User talk:Mackensen/Archive17

No
Solicitation

Mackensenarchiv

Spammers: I would like for this page to stay reasonably clean. If you have business with me, feel free to leave a comment, else please move on. Please ignore the gigantic eye in the corner with the pump-action shotgun.

Unsigned messages will be ignored. You can sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). I reserve the right to disruptively eliminate gigantic blobs of wiki-markup from signatures on a whim if I think they're cluttering up my talk page.

So...how are the trains doing?

I'll bet that at times like this, you're genuinely glad your RfB turned out the way it did. Risker (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The trains still run on time. Ye Gods, what a nightmarish RfA. I realized just how detached I've gotten from the en community when the opposers were all referencing controversies I'd never heard of! Thank heavens for that. How's adminship treating you? Mackensen (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've managed not to blow up anything so far, although I am sure some people would consider that evidence that I lack initiative. Been too busy in RL to spend much time online, unfortunately; today's the first chance I've had to return to my real love, copy editing. (I know. That sounds sort of twisted.) Some of those controversies left me a bit baffled too, which I found oddly reassuring. Risker (talk) 02:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

I reverted your edits to the Bio guideline re. the status of Sir/Dame. The argument has been made on talk that the guideline has been discussed extensively previously so should not be elevated to status of title vs. an honorific until there is consensus to change. Ripe (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you like. It makes no material difference. Mackensen (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article you deleted

Is it possible to see the content of an article you deleted some time ago? Namely: Queen's University street parties Thank you 06:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)~

The deleted revisions still exist, so any of the administrators in this category should be able to provide you with a copy of the article. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your recent posts at WT:RAIL. I think we should be able to get {{s-rail}} to work on UK station articles. One thing that is a disadvantage of having general-purpose options is that certain editors may use them to such an extent that the boxes become as cluttered as the {{rail line}} boxes can get now (with comments such as "not Sundays", "Summer only" and so on). Perhaps if these options were restricted it would help maintain some sort of order? --RFBailey (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much stopping them regardless; there are various ways to game the branch/route parameter as well, but with the potential to really mess up the backend. The benefit of the general-purpose field is that it has no wider utility. Restricting it on s-line itself isn't really an option--too many other projects rely on the template. We could restrict what's passed by {{s-rail-national}}, but that would require a wider discussion; you'd also face the possibility of people using s-line instead to get around it. Ultimately, I think the best option is to establish a standard for what boxes display (as with the services/lines issue) and enforce that, instead of a technical arms race. Mackensen (talk) 01:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true, but gaming those parameters requires a certain amount of ingenuity, which restricts the amount of meddling people might do with it. We have tried to reach consensus before, but haven't been able to reach an agreement. --RFBailey (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, we can go ahead with a whitelist in the manner I described, but there should probably be a parallel discussion about the scope of the boxes. My main concern is that it shouldn't stand in the way of rollout. Mackensen (talk) 02:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be a problem on the Bamford and Edale articles. Hope (Derbyshire) railway station is being interpreted as Hope(Derbyshire) railway station. Year1989 (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've identified and fixed the issue. Mackensen (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

North Acton station s-rail

Hi there, The point I was making was it just looks a bit redundant having (eg.) "West Ruislip branch" in two adjacent columns, and neater if the middle column just says "Central line". See Leytonstone tube station for the much neater example you just fixed. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, but there's something to be said for linking to the branch as opposed to the station--those links do go to different articles. Mackensen (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, two sub-sections of the same Central line article linked to by the "Central line" caption (ie. middle-column)! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; I've changed it to mirror Leytonstone. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Icelanders GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Icelanders and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages for other editors and related WikiProjects to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Williamsport Bills DYK

In case the hook that you submitted following our discussion gets moved to the next update (it was approved) and thus the discussion itself deleted, here was my response: "You didn't cite the raw stats (and if the baseball project considers BR's raw stats a reliable source, then I'll take it in future hooks), you cited an article about a team on BR that was editable by anyone. The quote wasn't sourced at all, in fact at the time it wasn't even in the article ... I assume you mean the article was sourced from Lexis? That might make it reliable, but I still like to actually read the text before I mark it as verified. Or see a quote in the footnote.". Or trust, but verify. I have never had a problem with your Michigan railroad hooks, because they were emininently verifiable.

I know this might seem anal, but a) I always do it this way and b) we're having an earnest discussion on the DYK talk page about whether we're too slipshod in verifying articles ... one newer user who was caught up in the CarolSpears thing has said he found "rampant" plagiarism in articles on DYK, as well as errors, and this and his attitude especially (he's had some civility issues before) have rubbed some people the wrong way, although he does have some points about the issues created by DYK being understaffed (so to speak). So, really, the issue cuts both ways. Daniel Case (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the CarolSpears thing occurred to me afterwards. I confess I didn't look closely enough at which part of BR was cited; I wouldn't consider Bullpen reliable, but the stats certainly are. The new hook (which I think gets to the meat of the article) is doubly-sourced: the Times-Union article and the retrospective piece on the Willamsport Crosscutters website. Oddly enough it's not my article; I've just been a minor league baseball kick the last few weeks and happened to notice it. I've found AP pieces (again, Lexis) which mention those players in their write-ups, so I imagine the article at least isn't untruthful ;). Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Pease

On 28 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Howard Pease, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 08:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Mackensen's_ramblings"

Just a heads up that I just found your March comments on the then-embryonic Arbcom RFC, and thought they looked pretty good. Maybe it's time to brush off those ideas and start gently pushing them, because unlike some other stuff I think they might actually stand a chance of getting consensus. --Jenny 00:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I've kicked it around in another form at User:Mackensen/Devolution; see also User:Thatcher/Block review. I think the dust has to settle from this current business before we can really talk about change, though I suspect the committee, for one, would support something of this nature. Mackensen (talk) 00:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've taken the plunge: Wikipedia:Devolution. Mackensen (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the reason came to this at long last was the huge kerfuffle (which I don't take seriously--we've had moral panics like this before). When it dies down there will be interest in sane new ideas. --Jenny 01:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And now I figure out who you are--confound you Sidaway and your many names :) --Mackensen (talk) 01:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I'd long forgotten about that page. Thatcher 02:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Significant tweakage has been applied. Thatcher 02:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*guffaw* --Jenny 03:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Pearson DYK

