This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jdforrester. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I'm using it on my userpage. I like to cycle my photos around, and my girlfriend saw a weeping willow for the first time recently and I went searching for a nice picture. Good work. Keegantalk07:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, though I'm sure I could take a better one given a push. Maybe I'll pick a nice day and go walkies with my camera & tripod. :-)
Yeah good to meet you. I mentioned you and your work on my blog actually.
I've taken the plunge and arranged Wikipedia:Meetup/London 9 on the date you suggested. Sunday lunchtime again, May 11th! Not sure if there is enough interest to get something happening monthly. But let's see how it goes. Get yourself signed up on that page!
Attempt to usurp ArbCom's role in appointing checkusers
A discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:RFA#BAG_requests_process to have checkusers elected to their positions rather than have them appointed. Apparently, none of the proponents of doing this have notified ArbCom of this effort. I am therefore informing you. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. We're going to have some "fun" with this, I'd imagine.
Could be made to work, but only people with certain competencies can do checkuser in the first place. So that can be interesting. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not understand the reason for these two edits: [1][2]; the first one was done by you, and the second one by JdforresterBot. Especially in the first case, it is desirable that the article's title is used in the template, so that its name can appear in bold when that article is viewed. In the second case, the result is merely to use a redirect instead of going straight to the article, even though the appearing text is still different. Am I missing anything? Regards, Waltham, The Duke of15:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I moved the article to what it would normally be called (per convention on Wikipedia and actual usage in the "real world", which are not unrelated); I thought it impolite to assume that the author of the text originally, and so chose not to replace "St. Margaret's Church" and "Saint Margaret's Church" with "St. Margaret's, Westminster". The appropriate name depends on context, and as we have to use the best non-contextual name we can with article titles, it is not always the one one would select to mention in-line within an article.
Note that the link is to the article's title; I always try to correct links before, rather than subsequent to, moving a page, so as to remove any possibility of broken redirects (even for just a few minutes) for our readers. Sorry for the confusion that this has evidently caused.
On a more general point, hello; it saddens me that my article editing of late has been so very slight that it has taken us a year to cross paths despite similar editing interests and your prodigious contributions.
All right, the page was moved and I did not bypass my cache. My mistake; perhaps I should have been a little slower in my reactions. Still, the move might not have removed all problems. The name does not have a full stop after St, following British conventions. Why is it still in the title? Waltham, The Duke of15:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem, it happens to me frequently, too.
I have checked all links to the page (this is one thing for which the bot is particularly good), and there should be no problems. If you do find some, I would be grateful (and concerned!) to hear.
As to "The name does not have a full stop after St, following British conventions.", I have to say I'm perplexed; do you mean to say that you do not believe that "Saint" should be written as "St." in British English? If so, I'm afraid that you follow a different strand of British English to that practised here in London. If you wish, I can go out and take some photographs of, for example, the sign above St. Margaret's, or for St. James's Park, etc.. It very much is part of British English in my (quite wide-spread) experience of it :-)
Perhaps I have under-estimated the impact of my contributions; I am just a Gnome... I must say that, although your name is not completely unfamiliar to me, I cannot connect it to anything in specific (typical of my memory...), so it must have been some time since the last time I have encountered it.
Now, the article in question is in need of copy-editing (which I intend to do), so it's nice to know the proper name has a full stop, but I recall a previous version not having a full stop in the prose, and I have been, so far, quite confident about abbreviations in British English ending with the word's final letter not using full stops (like Dr for Doctor and Stn for Station). I'll take your word for this case, so you don't need to take any pictures, but from other articles it does seem that St is widely used for other locations with saints in their names.
P.S. I appreciate your cross-posting your reply in my talk page, but you needn't have; I watchlist pages where I leave messages. Waltham, The Duke of16:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi there
I've nominated for delisting here the Coyote featured picture you originally nominated. Perhaps you'd like to participate in the discussion there?
Cheers, Pstuart84Talk21:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but you know what I'm talking about at least :-)
The problem with setting things in stone is that they start showing all kinds of odd and unpredictable behavior (chaos theory). The other problem with setting things in stone is that they become unmediatable (is that a word?). Mediation relevance and success-rate drop considerably when hard rules are involved.
The former is a problem because some of the unpredicted effects are bound to be causes of conflict (murphy's law), and the latter is a problem because most of DR (besides) arbcom is structured around mediation or is mediation-like structures. By altering the rules the way you say you are doing, you are increasing the arbcom workload, reducing mediation efficacy, and incidentally also reducing opportunities for information transfer and leadership (aka acculturation) for reasons that don't quite fit in this margin today, but which I'm willing to expand on.
So a couple of weeks ago, a pair of arbcom members walked in and basically said that the entire system is broken. I wonder why? ;-)
The Mediation discussion regarding the inclusion of the EU in List of countries by GDP (nominal) has come to a conclusion with the following result:
The EU to remain in List of countries by GDP (nominal).
The EU to be positioned according to GDP rank between World and USA.
