This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3

Thanks for replying, yeah, I didn't notice that I'd put 'British' in lower case at the first letter. Thanks for correcting it and replying, I'm going to try and find out what happened to it now. Thanks.

Hi, somehow I ended up here from the 'Intermarriage between British peoples' page which I created, so I guess you must have something to do with its redirection / deletion. Could you tell me what was wrong with it? Was it the quality or is it because you don't agree with the subject? I'd be really grateful for an answer. Thanks Kentynet (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings...

Hello, This flag once was red, and welcome to Wikipedia!

To get started, click on the green welcome.

I hope you like it here and decide to stay!

Randomtime

Happy editing! RT | Talk 11:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The website you mention for Jewbuntu states at the top that "This isn't real. There is no Jewbuntu yet, and this site is a great 'what if'." So Jewbuntu is clearly not an existing linux distribution (or if it is, you need a better source). Ubuntu for mixed marriages and Jubuntu appear to be only mentioned on the Jewbuntu site, so these are also invalid additions. The Satanic edition seems ok, and I've readded it. Andareed (talk) 05:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at the vandalism on the gen y page and you reverted the last one done. I took a far more radical approach and undid a lot of versions (including your undo), could you cast an eye over it and see if you agree with the changes I made (and whether others need making)? Thanks, BananaFiend (talk) 09:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I've got a couple on my watchlist that have been vandalised repeatedly - and this is my second significant rollback in 2 days. Once the first few go unnoticed, it's often only the first that gets rolled back, ho-hum! BananaFiend (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editor, this issue is being dealt in the edit war administrators section. You must notice that Suciindia is only reverting to the agreed versions by reputed editors like User: Soman. It is a puppet of User: Kuntan who was banned from wiki, who is causing trouble. This puppet is also abusive as you may see in the comments that he has made. Please refer to the edit war administrators page for the ongoing discussions. You will notice that most other editors have agreed to the stand of User: Suciindia regarding the issues dealt with. --Suciindia (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is your discussion page, what is your personal take on Laughingman78 and his 'vandalism'? Beyond that what got you looking at the Marmion Academy website? I'm interested to hear your perspective. I find the Indian organization your page links to to be interesting, FWIW. DavidMSA (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK well I'm glad to hear your conflict ended in a truce. I'm assuming a Truce has been reached on the Marmion thing as well. The parties involved have better things to worry about than wiki edit wars and old personal stuff, I know that. Take care DavidMSA (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry about that. I haven't actually read the graphic novel of V For Vendetta but I have seen the film. I was of the impression that the role of High Chancellor was a combination of monarch and Prime-Minister. I assumed Susan (or Sutler) was the undisputed ruler of all Great Britain and as such an emperor. Oh by the way, I like cats too. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good good. Yes I mean to read the graphic novel. I've read the article on Susan and he seems a much creepier character than Sutler. On an unrelated but geeky note I must say that Sutler seemed quite introverted himself. I got the impression he was very self-centred (then again aren't most dictators). --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Christian syndicalist, and a long-time Wob. (Milw. General Organizing Branch; I.U. 660). --Orange Mike | Talk 20:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you calling me a banned user? I'm not. Mastcell is simply claiming this. Smockroker (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put V in this category because his face is never seen. Wilson from Home Improvement is in this category because his face is never seen even though he appears in every episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosco13 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure V for Vendetta is in Category:V for Vendetta, which is in Category:Vertigo titles, which is, of course, in Category:DC Comics titles. I don't have my TPB on-hand, but I don't recall it being published under the Vertigo imprint. Either way, it would be redundant of the self-titled category, even if it was moved up to DC Comics titles. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate update I added the Vertigo category, since the V for Vendetta category is about all kinds of media associated with the story. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already warned Blakeusa, and others have dropped notes, so I've removed your 3rr warning to avoid a pile-on. Thanks for keeping an eye on the article! Acroterion _(talk) 02:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just letting you know I have replied. ~ Ameliorate _{U T C} @ 09:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I have changed the infobox to Template:Infobox Fictional Political Party and made the necessary changes. I would appreciate it if you would check what I have changed is accurate. Cheers ~ Ameliorate _{U T C} @ 13:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our IP edit warrior at Leo McGarry is back. What should we do about it? I'm leaving a message on his talk page urging him to stop, but can we take steps to protect the page and somehow get strong administrator intervention to make this user stop once and for all? --Hnsampat (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting vandalism to my page, Cheers Theterribletwins1111 (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed something that this user did on Glasgow, I see he (or she) has got a block. It looked to me like just adding images (in good faith). Forgive me I'm new here, but that seems a bit brutal Mcewan (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reponse - I appreciate the time you took to reply so comprehensively. Seems there was much more to this than met the eye (or my eye, anyway). Kind Regards Mcewan (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Good work on this BTW - I wouldn't know where/how to start. I was surprised at how different things look depending upon the browser used. At work, (MS Explorer), the difference in margin was not so pronounced as on Firefox. I've captured a screen shot on my home PC, (Firefox), FYI. (The flags look as though they are both justified to the left of their respective cells, rather than being centred in each). Hope is of some use - keep up the good work! Regards Endrick Shellycoat 20:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for your reply. Endrick Shellycoat 03:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your last, I'll likewise have a crack at equal scaled images, possibly as .png images if I can't get my own head around the .svg stuff. Appreciate your taking things forward to a successful outcome. Well done and thanks. Regards Endrick Shellycoat 20:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like User:He Scores ? and another new one (User:Willy Blackwood) are sockpuppets of the Nimbley troll. I've blocked them. They have a distinctive tell. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  17:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to find the original case. I think all these accounts need to be tagged and categorised so as to help other users and admins spot the tells. The Amy Macdonald (singer) and Garbage (band) edits were the biggest ones, but ones to Irn Bru, reams of images to Glasgow and other various additions about Scottish inventions are also big give aways for Nimbley. The kid won't take a hint. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've just tagged some more from the past. I really must get check user status sometime - I hate sockpuppetry, and it's always the same few goons who do it. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can not see the relavance of a supporters forum match report [1] in a reference to an old name for the city, when added into an existing reference (yes the term is used in the web article, but but forums are poor references generaly). if a valid reference it should be a separate one then. It looking like a case of adding a external link to a forum rather than a reference, was my reasoning behind removal. I leave you to review its format/relavance then - BulldozerD11 (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I hope all is well. I'm sorry that Nimbley struck again, but I commend you for maintaining WP:AGF and WP:BITE all the same.