On 30 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kyle Pearson, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Circeus (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:IRT style

A tag has been placed on Template:IRT style requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Bonine

On 2 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eddie Bonine, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 08:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Ostlund

On 2 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ian Ostlund, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faith

I'm sorry, I really meant that a bit more whimsically and less barbed than it came across. I don't consider Harry Potter to be much of a literary reference, and was thinking more along the lines of satire. Actually, though, we have crossed paths before--on that occasion the flippancy and literary namedropping was along the lines of Harry Frankfurt and George Orwell. --JayHenry (talk) 03:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see what it looks like from the outside; I'm just grasping for a way to describe how utterly impossible the situation is. Right, and I remember now, the Avruch RfA. As I said then, I wasn't talking about you, but rather the fellow about eight comments down, who had confined himself to "too much drama" (whatever that meant). Your point is taken all the same. Mackensen (talk) 03:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am cringing as I re-read what I wrote on Carcharoth's page (well, except for one thing--would that I had his temperance, I would have avoided leaving such an unhelpful comment). I've been around for awhile, but I try to keep a more constructive profile than you've met in our two encounters now. That we hadn't met before then indicates that I used to do a much better job of it. I've seen some frustrating things recently, and I usually just ignore it and go write about hippos, but for some reason it boiled over at you just now. I sincerely don't want you to feel like I'm the sort of editor that you're up against--I do know you're one of the good guys. Conflating your comment with all my general frustrations with ArbCom was grossly unfair. My sincere apologies. --JayHenry (talk) 03:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I've been there. After I retired from Arbcom in January I retired to the article space. This is the most time I've spent outside of it in months, and I'm already regretting it. Administration's a pretty thankless task when it's all said and done, and you wind up locked in bitter disagreement with people to whom otherwise you might be kindly disposed. Your comment is most appreciated; for my part I'm sorry for the mocking tone I adopted in reply. I trust we'll run into each on better terms in the future--perhaps in the article space ;). Mackensen (talk) 03:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protecting talk pages

I saw you were kicking around the User_talk namespace and decided to join in a bit. In your (retracted?) ArbCom statement, you say that, in your view, you would only fully protect a talk page in the case of libel or death threats. My question is, if a person has indicated that their use of the microphone is clearly not going to cause anything good, why should we continue to let that person hold the microphone? In this case, a user had continually used the one forum left to him to attack, in no uncertain terms, administrators of this project. You speak of respecting those who give their time to administer this site; why should someone who is simply using Wikipedia to spew such indecencies be allowed to continue? --MZMcBride (talk) 04:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few points. I retracted because I decided no good could come of official involvement. I'm done with that. If anyone wants to crib that's fine. My opposition to protection is a principled thing: I have difficulty with the idea of silencing people. If someone wants to spew invective on their talk page that's their own lookout; at least for most people who see it they've opted-in. Unless they're abused the unblock template no one need notice. In so far as Giano is concerned any visitor to his talk page should know what to expect. On a person's talk page the microphone is not so loud as it might be elsewhere. I grant that there are problems reconciling this with my very real anger at Giano's broad (and frequently unwarranted) attacks on administrators in general. We must somehow reconcile this with his strong contributions in the article space (incidentally, speaking of him in the third person feels quite wrong, he's around and should feel free to drop in) and his obvious devotion to the project. The engagement problems are obvious. I think this is one of those situations where I wandered away from the question asked, but hopefully I've said something vaguely relevant. Mackensen (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that we expect, for all users, a standard of decency and standard of good conduct. We expect that users will not make personal attacks and that they will treat each other with respect. Sure, User talk:Giano II is not in a 'public' place like AN or AN/I, but my point is more that this project should never be used to spew such garbage. There is a time and a place for legitimate criticism of user conduct and legitimate criticism of other bad acts. But blatant personal attacks should never be tolerated, and frankly, with nearly any editor, we do not ever tolerate them. The project is built upon the idea of collaboration — collaborative editing to create and build free content — and talk page posts that directly attack other editors also directly attack that sacred principle. And those posts should never be tolerated, no matter where they are on this project and no matter how many good article contributions a user has made. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean a "a standard of decency and standard of good conduct" such as repeatedly using the word "spewing" for Giano's posts on his page, MZMcBride? I guess you believe in teaching by example. "Spewing garbage" is especially helpful. Bishonen | talk 05:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I think I made it abundantly clear which posts I was referring to. If not, it includes, but is certainly not limited to, edits like this and this. Calling a spade a spade is not acting indecently. We label sockpuppets as sockpuppets, we label vandals as vandals, and I (and I imagine a great deal of others) would label diffs like those as pure garbage. While it's rare that I block users, I occasionally read unblock messages from blocked users. If any blocked user left a message similar to the messages found in those two diffs, they would be blocked for a very long time, possibly indefinitely. Perhaps I'm simply too idealistic, but I believe we should expect higher standards of behavior from longtime contributors, not lower standards. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're simply too idealistic, that's it. I believe we should expect higher standards of behavior from admins than non-admins, not lower standards. Bishonen | talk 06:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Not helpful Bish; Giano was a candidate for Arbcom. Whatever standard to behavior we hold admins to; arbs should be higher still. Giano is in the first rank of users here; let us treat him with the respect he deserves, but let us also ask that he reciprocate. Mackensen (talk) 11:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with you on the need for civility, but I must observe that this view is by no means universal, and that the use of page protection in such circumstances has always been controversial, in the sense that there is sharp disagreement on the practice. I've seen it just as often misused to silence a critic. I don't think that happened here, but the potential is real. I find myself less willing, as time goes on, to arrogate to myself the judgement as what is or not fair criticism. I may state, as an editor, that I think X is out of line, but as an administrator I would be deeply unwilling to take any official steps, even when X is undoubtedly profane, uncivil, or otherwise destructive. Moving from the abstract to the concrete, Giano has been treated badly in the past, and the communication between him, the administrator corps and the Arbitration Committee has been less than ideal. But we're getting away from the main idea, which is whether we should protect talk pages. I think you're making the case for a ban, not talk page protection. I don't have a good answer for you, beyond these ruminations. I can tell you that talk page protection is deeply repugnant to many people. At some point we have to consider the prejudices of our editors. I would also note that, state of nature aside, we do extend a greater courtesy to our long-term contributors than we do the average vandal. The trick is determining when somebody is over the line. Mackensen (talk) 04:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key point is that by making personal attacks against other members of this project, you forfeit the 'right' to wage criticism (legitimate or not). --MZMcBride (talk) 07:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

I saw your comment at User_talk:Carcharoth#Note and please accept my apologies, I certainly didn't intend to take an ill tone and in fact had to use AWB to see which pages we had overlapped on to figure out where I did make a harsh comment. And actually, I don't remember where we have run into each other in those 128 pages, could you clarify where so I can learn from my mistakes? MBisanz ^talk 06:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm the one who needs to apologize, for confusing you with MZMcBride (see section above). Mackensen (talk) 12:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahh, I understand, happens all the time :) MBisanz ^talk 19:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief?

