text:
. Regards, — Moe ε  09:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And from a copyright perspective, there's nothing wrong with a mirror or fork that attributes us as its source. Nyttend (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

TPA is a write right, not a read right, so I think parties ought to be notifed, even if they have no TPA.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  20:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to say I'd be pretty surprised if a schoolkid could get the server capacity needed to host a full Wikipedia mirror. And if he copied 1,000 pages a day it would take him more than 10 years to copy just the articles we have now, before he even started on talk pages, project pages, archives... -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Psst! This is Negapedia. Uncle G (talk) 12:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw it - 140 pages so far! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a sneaking suspicion Penguin 236 is not the only account Mr. Shaking Lord has been using. Any checkusers about? 28bytes (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Extensive copying of enwiki content can also cause problems with circular sourcing &c in future. (I could point out a case where an editor made up a bunch of stuff, it got removed but not before being scraped by a third-party site, then the editor came back and restored the content, citing that third-party site as a source). However, I wouldn't lose much sleep over a site with 140 articles (some effectively blanked), one active editor, and no googlejuice. bobrayner (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The only active editor being..da da dun..Shakinglord himself. And as of today, they've given up on their silly little project. Blackmane (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Poo. Regards, — Moe ε  14:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for unblock review request
Sorry to bother you all, but we have an unblock request that's now 10 days old and with the exception of a minor interaction, no administrator has deigned to deal with it. If one of the mop-ers could take a look at it and resolve it one way or annother what would be wonderful. Hasteur (talk) 12:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)`
 * Heh ... just 'cos I'm not doing unblock reviews right now, doesn't mean the rest of you can't sneak in and do the job ;-P  dangerous panda  13:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ESAL, since you seem to be the only administrator who can be bothered to do anything currently, what would the appropriate period to wait on this talk page before I make a pointed repost at ANI? Hasteur (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

SPI backlog
Just a heads-up that over 40 cases are now piled up at WP:SPI, some dating back about 3 weeks. A few mops would do well to clean things up around there.... Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I wished I could help. Don't have the tools. Kumioko (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Try this backlog, then... no tools required! 28bytes (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible need for a deletion of edit summary
It seems like this might meet the criteria for a edit summary deltion. Kumioko (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Two things:
 * It is generally contrary to the idea of revision deletion to post in the most public possible forum to ask for it. Email or the talk page of anyone in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests is preferable
 * I don't see how this would qualify, it is the phone number and email of an organisation, not a minor child or unrelated private citizen.
 * I,am going to revert the edit though, something being known to members of a semi-secritive organization is obviosly not proper verification. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought that having the Phone number and Email address was sufficient to del the summary. Thanks for the link to that Category. Kumioko (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

RPP Backlog
Request for Page Protection has a larger backlog than normal. Can someone try to clear it out? Ryan Vesey 21:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Youreallycan

 * - Requests for comment/Youreallycan

Hi - looking for wide as possible input - I have made an offer and hope to resolve this with that offer without returning back to the drawing board - imo - its a good offer for me/you and the en wikipedia project in general - please review and comment - thanks - You  really  can  17:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

 * I am missing context here, who is this aimed at and what is this about? →Yaniv256talkcontribs 18:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm much more interested in some context on Yaniv256, who shows up a month ago with apparent full knowledge of Wikipedia (yeah, I know, you edited for a long time as an IP) and then is suddenly very prominent on the noticeboards. Very interesting, and worth watching to get that context. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I actually edited as an IP just 3-4 times and signed in as soon as I was reverted and asked to. I'm just fast. Is that so hard to believe? BMK, why don't you go over my contribs, start from the first ones, understand that this is my summer break and it will be over quite soon, and that human beings come in many varieties. And civilly apologize for the bad faith that is implied by your last post.

 * Oh, one last thing, please ask for a check user on me. I would do it myself, but that would get me blocked. Trust me, I would be grateful if you do. →Yaniv256talkcontribs 21:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Just one request. Please don't out me. It should be quite easy to find out who I am, but it would hurt my career if my colleges knew how I have been wasting my time. They are quite under the impression that writing papers is the meaning of life. →Yaniv256talkcontribs 21:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's easy to link Yaniv256 to an IP with around 35 edits, but not particularly helpful to do so. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you mind sharing that IP with me so I can check if they are really mine? I am on a university network, which I think is dynammic. You all know which university, but don't say! →Yaniv256talkcontribs 22:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

BMK, is there anything you would like to share with the community? →Yaniv256talkcontribs 23:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

RM backlog escape
The editors on 2007–2012 global financial crisis have an RM that is stuck in Requested moves limbo for almost a week. The page is kind of a high profile one so some favoritism seems in order. I'm posting this request here following a referal from the teahouse. →Yaniv256talkcontribs 18:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a form I can fill to get this thing going? →Yaniv256talkcontribs 00:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Just trying to get some attention here. →Yaniv256talkcontribs 01:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

 * I'd recommend posting at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, if you haven't done so already. Patience, Grasshopper.... Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? Because, a) It's an RM, not some general discussion and is already in the proper backlog, and b) There is only one poster in Requests for closure, suggesting it is effectively deserted. Do you have any other ideas? →Yaniv256talkcontribs 02:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh, getting more exposure wouldn't hurt. Maybe drop a line at WP:AN/I as well. Not within the scope of the board, yes, but at least it'll have a chance of being seen (even if only to be turned away officially there). Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but it is not important enough for me to get disruptive. The teahouse sent me here and for now I'll stay. While we are on the topic of getting admin attention, did you ever consider the fact that the first hit on a google search of bureaucracy is a Wikipedia page? →Yaniv256talkcontribs 02:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * W/e, not too worried about it. Just another system to learn the ins, outs, shortcuts, and hidden passages of. Ain't that life.... Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The following is addressed only at the 1,465 members of the admin class: What is wrong with you people? This is a clear consensus routine RM execution on a high profile page. You don't even bother to look? You sure seem to enjoy executing your powers in other cases, why not this one? No chance of block implies no fun? As an economist this is quite clear to me, without incentives there is no reason to expect effort. As a humen being I can't help but be somewhat disappointed and find the loops you guys jump through to protect your lifetime appointments quite tasteless. And please don't answer me. I am not here looking to make conversation. Just get the job done! →Yaniv256talkcontribs 05:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Be patient, mon - this has been here but a day. Someone will get to it when they get to it, and even though there is a pretty chart, anyone actually closing the discussion would still need to look at the actual comments and read through the thing themselves. This takes time, and that there is a backlog of these requests in general is evidence of that, but they do get done. Meantime why not go poke some other backlog youself? -— Isarra ༆ 06:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

 * And being abusive to people (who are all volunteers) is really not an effective way of asking them to help you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I went ahead and closed the discussion. Have spent a week trying to avoid doing so (who needs grief and, for Yaniv256, a 'slow to close discussion' usually implies that admins are trying to avoid grief) but somebody's gotta do it. --regentspark (comment) 13:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the initiative. Action was needed. I am just curious about one thing, is there any particular reason why you considered participating in the debate inappropriate? →Yaniv256talkcontribs 16:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, action was not "needed". Last time I checked there was a queue of over 200 RM's waiting to be closed.  Articles can still be edited whether they have the consensus-based title or not, so an RM is not an urgent action.  Nobody's RM is any more important than anyone else's RM.  Because there's no time limit on editing or renaming articles, patience is indeed a virtue.  Using up your "get out of jail free" card on an RM was a waste dangerous panda  17:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Is that what I used? I was positive I put my "get into jail free" card on the table, but have been known to err in such matters. →Yaniv256talkcontribs 20:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was a pretty dumb way to draw attention to the very non-urgent RM...you did almost get blocked for that, and rightly so. dangerous panda  19:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In my calculation if I got blocked that would only be good for me as it would clear my mind from the obsession to try and change that which seems wrong and mutable, but carries no private benefits for the reformer. Is that line of thinking truly alien to you? →Yaniv256talkcontribs 19:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Requesting your own block in order to draw attention to a non-urgent RM situation was disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, which you can note often carries an indefinite block dangerous panda 19:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, in my calculation even an indef block has possible downside only for Wikipedia. I, personally, have much to gain from such a "sanction". It will be a prize I have not yet earned, but a prize nonetheless. If I ever switch sides and claim that it is good for me to be here, please call the doctor because I havn't been taking my meds. →Yaniv256talkcontribs 20:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to be here, the solution is quite simple: go away. There's no requirement that you edit Wikipedia. In the meantime, stop fucking around. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, lets start from the basics. Please read the following with long long pauses, in the voice of your father, if he loved you, or your mother, if she did. What, in your view, is the proper notion of duty? Does it mean anything at all? Where are your duties? Would it be common for a duty to be pleasant and win one many friends? Does one often stand to gain personally from fulfilling his duties? Who defines your duties? What would happen if you disregard your duty? And finally, since it is likely that people like Hitler and Stalin operated under a strong sense of duty, how do you make sure that you are not making similar errors when carrying out your duty? →Yaniv256talkcontribs 05:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Enough, please. Black Kite (talk) 08:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Request Administrative closure of merge discussion at Talk:Mass (liturgy)
This discussion has been static for two months: only the proposer favoured the merge and three editors rejected it. There seems to be clear & well-founded arguments against merging, but as one of the involved editors I feel unable to close the discussion. Thank you Jpacobb (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Univolved admin
- needed for an SPI closure here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