This is an odd situation we're in. The kid (and he is only a child - 11/12 ish) just will not stop, and he has randomly generated ip addresses, which makes the blocking hard to sustain. Furthermore, I'm not sure there is any official word on how to deal with such an issue, but, from my experience alone, WP:RBI is a good one, and WP:TROLL can be helpful.

I'm reluctant to engage (again) with Nimbley as I've tried it in the past, but he just refuses to co-operate. I believe he may be somewhat congnatively impaired.</political correctness> --Jza84 |  Talk  21:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I'm the one at fault here? The anon has been blocked three times for edit warring, I have tried everything to gain consensus! I have had to ask for semi-protection again. I don't really see myself as the problem here. Surely I've been more than reasonable? The anon has made editing the article impossible. I should also note that I added an extra source to the MTV movie awards - which was reverted!

If you feel that I'm being unreasonable, then OK, I'll give up on that article and let the anon revert back to a crappy and unsourced article. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 08:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I didn't see the extra comment, for some reason it got lost as it was in the if conditional [2]. The problem is: I have followed process, yet they are deliberately bypassing all reasonable means to edit the article.

In case you aren't aware, I was an admin too, so I know process. I also know WP:IAR, which for once I feel that this is a reasonable course of action! - Tbsdy lives (talk) 08:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, I know... but it's fairly irritating to have done quite a bit of work (on such a minor article!) and have it all reverted just like that. It also gets me down to be peppered with abuse like I've been, although I know that to everyone else it seems unreasonable. It's pretty unpleasant! I appreciate your efforts though... this is just an exercise in frustration at the moment though :-) - Tbsdy lives (talk) 08:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ex-Red Flag (sorry, easier to call you that...). I'm going to keep on doing what I was doing, which is basically to work on the backlog of trivia. Which was the reason I got involved in editing this article anyway! - Tbsdy lives (talk) 08:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it's totally getting out of hand. See the contributions of Coberloco - that account is now reverting! I have a CU on the account, but that takes some time to get done. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 09:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I'm going back to the trivia backlog. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 09:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a relief. Too much wikidrama - the reason I left for some time and created a new account in the first place! - Tbsdy lives (talk) 09:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ye, but moore states that if the labour government won the elcetions, it would disarm britains nuclear supply, so that is contradictiory. if labour won, the uk would not have a relation to the events in the sotry. Moore later mentioned that the conservatives won, which favoured nuclear weapons. if we leave the statement, we have to mention that the conservatives won in the end. they were the ones who made decisions that made any relavence to what the story was about —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rightandright (talk • contribs)

What wrong with the image i put in place of the dark one it shows the woman better than just her face and a mic --84.13.122.134 (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anon IP is a sock of two indef banned editors  This flag once was red  19:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? Im just asking a simple question ? --84.13.122.134 (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your question can be found here.  This flag once was red  19:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok im sorry i just think the other picture is better than the one just now. I Am stopping now. --89.240.245.159 (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please say what you like but i have thought about it and it HAS GONE TO FAR so i PROMISE YOU IM STOPING. --89.240.245.159 (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Am stopping now. Heard it before. You're an indef banned editor; You'll be reverted every time you play these silly little games.

 This flag once was red  19:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i am not vandalising wikipedia i am simply typing FACT God save the Queen is the nation anthem of the united kingdom and the royal anthem of scotland

The current article doesnt exist so im replacing it with the original page. --89.243.104.75 (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It states on the X Factor wikiepdia page and his discgraphy page and pepople are saying that the album has sold 260,500 copies in total --78.151.74.102 (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		This barnstar is to recognize your diligence in reverting and reporting all the edits done by indefinitely blocked user Nimbley6. Thank you for all your hard work. Alanraywiki (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear! Thank you for keeping ahead of this. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both! The barnstar's appreciated, and it's good to know that other people feel the same way - there have been times when I've felt I'm being a little obsessive ;-)

Cheers,  This flag once was red  06:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. Obsessive would be having someone's talkpage watchlisted, seeing something about a barnstar and dropping by to congratulate them. Good work by the way ;) ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 12:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you reverted the image on that article. Was the revert due to your preference to the prior image, or due to what looked like an edit war?

I can help guide the user who added it over to the talk page if needed; but it's not really a case of edit warring. They first tried two times to change the image link, which mangled the format so that no image was showing - that's what I reverted, I had thought they were just playing/testing. They then returned and correctly made the change to a new image - which to me seemed just as good of an image (lower quality, but showing more of the ship - so a trade-off), so I didn't touch it or say anything further. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image change in which you were involved is being discussed at Talk:RMS Queen Mary#Infobox image. Please join the discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I wanted to ask you about this edit. It's great that you can add that kind of thing, I didn't know regular users could do that... Would you mind filling me in a bit on how? Where do you check the IPs for comparison?