[1] You know, Mackensen, sarcasm is what has reignited these fires. Do you really think it helps that a former arbitrator is using it to defend a current arbitrator's posting of examples of another editor using sarcasm to highlight the perception of incivility and defective communication in said other editor? This is unbecoming of you, as was the unqualified "Regrettable" comment to the early proposed decision page. Please either speak plainly (as we did the other night) or restrain yourself. Risker (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To this, Mackensen. I am not sure that the proposed by you committee would be an optimal composition to address all the Wikipedia problems. I would prefer a different composition but I would withhold naming them to prevent the respected editors from being barraged by my wiki-stalkers and Irpen-nay-sayers. But I can tell you one thing. The committee you proposed would be caught dead acting unethically. Ethics is what the ArbCom has been lacking since before this election. Lack of ethics has become its institutional legacy. With NYB expelled and Paul August burned out and inactive, there is no one really left on the committee now that I can entrust would act upon the ethics abuse. --Irpen 16:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, civility matters or it doesn't. Given the comments that I responding to I think I was remarkably restrained. Please don't mistake me for sarcasm; I'm quite serious. Note that I voted for Giano in the last election, and if Irpen and Ghirla would submit themselves to the consideration of the community I would vote them as well. Through their repeated attacks and assumptions of bad faith (and I'll give you a load of diffs if you dispute the characterization) they've made the conduct of arbitration damn near impossible. Let them see how the shoe fits. As far as the smear campaign goes, when I see someone calling Kirill the "new Kelly Martin" I think it speaks for itself. That's as loaded a term as can be used here. Mackensen (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A brief comment. There is nothing to assume, Mackensen, in view of how ArbCom has been acting on several occasions. WP:AGF does not apply when there is evidence to the contrary and it does not say "be a fool". --Irpen 15:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or, Mackensen, and speaking of civility, FT2's posting a 100kB long psychoanalysis of Giano at his talk amounts to a by far greater incivility than all the diffs you can find. And choosing a schoolboy block-length is uncivil too. I guess you were not subjected to such public analysis and therefore can't see it. Neither was I. But I, somehow, noticed such incivility right when I saw it. Being in a position of power and acting full of oneself is more uncivil than saying rude words, Mackensen. I would prefer to be verbally abused by some dork in the street than dealing with a cop who has a gun and power over me and acting full of himself and disrespectfully. Even if he won't use f-words, that is uncivil. Your comments above about myself, Ghirla and Giano, who write this project while career mandarins, including at arbcom, treat them in such way are uncivil and offensive. When Lokshin blehs and mehs from the bench, this is uncivil because it is done from the bench not because blehing and mehing is not very cultural. When JPGordon boasts not bothering to read arbcom statements that are "too long", he is being uncivil to the project whose problems he committed himself to solving, still not using any bad words. When Uninvited makes bemusing remarks and then goes unresponsive to the reaction, he is uncivil. And did I say about psychoanalyzing editors? Civility, Mackensen, is a more elaborated concept than you seem to think. --Irpen 16:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere we have this novel theory that arbitrators may not produce their own evidence. I have never heard of such an idea before; to see someone as hard-working as Kirill, whose outstanding efforts as an article writer won praise from all quarters, smeared because he did his job is frankly too much. Mackensen (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They may collect evidence. But they cannot arbitrate and collect evidence at the same time. Recuse yourself, withdraw from courtroom discussions and collect all the evidence you want. --Irpen 16:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wrong model. Thatcher 16:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding my "regrettable" comment, I meant it. I find the whole situation regrettable. If I had to sum up my attitude to the last ten days in a single world that would be my choice. I regret that all of this came to pass, and I expressed similar sentiments, in a more verbose form, on Carc's talk page. I don't envy the parties going forward. Mackensen (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure how novel that theory is; certainly I've seen evidence that candidates for Arbcom who profess to be activist don't get elected, and those who profess to be conservative, to interpret only existing policy, to work with the evidence presented, tend to get elected. Yes, these are the folks who were elected - is this the platform they were elected on?

I'm not a big fan of hyperbole on the part of anyone. Frankly, the biggest problem I see with arbitration is the piggybacking of additional agendas onto what should ideally be dealt with as straightforward issues. Either that, or deal with things doing a full root cause analysis and make that the way cases get done. I do agree with you - the entire situation is regrettable.

The long series of diffs is somewhat problematic for me in that I am aware of some privacy-related issues connected to a few of them; now that they are splashed out on this page, it's closing the barn door to even acknowledge the issue, given that any changes to his evidence will only draw more attention to what has been changed. I'm in the awkward position of understanding contexts that are not obvious to the average reader but being unable to share the information without causing further damage. I guess we are all having a fun, fun Sunday. Risker (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I must be brief in reply, but it is novel--as Thatcher has pointed out elsewhere, there is absolutely nothing new about this, and to make it a point of contention suggests either a gross unfamiliarity with the arbitration process or a partisan attack. I wish I could soft-pedal this but I can't. Mackensen (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, I can't convince you in anything about myself. But your accusing editors like Risker or Carcharoath in being either unfamiliar with the arbitration process or going out on partisan attack speaks length, Mackensen. What an attitude! --Irpen 16:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt--in fact, I can see it with my own eyes--that lots of people turn up and express interest in the high profile cases, like Giano, IRC, and Betacommand. Have you ever read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/International Churches of Christ or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Buscema. What do you think of the fact that a majority, or at least a significant minority, of cases from 2006-early 2007 have blank workshop pages? What I find remarkable is that the preferred solution of "my clique" is for Giano to treat other people with the respect he expects to be treated and to express his discontents in a minimally civil manner, while "your clique's" preferred solution is the dissolution of Arbcom. Thatcher 16:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't put words in my mouth, Thatcher. I have a solution for ArbCom but I have not posted it yet. --Irpen 16:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a rather limited view, Thatcher. In fact, I have read all of those cases, and quite a few others. They're neither here nor there. And I am not in favour of the dissolution of Arbcom; quite the opposite. Some of the ideas for reform, including some that show up in the "June announcements", are quite good. Mackensen's and your proposed Wikipedia:Devolution is, I think, a really good idea that could fly; maybe you could learn from User:Bstone's example and just stick an "approved policy" template on it, then the community will pay attention. ;-)