BLOCK MEEE
I think I will never be editing Wikipedia again with this account.So, I am requesting you to block my account permanently to avoid misuse.BiologyArtist (talk) 10:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:BLOCKME. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 10:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. For several reasons besides user's own request. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

IP user giivng personal attacks
the ip user who has been posting here Talk:Rangers_F.C. and has said the same thing on ANI at one point in the last month

quote

"How can The Rangers have a rivalry with Celtic if they have never played them before or are even in the same division ? it does not make sense Andrew Crawford, oops sorry 'british watcher' — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)"

im not happy at the contunied assessertions i ma the user british watcher just because the content dispute being resolved in a way that doesnt suit there pov, im the focus of the attack because i was the one that steered the direction of content dispute-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 14:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That particular IP only has 3 posts and they were all on the 10th. In any case, I don't think this noticeboard is the place for the discussion. Maybe WP:AN/I, but without knowing what other IP addresses they've used, I can't say for sure. --Onorem♠Dil 15:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * here is the other ip

 * here is the original accusations they made :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive761#I_am_being_threaten_by_a_ip_userAndrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 16:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Background

 * Sockpuppet investigations/Peter Damian (Sockpuppet investigations/Peter Damian/Archive)
 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive44
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive554
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive555
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive209
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive214
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive222
 * message by Peter Damian to the Foundation-l mailing list on 2011-10-24
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive222
 * message by Peter Damian to the Foundation-l mailing list on 2011-10-24

Request by Volunteer Marek
Over at Wikipediocracy the topic of the Core Contest has recently been raised (in a positive manner). User:Peter Damian, who has been banned on Wikipedia, but who is a specialist in the field of late 13th century philosophy indicated that he would be interested in massively improving the Duns Scotus article for the contest. Duns Scotus is one of the top three medieval Philosophers, along with Aquinas and Ockham so the article definitely falls within the purview of the Core Contest.

It is my understanding that Peter was originally blocked for some mutually problematic interactions with another particular, single, user. Notably, AFAIK there has never been any question as to the quality and integrity of his content related edits in the Philosophy area, and importantly for this request, the “other user” involved in past conflicts with Peter has never edited or shown an interest in that particular article.

Hence, I would like to propose that Peter Damian is provisionally unblocked for the sole purpose of improving the Duns Scotus article. Effectively Peter would be “topic banned from all of Wikipedia EXCEPT the Duns Scotus article and its talk page” (and also his own talk page, since I think he’s not blocked from that either). He would work on improving the Duns Scotus article, hopefully get it up to GA or FA status, and then submit it to Core for review. If he does edit anything but the Duns Scotus article and its talk page, his block can be reinstated.

If all goes well, this would be an opportunity for Peter to show that he is capable of non-controversial participation in Wikipedia and after the contest ends we could have another discussion about whether the ban could be relaxed further. Volunteer Marek 16:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think something worth noting is that the history of his talk page notes that if he wants his talk page unprotected and/or wants to be unbanned, that he contact ArbCom. I don't a simple relaxing here would be appropriate without contact with them first. Regards, — Moe ε  16:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

 * As per above, this is outside the remit of ANI/the community as a whole. dangerous panda 16:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the (very quick) closure of the request here - Peter Damian wasn't banned by the ArbCom but at AN/I. Hence, it is within the scope of the community decision whether to allow this or not. Volunteer Marek 17:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the history here it seems the last unblock discussion took place at WP:AN, which is probably where this request should go, right? Volunteer Marek 17:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Unarchived; while Peter Damian was under arbcom sanction the ban was a community ban by ANI discussion. The community is per policy allowed to unban those it bans (arbcom is another appeal point, but we can undo anything we can do). Unarchived on this procedural basis. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Should it stay here or be taken to WP:AN? Volunteer Marek  18:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Formally AN, but we've allowed discussions starting here to stay here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Support conditional unban: Peter Damian (under whichever account he chooses - but just that one) should be allowed to edit Duns Scotus, over the next couple of weeks, upon which his efforts should be evaluated and a full unban should be considered.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as proposer. Volunteer Marek  20:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:BEANS. We shouldn't condone editors evading their bans to disrupt Wikipedia to win a contest. Per below. Regards, — Moe ε  20:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Dude, chill out. He's not "disrupting Wikipedia to win a contest". He's trying to improve an important article. If it makes you feel better, we could just say that if he does somehow win the Core Contest, his winnings (which I think are like 20 bucks or something) will be donated to Wikimedia foundation. Volunteer Marek 20:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * He's not? His article choice was rejected in part as it wasn't a tier 4 article, to which he promptly quit promising "mainstream press" about Wikipedia article quality, then reverted his edits to the article he intended to help by reinserting misinformation. What part of that is helpful? Regards, — Moe ε  20:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It was not "rejected" (I think it's hard to get an entry "rejected" from that contest) - someone just pointed out it wasn't on the Tier 4 list. The subsequent discussion on the talk clearly indicates that people think the article is certainly significant. Volunteer Marek 01:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me rephrase, then. Peter felt it was rejected based on a judges opinion, to which he quit and then redacted all his edits to the article. Regards, — Moe ε  01:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

 * That's unfortunate, but also easily correctable. This is a Wiki and editable.  Why not try to talk to the guy.  He obviously wants to play on the Wiki but is also pissed off at the shunning. Don't make it all some all or nothing, decide it now, drama.  Give the man a chance and try to make it work.TCO (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Support For this very specific editing purpose that I believe Wikipedia would benefit from, as Peter Damian can easily be acknowledged as being an expert on the subject of Scotus. I should add that he should also be allowed to edit the Core Contest entry page, obviously, and also be allowed to respond to any dispute resolution processes that are started directly about him. Silver  seren C 21:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support It's been years. Nobody Ent 22:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Subject matter expert wants to improve article.  Please let him. Antandrus  (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible oppose. Looking through the behavior when he was banned, there seems ample evidence that this is somebody the encyclopedia does not need - and given that he's still socking right now it's blatantly obvious that he has not reformed in the least. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I will never support unbanning this editor. His past behavior showed a level of malice of the sort that does not go vanish over time, and his capabilities make him too dangerous to fool around with. Looie496 (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * and his capabilities make him too dangerous to fool around with - what, he shoots lasers from his eyes? Volunteer Marek  01:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * He's way more dangerous than that. Count Iblis (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I might just love you for that reference. Arkon (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Support for a valuable contributor, provided Peter drops any vengeful agenda he may have against various editors and administrators. I've seen a lot worse than Peter get second chances...Modernist (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose for two reasons: 1) per The Bushranger - Peter has a long record of causing problems, and appears to be clearly acting in bad faith 2) if Peter wants his ban lifted, he needs to apply for it himself, and make appropriate commitments himself as part of this. VM doesn't state that he's acting as Peter's proxy in this matter, and even if he was this would be unacceptable. Nick-D (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I linked to the Wikipediocracy discussion above, which should be sufficient. And I'm not sure what exactly is supposed to be "unacceptable" here (did you mean "even if he was not"?) Volunteer Marek  01:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If he wants to be blocked, he can make a genuine request by emailing ArbCom per the usual arrangements for banned editors whose talk page has been turned off. His posts on Wikipediocracy makes no meaningful commitments to stick to a single article or behave in an acceptable fashion, and it appears that this is entirely about proving some kind of point about how foolish Wikipedia is by not letting him contribute. Nick-D (talk) 06:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.png|15px]] unban. Yeah, the dude is not perfect, but who is.  This ban crap is much more about some sort of social forum shunning game than really defending the editorial content process at Wiki.  Makes me sick.  Let the guy in.TCO (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Peter Damian does not appear to understand why he is banned, and says at Wikipediocracy, "It would be newsworthy if I were blocked for trying to improve the Wikipedia article on Scotus." While it is unfortunate that the Scotus article has been neglected, I can forsee conflict.  TFD (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Oppose First, we should be considering the interests of the encyclopedia; it is obvious from this individual's statements elsewhere, that the interests of the encyclopedia are not why he wants to edit the article in question. Second, banned really does mean banned, and creating extra sockpuppets to get round a ban, does not result in the lifting of that ban. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Support, Hell, full-unban him and welcome him to the Re-Established Editors Association. PD's a sharp guy and will do good work. Remember? Project. Build Encyclopaedia. Anyone Canz Edit. I've seen a lot worse than 'Peter' editing without restriction. And nobody go and block him; ya might piss him off (oh, right, that would be the intent). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ambox content.png nb: Article needs attention from an expert on the subject.