Thanks –QuadrivialMind ^(talk) 23:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the information :) –QuadrivialMind ^(talk) 00:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only two editors are butting heads, though. If he was debating the merits of whether to include the link more explicitly within the body of the article itself, I could work with that. Instead he's dismissing it as a continuation of previous debates (that I had no part in), and therefore not even worthy of consideration on its own merits. That's the problem I wanted a third opinion on. Thank you for at least considering my idea, even if you disagree, but I needed another editor to note that debate only works when we listen to each other. What would be a more appropriate venue to ask for help? Westrim (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately only the content dispute part falls under the remit of WP:3O - WP:CIVIL or WP:AGF issues would need to be raised elsewhere. Assuming that discussion via talk pages has been tried unsuccessfully, you could next try WP:Wikiquette alerts.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  02:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I had actually gone to wikiquette alerts first, but from the description it seemed too harsh a first step. I'll try to get through to Nukes one more time, and if they still refuse to consider my idea on its own merits, I'll go ahead and report them (they and them are singular, as I try not to assume gender). Thanks. Westrim (talk) 13:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I tempt you with Wikipedia:Rollback? May make reverting those Nimbleysocks a little bit easier. Let me know if it would help. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Any problems or questions, let me know. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i noticed you have recently reverted a report i made with the edit summary "rv dispute, not vandalism", if you read here carefully and thoroughly it is clear to me they are playing fun&games. They are saying things such as "you are DodgeChris", i suggest they be blocked for 24 hours or so to teach them a lesson, i suggest first though you ask them yourself what they mean, this may also be helpful. 86.143.121.28 (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the advice. I had a follow-up question at Talk:Jasenovac_i_Gradiška_Stara#Follow_up_question_re:_sources. Any opinion? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need be angry about this stuff.

If you look article history in last 100 changes you will find 15 puppets of banned users + 2 latter indefinite blocked users which has added lyrics. On other side you will find me and 4 administrators which are removing lyrics.

My points is that for this user or users nobody arguments are good enough for removing lyrics and we are going toward indefinite full protection of article--Rjecina (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I warned Lee setters (talk · contribs) for a possible 3RR violation. You're also in danger of violating it as it's not strictly vandalism. I do have some sympathy though because he's obviously trying to force his own PoV without discussion. Let ne handle any more reverts. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well i wish you would stop reverting my edits. if you clicked on the link i provided you will see that God save the Queen is the royal anthem of the United kingdom which includes Scotland. I am going to change it back and hopefully you wont delete it this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee setters (talk • contribs) 20:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 Hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Jac16888 (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here. Executive summary is that as I had left for work I was unable to contest this block, however I do accept that this block was levied in the interests of scrupulous fairness. Had I be around to contest the block I may well have done so, as I had already given my assurance to another admin that I would let them deal with the vandal and would disengage from further reverts. Hence I consider the block to be punative, and not preventative. This experience leaves me uncertain how to handle vandalism going forward, however the blocking admin has offered to deal with vandalism on my behalf.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 21:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best advice I can give is that if you're unsure if it's vandalism or a content dispute, lean towards treating it as the latter. Don't worry about having received a short block. Lots of other users have gone through the same thing before and it's easy to fall into the trap of getting too hot under the collar over wiki articles. Feel free to ask me as well if you run into similar problems in the future. An extra pair of eyes almost always helps. --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's appreciated. I'm not too concerned about the block as it had no impact on me as I was at work for the duration of the block and blissfully unaware until I returned home, by which time it had expired! It's just annoying that the same old vandals, with the same old "tells", return time and again and our hands seem to be tied. I have previously sought admins' advice on whether it is acceptable to continuously revert vandalism - the advice I received was that it was - but it's easy to forget that while these patterns of editing are familiar to the Scotland regulars, they may not be so to uninvolved parties and may appear to be content disputes or good faith edits.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 21:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to but in a bit here, it is true that the block was in the interest of fairness, hence the reduction, from my point of view it did appear to be simply a content dispute, if its the case that I misread the situation and it was vandalism, then I am really really sorry. Having said that, please do not let it put you off any future vandal reverting, in fact i believe GraemeL's advice is excellently put--Jac16888 (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. StaticGull and I spent some time reverting that IP this morning...I figured he was probably a sock puppet as I have run into the same edits from similar IPs before, but it's good to know that he's a known sock puppet and can be reverted on sight. Cheers, —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 19:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This might be unrelated, but I just caught User:Stormy Ordos adding Scottish flags to a bunch of articles in a manner similar to Nimbley6. He was trying to be sneaky about it, though; at Montpellier he made some other edit to the same line, then undid himself, but during the "undo" he added the flag icon in...apparently hoping that people would just see "undo" and then not notice his insertion. Anyway, just a heads-up. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 15:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Barack Obama, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Downzero (talk) 11:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Barack Obama. For the Mediation Committee, WJBscribe (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check out User:United Kingdom & Northern Ireland. He shares a few similarities with Cyrusmileyhannana (another sock you blocked), including copy/pasting the UK article to his userpage (similar to CMH's posting of the Scotland article) and editing CMH's userpage (an odd thing for a new user to immediately jump to). Ironholds (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cyrusmilleyhannana hasn't been blocked. I've just reverted edits made on Wales and on England. Both articles say they are semi-protected. Not sure what that means, though. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me, one of the key differences is that you've got the articles in a sandbox page. While a sandbox doesn't give carte blanche, it's there for being a testbed, to try stuff without messing up a live page. At various times, I've had exit lists on my sandbox page. If all else fails, put an edit summary of "copied the content of (article name) to test new (section)", and it's sufficiently attributed.

