided in Santa Fe, New Mexico were she published her weekly newspaper until their divorce. They had three sons; In 1996, Rockefeller was New Mexico's third wealthiest resident, with an approximate net worth of $250 million ($475 million adjusted to inflation in 2022). After her divorce and retirement she relocated to Corona del Mar, California were she is a resident to this day. Her former husband moved back to Vermont.
 * David "Dave" Hooker Spencer (born December 1, 1961), a Republican advocate
 * Benjamin Murray Spencer (December 11, 1964 - June 24, 1989)
 * Theodore Spencer (born August 3, 1966), a trustee of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund

title: Hope Aldrich Rockefeller


text:
User talk:Vilerage

Archives
I don't do these very regularly, but whenever the page seems to be getting long ;]
 * My Talk, archive 1
 * My Talk, archive 2

dont leave
when work gets less busy or you have spare time visit wikipedia. --  A dam1213 Talk [/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adam1213&action=edit&section=new +] 05:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Vilerage
VileRage, thanks for your support on my RFA. I was rather suprised at the overwhelming support I received. Thank you for your confidence in me. On a sadder note, I am sorry to hear about your recent incident. You're a good vandal whacker, come back when you feel it best. Thanks again -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 04:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The pizza pic we need...
...is a customer-eye-view of the pizzaman at the door holding the pies! BD2412 T 22:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

please help me
Hello,i just want to tell you something.I don't know why people keep on sending me message and said i did something bad to the articles and I change my IP address all the time...How comes?I didn't do anything to en wiki!I REALLY don't know why 'cause Ｉ　haven't edit articles in en eiki for a long time.I do have an account but I everytime I come back to wiki i am not logged in.And before I log in,i recieve messages from different user...i didn't do anything to damage the article .I'm sorry my english is not very good..please help me to find out why this happen if you could...

Hello,i just want to tell you something.I don't know why people keep on sending me message and said i did something bad to the articles and I change my IP address all the time...How comes?I didn't do anything to en wiki!I REALLY don't know why 'cause Ｉ　haven't edit articles in en eiki for a long time.I do have an account but I everytime I come back to wiki i am not logged in.And before I log in,i recieve messages from different user...i didn't do anything to damage the article .I'm sorry my english is not very good..please help me to find out why this happen if you could...203.186.238.248 10:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hope to see you around again soon
Just thought I'd drop a note to say a quick hello, and a belated Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays/Happy New Year. Haven't seen you online much since I took off myself for the holidays - I now see that's because you're on a wikibreak of your own. Hopefully that will change before too long. Whenever work lets up, and you find yourself back in the right frame of mind, I look forward to hearing from you again! Cheers! --PeruvianLlama(spit) 00:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Clearly, my definition and your definition of "soon" are vastly different; so let me tell you up front, that it's my definition that goes around here bub. That work of yours better let up soon, because you're far too valuable a Wikipedian to be absent for long. I also thought you might be interested to read this (soon to be moved to the archives, no doubt, but you should be able to find it even then). I thought it was so worth mentioning in fact, that it warranted a semi-harassing-yet-all-in-good-fun-and-hope-this-found-you-in-a-generally-cheerful-state-of-mind introductory segue! :) --P e ruvianLlama(spit) 10:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Indeed, I am still alive! Glad to see that apparently, you are too! --P e ruvianLlama(spit) 14:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Participant alert regarding Wikiproject on Advertising
The Wikiproject No Ads, created as a backlash against the Answers.com deal, has served an important function in providing a space for users to express their disagreement with the Foundation proposal. While the current controversies about userboxes raise questions about political and social advocacy on Wikipedia, there should be greater flexibility regarding advocacy about Wikipedia in the Wikipedia namespace. Reported and linked by Slashdot and other press sources as a unique and spontaneous occurence in Wikipedia history, it has apparently had some impact as, despite being scheduled to begin in January, not a peep has been heard about the trial and proposed sponsored link since the deal's controversial announcement months ago. Currently, however, there is an attempt to delete the project or move it off Wikipedia altogether. Since the Foundation has provided no additional information and has not attempted to answer the specific questions that participants in the project raised, it is unclear if the Answers.com deal has been abandoned or simply delayed. Until the situation becomes more clear, I believe the group should still have a place in the Wikipedia namespace. Sincerely, Tfine80 00:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back
Hope you had a good Wikibreak. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hotbags
Kind of off the subject, but since you either worked or work for Donatos and you put the hotbag pic on the pizza delivery article...

