User talk:Jdforrester/Old Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of my talk page, the current version of which is located here.

Note that I am likely to reformat, delete, or otherwise alter what appears here...

*Please* put Arbitration matters here[edit]

Pure Afrikaaner[edit]

Can you please stop vandalising pages? This is your last warning, or you will be blocked for 3 months Unsigned by PureAfrikaaner

Jdforrester, I got the same posting on my user page without any mention of what I'm vandalizing. I'd go so far as to say this dude's a troll or something... Cburnett 05:51, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So would I. I'm not particularly worrying about it. :-)
James F. (talk) 05:54, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Hi JD, I'm writing because you were one of the editors on the Arbitration Committee who voted regarding the ruling on LaRouche activism in Wikipedia; see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision.

If you have time, would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision? Herschelkrustofsky has initiated a query of the Arbitration Committee for clarification of their ruling. I agree that clarification is needed, because I feel the wording of the ruling has left loopholes that the LaRouche supporters are exploiting. I have therefore written up a long response to Herschelkrustofsky's query and have requested clarification from the Committee on three specific points, as I feel this is an opportunity to put the matter to rest. I wondered whether you'd be prepared to comment on the page. If you don't have the time or inclination, however, don't worry about it. Many thanks, Slim 04:05, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)[edit]

Hi, according to dispute resolution page, "Vandalism and flagrant violations of Wikipedia policies and behavior guidelines by repeat offenders may be handled using expedited procedures." behavior has been vandalism (he vandalized my user page three times) and for months flagrant violations of wiki policy of NPOV. Am I wrong there? OneGuy 06:23, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Looking at it further, I think that perhaps there is enough evidence of attempts to mediate, though not including Mediate, notably by Solitude.
James F. (talk) 11:20, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Greetings, Jdforrester. You have my endorsement for Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004, and you have therefore earned the Quadell seal of approval. Feel free to use this image, or not, as you like. (You won't hurt my feelings if you don't.) Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 04:58, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Umm... thank you! Hopefully yours won't be the only vote I accrue! ;-)
James F. (talk) 13:48, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A Message to my Fellow Candidate[edit]

The Arbitration Committee elections are almost here. I humbly ask for your vote in this election cycle. I have been a user of Wikipedia for over a year. I was here before the Community Portal, categories, or <tt>{{stub}}</tt>. I know how Wikipedia operates, and I am prepared to do my part to deal with problematic accounts. I wish to cut out the bureaucracy that makes our website stagnate. We need solutions to our problems now. If you want an arbitrator who believes in action, frankness, honesty, and fairness in every case, I am your arbitrator. Thank you for your time. You are under no obligation to answer this message.

--Paid for by Mero. for ArbCom


Hi, I was wondering if you might review the CheeseDreams request for arbitration and vote on whether to hear the case. john k 22:12, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that; my abstention had sat around for too long.
James F. (talk) 03:30, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One Question[edit]

In most legal situations, policemen whose conduct is undergoing criminal investigation tend to be temporarily suspended from duty.

Since Fred Bauder is currently undergoing arbitration himself as to his neutrality or accurate reportage, should he actually be allowed to take an active part in other cases?

CheeseDreams 18:28, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is not in the Arbitration Committee's powers to remove one of its members from the Committee, nor to suspend them.
If you think that this is worth pursuing, talk to Jimbo about it — he's the only one empowered to remove Arbitrators.
Personally, I think that, as the case involving Fred does not touch on his Arbitration duties, it is irrelevant to his duties on the Committee.
James F. (talk) 19:18, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fair play[edit]

According to the RfAr against me, these are the arbitrators

so why are you voting on the proposed decision? CheeseDreams 19:05, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Err, what?
The Arbitrators who accept a case are not the only ones who vote on a case; the only ones barred from doing so are the ones who have recused themselves (that is, in fact, what recusals mean).
James F. (talk) 23:42, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You might as well ban me now and get it over with.[edit]