By contrast, User:United Kingdom & Northern Ireland was putting the content on his user page. Compound that with the username mirroring the name of the article, and I felt the content was inappropriate to be there. On reflection, the GFDL violation was probably trivial, since it's pretty clear where the content came from and how to check the contribution history there. It just made a stronger policy-based justification for deletion than it being confusing. —C.Fred (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Different Beat, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Different Beat. Thank you. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Dancing To A Different Beat, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dancing To A Different Beat. Thank you. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result of each was speedy-delete:Vandalism/bad-faith contribution, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Different Beat and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dancing To A Different Beat. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you have a look at User:Ricky_Oliver. Disruptive pattern on Northern Ireland and a user page that looks just like Spainton with similar interests. --Snowded TALK 18:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another one I think User: Closeupon recently created, scottish singers, deleted admin change on previous socks? Enjoy Bristol by the way - on holiday? --Snowded TALK 07:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let´s just walk through a simple scenerio shall we? John or Mary doe of 13 years of age are doing a school report on an idea that came from their discovery that by placing "kinks" in their garden hose they can make water shoot out much faster. They go to wikipedia since their parents allow that content as its "ok" an ecylocpedia. They enter the words "kink" and arrive at the kink.com wikipedia. Then as the page was before they are invited to a whole different subject than kinks in hoses and make a click on "ana cruzes" link and arrive at a explicit porn page with the title "Im the bitch that your mother warned you about...", well you know with nice pornographic pictures that show and tell all. His/her father happens to be a badass attorney and is quite offended when john/jane doe shows what they discovered in wikipedia. So under many laws, not withstanding, the "Communications deceny act" or the "contemporary community standards" laws or "corruption of a minor", a case is launched agaisnt wikipedia and its editors. Turns out since the editors have the ability to "speak for wikipedia" by approving or disapproving changes etc to content that they themselves not only represent wikipedia but also are not free from personal liability in this matter end up forking the bill for a 100 million plus lawsuit. It seems there is a strange US law that states that all "indecent" material as porno that is hosted on the web on US servers, has to have a simple warning on the home page that the person who is about to visit this site must be over 18 years of age.. etc.. Strange but I didnt see that in any of the 100 plus porn star wikipedias. So the 6 million dollars that wikipedia is trying to raise may not be enough to withstand the lawsuits that will come from the open and blatant access to porn to minors which the wiki "porno portal" path is embarking. All the cute and bold phrases that "wiki doesnt censors" and "they are notable" probable wont mean a whole lot when this "porno portal" of wikipedia ends up exposing wikipedia and its editors to all kinds of civil (oh and criminal) liability from the jane and john does that unfortunately end up on porn pages by doing simple research projects etc.. Dont forget that wikiporn, like any other porn will run agaisnt really ugly laws in the US and about 50 other countries world wide who really dont jive on minors having access to graphic porn. Good luck. [User:webman1000|webman1000]] (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)<sig>webman1000</sig>[reply]

Sorry, I'm not sure how this is remotely relevant to me. The only prior contact you and I have had was when I asked you not to remove other editors' comments from talk pages - I'm not sure how that qualifies me to receive your thoughts on pornography? So, to answer your question ("Let´s just walk through a simple scenerio shall we?"), my reply is: "no, let's not."

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no more drama on that article's talkpage, 'cause I no longer post there. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The best thing to do is to file it under the case of the suspected puppeteer, in this case ikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nimbley6. However, I left a note for a clerk to merge them, so hopefully it will be taken care of soon. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yeah, I'm in pretty much the same boat...I don't care too much either way and I don't even really understand the political stuff surrounding this, but I've just gotten the impression that we should revert any of these trolling edits. I also thought this might be Nimbley6, but I figured I should AGF it for now (mainly because in my other run-ins with Nimbley6 I don't remember him/her using edit summaries at all) and if this user starts again then maybe I can get a little more stern. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; after seeing the diffs you mentioned at that user's talk page, it's pretty clear that it's another sock. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 18:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've given it another tweek to clarify it a little better. What do you think? Titch Tucker (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I noticed that you removed the link to the When You Believe article, because it's not the same song. Well, I did some Googling and discovered it's actually a cover of that song. And the When You Believe article does have a section regarding the cover, so I think it's fair to link to the article, but more specifically to that section (which is something I did recently, if you'll look through the history). I wanted to explain why it was linked though, as I had the same question myself, and the IP editor who keeps putting it in, hasn't really explained most of their edits, nor do they use edit commentary, so I know it's confusing to try to figure out what they're doing. Have a good day! Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 17:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now what I said earlier today is no longer applicable, because the user (or an associate, I dunno) has now copy/pasted that section into a new article, entitled When You Believe (Leon Jackson song). Which is fine in and of itself, but I took it on myself to remove that section from the When You Believe article, since it doesn't need to exist redundantly in two separate articles. I'm beginning to see what you meant about the IP's edits being pretty limited in topic matter at the moment. Anyway, I just thought I'd let you know that there is indeed now a separate article for this song, which is okay I guess, as it was making the When You Believe article a little long with all of the details about his cover. Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 05:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another question. What shall we do about the repeated "sales" numbers that keep being placed into the article? My tendency has been to remove them, since they're not cited, and I can find no record of them as being verified. However, the IP editor keeps putting them back in (surprise, surprise). Should we just leave them in with fact tags? Even though they've been there before, and no effort was made to cite them, so I don't have much hope that citations will appear anytime soon. (I don't want to edit war, this is getting quite ridiculous.) (Feel free to reply here, I'll put your page on my watchlist.) 20:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC) (Forgot to sign, oops, this was me, just FYI, though you seem to have figured that out. Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 22:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I don't know - I did have a conversation with the sock's latest IP earlier, and they seemed to finally get what I was saying, but I strongly suspect they'll push their other edits under a new IP tomorrow. It might be worth trying to chat with them - it's possible that they simply think I'm obsessed (that would be correct...!) and if someone else said the same thing they might start to realise that it isn't just me. However, I'm slightly sceptical - this sock is persistent, and has had Wikipedia's rules explained to it before, and has been indefinitely blocked for failing to follow those rules on several occasions, so I suspect it'll come down to a war of attrition - who gets bored first, the sock, or the multiple editors who have to clear up after the sock?