Have you seen the new hotbags that we're using now? The ones without the handles and the newer Donatos logo that burn the crap out of your hands when you're holding the bag from the bottom (since you can't grab it by the top handle)? They're way too thin and have no real padding like the older ones do. I figure you guys in Ohio are probably using them more than us Indiana guys are, didn't know if you had an opinion on it or not.

Drop me a line and we'll talk shop if you like. KC9CQJ 06:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Vilerage! 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. Computerjoe 's talk 19:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA thanks
Same here! :D

 * Adminship is no big deal, as you said on my RfA. I've not changed anything except adding the requisite categories so users in need of help can find me. Thanks for your faith in me. :) ~Kylu ( u | t )  07:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you so much! RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 03:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

my RfA
Thanks for your support in my RfA! Unfortunately, the request did not pass, with a vote of (43/16/7). But your support was appreciated and I'll just keep right on doing what I do. Maybe I'll see ya around -- I'll be here! Cheers! - CheNuevara 17:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:995carbine.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:995carbine.gif. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 12:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Kvircss.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Kvircss.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Vilerage


text: User:Vilerage

title: User:Vilerage


text:
User talk:Iacobus

Copyright help
In regards to your request for help on the copyright of pictures of old coins, you'll probably get more help from Request for copyright assistance. Good luck, and welcome. MECU ≈ talk 13:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Password
Sorry Iacobus, I also have this username in other language of wikipedia and when I wanted to get into my account, I was in english wikipedia, and I put my username to log in and my passord, but it didn't worked, of course, because I was in english wikipedia, but I didnt know, then I asked a new password(I thought because it was not working it was other of my passwords). You must have received an e-mail(the e-mail you have sign in to wikipedia) from wikipedia giving you a new password to log in. I am sorry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.32.214.217 (talk) 05:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC).
 * I wondered where the password request was coming from. Don't worry, I'm not offended. --Iacobus 01:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Child rulers
Are you sure the British young kings should be there — they didn't really rule as children — they reigned, but regents ruled on their behalves (regent meaning "they rule"). What think you? DBD 13:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll make my reply in the category discussion page.--Iacobus (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

New Uccello article
Hey, given your contribution history, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at a article I recently created and seeing if there is anything you can add/fix: Funerary Monument to Sir John Hawkwood. Thanks. Savidan 05:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, big article! Appears to be well researched and referenced, with background, stylistic & political considerations. I notice you haven't referenced Pope-Hennesy's monograph on Uccello - do you have access to it, or didn't it say anything useful? I will read the article at greater depth anon. Fine work! --Iacobus (talk) 05:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Age of Minority/Majority
Thanks for your note on my Talk Page. There are no worries in the least - I make similar slips all the time. All best wishes, John Hill (talk) 05:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Trotsky-Edison
Other than your edit, I had never considered the two as having a relationship. Imagine if each, in his prime, had joined forces! Edison (talk) 05:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Time cover lists
Keep adding!--83.60.60.8 (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=697971291 your edit] to Daniel Libeskind may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * * {TED speaker|daniel_libeskind}

Category:Rulers who died as children has been nominated for discussion
Category:Rulers who died as children, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. w umbolo  ^^^  18:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:Ancient Middle Eastern wisdom literature has been nominated for renaming
Category:Ancient Middle Eastern wisdom literature has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.  - car chasm (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:Iacobus


text:
Talk:United States Army Institute of Heraldry

IOH copying
There seems to be a current collection of people who are cutting and pasting entire sections of text from the IOH website into Wikipedia articles. The text is typically a word for word copy with no changes. I see this a copyright infringement as Wikipeida is for original works, not simply mirroring material from another source. Adding an external link to IOH is fine, but blatantly copying entire pages of IOH text, then posting it as an article, is not acceptable per Wiki guidelines. This can lead to all kinds of difficulties, not the least of which is an article labeled as a copyright infringement and deleted. I encourage people to cease this "cut and paste" activity. -Husnock 06:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