 * Oppose, I was ready to support this, but revelations that he's still socking despite a ban scotched that. If he's not willing to follow the "don't edit when banned" rule, what other rules is he not willing to follow?  Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC).

 * Oppose - Are we not yet tired of having our chain yanked by people like this? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Oppose unban. Why should he get an unblock just for his own personal gain? Jtrainor (talk) 08:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * because in this case his gain is also wikipedias gain.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

 * I've no opinion about this particular editor's history or merits, but on general principles, oppose unban of any banned editors who are actively socking (as per the section below).  Sandstein   14:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Life can be very lonely if you live by such a black and white rule book. "I've no opinion...but rules is rules". Ceoil (talk)

 * Perhaps Peter could rewrite the Scotus article in wiki format and post it, cc-by-sa, somewhere off Wikipedia (Wikipediocracy?). If it's an improvement, an editor in good standing may replace the existing article with it, or parts of it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Comment - As a pro-WP active Wikipedian who also posts with some regularity at Wikipediocracy, I just want to share a couple thoughts for what they are worth. There are a range of anti-WP folk who post there who range from frustrated barred editors to out-and-out jihadists seeking the day in which they can dance on the grave of a completely annihilated Wikipedia. Do not act presumptively and treat them all like the latter, it only fuels the hatred. Strive for both calmness and rationality in decision-making. Even if the answer is "no thank you," make sure to do the legwork to provide a rational basis for that opinion. Carrite (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Support. Note that he could remained blocked; he can then contribute from his talk page. Count Iblis (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Comment My take is that Peter is a very capable and knowledgable editor, who got eaten up and thrown to the wolves as part of a personality driven power struggle. Which is now irrelevant; it was friggin eons ago in internet years, and most of the principals are long gone. There is a clear need for people like him here, and any keeping the block in place is self defeating and feeds adigation. Ceoil (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Strongest possible oppose. I'm shocked that this is even being considered. "Peter Damian" has behaved appallingly towards multiple editors, including myself. Even though he and I had never previously quarrelled, as far as I'm aware, he gratuitously and vindictively posted personal information about me off-wiki to assist the campaign of a banned editor who had carried out multiple campaigns of harassment against others. He knew perfectly well what he was doing and that he was likely to cause harm by doing so. He has never apologised or even expressed regret for his actions, which forced me to abandon my previous account here. If he had not already been indefinitely blocked, I have no doubt that he would have been for his actions. This individual is utterly unfit to be a member of this community. If someone is foolish enough to unblock him I guarantee that he will spend more time before Arbcom answering for his actions than he will on editing any articles. Prioryman (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * thats a fairly brutal accusation there Prioryman; lets me understand this correctly, once an editor is blocked, NPA is off, and you can say what the hell you like, with no need for diffs to back up the claims? My openion is you should be blocked yourself now, for this. "likely to cause harm". Jesus. "forced me to abandon my previous account here". Right. Your unsupported mud sticks tactic is getting tired. Ceoil (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If he is unblocked then there will be evidence aplenty in an arbitration case against him. I wouldn't be saying this if I didn't have a leg to stand on. I'm not providing diffs here because of the privacy issue. As for NPA, truth is an absolute defence. Prioryman (talk) 07:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, ChrisO/Prioryman/Helatrobus continues his favorite tactic of accusing others of "campaigns of harassment." Prioryman used the same tactics on behalf of a friend in a recent arbcom case, rather amazingly avoiding fresh sanctions on top of his long history of sanctions under previous accounts. Good for him. Still sleazy as hell though. Here's how it ended for his friend, who favored the same tactics .Bali ultimate (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is ChrisO allowed to still spin unsupported untruths like this with so little challenge or you know, diffs. This is exactly like the unsupported PA's that let Fae damage other editors for so long. If ever there was argument for a damaging blind spot on wiki <hear no evil; or we will will grind you with solipsism>, here, this. Ceoil (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Oppose I'm with Prioryman on this one; this is an appalling idea. As has been noted, most effectively and concisely by Bushranger, this is not a teenager who has now matured. This is someone whose effect on the encyclopedia has been overwhelmingly negative, and I see no reason to think that would change. KillerChihuahua ?!? 00:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support For the exact limited proposal. That some regard him as being on an eternal "anathema list" should not mean we never use him for limited purposes.  Heck - the Pope even preached at a Lutheran church.   We ought not be less forgiving, ought we? Collect (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the pope anology, there have been two active popes at times ;) Ceoil (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Strong Oppose - simply put, no one who is actively evading their ban should be unbanned. I'd be willing to consider an unban if Peter Damian could demonstrate that he understands and is willing to abide by our policies, but the fact that he's continuing to evade his ban using sockpuppets demonstrates his continued unsuitability for Wikipedia. If he's not willing to show any respect for us and our rules, why should we show any respect for him? There are some who are able to learn from their mistakes and change themselves, and some who aren't, and Peter Damian has sadly demonstrated he's in the latter category. Robofish (talk) 02:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - I've read a number of his articles and find them to be impressive. We need content editors of his caliber. I have no idea of the background. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - banned is banned, and this proposal is in direct conflict with that ban; the community weighed his contributions then against his behaviour and considered it an acceptable loss, so we really should stick to that consensus unless we actually intend to reverse it in full. Unfortunately, while this would be the place to discuss doing that, he apparently hasn't exactly made a very good case for himself in the meantime for that, either. -— Isarra ༆ 07:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Creating content is what we're here for, but the only way that works in the long run is if everyone plays by the same rules. AFAICS, PD is utterly recalcitrant and continues to either directly act towards or to agitate for disruption to the project. That is quite different from the likes of Br'er, whose return to good graces was due to his having ceased the behaviour which caused him to be originally sanctioned. There is nothing preventing PD from going that same route, and we essentially standardised the process years ago. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose If a banned user is currently (or quite recently) socking, they are basically letting us know they aren't willing to play by our rules. I'd favor the "standard offer" being open to this user, but those conditions clearly aren't met at this time. Even editors who have been abusive in the past (Jack/Br'er) are allowed to return if they can keep their nose clean for a good long while.    Hobit (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Conditional support. Can somebody tell me if hi socks are disruptive? If no, I see no reason not to extend WP:OFFER. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OFFER doesn't apply to users who are actively socking, he would need to stop doing that first. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that this isn't a proposal to completely unban him. It's a proposal to just unban him for a single article. Volunteer Marek 17:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've made that sort of deal with him before and found that he was  unwilling to abide by it. Nobody has brought up anything here to change that impression, quite the opposite. We banned him, and he chose to ignore that as well. He has no respect whatsoever for Wikipedia's consensus based model. He has made  that abundantly clear again and again. That's fine, he doesn't have to like it, and we don't have to unban him. I don't buy all this hogwash about how we will never have a good article on these subjects if we don't let him do it personally. That's complete nonsense. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But this just isn't true. I don't see any kind of "deal making" there. You unblocked his talk page access because there was a discussion on ANI (your first diff). While unblocked he posted suggestions for article improvement (!) on his talk page. Then some one else got in a huff and said "oh noes, we can't have suggestions for article improvement beying posted to this talk page!" and reblocked him (your second diff). As far as I can tell the actual suggestions for article improvement were good ones. And that same admin who insisted on reblocking him simply for making article improvement suggestions on his talk page went and deleted a whole bunch of completely legit and well written articles, simply because Peter was the one who edited/wrote them. These deletions also had to be undone - creating much unnecessary work and drama in the process - quite simply because they were improvements to the project. So, no, there was no "deal" that he somehow broke, rather as User:WJBscribe said at the time "If what someone chooses to do while banned is write decent content, then I think that's a pretty clear indication we made a mess of things in the first place." . It's this same mentality as described by WJBScribe (and at this point probably a bit of personal grudges) that are the clear roadblock here, not Peter Damian. Volunteer Marek 22:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I know what the diffs are. The first one is me telling him he is unblocked from his talk page for the sole purpose of appealing hos block and nothing else. Thesecond is him being reblocked because he did everything but the one thing the talk page unlock was intended to let him do. Whether his ushgestions were valid or not is not the point. An arrangement was made to allow him to do something, and he did something else instead. I see no reason to believe he won't do it again. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Support. Drmies (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hell no. This person's only interest in Wikipedia is as a platform for his own opinions and his own activism. Guy (Help!) 08:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Allowing him to build up that article sounds like a nice idea. He's not diseased or anything, pretty sure you can let him touch an article without it destroying Wikipedia.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - In my opinion this is a skilled editor with specialist knowledge that would be a plus for the project. I challenge opponents to actually take a look at the editor's previous contributions. If disruption takes place in any form, I don't doubt there are a legion of editors and administrators ready to swarm. Carrite (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: There is no place whatsoever on WP for a block-evading user that was blocked for very good reasons. Unblocking would bring no benefit to the project. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Don't see the harm if he's restricted to a specific article that needs work. Opposing that is like cutting off our nose to spite our face—at least if we're serious about wanting to be a competently written encyclopedia.  J N  466  13:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose of course Peter Damien should be welcomed back. But first we need assurances that he has reformed sufficiently to be trusted here. Six months without socking would be a start, though we also need assurances that he will comply with the rest of the rules here. But allowing him back to edit one specific article is the wrong approach - we don't dispute his competence, he was banned despite being a subject matter expert not because of it. Letting him back to edit one article would be an appropriate return route for an editor banned for copy vio or lack of competence, it isn't the right route back for him.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Did he engage in sockpuppetry before he was banned? If not then I do not think sockpuppetry should be used to argue against lifting his ban.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What utter nonsense. We hold it against blocked users all the time, every day, if they evade their block. Evding a ban is even worse. What is the argument here, that he is such a valiable comtributor tha the rules should nto apply to him? That he ignored his ban because he knows we need him to keep going? What? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Oppose Not worth the potential disruption. wctaiwan (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible sock
Well, I just found this: Sporadic edits between 2010 to now, including edits to talk page of Jimbo. Peter Damian writes on Wikipediocracy on August 9: "I'm thinking about entering on behalf of the beleaguered article on Duns Scotus (T-H-L). Not actually listed as vital, but current academic view is that Scotus ranks in the top three medieval philosophers (together with Ockham and Aquinas) in terms of notability, and probably is in the first position, so it should be there." The same day on August 9, Quisquiliae returns to editing and writes in User:Quisquiliae/sandbox: "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy both agree that Scotus is up there with Aquinas and Ockham as the three most important philosophers of the High Scholastic period (c. 1200-1350)." and then proceeds to make sweeping changes to the Duns Scotus article mentioned, entering it on The Core Contest/Entries for the above mentioned contest. He also messaged Casliber, another participant in the Wikipediocracy thread, about editing the Scotus article. WP:DUCK seems to be quacking with this one. Regards, — Moe ε  16:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Sock confirmed, User:Quisquiliae is banned editor User:Peter Damian posting on Wikipediocracy "Oh well Scotus has been disallowed " and "So this towering giant of the Western intellectual tradition is not allowed on a list that includes Bing Crosby" in reply to his message as Quisquiliae. Any administrator willing to block this sockpuppet of Peter's for evading his ban? Regards, — Moe ε  19:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Seems to be a fairly poor idea to block Peter Damian or his sock for trying to improve the article which is the topic of his professional expertise. Bound to send a bad message to potential expert editors. Has User:Quisquilliae caused any problems on wiki? Any disruption? Any block worthy behavior? Would we really be helping wikipedia by blocking him, or might this be one of those occasions where adherence to the rules are an obstacle to the improvement of the encyclopedia?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Any block worthy behavior?" How about being a block-evading sockpuppet of a community banned editor? That's all the reason needed, full stop. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If he's banned, he's banned. There's no point in having a banning policy and community ban discussions if we're just going to close our eyes to violations of the ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Au contraire There is no point in keeping people banned if their not being banned would benefit the encyclopedia. The rules are useful when they are useful - when they are not they are not. In this case it seems to me that disallowing an expert from editing the particular topic of his expertise will be harmful both to wikipedia's content and its reputation. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Letting somebody who disrupted the encyclopedia to the point of being given the boot by the community freely sockpuppet and get away with it scot-free will harm Wikipedia's content and reputation far more than blocking the block-evading sockpuppet ever could. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is plainly silly. And false. Letting somebody who sockpuppeted to improve an article, actually improve that article "legitimately" will clearly NOT "harm Wikipedia's content and reputation far more" than, well, than pretty much everything else. How exactly would it? This is just empty hyperbole. Look, not all sock puppets are created equal. Some people sock puppet to insert vandalisms into articles, some sock puppet to win a content dispute, and some sock puppet to gain an admin-ship after being disgraced. This is none of these. This was sockpuppeting just simply in order to improve an article. "Full stop". You can scream "them's the rulez!!!" as loud as you want, but mostly you just make yourself sound close minded and silly, especially since commons sense (and WP:IAR) clearly indicate the opposite. Volunteer Marek 00:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe accusing Jimbo of enabling theft is exactly the most appropriate behavior. On wiki, that is probably the only unhelpful of edits (all the edits in that conversation to be exact). Off-wiki is another matter, because he gives his intention to cause disruption to Wikipedia on the Wikipediocrasy thread because his article wasn't chosen. He was banned in the first place because he was disruptive and he caused disruption with sockpuppets to the point the community got sick of him. Since his article wasn't chosen for the contest, he went and reverted all his edits to the article back to a previous revision. He only wanted to participate in productive article writing since there was an award incentive and since he can't win, he doesn't care anymore. He has no intention of helping Wikipedia, it is quite apparent, and Quisquiliae needs to be blocked for evading his ban. Regards, — Moe ε  20:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * However, if he's unbanned by community discussion, that's a different matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Until then, Quisquiliae needs to be blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Might be best to lay out the previous discussions (has no-one linked to them yet?) So we have a community ban discussion here from this enforcement request from this discussion. There will be more. I do think it needs to be considered with all the background on the table. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Been thinking about this as this has been discussed by the arbitration committee at some point (can't remember exactly when and I need to refresh my memory). It is worth noting that many of the discussers of the community ban are no longer actively editing, and this issue could be considered as deriving from an arbitration process. Furthermore I think some history needs to be absorbed by folks considering this. My initial question would be whether the community wants further discussion to be by the committee or by the community. So that'd be a good question to sort out first. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of material from the Arbcom mailing list on Wikipedia Review. It should let you find when things happened.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