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well on further review, this appears to be a different person altogether, perhaps, their user talk page is at User talk:82.46.178.52. You're right about trying to open a dialog about it though, so I have done that, requesting help in finding references. We'll see how that goes. I see there's currently another spree of editing going on as to whether Leon Jackson has or has not been "droped" from his record label. I swear, this is one of the most active pages on my watchlist. It's rather impressive, the dedication this person or persons have for the subject, I suppose. Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 22:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Nimbley6" (my favourite sock!) edits from IP addresses registered to "Opal Telecoms DSL", or occasionally manages to register a username and uses that until the username is indefinitely blocked - I think the 82.* is outside Opal Telecom's IP range.

FWIW, Nimbley6 will lose interest in Leon Jackson at some point and move onto another article(s) tangentially connected to Scotland - in fact, Scotland is Nimbley6's dream target. "Unfortunately", it's been semi-protected to prevent - you guessed it - Nimbley6 vandalizing the article ;-)

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 22:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You marked him as a suspected sockpuppet of a banned user. According to his contribution history, he also made an edit to Template:Michelle McManus which I reverted for unrelated reasons. The alleged puppetmaster was known for editing articles related to Ms. McManus under alleged sockpuppets. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for resuming my contribution on Freddie Mercury article. It seems there are articles where any non-adoring edit is a devastation, who cares if supported by references: up to now, because of that edit, I've been pointed as vandal, POV editor and other. More, that kind of lists are commonly reported in music articles....

have a good work.

--Blues1911PostOfficeBox 18:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TFOWR. You have new messages at Raven1977's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

An article that you have been involved in editing, Michelle McManus discography, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle McManus discography. Thank you. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, May i just point out to you that Michelle's album sold 300,000 copies there fore having a Platinum certification according to this site [3]. Also Leon's Album has a Gold Certification according to the very same sight and has sold 142,200 copies in the United Kingdom according to Music Week. Thanks --Lastbroken (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain. I'd suggest asking on WT:SPI. -- Avi (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The draw allocation for the first semi-final and second semi-final just occurred, I just forgot to label the tables, no worries. Evilperson 20 (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Could you explain this edit? The categories removed (that you replaced) are redundant as noted in the edit summary. "Scottish singers" is a parent-cat of "Scottish pop singers", for example.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at what I actually undid, which was solely an edit which replaced the correct link to the "Stargazing" song with a link to an unrelated album. I didn't replace any categories. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You call my Neil Armstrong edits vandalism? I'm just expressing my opinion you jerk off. And it's only on the discussions page. Why is that ever vandalism? Just because some one doesn't buy into this disgusting Apollo hoax and take these stupid retards' word for it that this thing actually happened they are vandals now and everything they write has to be deleted at once? That's real democratic, free-thinking, open-minded and really in line with the ideals America, land of the free and home of the brave allegedly stand on. Good luck with that. --124.182.249.199 (talk) 12:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hello! "This flag once was red" (sorry for my english) can you read the blog "wikipedia"at the myspace official of amy? she has some problems with this article .she want some help! http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=13406488&blogID=469200727 thanks lecybersurfeur —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lecybersurfeur (talk • contribs) 17:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already read it. You can steer her towards this and this - though I don't know if it'll do any good; I've been plugging those two policies for weeks now and it seems to be falling on deaf ears.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. On the blog she seems to think that "she's reference enough" - that's clearly not the case, but would you able to find out why she can't simply come up with a proper reference? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the right place to request a cross-wiki sockpuppet investigation? I suspect English Wikipedia editors en:User:78.150.249.189/t/c and en:User:78.144.226.100/t/c are IP sockpuppets of banned english Wikipedia editor en:User:Nimbley6/t/c/socks/maybe. I also suspect he is brand-new commons user commons:user:Ificouldlistentoyou/t/c.

Reasons for thinking these are the same people:

• Recent focus on related articles. To be fair, the named account is new and the numbers are small.
• Images on commons have almost all been tagged as copyright violations. New accounts are not allowed to upload to the English Wikipedia, where some of these images would be welcome.
• The two IP addresses each used at least one of Ificouldlistentoyou's uploaded images.

It is possible this is more than one person, and that each of the two IP addresses is independently connected with Ificouldlistentoyou somehow. If that is the case, it would exonerate 78.144.226.100 as the banned user nimbley6, however, it would mean we have two disruptive editors, nimbley6 and 86.144.136.133, not just one.