The fact of the matter is, the community has fairly consistently sent a message that they like conservative candidates who aren't planning on changing the world, and yet we keep seeing Arbcom decisions that interpret policies in novel ways, delegate authority in a manner never considered or discussed with the community, and determine cases apparently based on what interests them most rather than what is brought to them by the community itself. There have to be some middle grounds here, because I know that an extremely conservative Arbcom would be as damaging as an extremely radical one; the problem is that nobody in the community is quite sure which way Arbcom is going to go on any particular day. There is still a significant portion of the community who thinks Arbcom's raison d'être is to resolve interpersonal disputes between users. We all know better than that - its purpose is to ensure that the encyclopedia is protected. Risker (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try and formulate a response to Irpen and Risker. First I want to clear the air. I'm serious that I think Irpen, Ghirla and Giano should put themselves forward for Arbcom, or review panels or other administrative tasks of the project. I think it's fair to call the current administrative corps "mandarins" (at least in the fashion that I understand the term), but it's largely a question of self-selection. The project is run by the people who put themselves forward. If the community prefers conservative arbitrators but gets activist ones instead I think that suggests a disconnect between the community's perception of the job and the nature of the job itself. Having been a freshman arbitrator myself, and having watched two new classes of arbs matriculate, I think that to be the case. My own original candidate's statement is almost embarrassingly naive. I would agree that Paul August represented a different voice on the committee, and if he's been marginalized (I must emphasize that I have paid scant attention to committee affairs since late January) I think it's because he didn't really have a like-minded person on the committee. A minority of one is an uncomfortable place to be. However, we're only going to get more people like Paul if they come forward and run.

I can't speak for the conduct of my former colleagues; but I do submit that there is a difference between judicial indifference and outright personal hostility. I may in the position of adopting Potter Stewart's "I know it when I see it" dictum, and I recognize this as untenable. I can state for my own part that I tried to listen as much as possible, and in those cases when someone came to me and said that my conduct had offended them I did what I could to make amends. It's perhaps a fault that I'm always willing to keep talking; perhaps sometimes no good will come of a discussion...

On a final point, I must reiterate what Thatcher (and others) have said. It may be a flaw in the system that arbitrators collect their own evidence, but it is a long standing practice, not forbidden in policy, and certainly not devised for this case. If the committee had to rely solely on the evidence put forth by partisans it would be in a very difficult position, as the system is presently constituted. If we want to talk about changing the system to have prosecutors, managers, advocates, or some such, I'm open to having such a discussion. I would caution, however, that changing the system in the middle of a case would prove difficult to sustain.

A related question here, possibly anticipated (I'm on a tiny terminal right now and scrolling up is hard) is that the committee has framed this case at right angles to what the parties requested. That is, what was anticipated as a straightforward wheel-warring case (if those are ever straightforward) has wandered into the old civility territory. The answer to this is that the committee has always considered the behavior of all participants and reserved itself the privilege to frame a case as it sees it, not as the participants see it. It's also obvious that the IRC remedy is ineffective; I for one don't see any point in retaining it in its current form, if at all. Again, this may be something that should be changed, but it does not represent a departure from the usual operation of the committee.

I hope I've provided some points for going forward here. Mackensen (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I anticipated that this was exactly the direction the case would go, and I am hardly alone in that feeling. It seems the only person who didn't see it coming was dear Fozzie, or so he says. I also accurately anticipated what would happen with the IRC remedy. This is essentially a continuation and would more correctly be called IRC II, with WMC filling the role of random admin making widely considered poor block, and a stripped down supporting cast.

Nonetheless, there is a more general element here that I don't want to see dropped, about evidence. There have indeed been some cases where the quality of the information provided by the community has been found wanting (either lacking or not focused on what the committee wanted to know), but the reverse has rarely happened, except for perhaps in the Mantanmoreland case. There might be a place for the committee, and those who appear before it, to be able to call on relatively non-aligned editors with skills to collect, analyse and present data in an impartial way. I worked up something like that for the Tango case, and am of the impression the committee found the information useful. Some consistency in evidence presentation can be developed (e.g., standardization of tracking back interactions to where they start, presenting links, identifying involved editors, etc), and processes for requests for assistance in developing evidence can be standardised. To be honest, this is one burden I think would be well moved from the shoulders of the committee; there are others who are more talented at doing these things, it provides some very specific support for those appearing before the committee who are technologically limited in developing such information, and to be honest the committee has better things to do. Risker (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The complaints and concerns with arbitrators compiling and presenting evidence result from editors conflating the American-style adversarial court process with the normal process of arbitration on Wikipedia. While the point has been belabored in many other places throughout the history of the arbitration committee, it bears being repeated: the arbitration committee isn't a court, justice is not its primary goal, and punishing editors in the interests of justice is not its role. Judges don't present separate evidence because it conflicts with the adversarial system of judicial procedure and presents an appearance of a conflict of interests - that of the judge appearing to act on behalf of the prosecution (or defense). There is no prosecution here, there is only one right side to be on (although opinions differ on where that is, of course) and thus no conflict presented by an arbitrator compiling evidence independently. It goes hand in hand with the old committee determination that conduct by all parties will be reviewed, regardless of whether evidence or claims are presented in each instance of problematic conduct.

In your above comment, Risker, you don't address what I think is your central concern (or at least, what appears to have prompted your concern as expressed) - which is that an arbitrator has presented evidence against Giano in a case that is not, on its face, about Giano. Before you address this problem obliquely, address it head on - perhaps there are other better ways for compiling evidence for cases, but there is no inherent problem as I see it in arbitrators doing so. It's part of their role, and there is nothing to suggest that arbitrators should be limited to ruling on evidence presented by parties and other interested folks, or even that they should adhere to the scope of a case request as entered.