 * I tend to think that ArbCom need to be involved at some level, since that was the root of the issue, and there seems to be a bit more than meets the eye going on. If he was socking (which has not been "confirmed" as far as I can tell, at least per the standards at WP:SPI/CU) that would complicate matters.  I don't have an opinion on the unbanning although I'm obviously for bringing back highly skilled (but policy respecting) editors, but I think it does need more than a day's worth of chat at WP:AN.  Dennis Brown -  2¢    ©   Join WER 22:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a lot more than meets the eye, here. Casliber was quite right above.  This is one of those things that has years of accumulated history.  I put the background in above — because I had the same thought as Casliber at about the same time.  There are several things that I did not put in.  Some will just stir up issues that I'm sure we're all sick of hearing about.  But others are things like, , , , , and , only one of which is even on the SPI casepage, notice.  The SPI case isn't the whole of the matter, by any means.    Uncle G (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Not sure why nobody else was willing to block this self confessed sockpuppet, but it is done now. Obviously I oppose unbanning anyone who is actively evading their ban. We set a very bad precedent here recently by letting someone get away with this. I said at the time that it would only lead to more banned users and WP:LTA cases trying the same thing, and here we are already. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

 * I will give notice here that if "Peter Damian" is unblocked I will bring him to arbitration for his off-wiki campaign of outing and harassment against me. This is not just a sockpuppeteer, people, there have been very much nastier things going on here. Prioryman (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * An interesting position, indeed. Collect (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Especially considering Prioryman's own history. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Message from Quisquiliae
He left a final response here. To some extent, I agree with him. Silver seren C 11:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Why was he banned?
Could someone give an executive summary of why he was banned? (But a somewhat longer summary than him being a nuisance). I remember trying to figure this out after I came across a note by a valued colleague who stated he left WP because, among other things, the "situation with Peter Damian," but soon gave up after having to follow a whole mess of linked discussions. I wasn't even able to figure out whether he left because PD was banned or because he wasn't banned soon enough. (Upd.: I'm now pretty convinced it was the former.) The discussions Casliber mentioned above also seem to be from after the situation had apparently escalated. —Ruud 19:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * He was banned several times for a variety of reasons; however enough time has passed - he has a clear capacity to create high quality content - and the time has come to give him another shot at editing with perhaps a few provisos from arbcom. That seems fair given the recent return of a couple of problematic editors who are now making significant and positive contributions again, (thorny persona and all)...Modernist (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem here of course is that history is repeating itself. See archive 214 of this very noticeboard.  What happened there is what's happened here:  An unban is requested by a third party.  People discover that sockpuppetry to evade the ban was ongoing at the time.  They object because of that.  Peter Damian withdraws the request.  It happened there.  It's just happened here.  History has repeated itself more than once on this, and not only when it comes to the unban requests.  Uncle G (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No. No-one can do that.  There is, at this point, some six years of history here.  Peter Damian's first edit using an account was in June 2003 and things went bad in 2006.  The six years since cannot be boiled down into a short "executive summary".  The history here includes a whole lot of things including (a) the Wikipedia-promotes-paedophilia dispute, (b) Peter Damian's interations with other editors, (c) a ban by Jimbo, (d) the whole FT2 incident including accusations levelled at FT2 and legal threats, (e) the Foundation-l mailing list ban, (f) the current Ash/Fae incident, (g) currently ongoing disputes over images at Commons, (h) currently ongoing disputes with Wikimedia UK, (i) breaching experiments (reported by SlimVirgin in 2010), and (j) the off-wiki "destroy Wikipedia" incident.  With the best will in the world, Ruud Koot, the only answer here is to do the reading.  Uncle G (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Just noting that Uncle G's reference above to "breaching experiments (reported by SlimVirgin in 2010)" isn't quite correct. I proposed in 2010 here that Peter Damian be unblocked, and within that proposal there was reference to past incidents that might be described as breaching experiments. I've asked Uncle G to strike that part of his post in case it gives the impression that I opposed an unblock, but he hasn't, so I'm leaving this note instead. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