Edits related to previous Nimbly6-sock en-frequented articles:

• 78.150.249.189: Commons:File:Justforyou2007.jpg en edit to en:Just For You (Michelle McManus song)
• 78.150.249.189: Commons:File:Michellethemeaningoflovesingle.jpg en edit to The Meaning of Love (Michelle McManus song)

Edits related to 86.144.136.133/en talk/en contribs, another disruptive editor from the same country as Nimbly6:

• 78.150.249.189: no file en edit to en:Template:Amy Macdonald
• 78.150.249.189: Commons:File:Thisisthelifevideo.jpg en edit to en:This Is the Life (Amy Macdonald song)
• 78.144.226.100: Commons:File:Thisisthelifedeluxe.jpg this set of 3 en edits to en:This Is the Life (Amy Macdonald album)
• 78.144.226.100: no image en edit to en:Amy Macdonald (singer)
• 78.144.226.100: no image en edit to Run (Amy Macdonald song)

Other edits with no ties I can see to Nimbly6 or 86.144.136.133:

• 78.150.249.189: Commons:File:Whenyoubelieve2007leonjacksonverison.jpg En edit to en:When You Believe
• 78.150.249.189: Commons:File:3772876700a9325805524lpant.jpg en edit and en restore-after-revert edit
• 78.144.226.100: no file en edit to en:Leona Lewis
• 78.144.226.100 no file en edit to David Sneddon

Edits I have not investigated:

• Ificouldlistentoyo: Commons:File:Themeaningoflovevideo.jpg - not currently used, have not checked for deleted en edits

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As of 04:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC), all of commons:user:Ificouldlistentoyou/t/c's commons edits have been deleted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been impressed by your intelligent and polite comments re. Neil Armstrong being "the first person to set foot on the moon." I see, similarly, 1 -2 people have kept up a relentless reversal on the astronaut Stuart Roosa page, saying he was one of only 24 men to go to the moon, when it fact (just as with Armstrong) it is more accurate to say one of 24 people in this instance. Would you be willing to keep an eye on this page so that this person / these people don't keep undoing good work - especially as they never give an explanation? Thank you. SpaceHistory101 (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"May year August self please stop with the week puns?!"

I humbly defer to the honorable gentleperson from the once red flag. :-D (I just had to comment there though, I saw "forced march", and instinctively cringed, remembering the 15-miler back in BCT. My feet ached for three days afterwards...) Edit Centric (talk) 10:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at edits by First Of All (talk · contribs)/blocked Nimbley6 sock, 92.4.71.142 (talk · contribs), 86.3.234.246 (talk · contribs), 81.104.128.143 (talk · contribs) on Scottish-related articles. Some may need reverting. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I must have been writing my edit summary while you were removing some of the "porn"s. My revert also fixed a misleading redirect. Thanks! Verbal chat 13:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Annie Lennox. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. RolandR (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To any administrator who might read this in the future: This flag once was red (talk · contribs) watches over articles edited by Nimbley6 (talk · contribs), a banned editor. He may also be watching articles favored by other banned editors, you'll have to ask him. In cases like these, it's easy to make mistakes when WP:SPADE says you are dealing with a known hostile editor, even if it turns out you are wrong. Before issuing any sanctions, please consider the totality of the circumstances. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw obvious edit-warring on the article, and warned both participants -- to have warned only one could have been seen as partial. I have myself been warned under similar circumstances.. It looks as though there is also sockpuppetry going on here, with several identical edits being made by IPs. Under the circumstances, perhaps it would be appropriate to request semi-protection of the article. RolandR (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT ARE YOU SEARCHING FOR EXACTLY, I SAY THAT BECAUSE YOU ARE BLOCKING A NEW USER WITHOUT REASON. THERE IS NO REASON AND YOU GOTTA STOP THIS CIRCUS FAST. YOU HEAR ? MarshVeld (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied) This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, amically. MarshVeld (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, please in any form, Im needing your help, I edited recently the Northern Ireland article without errors or something wrong and it was reverted by a bad user, I need your intervention about thats all my edits are only "organizing images" so there is no reason to REVERT. I need you and Thanks. MarshVeld (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Macdonald (singer) is on my watchlist, since it seems to be a target for unencyclopedic changes. So I was interested in the reason for your reverts of the "See also" material: "rv How is a list of countries relevant? Even links piped so as to masquerade as something relevant is still not relevant." I looked at the links and immediately agreed with you. But this brings up another question. Would those links be any more important to the article if there actually were dediciated Wiki articles: "List of people who have reached Number one in Denmark" "List of people who have reached Number one in..."? These types of lists seem to be perpetually misused, and often so incomplete as to be misleading -- and yet if complete, might well have thousands of names. What difference, exactly, does it make (except to marketing managers) if a singer has reached "Number One" in the Cayman Islands for two days? Thoughts? Piano non troppo (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied. Executive summary - interesting question, not sure, possibly not! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 09:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Apologies. I wasn't trying to vandalise the article; only adding info based on what I found on a celebrity fan forum. --Litherlandsand (talk) 11:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied. Executive summary: not a problem, left note re: WP:BLP, WP:CITE, WP:V. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hey - thanks for pointing to this WP topic. I'd never heard of it, but that's what I've been trying to say in the foie gras article about "exotic". Bob98133 (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

So, User:GreyPoint, what do you reckon? Another one? Canterbury Tail talk 18:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied. Executive summary: certainly looks like it! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

		Home-Made Barnstar
		For your great work in dealing with Nimbley6 and his force of sockpuppets. Acalamari 21:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :) Acalamari 21:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few tablespoon worth of the narcotic, in a diluted solution = You give a few table spoon of carfentanil, prepared as a diluted solution.

A few tablespoons of a diluted solution of the narcotic = You give a few tablespoon of a diluted solution of carfentanil, containing an unspecified amount of carfentanil.

The dosage of carfentanil for that purpose would be a sub-milligram quantity!