The only other thing I'd intended to write to you, Risker, is something that I hope you won't interpret as a slight against your character or integrity. I think its clear, in this case as in the past, that you (and Bishonen, Geogre, and others) strongly defend Giano (and criticise his critics) each time his conduct is called into question. While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and you may even be right, I simply hope and expect that you will continue to correctly choose not to use your administrative tools in Giano-related disputes.

And to Mackensen - I know it hasn't been that long, but perhaps you'll reconsider and run again? Avruch 20:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avruch, I am saddened but not surprised at how much attention you pay to my interactions with Giano, because I spend much more of my time doing other things around here. In fact, I suspect the reason there is a proposed finding of fact and remedy relating to you is that you appear to pay more attention to Giano than I do. I will admit to a certain talent in working with content-oriented editors who have a reputation for behavioural issues; last month I worked with Vintagekits, and the article we worked on was just recognised as a Featured Article. There are others as well, although the footprints aren't always obvious. The one thing they have in common is the circling buzzards expecting, even willing them to fail. Spend a little more time reading the words I write between signature lines, Avruch, and you might realise that my focus is on much bigger issues than Giano, and that most of my concerns are directed to systemic issues rather than the individual failures to which we are all prone.

I would prefer to see people other than arbitrators presenting thorough and well-researched evidence to the committee for many reasons. There is a widely held belief in the larger community (that is, the one away from project space and controversial articles) that Arbcom accepts cases with bias and then looks for only the information that supports their bias. I rather doubt it's true, myself, but it's a perception that's hard to eradicate when arbitrators themselves post information that any number of other people were probably pulling together. Fozzie's supposed naïveté notwithstanding, it was obvious when the case was accepted that this was going to be about Giano (there isn't enough in the actions of Geogre and WMC to warrant an Arbcom case), and I was fully expecting someone to post similar evidence at some time. Perhaps that is what bothers me in this particular case - that there was little need for Kirill to pull together evidence and post it, when there was no doubt someone else already working on the same thing. And if they weren't, then they just plain weren't paying attention. It's a long weekend in the US, and given how long the vast majority of arbcom cases are open, there was certainly no rush to have this information posted right at this juncture. Risker (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you did indeed take my comments as a slight and responded in kind... I apologize, then, because it wasn't my intention to offend. Your comments are always thoughtful and well reasoned, though I often disagree with you - but I haven't made a practice of following them. For what its worth - yes, the case was accepted too quickly, yes, it was clearly going to touch on Giano, and yes there are more important cases and clarification requests ongoing that await resolution while this case sails through. Its possible that someone else was planning on posting evidence similar to what Kirill wrote, but there's no reason that I can understand for Kirill to have resisted writing it himself. Whether the original civility remedy was wise (and it certainly hasn't had its intended effect, I imagine), Giano has clearly violated it numerous times. A review by the committee was inevitable as a result, and I suppose this case was a convenient opportunity. Perhaps thats why it was accepted. Finally, I confess to not knowing what the wider community thinks about ArbCom (outside of what is written at arbitration pages and now the RfC). On the articles I do occassionally edit (not all controversial), its generally never mentioned. Anyway, we can continue this elsewhere or not at all if you prefer. I've already written more about this case today than I have since it was filed, which is (all things considered) probably not a great idea on my part. Avruch 23:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, to Avruch, I will not seek nor will I accept another seat on the Arbitration Committee. It's a thankless job and I've found other things to do here. As always, I encourage those with a strong interest in the mechanism of dispute resolution to take a turn in the hot seat.

I'm concerned by the focus on personality here, on all sides. This is a wiki--evidence is evidence, regardless of who collects it. Is the evidence itself disputed? I see precious little discussion of that, and I wonder if any editor could have posted such evidence without having his motives questioned. This is no idle speculation; any arbitration-watcher is well aware that this is the third rail of Wikipedia politics. The committee is criticized both for going too quickly and too slowly; for my part I see no benefit in allowing a case to remain open when passions are liable to run high and the facts are not in doubt. You can impugn anyone's credibility with barbed comments and accusations of bias and conspiracy, but in the end I think it detracts from the core issues. It's frequently said that Arbcom should ignore these issues and focus on the encyclopedia; I think this is perhaps a fair criticism, but it's a two-way street. Editors who frequently involve themselves in the administration of the project have no right to claim disassociation. I've learned that the hard way.

I question this appeal to the community; I expect most of the community doesn't give a damn about this issue and rather wishes that it would go away, when it thinks about it at all. I await with interest and trepidation this year's elections to see who'll be brave enough to throw his or her hat in the ring. Mackensen (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I will not seek..." You say that now, but when me and my cronies are in charge and have Arbitration's train's running on time, you'll be first in the queue to get back aboard, I'll bet. - brenneman 04:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt my ticket would be good on that train. Mackensen (talk) 10:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right, Mackensen; most editors don't care about meta issues until they find themselves trying to use the processes. There are a lot more arbcom watchers out there than meets the eye, though. Avruch, we should probably leave poor Mackensen alone (except maybe to voice an opinion on WP:DEVO) so that he can return to his plowshares. Best, Risker (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time to get Wikipedia:Devolution onto WP:CENT

[2] At least that is my opinion; in the interim, this is probably the best place to attract more eyes. I've also posted to the talk page. Risker (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I've added it. Mackensen (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Beltran

On 7 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Francis Beltran, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Someone must have made a mistake. Your name wasn't listed on the next update page. --BorgQueen (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weird; probably saw the alt hook. Thanks! Mackensen (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just coming to transfer the note from my talk page to yours, but I guess someone already noticed. Congrats, if somewhat belated... Mind matrix 23:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Quarter Century Club

		The 25 DYK Medal
		Awarded to Mackensen, for his contributions to the sum of all human knowledge: from ra ilr oa ds to ba se ba ll; from Mi ch ig an to Scotland Yard. Thank you for all that you do! JayHenry (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was quite pleasantly surprised to see your name on my watchlist at WP:DYKLIST just now. You can also now join Sam in the "Arbcom-l members who were awarded the {{The 25 DYK Medal}} by JayHenry club". My goal is to one day have a quorum of the entire ArbCom in the club, which at that point will be more like a priesthood, secretly doing my bidding, at pain of being defrocked and losing their medal. --JayHenry (talk) 23:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ombudsman global group

As you may know, there is now an Ombudsman global permissions group [3] containing the rights needed for an Ombudsman across all Wikimedia wikis, without the requirement of requesting a Steward assign you those permissions.