 * I think that "further reading" only shows how ridiculous Wikipedia can be at times. For example the "destroy Wikipedia" incident, from the comment by the closing administrator (and current arbitrator) User:Xeno: Peter has been unblocked and has been asked not to destroy, or attempt to destroy, Wikipedia. Similarly, several folks have admonished Law for blocking a user for off-wiki hyperbole. Nothing more productive shall come of this discussion. Note also that of course, Law who did the blocking of Peter that time, got desysopped, sock puppeted, got adminned again then had to be blocked and desysopped again (and original account indeffed ). Of course THAT user is still merrily editing away as if nothing happened. I think Peter has much to contribute, so why doesn't he get another chance? What's the difference? Lack of powerful friends?
 * Additionally, like I said in the proposal, while there was some trouble with FT2, FT2 has *never* expressed interest in the Duns Scotus article, so that shouldn't be an issue. Volunteer Marek  22:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it ironic that you try to drag the whole Law/undertow thing into this. You left out the part about the undertow being banned for six months, and the two admins we lost because they did not reveal that they knew he was a sock. So the real precendent here is that we do not put up with block evasion, even if you do have so called "powerful friends." Beeblebrox (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Ironic" how? It was brought up by someone else above, more or less as a "you should look into the background" kind of thing - so yeah, the background should be looked into. But it's apples and oranges. One guy - Law/Undertow - was evading a ban (with full knowledge of some "powerful friends") in order to essentially get the admin powers back so he could start abusing these privileges. The other guy - Peter Damian - evaded a block to ... improve a freakin' important encyclopedia article! And that's what he did. Do you have your priorities straight here? This ain't facebook, it's still an encyclopedia. Volunteer Marek 02:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume the irony would be if you were aware of his socking. In that case you'd be bring up a case where others were punished for not reported known socking of a banned user. Not sure if ironic is the right word though... Hobit (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that it is possible to eliminate the problems regarding interactions with other editors. Just keep him blocked and giving him access to his talk page, so that he can put whatever he wants to edit there and someone else can take move that to article space. Count Iblis (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a reasonable proposal. Volunteer Marek  02:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps whitelisting pages for him to edit via requests on his talkpage? If he wants to edit something (mainspace or otherwise), he can make a formal request on his talkpage to be reviewed by an admin. If he edits a page without approval, he could be subject to varying warnings and sanctions. Idk, maybe a bit bureaucratic, but might alleviate concerns of renewed disruption. But that would be just an editing restriction; any unban should come from community discussion. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't need anyone who would require that level of supervision to be able comtribute without causing drama. And what you are suggesting would be unbanning. By banning user, the community is stating that no matter how good their contributions are, they are outweighed by the problems assosciated with them. I don't see any indication that the problems with PDs behavior are resolved, instead I see gullible users playing right into his hands by suggesting that he, and he alone, is the only person who could fix this article and we must construct some byzantine structure to allow him to edit it or the project is doomed. I can't believe you folks can't see that you are being suckered. This is exactly what he wants, to be held up as the expert white knight who doesn't need to observe community norms because he is too valuable to be restricted by them. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Snip, snip, snip! If you had read carefully, you'd find that that that was not an unban proposal at all: "any unban would come from community discussion". Punkt. What I detailed was an idea for an editing restriction should he be unbanned that would hopefully address concerns of all sides here. I don't have many ponies in this parade at all; I was merely throwing out some musings of mine after passively watching this thread develop. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked from user talk page
Is there a serious negative to allowing Peter to edit his talk page for the purpose of rewriting the article? Let's face it: it wouldn't exactly be difficult to reblock him, even on flimsy grounds, given his history here. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Ed, I think that there is - he's been socking, and this 'request' from him appears to have the motivation of proving some kind of point (from what I can be bothered reading on Wikipediocracy, he seems to view his ban as evidence that Wikipedia is unwisely preventing supposed experts such as himself from contributing). As such, enabling talk page access would validate his approach. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's time to let this vindictiveness go and move forward in a positive direction - if he screws up again - he'll be closed down again; let's have some light and lighten up here...Modernist (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't just about socking, he's also participated in deliberate off-wiki outing and harassment of Wikipedians. There's no way that he should be allowed to resume any involvement in this project without at the very least an apology and a guarantee that he will never do it again, and even then, to be honest, I would be leery. Prioryman (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to add that Prioryman is correct here. Earlier this year he was banned from UK Wikimedia chapter-run events (excluding London meetings) because of this. Dougweller (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please be a little careful; I believe Peter disputes those assertions heavily, and that the emails in question were removed from the mailing list archives because they were, basically, slanderous. I have no idea of the merits of his case, or his ban, but throwing out such comments - which people far more "in the know" than you or I judged a legal risk - seems, at the least, a case of poking the bear. --Errant (chat!) 14:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I also believe that he has been told that he is welcome to attend WMUK events. John lilburne (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I may not have kept up to date, I'm just reporting what I have in my emails. If he's actually been told he is welcome to attend WMUK events, I apologise. I'm not trying to stir and I know that he has had friendly contact with the chapter more recently. Dougweller (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The thing with chapters is that they do not consider blocking or banning from any WMF project as a reason not to deal with somebody who might have money to donate. I can't believe things have devolved here to the point where we are once again considering letting an active sockpuppeteer, in this case one whose stated purpose is to try and embarass this project, get unbanned by violating the terms of their own ban. We are giving him exacrty what he wants by even having this discussion. Until he is ready to stop socking and to use the proper channels to request a lifting of sanctions I don't believe we should even be talking about this. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We should focus on the editing of Wikipedia. It is precisely because other irrelevant things are taken into account that Wikipedia can be gamed so easily. Assuming that Peter cannot be let back in because of the problems mentioned above, if he can work on some article via his talk page in a constructive way, we should let that happen. The lifting on sanctions requiring a change of attitude from him should be considered a separate matter. Count Iblis (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox; I know nothing about the circumstances (and no one has posted any detail, apart from a very hand wavy overview) so I can't comment on whether he should be unblocked. However I was aware of the situation with WMUK and was commenting on the allegations made here, which the charity has (as far as I can make out) rescinded. --Errant (chat!) 19:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The allegations above by Prioryman and Dougweller are not true and they should stop repeating them. Cla68 (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, I actually have a copy of the original email announcing his ban. Are you saying that I am lying about the contents? Dougweller (talk) 08:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the issue here is that Wikimedia UK later retracted the allegations they made in that e-mail (actually going to the trouble of removing the mail from the list archive), and that therefore it is not a good idea to rehash them. Jon Davies and PD worked hard to put this behind them, and it's therefore disappointing to see it raked up again.  J N  466  13:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Doug; I'm happy that you were aware of the email that was sent, but unaware of the subsequent follow up (which you can read about at WO if you like). Having now been appraised of that, however, it would behove you to stop pursuing it, I think, as you are skating very thin ice. --Errant (chat!) 14:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Alternative Suggestion
Why not try an idea of Durova, which was done successfully for ScienceApologist? (In 2009, with the article Optics.) Peter Damian would write a better article on Duns Scotus in his user space on Wikisource, using the current article as a starting point. Then, if the resulting article was indeed greatly superior to the current one, the new article would be moved to the current one. I seem to remember that there were issues with which made the move non-trivial, but they were solved. I don't know what the issues were, but likely Durova would since, as I remember, she worked for a while on solving them. Cardamon (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ScienceApologist and Peter Damien are both talented editors. The question is not so much whether either is capable of contributing useful content as whether that content outweighs the disruption and whether it is feasible to steer the editor toward behaviors that put less strain on community volunteer resources.  ScienceApologist worked in controversial subjects and was baitable.  He basically needed a more positive/uncontroversial path to reduce interpersonal conflict. It took considerable energies to mentor with a few lessons learned along the way that I would gladly share with any editor who undertakes mentorship in a similar situation.  Yet are these two situations are similar enough to apply the same solution?  ScienceApologist accepted community norms in principle; his problem was overstepping the line when other people's poor conduct tried his patience.  Mentorship has its place, but I stopped mentoring in part because its use broadened until it burned out mentors with no appreciable good for the project or anyone in it.  An editor who has no intention of abiding by site policies will almost always accept mentorship as a way out of sitebanning, and then attempts to maneuver the mentors into becoming a buffer between unacceptable conduct and its normal consequences.  The purpose of this type of undertaking should always be to help an editor adapt to Wikipedia, not vice versa.  Durova  412 01:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well said. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The ultimate purpose of any activity to do with Wikipedia should be to improve what people learn when looking for information on the internet. If working with some individuals in special ways achieves this without too much of an overhead, then the undertaking is worthwhile.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Without too much of an overhead" being the core problem here. Note that even the intial proposal does not support an actual unban, just a limited one under close supervision. Peter isn't stupid or incompetent, he doesn't just need a little guidance, he knows exactly what he is doing. If he can't be trusted to control himself if he were completley unbanned then we are better off without his contributions, no matter their quality. There are plenty of other users who manage to make high quality contributions without being a constant source of drama, without feeling the need to resort to sockpuppetry, and without deliberately trying to embarrass this project. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Dougweller outing vio
Dougweller just outed Peter Damian's real name on wiki. Admins, please correct his behavior. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise it wasn't known here. I've rec/del'd it. What happened was that Cla68 accused me of making up allegations and I posted the email (which is from a public mailing list) on his talk page. It mentioned his real name. Many apologies if it isn't known on Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 12:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Cla68 - I like how you discussed it with the editor in question first, before mentioning at ANI. GiantSnowman 12:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's now been suppressed. For future reference, please ensure that all outing violations are suppressed before parading them around AN? Pointing it out here is only going to increase the harm caused by the outing. Worm TT(talk ) 13:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. Note that GiantSnowman was being (I think) sarcastic. I certainly felt Cla68 should have mentioned it to me before bringing it here. I hadn't realised that Cla68 seems to see himself as a representative of Wikipediocracy here. Dougweller (talk) 14:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are going to use allegatiosn of off-Wiki outing to justify your position, then you should take an appropriate amount of care not to out people on-wiki yourself.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