(If you think both sentences have the same meaning, I may respectfully ask, where you studied, and what.) 70.137.147.62 (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied. Executive summary: so long, farewell... This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I would prefer, if the admins were a little less cocky with retired academics. 70.137.147.62 (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied. Executive summary: so sad to see you go... This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds)

As an executive I would fire you for such kind of executive summaries. Executives are normally not complete idiots, and don't want to hear cocky half-sentences as a summary. Trust me. 70.137.147.62 (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied. Executive summary: the anonymous IP flatters itself if it thinks it's the audience for "executive summaries" on my talk page. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 21:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Interesting:

You try to bracket the sentence ...tablespoon's worth of the narcotic in a solution in a RIGHT ASSOCIATIVE WAY?

-That means you parse that BOTTOM UP reducing from the right side on the longest match? -You are not greedy? -Are you a Floyd production parser?

AND

You have difficulties to decode an IMPLIED SUBJUNCTIVE FORM? As an executive I would...

are you a native speaker of Hebrew/other semitic language (or MAYBE less likely Russian) or a robot? (see above)

Of course we have different opinions about honesty. 70.137.147.62 (talk) 03:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Ignored. Answered in part here. The IP is either over-thinking my replies or trolling and I don't want to feed the troll. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

No trolling. But I really saw that you bracketed right-to-left. And you missed the implied subjunctive form. That could mean that you are native speaker of a language which builds associativity in a different way than English and has the kind of ambiguity you mentioned in the Carfentanil exchange. And it could mean you are a native speaker of a language which builds subjunctive forms in a different way than English does. My first guess after looking it up was Hebrew or Russian.

Or it could mean that you are a sophisticated bot or use a translation tool which has difficulties. (English is a foreign language to me too) I described what kind of parser would arrive at the same misunderstandings we had.

You guys are simply overexcited about vandals and trolls. My favorite hobby is learning about linguistic and machine parsing. 70.137.147.62 (talk) 11:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For a translation tool with difficulties your answers are too well-formed. 70.137.147.62 (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For somebody with such a semantic deficit too. Besides: My favorite story is "Alice in Wonderland" by Lewis Caroll. 70.137.147.62 (talk) 12:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Ignored. Unclear what any of this has to do with improving the encyclopaedia. Resisting temptation to feed this through Babelfish several times... probably a bad sign. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

What it has to do with each other are the cards 70.137.182.228 (talk) 09:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

40 lashes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Joe Taliban (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You might want to put back you ANI post, as this character keeps coming back. The most recent was Joe Taliban. Maybe with enough of this nonsense going on, they can do a "hard block" or whatever, and pre-empt the next new one(s). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a comment about it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, playing catch-up here! WP:SPI might be the best bet - check-users seem adept at picking up on unspotted socks, and they'll have access to the underlying IP address (assuming the sock master isn't on DHCP). Anyway, I'll leave it to WP:ANI to handle, and report anything I see there. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...for coming to my defense. I've mentioned that guy Parappa664 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on WP:ANI. He seems mighty familiar with wikipedia for a newbie. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Normally I wouldn't remove comments (I'd refactor, maybe) but that edit was too... odd. I noticed the same editor had already been reverted for a similar edit, and their history was also... odd. Anyway, no problem, and I'm off to see what's happening on WP:ANI!

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And as you may have seen, he went too far, and now he gawn. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that on ANI. I guess some trolls are too subtle for my troll-sense... This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or just too weird. That was one of the weirder accounts I've seen recently. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. Almost inspired in its weirdness. The whole RfA business, complete with {{helpme}} on another editor's talk page... truly a new level of weirdness. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then there was the part about copying a blocked IP address' info to his own talk page, although my guess would be that IP is where he came from - some high school or something, and it makes me sad that our school system is turning out such weirdos now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you helped out with the third opinion at Talk:Jasenovac_i_Gradiška_Stara#Lyrics back in November, I'm wondering if you had any opinion on the article as written. As I noted before, an internet news tabloid for the Croatian version and a site with a clear bias for the translation are not the ideal sources (and frankly the attitude of the IP address indicates someone who's been here before). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting vandalism from this IP, but there's little point leaving a message about it on an IP talk page that is used by, I believe, around 4000 students using the University of Nottingham's SNS service. The person who actually did it is not going to get the message, and I did instead. Thanks.--128.243.253.111 (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. We still need to warn, even if there's limited chance the original user will get the message - without sufficient warnings administrators here are less likely to block offending IP addresses. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 00:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the second time today that one of Liebman's socks has come after me. The price of glory. Thanks for reverting. I turned him over to AIV, as usual. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I hesitated before reverting in case you wanted to simply shift it to the "Letters from fans" sections, but figured since it was "political" (it might mislead potential !voters in the RfA) it best removed.

One day when things are quiet I'll need to ask who Liebman was!