If you unify your global account, the tools would then be available to you automatically on any wiki you visit. If there is any assistance I can offer to help with the process, please let me know. Kylu (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been corresponding with Cary about this already and we've about completed the process. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma RedHawks

I saw where you created a category for their players with the right name (RedHawks instead of Red Hawks). Are you planning on changing it on the players listed in the Red Hawks category? If you're not going to, I thought I would. Jackal4 (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It did seem implausible that the category didn't exist already for a AAA team. That category is huge; I'll take it to WP:CFD so we can get a bot to deal with it. Thanks for the heads-up. Mackensen (talk) 10:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion here. On a side note, it seems incredible the roster hasn't been touched since May. Poor Rangers. Mackensen (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Lambert DYK

On 11 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chris Lambert (baseball), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations! --PeterSymonds (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anastacio Martínez

On 12 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anastacio Martínez, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Arthur_balfour.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Arthur_balfour.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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 Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia: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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. O sama K 11:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration request opened.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Lar. Thatcher 14:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Any evidence you wish to provide should be emailed directly to any sitting Arbitrator for circulation among the rest of the committee. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 14:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes for parties

These notes are detailed guidelines for the case, agreed by the ArbCom.

Please be aware in submitting evidence that it may be shared with other parties to the case, on a confidential basis, at the Committee's discretion.
Our intention is to circulate the leading points, but not full background detail, unless there are good reasons to do otherwise.
If there is a particular reason not to share some part of your evidence with other parties, please flag that clearly in your submission.
We will be open to all requests for further clarification.
To avoid any further risk to the privacy of third parties, the parties to the case are strongly requested not to make any further public statements concerning the matters under review by the Committee.
The Committee will understand participation in the case by a party as assent to the principle that the information circulated is confidential (cf. Wikipedia:Mediation#When should a mediation be held confidentially? for some good reasons).
The administration of the case will be by emails sent to active Arbitrators; please send mail to an Arbitrator of your choice (preferably CC another), and not to the ArbCom list.

Charles Matthews (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Zachary Simons

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Zachary Simons, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Wizardman 22:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That above post being said.. I've noticed that you've made a lot of the categories at Category:Minor league baseball players by team. Maybe I'm not seeing it, but why exactly do we need all of them. It's a categorization to something that's for the most part not notable for players. Heck I have my doubts about some of these players even. Maybe I'm missing something. Wizardman 22:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor league baseball is plenty note-worthy, although not as glamorous as MLB to be sure. Most players in those categories played with a major league team; for those that didn't, I'm confident that individual notability can be asserted and defended. Mackensen (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Society for the Preservation of the Quazer Beast

Hello. I have placed the {{historical}} tag on the Quazer Beast page due to its lack of recent activity. If I am mistaken or if you otherwise disagree, feel free to remove it. --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 16:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

s-rail routes

Hi, I am trying to upgrade some of the service boxes on certain lines to the s-rail format. I understand it but I do not see how to add extra routes to s-rail so that I could just put "Sheffield-Hull Line" instead of having to use the [ ]. Could you tell me how to do this. Thanks, Year1989 (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are different ways to approach this. You'll need to modify Template:National Rail lines/branches to add an auto-link exception for the appropriate route. If, for example, Sheffield-Hull Line is a Northern Rail route, then you'd add it to the Northern Rail segment. The code would look like this:

| Northern Rail={{#switch:{{{branch}}}|Sheffield-Hull Line|Buxton Line|Manchester-Glossop Line|Hope Valley Line=[[{{{branch}}}]]|#default={{{branch}}}}}

Now, we could simply auto-link all routes on Northern Rail also, with this:

| Northern Rail={{#switch:{{{branch}}}|#default=[[{{{branch}}}]]}}

You just have to make sure that there aren't any brackets in use anywhere, or it'll look awful. Mackensen (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help with the above. I now have another problem. If I put "route=Cleethorpes-Sheffield" how can I link that to the page Sheffield-Lincoln Line#Grimsby branch? I have experimented but can not get it to work. Year1989 (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll need a specific exception for it; something like this: |Cleethorpes-Sheffield=[[Sheffield-Lincoln Line#Grimsby branch|Cleethorpes-Sheffield]]. Taking the example above, you'd get this:
- | Northern Rail={{#switch:{{{branch}}}|Sheffield-Hull Line|Buxton Line|Manchester-Glossop Line|Hope Valley Line=[[{{{branch}}}]]|Cleethorpes-Sheffield=[[Sheffield-Lincoln Line#Grimsby branch|Cleethorpes-Sheffield]]|#default={{{branch}}}}}
- -Mackensen (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meetup?

Mackensen - you've previously expressed interest in a Chicago wiki-meet. If you're interested in coming to another one, take a look at Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 3 and let us know your thoughts. best — Dan | talk 18:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHICAGO

You have been not signed up as an active member of WP:CHICAGO, but you have participated in discussion at either Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Chicago 3 or Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 3. If you consider yourself either an active or semi-active member of the project please sign up as an active member. Also, if you are a member, be advised that the project is now atrying to keep all the project's WP:PR, WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:GAR, WP:GAC WP:FLC, WP:FLRC, WP:FTC, WP:FPOC, WP:FPC, and WP:AFD discussion pages in one location at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Review page. Please help add any discussion you are aware of at this location.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Names of some cities in different languages

Way back in June 2006, the consensus was to Delete the unencyclopedic lists of names of African and Asian cities, but they're back. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 02:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. I vaguely remember closing those discussions; consensus may have changed in the last two years--plenty of other stuff has ;). Mackensen (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CountryLink train boxes

Hi Mackensen - have the CountryLink train boxes you created changed in style recently? They look different - like a border has been removed or something? Or am I imagining something? If so, can it be changed back? JRG (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I took a look at Central in Sydney and they looked the same to me; I certainly haven't touched anything. Mackensen (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

s-rail uses

Hi, the implementation of s-rail is going well. Some railway station pages have historical and disused railway templates on the page as well as National Rail, see this page for example - Shepley railway station. Do s-rail templates currently exist for these or are they yet to be created. Year1989 (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I put some templates in place for those; let me take a look and get back to you. Mackensen (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They exist in embryo form. Here's an example of a Disused line:

{{s-rail-start|noclear=yes}}
{{s-rail|title=National Rail}}
{{s-rail-national|previous=Denby Dale|next=Stocksmoor|toc=Northern Rail|route=Penistone Line}}
{{s-rail-next|title=Disused Railways}}
{{s-rail-national|status=Disused|previous=|next=Shelley|toc=L&YR}}
{{end}}

Which gives:

Preceding station	National Rail	Following station
Denby Dale	Northern Rail Penistone Line	Stocksmoor
Disused railways
Terminus	L&YR	Shelley

For the station linking Historical and Disused just redirect to the standard National Rail template ({{National Rail stations}}) but they have their own color, line and route templates. The naming syntax is the name, just add Historical or Disused after "National Rail." Note the use of the "status" parameter for {{s-rail-national}}. Mackensen (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger

Ignoring your request for "No Solicitation", I've proposed a projects merger here and would appreciate any comments. Regards, Craigy (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MiLB roster

Is there any way to left-align the text in the table (players and key)? Sure, by default they are left-aligned, but when the table is centered, all the text is centered also. I've spent the last 20 minutes trying to figure it out. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks left-aligned to me; where do you see it centered? Mackensen (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean when <center> tags are placed around the template in an article. Like this: Nashville_Sounds#Current_roster -NatureBoyMD (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Still looks left-aligned to me. What browser are you using? Mackensen (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm using IE 7. So you see a centered table and left-aligned bullets? For me, the names are centered and the bullets don't line up at all. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC) I installed Firefox and it displays left-aligned bullets. Is there anyway to code it so it will display properly in IE? -NatureBoyMD (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baronet CFD notifications

CfD nomination of Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of Nova Scotia

CfD nomination of Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of England

CfD nomination of Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom

CfD nomination of Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of Great Britain

CfD nomination of Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of Ireland

Gary Glover DYK

On 20 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gary Glover, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Victuallers (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consequences of lying

Just because lying is common in places like Washington, DC does not mean we should excuse it in our community. I agree that ArbComm should not enforce a voluntary undertaking. Social consequences will manifest, in time, against those who break their word. I am content with the status quo. Jehochman ^Talk 03:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no disagreement from me. Mackensen (talk) 03:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's this, lying in DC? Surely you jest! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"campaign promises are–by long democratic tradition–the least binding form of human commitment." I will sleep better tonight, thanks! HG | Talk 03:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S-rail discussions

Hi, would you be able to read the discussions I've been having with User:Year1989 recently regarding {{s-rail}} here and here, and possibly comment? (Sorry that it's split across both our talk pages.....) Thanks, --RFBailey (talk) 01:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's try and centralize here. I'll review both discussions momentarily. Mackensen (talk) 01:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

#wikimedia-checkuser

Greetings!

I'm Fluff @svwp, just became CheckUser and I'm lurking to get into #wikimedia-checkuser. As stated on my userpage I'm on freenode as fluff. Please contact me there or on my talk-page on svwp.

Best regards and thanks in advance!

/Fluff (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been done. Mackensen (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Succession box three to three

Template:Succession box three to three has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Bazj (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:PeerNavbox

Template:PeerNavbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Bazj (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

It should really be me who is congratulating you on a job well done - you wrote nearly all the station articles for a few lines (North Central Service, Milwaukee District/West Line, etc.) It's great to see that they're finally all done. --TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Succession box three to one

Template:Succession box three to one has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Bazj (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Zachary Simons

Whatever you'd like to do is fine with me. :-) - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: All Metra Stations finished

I know you complimented TheCatalyst31 as much as I did for his work on Metra stations, but you didn't do so bad yourself. I only got one station on the North Central Service, and you did all the rest, not to mentions a good chunk of BNSF Railway Line stations, Milwaukee District/West stations, SouthWest Service stations and the other three Heritage Corridor stations. Of course, he did finish them all, and we didn't. ----DanTD (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MLB Game log template

Hi, I noticed one problem with your new template but I'm not experienced enough to know how to fix it. When the team's pitcher gets a save it doesn't put it in bold. Other than that it seems to work fine.RobDe68 (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does if the pitcher recording the save belongs to the "home" team. Is that not the desired behavior? Mackensen (talk) 00:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hang on, you're right--stuff is broken in August. Looking now. Mackensen (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, feature added--earlier I was looking at the hard-coded tables; I'd forgotten that only August used the new templates. Mackensen (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I finished the Tigers game log and used your new template on September as well. Looks good now. RobDe68 (talk) 04:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Michaelis.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Michaelis.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Lokal _Profil 13:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frustrated

In 2007 you have been involved in discussion about Jasenovac "Holocaust" extermination camp. Because of your knowledge of this can you please enter new similar discussion [4] ?

I am very frustrated with this because 2 involved administrators are refusing to enforce earlier consensus and Holocaust scholars thinking because they are having different personal thinking.--Rjecina (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user is corrupt

Mackenson is an ehm eye fihve agent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.165.136 (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helmuth von Moltke

I've read your aricle and the discussion page. I'm curious about your views on the 'Schlieffen Plan'. Have you had second thoughts consequent on Mombauer and Foley's books? I ask because I think that articles about 1914 need more material on recent historiography. Keith-264 (talk) 14:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brief reply at the moment. I wrote the original draft a few years ago now; either Foley's book wasn't out yet or I hadn't read it (I think the latter). The entire section on the Schlieffen Plan (more properly the Moltke Plan or Schlieffen-Moltke Plan) should probably be rewritten with those two books at the base, while noting Zuber's criticisms. It's overdue for a major expansion in any case. Mackensen (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind joining in when you're ready. There's this http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IS3202_pp155-191_Lieber.pdf on the interweb which I found a serviceable summary, albeit from a point of view I'm not familiar with.Keith-264 (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The CheckUser tool is granted to highly trusted and experienced Wiki users and it must be used with the utmost respect for privacy as governed by Wikimedia Foundation Privacy Policy. CheckUsers must exercise sound judgement, balancing need to protect the community with privacy concerns. Breaches of this should be dealt with through the Wikimedia Ombudsman Commission.