How long? 30 days or 90 days? So much for my work on Australian articles and computing articles, and my attempts at fixing up Historicity of Jesus. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:54, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Err, whut? I voted against.
James F. (talk) 23:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sigh. It looks like I'm wrong (again). I must be having a bad day. I think it's time for me to logout. Sorry for the message. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:30, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. :-)
James F. (talk) 00:52, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

AndyL and Don[edit]

Wouldn't tempbanning me be a case of blaming the victim (or at least punishing the victim?) Why would anyone bring any matter to the ArbComm if doing so puts them at risk of being tempbanned for simply being a disputant? What, exactly, have I done to justify a tempban from *any* and all articles related to vexillology, fascism or Canada? If I've done nothing to justify such discipline (for what else would one call it) then how can the ArbComm justify such an act?AndyL 23:53, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

At the very least if there is a "temporary injunction" it should be restricted to the articles Red Ensign, Flag of Manitoba and Flag of Ontario as those are the only articles that have been the subject of dispute or, at most, all articles dealing with flags. Including any article related to Canada bans me from editing thousands of articles indefinitely and is uncalled for and excessively broad. As for fascism, the disputants have not been involved in any dispute on articles on fascism so having a temporary injunction on those articles makes as much sense as having one on all articles related to toxicology. AndyL 00:10, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If the purpose of the injunction is to halt the activity leading to the matter being arbitrated what is the purpose of including articles which are not the scene of dispute (or even activity) by both parties? Don's only interest in wikipedia has been in flag-related articles. What then is the purpose of including articles which do not relate to flags in the injunction particularly when I have now said that I will not engage Don during the course of the ArbComms deliberations no matter where he edits? The current injunction proposal has a greater impact on the activities of the complainant than it does on those of the respondant. How can that be justifiable?AndyL 13:32, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A note to my fellow Arbitrator Emeritus[edit]

(And fellow James, for that matter :-) -- I just wanted to drop you a note to say that I'm sorry the community didn't back your bid for've been a consistent and intelligent voice on the AC and your input and dedication will be badly missed. On the other you can get back to the fun of writing and editing here without worrying about accusations and evidence -- I, for one, am very much looking forward to it, and I hope you do as well! It was an honor and a pleasure to work with you, and truth be told, if I attempted to model myself after anyone on the AC in my short term of service, I think it must have been you (and I hope I emulated well enough). All my best to you this holiday season, Jwrosenzweig 22:21, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's a shame. I thought you made a good Arbiter this last year, and hope you will stand again in future elections. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:10, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

:( -- Cyrius| 00:58, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Scope of reading[edit]

"Only to the rabid fools who fail to act in a proper way in reading all relevent materials before acting." You said that. Have you read all relevant materials? Then what the hell are you thinking? VeryVerily 00:42, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez' Arb violation[edit]

As you were one of the arbitrators in the case, I picked you at random... Ruy Lopez has recently returned to Market economy, reverting to an old version by him without discussion on the Talk page (twice). I see that this is in violation of Remedy 4 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily, but the ArbCom decision ommitted declaring any particular enforcement clause for this. I'm not familiar with the standard procedure for complaints of violation, let alone how this situation should be handled. Can you enlighten me? Thanks muchly.  — Saxifrage |  02:11, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Other discussion elements[edit]

Royals' introduction formatting[edit]

Can I please ask you to explain what you meant in the comments on your edit of the Duchess of Gloucester page? Thanks Astrotrain 12:40, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From your own talk page, and standard practice around Wikipedia,
His Royal Highness The Prince A, Duke of X (A B C Windsor), styled HRH The Duke of X, is [...]
Conversely, you seem to prefer:
His Royal Highness The Prince A, Duke of X (A B C Windsor), styled HRH The Duke of X, is [...]
... which is not standard practice, nor policy-specified.
James F. (talk) 16:49, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh that. It seems a bit like splitting hairs to comment specificaly on the difference. I tried the bold italics on the HRH part as I think it is eaiser on the eye to have bold writting at the very begining rather than have standrad, bold, then bold italics. I don't really see what the fuss is about, I support this version of the intro over previous attempts, whether the small issue of bold italics is important or not. It is not something that I wish to argue over and no offence was ment, Astrotrain 22:20, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Succession boxes[edit]