 * None of the material that I have posted comes from the Institute of Heraldry (TIOH) website, but from publications produced and distributed by the TIOH over the years. I also used a summary of information relating to TIOH from a webpage on Army heraldry that I developed for the Army Quartermaster Museum using information obtained from visits to the TIOH archives at Fort Belvior.  I have properly referenced these publications and websites at the end of the article.  All of this information is in the public domain and not subject to copyright.  I'm sure there may be some redundency with the TIOH websire as it is difficult to express things like the TIOH mission without using their verbage. --Ehrentitle 11:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This article is actual not in question (in fact its a pretty good article). The main concern is folks copying and pasting IOH definitions of medals into articles about the medals themselves.  See the history of Southwest Asia Service Medal for such an example. -Husnock 13:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I know it would be somewhat time consuming, but it might be useful to post your warning in the discussion on those specific medal pages. Army insignia may not be your area of expertise but I would also appreciate your feedback on the Distinctive unit insignia page that I updated a while back. I also plan of doing more work on the Shoulder patch which I believe should revert back to the official title Shoulder Sleeve Insignia --Ehrentitle 15:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * TIOH is an office of the United States Government. All publically released material is in the public domain, even medal descriptions and histories. The protected content is the images as described on the home page (when it is visible). Lazy, yes; copyright infringement, no. --216.46.173.36 (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Error in Image
The image of the IOH's coat of arms has an error. The sinister banner (the one with the Tudor rose) is supposed to be fringed in Or and Gules. The IOH's website confirms this: http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/TIOH/TIOH_coat.aspx.

I'd fix it myself, but I have no idea how to go about graphics editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.120.255.251 (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

 * New topics at the bottom, please. See the "New section" button at the top of the page?
 * In the image in question, the fringes are rather grubby, but if the sinister one isn't Or and gules I don't know what else it could be. —Tamfang (talk) 07:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Article Name
Is not the proper name for this organization The Institute of Heraldry? (with a "the" and without the "United States Army." Seems to me the redirect is backwards and I see no discussion of it here.
 * The functions section is complete with respect to the Army, but blank with respect to the other armed services or governmental agencies. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

23rd Infantry Insignia (crest)
I am in search of the 23rd Infantry Regiment embroidered shoulder patch. If you know a source, please let me know how to contact.....Jim Kopp, 3774 Brown Owl Court, Marietta, GA 30062 PH 678 409-0632.

In search of embroidered 23rd Infantry should patch. I you have source, please let me know how to contactJkopp41 (talk) 13:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

TIOH website down
Per the notice from the United States Army Center of Military History, the website has been down since July 25th. I recommend not editing the website links until a confirmed change has occurred. --216.46.173.36 (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And it's up. I updated the website. --21lima (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

TIOH heraldry wrong?
The article says the TIOH's own arms has a "scroll Or lined Sable". I assume "lined" refers to the reverse side? But the picture on the article has gules on the reverse. 185.120.125.29 (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


text:
Talk:David Bushnell

Untitled
This lk
 * *Richard Bushnell, the model, webmaster and political commentator is a tracable decendant of David Bushnell

is not suitable. If it talks abt David Bushnell, say that & cut the veneration-by-ancestry crap. --Jerzy•t 06:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

...
should have more details for people to read and for students to use when doing projects.

Age
I have read that David was several different ages when he finished college whats really right?Kangaroo2 (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

"Family member"
The end of this sentence is awkward and vague:

"The Turtle eventually sank when it was trying to retreat from British observation, yet a Bushnell family member as sole commander, bailed out and survived."

Hopefully someone can identify the "Bushnell family member." And it seems meaningless to refer to the "sole commander" of a submersible that was intended to carry one person. 850 C (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

timing of promotion
The article says that Bushnell was given command of the Corps of Sappers and Miners on August 2, 1779, then it says he was captured on May 6 of that same year. This seems impossible. Was he perhaps given command in 1778? Could someone verify and correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.149.16 (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 externaltght links on David Bushnell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121031030417/http://www.americanrevolution.org/war%20songs/warsongs55.html to http://www.americanrevolution.org/war%20songs/warsongs55.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121031030417/http://www.americanrevolution.org/war%20songs/warsongs55.html to http://www.americanrevolution.org/war%20songs/warsongs55.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121031030417/http://www.americanrevolution.org/war%20songs/warsongs55.html to http://www.americanrevolution.org/war%20songs/warsongs55.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The art of goin for 40.
well you see one doesn't simply just wake up and go for 40 like David Bushnell. Its an art form you cant learn it in a day or even a week the art of going for 40 is extremely complex in and of itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.237.127.23 (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism present, unsure how to revert
The article states that Bushnell went by the pseudonym David Bush boi, which seems clearly vandalized (I already removed one instance of someone saying the Turtle was a duck?) but I don't know what his actual pseudonym might have been. KiraLiz1 | she/her 19:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

 * Bushell went to Warrentown, Georgia, where he lived under the psudonam David Bush.
 * Jefferson, Thomas. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Retirement Series, Volume 7: 28 November 1813 to 30 September 1814. (Princeton University Press, 2011), 513.
 * It should be reverted and the citation added. Harrycroswell (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:David Bushnell


text:
User talk:Bhavith

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 06:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bhavith