Having received an explanation of his carrying out the check at issue, and of the circumstances surrounding it, the Committee finds that the checks run by Lar in March 2008 fell within the acceptable range of CheckUser discretion. The users who brought the matter into the public arena rather than to a suitable dispute resolution process—in particular, SlimVirgin—are reminded that dispute resolution procedures rather than public invective remain the preferred course for addressing matters of user conduct. All CheckUsers are reminded that it is imperative that they make every effort to abide strictly by the Wikimedia Foundation Privacy Policy at all times.

For the Arbitration Committee,
— Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mansfield, Coldwater and Lake Michigan Rail Road

You may be interested in the map links and notes I posted at Talk:Mansfield, Coldwater and Lake Michigan Rail Road#Details of the proposed route. --NE2 08:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed--very cool! Mackensen (talk) 11:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalism and Imperialism in Germany before World War One

Good day, Mackensen. MBisanz told me you were good with WW1 related topics, so I was wondering if you could help me finding reliable sources for this article. Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 14:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but most of what I can suggest will be print sources. Let me see what I have handy. Mackensen (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ludwig beck

good day mackensen, would you please let me know if you are the original writer of the article on beck? if yes, please take a look at my commentary and suggestions on the L. Beck talk page and let me know.
thanks and best wishesMiletus (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Debicella

Hi Mackensen; just a note asking you to check in on this article and its talk page. I imagine the semi-protect will be expiring soon. Cheers, JNW (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to leave a note asking them to knock it off and saw that you did it. I'm going to suggest a re-write on the talk page and see where it goes. Best, Mackensen (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool. Thanks, JNW (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi Mackensen; back to edit-warring again here. I might ask for page protection. JNW (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mackensen, I realize the talk page is out-of-hand and ridiculous. All I ask is that you look at the edits I've made over the past few days and compare them to the kind of edits (mostly deletions) the other user has been trying to make. I'm really trying to make a good article here and would appreciate any help from a Wikipedia veteran like yourself. I really appreciate your previous advice of referencing everything using reliable media sources, which I followed. I'd like to think that we resolve this content dispute on our own but it doesn't look like that's going to happen. Any help at all is appreciated. Thanks a lot. 64.252.251.75 (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trains

Unfortunately I don't know the first thing about the rails. I do like American literature of a certain vintage, however, and one of my favorite Ernest Hemingway short stories has a train in it [5] (it's a very short story, too). As for my RFAR statement, I'd support your corollary. My proposal wasn't meant to be Giano specific. And I wasn't going to support the candidacy of Catherine (lady). Any tips, by the way, on what my priorities ought to be in the coming elections? --JayHenry (talk) 04:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd look for people who won't burn out and take a pretty level-headed, perhaps even cynical, view of the task ahead. My own candidate statement, years ago, was full of ridiculous high-flown sentiments and promises of reform. Then I got the job and realized that my perception of it did not match reality. For my part, I'm looking toward people with experience in the dispute resolution machinery, but balancing that with what I know about their personalities. I also leery of anyone who is primarily a content editor and let me explain why: once you're an arbitrator you have very little time for that kind of thing, and much of the work is drudgery. People who take their primary joy from editing articles are in for a shock. Mackensen (talk) 11:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me amplify here. What's important to me is that we elect people who actually get the job done. I'm as guilty as anyone else in letting work slide. I have no particular concerns about a potential injustice; I've seen maybe three cases in four years which I thought were grossly mishandled, but I doubt a different committee would have come to a different conclusion. What we can't have are cases which linger for months on end. That serves no one's interest. Mackensen (talk) 12:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree about not letting cases linger for months. I admit to being a bit torn about content. I worry a bit about the balance of the committee as well. So while I see the wisdom in what you're saying, I'd be worried about a committee without anyone who's involved in the main content processes. ArbCom is a political process in the most basic sense that it's elected by people, and it's only natural in a political process that people seek out some sort of representative to whom they can relate. Or perhaps I'm making too much of a mental analogy between American government in this belief: that representatives who have a bond with more of the various constituencies that they collectively represent is a positive? As opposed to all your representatives allied with the same narrow interests? On the other hand, I can see that the editor who most fits the profile of what might be thought of as "my constituency," Blnguyen, wasn't terribly effective in moving arbitration cases forward. --JayHenry (talk) 04:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate your thoughts

Mackensen, in your role as a member of the Ombudsman Committee, as a CheckUser, and as a former arbitrator, I know that you have had a longstanding interest in editor privacy and confidentiality. The recent arbitration case in which you were involved gave me pause, and I have written an essay on the topic which is here. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Risker (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LUL S-rail question

As a lapsed wikipedia user who dabbelled with s-rail back in the day, i noticed some brave sole has addedd s-rail to the former Bakerloo line stations that are now just Watford DC Line. The poor sole forgot to change the destination, so i fixed that by using "type", but i can't get the "LUL stations" template right to get around the dab's on the stations involved. Watford Junction and Watford High Street both have redirects set up from their "x tube station" pages, but the others (Bushey, Carpenders Park, Hatch End, and Headstone Lane). Any help with this would be appreciated. 91.109.230.127 (talk) 11:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I see the problem--the pages all link together (no red links). What's wrong? Mackensen (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm now getting it working on two, but not the others. Even with forced refreshes, maybe it's my ISP's cache or something, if it is now working on some and it is for you? Thanks for your time. 91.109.230.127 (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James F.

As you supported, and I sincerely respect your opinion (regardless of whether I may agree or not), and as "I'm on the fence" (see his talk page), could you help clarify/explain your thoughts on the candidate? - jc37 22:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked with him on this project for years; I know him and respect his judgment. It's as simple as that, really. Mackensen (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For me, a statement like that from you seems to me a strong endorsement. Due to your your statement above, and personal further thought, I've reverted myself. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. - jc37 06:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Dear Mackensen,

You have new email!

Best wishes, – amicon 23:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge receipt and I'll be looking into the matter. Mackensen (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for People v. Salem

On 11 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article People v. Salem, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Backslash Forwardslash 17:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes

[6] And it was much appreciated. I think. ;-) Risker (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I figured (hoped) you knew what you were getting into. I find it harder to vote for people, knowing what it means. Mackensen (talk) 02:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays

Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; I have appreciated working with you on various projects, and look forward to the opportunity to do so again in the future.

Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement.
Best, Risker (talk) 03:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Mackens.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Mackens.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]