Hello James. Just wanted to say good call on makingTemplate:Succession box two to one. I've listed it on the talk page over at Template:Succession box so that we can keep track of them all. Best, Mackensen (talk) 19:41, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

skin format[edit]

What are the benefits for using "id=toc" on navigation bars? Can you explan it? Thanks. Nevertheless I will change it. Mikegr 23:21, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the explaination. Mikegr 23:29, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Does MediaWiki stop the pages from containing multiple identical IDs, though? That breaks (X)HTML validity, innit… — OwenBlacker 20:11, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
AIUI, originally all Wikitax was converted by a proper lexer into XML and then transcoded (using XSLT or whatever) to correct XHTML, but this was removed because it was too slow, or something. *shrugs*. I dunno.
James F. (talk) 02:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

WikiMeet London[edit]

Twas good to meet you last night; hope to see you again sometime! — OwenBlacker 16:12, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)


Hi. Regarding your adminship on the commons. Since your number of edits there is low, I just wanted to check if the Commons:User:Jdforrester is indeed you. Theoretical it is possible for a troll to impersonate another well known user on the commons to gain admin rights that way. Let me know if you're you or not :) -- Chris 73 Talk 23:57, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

It is indeed me, as you can see from Kate's tool for name-checking.
James F. (talk) 00:29, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. Thats a cool tool by the way. I was just wondering if a troll could create a new user using a well known name of another wiki. I'll support your adminship -- Chris 73 Talk 02:23, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you.
James F. (talk) 03:45, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

I've already asked you about licensing of your pictures for the U.S. counties, and you agreed to allow them to be released under the "CC-by" license. Since then, I've run the rambot over the images and updated them to reflect that decision. For what its worth, User:Wapcaplet has released them under EVERY CC v.2.0 license. Since "CC-by" is the only commonality and I have no way of knowing who did which images, that is the one that works. You don't happen to know which images you created and which ones he created do you? That would be most useful to know if you have it, so I can additionally multi-license those which he did. I've also never really discussed multi-licensing all of your text contributions. Since I've been asking everyone, I'd thought I'd be thorough and ask you. Here is the "spam" message I've been giving, for your reference:

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:


Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk) 18:13, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure but I don't think that there's any way of knowing for sure which ones he created and which of them did I; also, I'm really rather unhappy with Share-Alike being touted as "free" - if people want to use such an unfree licence, they should at least have the decency not to falsely describe it, IYSWIM. However, given the evident inertia, and that cc-by-sa isn't any worse than the GFDL, I will license my rambot-page edits including images under that, and all edits under cc-by.
James F. (talk) 18:31, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Actually I've known that CC-by-sa is superior to GFDL, but I have not heard many objections to CC-by-sa, so I'm a bit unfamiliar with them. Feel free to fill me in on your thoughts. Ram-Man (comment) (talk)[[]] 21:11, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
The problem that I have with SA, like all copyleft licences, is that it restricts downstream users of the content, and so it is less "free". One can (and people oft, indeed, do) waffle on about how it ensures that things are "fair", and that it helps to avoid forks turning commercial, or unfree, but this belies a fundamental dislike of true freedom. As far as I care, people can do whatever they like with my content; I use CC-BY, BSD, and other such-like licences to keep alive outside of the EU my Common Law (and European Law) right to be identified as the author. CC-BY is equivalent to Public Domain for all intents and purposes in the EU, and that's how I like my work.
James F. (talk) 22:53, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RFC pages on VfD[edit]

Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:50, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unverified images[edit]

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following images:

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 21:58, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

Thanks; have listed them on IfD.
James F. (talk) 03:28, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

James, I removed it because the title, if it became extinct on her death, did so in 1459, not 1425. Moreover, Rayment's page ([1]) suggests that the earldom was acutally dormant, not extinct. Whichever is the case, I thought the page as it stood misleading. Mackensen (talk) 03:43, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Standard" nomenclature in succession boxes[edit]

elements cross-posted

As per your edit on Charles Clarke I revised Ruth Kelly. Could you check what I did at Secretary of State for Education and Skills and Secretary of State for the Home Department? -- Gregg 20:25, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, you were right the first time. We're perhaps overly formal in succession boxes.
James F. (talk) 20:35, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ArbCom elections[edit]

Oh! So close. Sorry you didn't make it into the ArbCom. You would have been a great arbitrator. But look at it this way: you now get most of the credit (by being just a few votes shy) but without any of the responsibility. Cheers! Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 18:08, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Sex is fun[edit]

Thanks Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 03:09, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nope I'm the one who pressed the wrong button. You did the right thing. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 03:12, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz's misbehaviour[edit]

Hi, according to this remedy (i.e. the fourth) in the recently closed arbitration case against Gzornenplatz et al., the arbitrated editors are required to discuss pages before making reverts to them, or risk being banned. As you will notice from these links, mentioned before on the evidence page, Gzornenplatz - while restricting himself to one revert a day - has in fact continued to revert without discussion for a number of image-articles during and after arbitration, effectively making around 20 reverts a day every few days, and causing other editors (ie me and a couple of others) a lot of uneccessary, time-wasting work over the past 2 months; if this could be stopped as soon as possible, it would be much appreciated. -- Simonides

Linking lesson[edit]

Thanks for your help making the links. I finally got it done the way I wanted it and posted it to Slashdot -- where it fairly quickly got modded up to 5 for Informative! [30] I appreciate your patience with my low level of computer knowledge. JamesMLane 02:49, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I notice that you voted keep for this article. I urge you to take a look at my analysis on the deletion page and perhaps reconsider based on the fact that this article may be misnamed original research. Indrian 06:35, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC) image[edit]

Actually, that image (Image:Harta Ocean Indian Quake.png) was created by User:Bogdangiusca. I left a message on his talk page. -- Curps 04:36, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Stop? Give up? Never![edit]

As the Chairman of the United States Vandalist Party, I will never stop vandalizing. It is my duty! It is my destiny! As the most popular political/philosophical group in Wikipedia, the Vandalist Party will continue to support anarchists and "chaoscrats"/"chaosans"/"chaosists". — Unsigned by

I've just made some edits to the article Prevention of Terrorism Act. As you've done a load of work to that article before, do you fancy casting a glance over them for POV-ness, please? A diff can be found at [31]. Thanks! — OwenBlacker 23:53, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. Whilst you not be the most anti-civil liberties, I'm certainly not the most anti-PIRA (or pro-British national identity card, for that matter), so a second opinion seemed like a good idea… :o) OwenBlacker 18:06, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)


Hi James.

I went to a first shop today (will go to a second tomorrow in hope to get better prices). Basically, they said they could accept any format...

However, they said the cards they were printing were 5.5 cm on 8.5 cm. Is that okay with the ones you made ? (I still cannot see them). Want to be sure. Thanks :-) SweetLittleFluffyThing

Who you are[edit]

You reminded me the other day that I once said you were a combination of three people, and we couldn't remember who those people were. It's just struck me. You, James, are a combination of Bernard Woolley, Stephen Fry, and Sir Humphrey Appleby. PeteVerdon

I've always said James was the combination of three people. ;) ed g2stalk 17:13, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


I just noticed in my watchlist, two Monty Python films were moved by Rdsmith to "[film name] has been vandalized!" and then immediately moved back by you. What happened?? --brian0918&#153; 16:30, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rename of London Underground Zones to Travelcard Zones[edit]


As you say, a shame you did not see this before. As you will see from the prior discussion on Talk:Travelcard Zone 1, the change was made in the knowledge that the zones affect more than Travelcards, but also in the light of the fact that Travelcard Zone seems to be TfL's preferred usage now that the zones in question no longer have any impact on bus fares.