A whole school of fish Trouts to DW for the outing, Cla68 for the drama instead of OTRS and minnows to Snowman and DW for the sarcasm. Nobody Ent 14:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought he had outed himself at some time in the past. I was correct.. He didn't name himself but gave links that showed his name. Those links are now dead but I followed them when they were posted. Dougweller (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It is clear that there was no intentional policy violation or intent to harass or cause harm. The edit in question has been deleted and everyone is reminded of the relevant policies. I think this subthread can be considered resolved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this whole discussion can be closed. There is obviously not a consensus to unban him, this has been open longer than most ban-related discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Main page images
A few minutes ago I was contacted on IRC because all of the images on the Main Page were unprotected as they came from Commons. I've uploaded local copies and protected them all, but I'm wondering how this happened... --Rschen7754 09:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess because on Commons, the Picture of the day is protected a couple of days before and after being featured on the main page. This picture of the day is used in about a hundred projects. However, English Wikipedia does not use this image selected on Commons (I believe this is the only project who rejected the selection). Then it is not really surprising that the images which appear on the main page are not protected on Commons. They have no reason to protect them.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But why were there not protected local copies of them already, given the need here? Who normally does this? -— Isarra ༆ 17:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've talked with some people, and tried it manually, and if you are not an admin, the software blocks you out from uploading over a protected image at Commons. (This is not how it was a few years ago). --Rschen7754 18:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a bot problem I think. I'll investigate. Secretlondon (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_83 Secretlondon (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are not an administrator, you cannot upload a file to [[File:Example123456.jpg]] if commons:File:Example123456.jpg also exists. This is how it has been for as long as I can remember. It is done like this for security purposes I believe, so that Commons images being used in articles aren't accidentally swapped out when a local image isn't uploaded. NW ( Talk ) 22:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Input requested
I have started an Rfc on verbiage on the TITLE policy page; currently sentiment is against my proposal, but the two opposes both suggest that article renaming be handled exactly like Afd; this would require changing the ability to move or rename to be admin only. As their counter-proposal would affect all administrators, and runs directly counter to past and current practice on Wikipedia, I am listing the Rfc here to gain a wider audience, specifically of Admins who would have their roles changed by this. The Rfc is here. KillerChihuahua ?!? 16:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, just noticed this. See the section above for an example of the bureaucratic time-wasting rigid misinterpretation of AT policy can cause. . . dave souza, talk 21:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


text:
Visual Language Interpreting

Visual language interpreting is the practice of deciphering communication in sign languages, which use gestures, body language, and facial expressions to convey meaning.

This book is being communally written (at least that's the idea) to fulfill what is seen as a gap in the literature on Visual Language interpreting. There are many erudite works on the interpreting process, and still others for those who are current practitioners. However, the current introductory texts all suffer from one fault or another: they are inaccurate, obsolete, poorly written, or otherwise faulty.

The solution proposed here is that material be written by practitioners, clients, and academics to produce a text that is both current (and designed to stay that way) and reflective of what is actually practiced by real working interpreters. In short, a text that is theoretically rigorous, unflinchingly realistic, and up to date. For this, we count on you, the reader, to help us build something which embodies our collective wisdom.

Contents
After each link there is an image with a subjective indication of how complete that page is. A blank box indicates that the content has yet to be written.

 * /Introduction/
 * /Tools of the Trade/
 * /Interpreting Process/
 * /Interpreting Logistics/
 * Interpreting in teams
 * /Interpreting Ethics/
 * /Private Practice/
 * Interpreting in Educational Settings
 * Interpreting in the Medical and Mental Health Settings
 * Interpreting in the Legal Setting
 * Interpreting in the Religious Setting
 * Other specialized settings
 * Working with Clients who are Deaf-Blind
 * Professional Development
 * Epilogue: The future of the field

Authors (alphabetically)
Trevor Blake is an interpreter based in Portland, Oregon, USA.

David N. Evans is pleased to be the second contributor, and a part of this work.

Dan Parvaz suggested the idea of this book to the online interpreting community, and is a regular contributor.

Roberto R. Santiago is an interpreter in Washington DC

source: wikimedia

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

title: Visual Language Interpreting


text:
Mark Goldenberg

Mark Goldenberg (born April 10, 1952) is an American guitarist and songwriter, noted for his session work and composition of successful songs for Linda Ronstadt, the Pointer Sisters, and others.

Early career
Raised in Chicago, Illinois, Goldenberg studied at the Music Conservatory at the Chicago College of Performing Arts and its Chicago Musical College division at Roosevelt University. When the band he was in, Eddie Boy Band, signed a record deal with MCA, Goldenberg moved to California. Though the band broke up, he remained there as a singer-songwriter. In 1976, Goldenberg began playing guitar with Al Stewart.

After playing with Wendy Waldman (who had been Stewart's opening act), Goldenberg started the Cretones with bassist Peter Bernstein and the band went on to record two albums: Thin Red Line and ''Snap! Snap!''. Linda Ronstadt covered three of their songs on her 1980 Mad Love album, and the Cretones served as her backup band for a time. Goldenberg later formed the band Our Town, who recorded one album that was never released. In 1989, he studied guitar with Ted Greene. He also studied classical guitar with Richard Pick and piano and counterpoint with Abe Fraser.

Session work and songwriting
Goldenberg has played on recordings by Bob Dylan, Jackson Browne, Bonnie Raitt, Linda Ronstadt, Peter Frampton, Eels, Natalie Imbruglia, Chris Isaak, Karla Bonoff, Waylon Jennings, Willie Nelson, and William Shatner.

Goldenberg co-wrote "Automatic," a hit for the Pointer Sisters; and co-wrote "Novocaine for the Soul" for the band Eels. He also wrote "A Kick In The Heart" for Kim Carnes. Goldenberg played lead guitar in Jackson Browne's band from 1994 until 2010. In 2015, Goldenberg finished a two-year tour with Hugh Laurie and his Copper Bottom Band.

Goldenberg released his self-titled solo album of fingerstyle guitar music in 2005. He plays in a guitar duo with Eric Skye, with whom he has recorded one album, Artifact.