No consensus on the EU appearing in all three charts. By convention this means the situation would remain as current - that is the EU remains on all three charts.
Data for the EU on each chart to only be given if sourced, otherwise a dash to replace the data.
Explanation to be placed in the lead section for the appearance of the EU and other non-countries. Possible wording: "Several economies which are not normally considered to be countries are included in the list because they appear in the sources. These economies are not ranked in the charts here, but are listed in sequence by GDP for comparison."
The List retains the current name.
A suggestion by Tomeasy that I feel should be carried out is that the sister articles are given the same treatment as agreed above.
Unless there are significant disagreements within the next 48 hours I will be closing the Mediation. Any questions, please get in touch. Regards SilkTork *YES!10:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Silly two-year-old query
Can you shed any light on the dilemma at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Policy.3F? Your name was mentioned in a years-old edit summary, yet for some reason, the page has been marked as policy ever since. Was there an ArbCom case involved? If you don't mind, pls respond over there so we can try to sort this, thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I request you to be the Honorable Arbitrator to my case Brhmoism
As I feel only a 'rational wise judge' can do justice to my case of deletion.
I am not a good writer but my content is crucial and only trapped in sub-communities religious bias which has become a Brhmo-Phobia in wikipedia too . I request your highness to post some urgent translator of Hindi to my references /notability of news/reviews at :
I'm afraid that I may be too late, but anyway, I'm not involved as an Arbitrator in matters of content disputes. I would suggest that you follow the WP:Dispute resolution process to try to engage with those who disagree with you as to what matters should be documented, and how, on-wiki. If you feel that individuals violate policy regularly, however, you should consider Arbitration, but only as a last step.
If there is anything with which I could help, please do ask.
Hey! Cheers for the invite to the London meet up. Unfortunately I won't be able to make it because I'm in Manchester that weekend. Take care! Technohead1980 (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't ever do that again, the 'mass invite', as you put it, is very much unappreciated. I would like to never hear from you again. Thank you for wasting a little bit of my life that I will never get back. !!!!Iammadeofjelly (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you don't want to participate in the community, and for "wasting" your time.
In future, if you don't want to get such mass-messages, you should put "{{nobots}}" on your talk page.
If there's anything with which I could help, please do ask.
I don't know if "they" are against it. I do think further explanation is needed and that the most resistance will come from non-mathematics editors (e.g. those who don't actually edit abelian group). Is this a dead idea then? --C S (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Sunday invite
Hi James, sorry for no reply re: Sunday meeting - I haven't logged on to my account for a fair while, which is something I'm rather guilty about, so I only just picked up your message. Cheers, Parmesan (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been unable to find the graphs on the RfA process; i'm sure with sufficient digging through the RfA talk archives they'd be findeable. You might want to look at this, however. Ironholds21:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
_Look over at Amazon.uk_ You did actually write that review, LOL. Aren't you a bit bias considering you prove read that book? :D KTC (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I've read the book and advised its authors. Hardly a major conflict of interest. :-)
Hi James,
At last weekend's meetup, you suggested I contact you with the suspected sockpuppet I mentioned. It is NoCal100(talk·contribs·count). If you look at the user talk page, e.g. this diff [4], you will see that it was pretty obvious that this was a sockpuppet from the start. However, this account is being used to accuse other sock puppet accounts [5], other forms of misconduct [6] and to criticise editors in other ways [7]. The sheer hypocrisy of this is getting to me. I think the most likely candidate for puppetteer is MegaMom(talk·contribs·count), who was active at various pages [8][9] on the same side of edit wars at Nocal100's first appearance and early in his/her career [10]. I haven't identified non-edit war articles where both have been active, but notice a shared interest in Jewish matters and the Holocaust. The Nocal account has become more active as the Megamom has quietened.
Cheers. --Peter cohen (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you; will look into it this evening after the meetup.
Glad things are okay. If you're dealing with this, then if you can combine what I've said here with what I've said on the checkuser talk page. It would be pleasingly symmetrical if We can nail sockpuppets on bothe sides of the I/P row.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Replied at WT:RFCU. In short, can't find anything.
User:Jdforrester/Archive 1 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Jdforrester/Archive 1's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Jdforrester/Archive 1!
Hello, fellow candidate! Just so you know, in an effort to announce our candidacies and raise further awareness of the election, I have created the template {{ACE2008Candidate}}, which I would invite you to place on your user and user talk pages. The template is designed to direct users to your Questions and Discussion pages, as well as to further information about the election. Best of luck in the election! Hersfold(t/a/c)16:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, though I won't choose to use it, as I boycott non-lingual userboxes.
Point of note: it's not so much a userbox as a messagebox, by the traditional definition of the former. Obviously it's your choice, but I do observe that it's a template but not a userbox. AGK17:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Arbcom Election - Questions List
Hi. I've posted the remaining General Questions to your Questions for the Candidate page, and formatted the headers to match what you had already posted. With these and the existing questions, you now have the complete list. Good luck, UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence14:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article this week, and your response is requested.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?
What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?
Why do you think users should vote for you?
Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press on Tuesday, but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
My responses:
User privs on public wikis:
enwiki
Sysop/Arbitrator/CheckUser/OverSight
metawiki
Sysop/Bureaucrat
commonswiki
Sysop
Also a few other things like OTRS, WMF CommsCom, IRC GC, Foundationwiki access, Wikimania team, etc.
Obviously, lots of cases as an Arbitrator. Also, I was mentioned in a case in 2006, reminding me of my own policy about appropriate decorum.
From [candidate statement], "I've decided to stand again because I believe it is what I am best at providing to the enwiki community, and, more importantly, that this is of value over and above that which some/many others would provide."
I'm not sure it's appropriate for me to comment on my and my fellow Arbitrators' actions; that's for the community to decide.
I think confidentiality is a matter of great importance to the community, and something that we should all expect of the Committee; only with permission (though I would expect us to continue with our policy of outlining to the parties concerns expressed; and yes, but only if I strongly felt there was a good reason so to do, and that it was for the project's benefit.
From my answer to a question, "I think that the community is best served by a Committee with a spectrum of experiences and points of view on the various topics that surround our community, so that the widest range of responses is considered appropriately. Having helped to create Arbitration, I suppose I offer more of a reflective position to the discussions, both around individual cases and also on meta-issues like evolving and reforming the Committee to better serve the community. I do not see the inputs of "new" and "old" ("seasoned"?) in competition at all, but instead as each complementing the other."
Curious as to why this wasn't asked on the [obvious place] (and why at such short notice :-)), but hope this helps.
Less obvious place because my questions tend to be duplicative of questions already asked, so that way they don't clog up the questions page. Short notice because I've been busy :) Ral315 (talk) 08:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Yo Jd, you semi-protected this article for IP vandalism and BLP issues last June. It seems relatively placid at this point; would you consider unprotecting? Regards, the skomorokh16:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Not that my single "vote" may matter, considering the current trend, but I'm on the fence.
One thing in your favour, as far as I'm concerned is that your answer to my question was not what one would presume was what I may have wanted to hear. Being able to give thoughtful opinions (presumably to the greater benefit of Wikipedia) despite what may be popular at the current moment, is a trait that I value.
And your current experience (institutional memory) is something worth retaining as well.
And I haven't been thrilled at how you've been attacked during some Arbcom proceedings.
That said, there are some things which you've said recently and not-so-recently (not what you've directly said, but what some things seem to indicate indirectly) which lead me to be unsure. If this was an RfA I would be "voting" Neutral.
I'd ask you some questions or list some things for you to clarify, but I'm not sure how to phrase what I'm receiving by semi-osmosis.
My apologies if this doesn't make sense. I'm finding it difficult to put into words. (Which would seem to be a definite indication to me that perhaps I shouldn't be "voting" concerning something which may seem to require further thought.)
I asked User:Mackensen for their thoughts, since they also supported you, and is someone whose opinion I greatly respect.
Based upon his response, and just me trying to untangle my feeling and thoughts, led me to revert myself, and restore the support "vote".
If the current trend continues, it likely won't mean anything in terms of the election, but "voting" to entrust added responsibilities is something important to me here, and something I don't take lightly.
I had planned to support you (as one of 4 - half the seats available, rounding up) from the start. And at this moment, that initial decision still feels justified.
Anyway, if I somehow miss it (due to Wikibreak, or whatever) please drop me a note next year, should you decide to run again.
Just a quick thing, first you've been working hard with wikipedia and as you said above you havent recieved many so let me be another who gives you a pat on the back for past efforst to make wikipedia better and to put you in better spirits on the arb com vote;
Jdforrester, I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year. Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future. Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)
Good to see you today. Was it this OSM Tube Network Map you were thinking of? This would've been created by an installation of the 'Mapnik' rendering system, with a stylesheet set-up to achieve the pale map in the background and the dotty tube lines. Fairly tricky to set-up, but the various rendering tools are improving and getting easier all the time. -- Harry Wood (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
For what? Evidently everyone else is turning up at 1-ish; trying to get a head start on those prizes? I'm bringing the ladyfriend along otherwise I'd be there at 9 just to piss you off (she's never up before eight, and then there is makeup, travel, so on so forth). Ironholds (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
No, WLA is February-long; the event on 1st February is merely the launch. The meetup is scheduled to be as normal, but as an activity meet-up, as an experiment. I see WereSpielChequers has corrected your wrongful edit, and added an explanation.
A tag has been placed on Monsooned Malabar, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of Monsooned Malabar and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Pisharov (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what you had to do with it, but anyway, this article you created is a subject for speedy deletion. Thought you should know.Pisharov (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
That was one of the most shameless examples of blatant spam I've seen in a long time. The pre-spamming version was unsourced and full of advertising-like language; there was nothing to salvage. If you genuinely believe this is a notable product, I certainly wouldn't object to your creating a new article afresh, without so much caffo-porn phrasing (soft, mellow, full bodied character and pleasant spicy flavour. It is also versatile ) and with some reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk18:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