I certainly could not support a change back to London Underground Zone n, as the zones have always had a much wider application than just on the Underground; even after their removal from the single-ticket fare equation on buses and trams they are still used used to determine single-ticket usage on the DLR, and Travelcard usage on all modes including LU, DLR, buses, trams and National Rail. Indeed my motivation for starting to discuss this was the dissonance of quoting a London Underground Zone for articles I was writing/amending on DLR and National Rail stations that were not part of the London Underground network.

If you can come up with a better name, lets discuss it on Talk:Travelcard Zone 1. I will make no further changes for a few days to enable you to do this. But be aware that I've already put in several man hours of changes to the new standard. -- Chris j wood 23:50, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

London Wikimeet[edit]

I think that the approach that you have taken is the right way to go, being bold works. Unfortunately the date you chose clashes with my brother's wedding, so I won't be able to make it. Give my apologies to everyone will you, and i'll see you at the next one (in the summer I should think) Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 16:19, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Public School[edit]

How does the different capitalization disambiguate? There are several U.S. school articles that would have been lead to the UK meaning if this had kept up. If we have to disambiguate through capitalization for some special reason, let's fix the links for the U.S. schools first. WhisperToMe 04:10, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Hi there. I think I'm gonna have to disagree with you about Attlee's FRS. See my thoughts on Talk:Clement Attlee. Cheers JackofOz 04:25, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Calcutta -> Kolkata name change[edit]

Hi there. I noticed you voted in the Wikipedia:Naming policy poll to keep the Wikipedia policy of naming an article with the most familiar English name. You may not be aware that another attempt has begun to rename the Calcutta article to Kolkata, which is blatantly not the most common name of the city, whether it's official or not. If you want to vote on the issue you can do so at Talk:Calcutta. Cheers. -- Necrothesp 14:04, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

cross-posted to talk pages

Hi. I've recently put Piccadilly Circus up on WP:FAC where there appears to be some support, but there was a call for a map to show where Piccadilly Circus is. I am thinking of using the map Image:London-CC-map-large.png but I want to make sure that your understanding of the reply from Greater London Authority regarding the use of the map (as shown on Talk:London_Congestion_Charge) gives us permission to modify the map (i.e., crop it) in accordance with the GFDL. Is this correct? Hope to hear from you soon. JuntungWu 16:53, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No; you can crop the image as much as you want, but it remains a CopyrightedFreeUse image.
James F. (talk) 21:32, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For my purposes I only need to have the ability to crop it. Thanks. JuntungWu 05:08, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Request to block[edit]

Hi Jdforrester, I noticed you warned back in September to stop vandalising, but he has steadily continued since that time. I notice his vandalism to biophilosophy remained for 40 days. All of his contributions that I browsed appear to be vandalism, except for a correction of a typo he made on great depression. I suggest he be blocked for the maximum amount of time. Also, for future reference, is there a more formal process for requesting a blocking? Thanks, --Nectarflowed 11:54, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The right place is Vandalism in progress. As he's not currently active, I won't block him just yet, but I will keep an eye on him. Thank you.
James F. (talk) 20:40, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Weird talk page[edit]

James, maybe you've noticed, but your talk page is in triplicate. I'd fix it, but then maybe it's this way for a reason. :-) Anyhow, thought I'd let you know. Jwrosenzweig 20:43, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gosh, I hadn't, actually. Thanks.
James F. (talk) 20:58, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)