Solo albums

 * 2005: Mark Goldenberg (Bossy Pants)

Mark Goldenberg and Eric Skye

 * 2016: Artifact (self-released)

With the Cretones

 * 1980: Thin Red Line (Planet)
 * 1981: Snap! Snap! (Planet)

With Jackson Browne

 * 1993: I'm Alive (Elektra)
 * 1996: Looking East (Elektra)
 * 2002: The Naked Ride Home (Elektra)
 * 2008: Time the Conqueror (Inside)
 * 2015: Standing in the Breach (Inside)

As composer (and sometimes also performer)

 * 1978: Andrew Gold - All This and Heaven Too (Asylum) - track 1, "How Can This Be Love"
 * 1980: Mary Burns - Mary Burns (MCA) - track 8, "How Can This Be Love"
 * 1980: Andrew Gold - Whirlwind (Asylum) - track 8, "Stranded on the Edge" (co-written with Andrew Gold)
 * 1980: Linda Ronstadt - Mad Love (Asylum) - track 1, "Mad Love"; track 7, "Cost of Love"; track 8, "Justine"
 * 1982: Peter Frampton - The Art of Control (A&M) - co-wrote all songs with Peter Frampton
 * 1983: Kim Carnes - Café Racers (EMI America) - track 9, "A Kick in the Heart"
 * 1983: Pointer Sisters - Break Out (Planet) - track 2, "Automatic" (co-written with Brock Walsh)
 * 1984: Chicago - Chicago 17 (Full Moon/Warner Bros. Records) - track 6, "Along Comes a Woman"; track 9, "Prima Donna" (both songs co-written with Peter Cetera)
 * 1985: Olivia Newton-John - Soul Kiss (MCA) - track 2, "Soul Kiss"
 * 1985: Pointer Sisters - Contact (RCA Victor) - 6, "Bodies and Souls"
 * 1986: Robbie Nevil - Robbie Nevil (Manhattan) - track 8, "Simple Life (Mambo Luv Thang)" (co-written with Brock Walsh and Robbie Nevil)
 * 1986: Peter Frampton - Premonition (Atlantic) - track 1, "Stop" (co-written with Peter Frampton); track 6, "Moving A Mountain" (co-written with Peter Frampton and Steve Broughton Lunt)
 * 1986: Shonentai - Diamond Eyes (Warner Music Japan) B-side "Rainy Express" (co-written with Tomo Miyashita)
 * 1987: Cher - Cher (Geffen) - track 8, "Skin Deep" (co-written with Jon Lind)
 * 1988: Akina Nakamori - Femme Fatale - track 3, "Dakishimeteite (Love Is My Favorite Lesson)"; track 5, "I Know Kodoku no Sei"; track 8, "Paradise Lost (Love Is In Fashion)";
 * 1990: Judy Collins - Fires of Eden (Columbia) - track 4, "Fires of Eden" (co-written with Kit Hain)
 * 1991: Cher - Love Hurts (Geffen) - track 4, "Fires of Eden" (co-written with Kit Hain)
 * 1992: Peter Cetera - World Falling Down (Warner Bros. Records) - track 2, "Even a Fool Can See" (co-written with Cetera); track 3, "Feels Like Heaven" (co-written with Kit Hain)
 * 1993: Anne Murray - Anne Murray (EMI) - track 11, "Shame on Me" (co-written with Tom Littlefield)
 * 1993: E - Broken Toy Shop (Polydor)
 * 2006: Eels - Eels with Strings: Live at Town Hall (Vagrant) - track 11, "Novocaine for the Soul" (co-written with E)
 * 2008: Jackson Browne Solo Acoustic, Vol. 2 (Inside) - track 1, "Never Stop"; track 2, "The Night Inside Me"; track 8, "Casino Nation" (all co-written with Jackson Browne, Mauricio Lewak, Kevin McCormick, Jeff Young)

As producer

 * 1988: Karla Bonoff - New World (Valley Entertainment)
 * 1996: Eels - Beautiful Freak (DreamWorks)
 * 1997: Jann Arden - Happy? (A&M)
 * 1997: Jill Sobule - Happy Town (Lava)
 * 1997: Natalie Imbruglia - Left of the Middle (RCA)
 * 2001: Jann Arden - Blood Red Cherry (A&M)

1978–1993

 * 1978: Al Stewart - Time Passages (Arista)
 * 1978: Wendy Waldman - Strange Company (Warner Bros.)
 * 1980: Chicago - Chicago XIV (Columbia)
 * 1980: Pointer Sisters - Special Things (Planet)
 * 1981: Peter Cetera - Peter Cetera (Warner Bros.)
 * 1983: Bette Midler - No Frills (Atlantic)
 * 1984: Kazuhiko Katō - Venezia  (CBS Sony)
 * 1989: Kon Kan - Move to Move (Atlantic)
 * 1991: Paula Abdul - Spellbound (Virgin)
 * 1991: Neil Diamond - Lovescape (Columbia)
 * 1991: Bonnie Raitt - Luck of the Draw (Capitol)
 * 1991: Michelle Shocked - Arkansas Traveler (Mighty Sound)
 * 1992: Peter Cetera - World Falling Down (Warner Bros.)
 * 1992: Melissa Etheridge - Never Enough (Island)
 * 1992: Glenn Frey - Strange Weather (MCA)
 * 1992: Ofra Haza - Kirya (Shanachie)
 * 1992: Roy Orbison - King of Hearts (Orbison / Legacy)
 * 1992: Ringo Starr - Time Takes Time (Private Music)
 * 1993: Johnny Clegg and Savuka - Heat, Dust and Dreams (Capitol)
 * 1993: Lea Salonga - Lea Salonga (Atlantic)
 * 1993: Lowen & Navarro - Broken Moon (Mercury)

1994–1999

 * 1994: Waylon Jennings - Waymore's Blues (Part II) (RCA)
 * 1994: Bonnie Raitt - Longing in Their Hearts (Capitol)
 * 1995: The Highwaymen - The Road Goes On Forever (Capitol / EMI)
 * 1995: Chris Isaak - Forever Blue (Reprise)
 * 1995: Randy Newman - Randy Newman's Faust (Reprise)
 * 1995: Brian Wilson - I Just Wasn't Made for These Times (MCA)
 * 1996: Valerie Carter - The Way It Is (Countdown)
 * 1996: Travis Tritt - The Restless Kind (Warner Bros.)
 * 1998: Richie Sambora - Undiscovered Soul (Mercury)
 * 1999: Jesse Camp - Jesse and the 8th Street Kidz (Hollywood)
 * 1999: Ziggy Marley and the Melody Makers - Spirit of Music (Elektra)
 * 1999: Amanda Marshall - Tuesday's Child (Epic)

2000–2006

 * 2000: Bette Midler - Bette (Warner Bros.)
 * 2000: Vanessa Paradis - Bliss (Universal / Barclay)
 * 2002: Stephen Bruton - Spirit World (New West)
 * 2002: Julia Fordham - Concrete Love (Vanguard)
 * 2002: Carly Simon - Christmas Is Almost Here Again (Rhino)
 * 2003: Chris Botti - A Thousand Kisses Deep (Sony)
 * 2004: Katey Sagal - Room (Valley Entertainment)
 * 2005: Red Grammer - Be Bop Your Best (Red Note)
 * 2005: MoZella - MoZella EP (Maverick)
 * 2006: Brett Dennen - So Much More (Dualtone)
 * 2006: Fred Martin and the Levite Camp - Some Bridges (Concord)
 * 2006: Emily Saxe - Keeping (Ps Classics)
 * 2007: Paula Cole - Courage (Decca)
 * 2007: Johnny Hallyday - Le Cœur d'un homme (Warner Music)
 * 2007: Ben Lee - Ripe (Inertia / New West)
 * 2007: Lifehouse - Who We Are (Geffen)
 * 2007: Mandy Moore - Wild Hope (EMI)
 * 2007: Lacy Younger - Still Wild (Big Deal)

2008–present

 * 2008: Brett Dennen - Hope for the Hopeless (Dualtone)
 * 2008: Julia Fordham - China Blue (CD Baby)
 * 2008: honeyhoney - First Rodeo (Universal)
 * 2008: Jude Johnstone - Mr. Sun (Bojak)
 * 2008: Lenka - Lenka (Epic)
 * 2008: Willie Nelson - Across the Borderline (Columbia)
 * 2008: Victor & Leo - Nada Es Normal (Sony Music)
 * 2008: Serena Ryder - Is It O.K. (Atlantic)
 * 2009: Jessie James Decker - Jessie James (Mercury)
 * 2009: Parachute - Losing Sleep (Mercury)
 * 2009: Maia Sharp - Echo (Crooked Crown)
 * 2009: Jill Sobule - California Years (Pinko)
 * 2011: Danny Click - Life Is A Good Place (Dogstar)
 * 2011: Mary Kay Place - Almost Grown (Wounded Bird)
 * 2012: Joel Rafael - America Come Home (Inside)
 * 2013: Kris Kristofferson - Feeling Mortal (Kuckuck)
 * 2014: Stephen Bishop - Be Here Then (CD Baby)
 * 2014: Neil Diamond - Melody Road (Capitol)
 * 2014: William Shatner - Live (Cleopatra)
 * 2015: Brian Wilson - No Pier Pressure (Capitol)
 * 2016: Empire of the Sun - Two Vines (Astralwerks)

title: Mark Goldenberg


text:
Channel 28 virtual TV stations in the United States

The following television stations operate on virtual channel 28 in the United States:

 * K05NE-D in Polson, Montana
 * K08AP-D in Pateros, Mansfield, Washington
 * K08CY-D in Riverside, Washington
 * K09UP-D in Colville, Washington
 * K09ZA-D in Leavenworth, Washington
 * K10DK-D in Malott Wakefield, Washington
 * K10DL-D in Tonasket, Washington
 * K11UN-D in Coolin, Idaho
 * K11WY-D in Coulee City, Washington
 * K13ER-D in Cashmere, Washington
 * K16KZ-D in Quartz Creek, etc., Montana
 * K16LV-D in Grays River, Washington
 * K17NZ-D in Bonners Ferry, Idaho
 * K18LH-D in Lewiston, Idaho
 * K18NJ-D in Bellingham, Washington
 * K19AU-D in Omak, Okanogan, etc., Washington
 * K20KQ-D in Livingston, etc., Montana
 * K23OT-D in Juliaetta, Idaho
 * K24IY-D in Raton, New Mexico
 * K24LM-D in Bridgeport, Washington
 * K25NY-D in Bridgeport, Washington
 * K27LD-D in Salix, Iowa
 * K27MT-D in Romeo, Colorado
 * K27NC-D in Coeur D'Alene, Idaho
 * K28DJ-D in Broken Bow, Oklahoma
 * K28EB-D in Cortez, etc., Colorado
 * K28FP-D in Astoria, Oregon
 * K28GG-D in Medford, Oregon
 * K28HI-D in Breckenridge/Dillon, Colorado
 * K28HS-D in Agana, Guam
 * K28IF-D in Willmar, Minnesota
 * K28KO-D in Sweetgrass, etc., Montana
 * K28KU-D in Crested Butte, Colorado
 * K28LE-D in Idaho Falls, Idaho
 * K28LK-D in Silver City, New Mexico
 * K28MH-D in Bend, Oregon
 * K28NM-D in Carlsbad, New Mexico
 * K28OG-D in Kalispell & Lakeside, Montana
 * K28OH-D in St. James, Minnesota
 * K28QL-D in Yakima, Washington
 * K28QT-D in Dickinson, North Dakota
 * K31AH-D in Omak, etc., Washington
 * K31KL-D in Walla Walla, Washington
 * K32LT-D in San Luis Obispo, California
 * K33LW-D in Sandpoint, Idaho
 * K33QB-D in Coolin, Idaho
 * K33QS-D in Santa Barbara, etc., California
 * K34GI-D in Trinidad, Colorado
 * K36OG-D in Bend, Oregon
 * K36PZ-D in Big Spring, Texas
 * KAMC in Lubbock, Texas
 * KAQI-LD in Sherman, Texas
 * KAYU-TV in Spokane, Washington
 * KBTC-TV in Tacoma, Washington
 * KBVU in Eureka, California
 * KCET in Los Angeles, California
 * KCNZ-CD in San Francisco, California
 * KDTV-CD in Santa Rosa, California
 * KEAM-LD in Amarillo, Texas
 * KEPB-TV in Eugene, Oregon
 * KFXA in Cedar Rapids, Iowa
 * KHPK-LD in De Soto, Texas
 * KHPX-CD in Georgetown, Texas
 * KJST-LD in McAllen, Texas
 * KKPM-CD in Chico, California
 * KLPD-LD in Denver, Colorado
 * KNLD-LD in New Orleans, Louisiana
 * KONV-LD in Canton, Ohio
 * KORO in Corpus Christi, Texas
 * KSAA-LD in San Antonio, Texas
 * KSBK-LD in Colorado Springs, Colorado
 * KSPK-LD in Walsenburg, Colorado
 * KUGB-CD in Houston, Texas
 * KVES-LD in Palm Springs, California
 * KVPX-LD in Las Vegas, Nevada
 * KWKD-LD in Wichita, Kansas
 * KWVC-LD in Malaga, etc., Washington
 * KWYB-LD in Bozeman, Montana
 * KYLE-TV in Bryan, Texas
 * KYVV-TV in Del Rio, Texas
 * KZKC-LD in Bakersfield, California
 * W02CS-D in Ponce, Puerto Rico
 * W19EN-D in River Falls, Wisconsin
 * W23EV-D in Carrollton, Georgia
 * W24CL-D in Grantsburg, Wisconsin
 * W24EU-D in Erie, Pennsylvania
 * W24EZ-D in Allingtown, Connecticut
 * W28CJ-D in Manteo, North Carolina
 * W28DY-D in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan
 * W28FC-D in Roanoke, West Virginia
 * W28FD-D in Greenville, Florida
 * W28FG-D in Cleveland-Akron-Canton, Ohio
 * W29EZ-D in Elmira, New York
 * WBRE-TV in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania
 * WBUN-LD in Birmingham, Alabama
 * WBWM-LD in Mt Pleasant, Michigan
 * WCPB in Salisbury, Maryland
 * WDWW-LD in Atlanta, Georgia
 * WDYL-LD in Louisville, Kentucky
 * WEZK-LD in Knoxville, Tennessee
 * WFEF-LD in Orlando, Florida
 * WFPA-CD in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
 * WFTS-TV in Tampa, Florida
 * WFXQ-CD in Springfield, Massachusetts
 * WGAT-LD in Augusta, Georgia
 * WGFL in High Springs, Florida
 * WGTB-CD in Charlotte, North Carolina
 * WHWC-TV in Menomonie, Wisconsin
 * WJSP-TV in Columbus, Georgia
 * WLPC-CD in Redford, Michigan
 * WLWC in New Bedford, Massachusetts
 * WNPX-TV in Franklin, Tennessee
 * WNYF-CD in Watertown, New York
 * WNYP-LD in Port Jervis, New York
 * WPGX in Panama City, Florida
 * WRDC in Durham, North Carolina
 * WRJT-LD in Wausau, Wisconsin
 * WSJV in Elkhart, Indiana
 * WTGS in Hardeeville, South Carolina
 * WTTE in Columbus, Ohio
 * WUDX-LD in Tuscaloosa, Alabama
 * WUDZ-LD in Terre Haute, Indiana
 * WVER in Rutland, Vermont
 * WWBH-LD in Mobile, Alabama
 * WWBK-LD in Richmond, Virginia
 * WWNY-CD in Massena, New York
 * WWYA-LD in Honea Path, South Carolina
 * WYMI-LD in Summerland Key, Florida

The following stations, which are no longer licensed, formerly operated on virtual channel 28 in the United States:
 * K28LA-D in Yreka, California
 * K28LC-D in Redding, California
 * K28QJ-D in Duluth, Minnesota
 * K32NP-D in Billings, Montana
 * W28EX-D in Clarksburg, West Virginia
 * WAZF-CD in Front Royal, Virginia
 * WCMZ-TV in Flint, Michigan
 * WQVC-CD in Greensburg, Pennsylvania
 * WVTX-CD in Bridgeport, Ohio


text:
remould

Alternative forms

 * US

Verb

 * 1)  To mould or shape again.
 * 2)  To reshape or redesign.

title: remould


text:
Talk:David Cubitt

Article issues

 * The subject is sourced only by IMDb and filmreference.com. These have been considered unreliable multiple times and both are on at least one restriction list. IMDb is listed at External links/Perennial websites, and WikiProject Film/Resources addresses film- and television-related articles. It is largely user generated with a poor editorial oversight.
 * Filmreference has no identifiable editorial oversight. There is promotional content listing: artists agency, a talent agency, and a manager (company), that are not relevant to the subject or an encyclopedia. Otr500 (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:David Cubitt


text:
1908 Washington gubernatorial election

The 1908 Washington gubernatorial election was held on November 3, 1908. Republican nominee Samuel G. Cosgrove defeated Democratic nominee John Pattison with 62.56% of the vote.

Primary elections
Primary elections were held on September 8, 1908.

Candidates

 * John Pattison, Mayor of Colfax
 * A.J. Splawn
 * William Blackman
 * Jimmie Durkin
 * Patrick S. Byrne

Candidates

 * Samuel G. Cosgrove, attorney
 * Albert E. Mead, incumbent Governor
 * Henry McBride, former Governor
 * John D. Atkinson
 * William M. Ridpath
 * Robert B. Brown
 * Oscar H. Neil
 * J.W. Robinson

Candidates
Major party candidates
 * Samuel G. Cosgrove, Republican
 * John Pattison, Democratic

Other candidates
 * George Boomer, Socialist
 * Arthur S. Caton, Prohibition

title: 1908 Washington gubernatorial election