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Things are getting quieter as my interest in the admin page wanes. It's turning out exactly as my offline friend predicted. It was a useful exercise. User:Ron liebman is a self-styled baseball trivia expert. About two years ago, he started changing birthdates and such stuff as that without providing any backing documentation. He got more and more contentious over time and it accelerated to the point where he was banned. Not just blocked, but banned. Then he started popping up these various sockpuppets trying to the do same thing. His list of socks is lengthy, lemma tell ya. His activities have slowly tapered off, but several times a week he shows up on one of about 3 different user pages with some nonsense, either about submitting a vandal report, or about my alleged pending retirement. His fantasy, presumably. He's a major loon, and since he edits from N.Y. Public Library computers, they can't really do an IP block on him. He's like a mosquito who shows up several times a week. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

link BGC (talk) 12:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Ahh, i see. Fair enough. I've been away and only scanned over the history, so you make a good point. It's actually a good idea, i've got a couple of discogs i'm watching and geez they're terrible, the amount of fake chart peaks that are added, it's disgraceful. Thanks for the message. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 12:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just redirected the page. There is no need for a discussion because there are no sources supporting it (that i know of) and it is obvious that the other name is the official name. The page was already moved, so the history was saved. This seems like a desperate attempt by an ip to make the page under the name he wants. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi , how do? im new to wikipedia and not really sure how this site works. im trying to improve sandi thoms page, my efforts have so far been thwarted. the page as it stands is a hateful, negative, slanderous, out of date and untrue smear campaign.

i wish to represent her in a true and fair light. i am leaving edit summaries as i go, making minor changes here n there and major changes also. i wish to remove a lot of text that is already there, it is wholly negative and one sided and not at all a balanced objective, neutral perspective of this artist. there is a lot of cited and referenced material there, but it is all negative press, it has been very well researched in an effort to tarnish this person.

if wiki truly is supposed to be neutral and objective, please look at the page as it stands and then my improvements before deleting them.

can i ask you, do you work for wikipedia? is the sandi thom page on your watch list and thats why you were alerted to my changes ? as i say, im a brand new user and some user tips would be appreciated.

please dont delete my work, if you have reservations about the rules of the game and weher i am breaking them or not, please consult me first.

many thanks

Daschund (talk) 11:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hello again. Ive tried to re-word a lot of the sections that Daschund has taken pains to say is lies and slander even with verification. id be grateful if you could give it a once over just to confirm neutrallity. Skinnylizzy (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so proud of myself taking it on the chin, not like me at all! (quietely curses) Jack forbes (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't beat yourself up over agreeing with British Watcher. We agreed with each other three times in one day! I had to go and lie down for a while. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...for your support and kind words. RfA. "Request for Arrows". And I got quite a few points, from the sincere Opposers, and will work on doing better. I understand the "u" in colour, favour, etc. What I don't get is why "forecastle", which I kind of like the sound of as a fully-pronounced word, comes out "folks'll". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Admin, please check the SUCI page that you once commented on. I found your comments on it. There is a sockpuppet of User:Kuntan who is active again and is mutilating the pages. Please intervene. I am new one, so I am yet to find my ways around. --Radhakrishnansk (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me do that. Here are the suspected sockpuppets Sockpuppet of User: Kuntan, Anonymous User with IP address 59.91.253.113, 59.91.253.110, 59.91.254.63, 59.91.254.38, 59.91.253.112, 59.91.253.70, 59.91.253.225, 59.91.254.94, 59.91.254.8. He was silent for some months now and again sprang up suddenly. --Radhakrishnansk (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• You will have to feel ashamed later if you paid heed to this stupid boy who is the partisan of a Brahaminical cult masquerading as a communist sect. See the part on ideology he mulishly keeps reverting. 59.91.253.27 (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editor, I am not removing anything from his edits. I am just moving them to another place where critisims can be placed. And all the more an analysis about a party is not an party ideology. He dragged me into this any ways. I have posted a request as you suggested. --Radhakrishnansk (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will refrain from this...--Radhakrishnansk (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SUCI is a cult and and extreme fringe group. The article has been the site of group account edits and nasty show of herd consciousness by the cult members. It resulted in the banning of all those accounts. You should be aware of this. Please don't waste your efforts on sub-human ideological cults. Don't take my words for it. Just Google and read the newspaper reports appearing in reliable papers. 59.91.253.27 (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is strange that this man is trying to call a party as a fringe group. At least he should know that they were the ones behind movements such as Nandigram (through which I know them), Singur and several such movements that happened in south India including Vizhinjam port movement, Chengara struggle and Moolampally movement; to name a few. At least it has more supporters that several other parties in India. User: Soman tried to convience this person, but he was also abusive at him. --Radhakrishnansk (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This world is not perfect, so you should archive soon. --♪♫The New Mikemoral^talk_contribs 23:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are now one thread closer and only twenty away. Best regards, ♪♫The New Mikemoral^talk_contribs 23:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Canderson7 ^(talk) 00:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Remember me? You participated in the discussion last time around and I thought you might want to pitch in. I've rewritten the article at User:Abd/TurnKey Linux and added reliable sources (the non-english sources are in the talk page). I also opened a RfC but so far no one has commented. Could you take a look and give me some feedback? Thanks! LirazSiri (talk) 08:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. I flagged Club Mahindra Holidays for CSD using twinkle. My contributions show that twinkle put the warning template on the creating users talk User_talk:IndianCorporates. It's still on there. I hadn't contributed to your talk until I tried to apologise. Err. Any ideas? --  Chzz  ►  16:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Of course, if I have done anythhing wrong, then I'm very sorry)

OK, that makes sense now! Phew. Thanks;

Yes, speedy was declined. I would normally now submit if for AfD, as I do think it's pure promotional stuff. The admin declined because it has references, but if you look at the refs, they're not great. Weak sources, passing mentions, that sort of thing. However, if you intend to try and fix it up a bit, I'm quite happy to leave that for a while and see if it can improve - if I have a bit of time, I'll even try and improve it myself. So, I'll make a little note of it, and I will probably review it in a week or two. Fair enough? Thanks again, --  Chzz  ►  16:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have become a hate figure for from Ayn Rand supported in the US - thanks for clearing up the latest bit of vandalism --Snowded (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya,

I agree wit you totally that the phorm article shoudl not be taking sides, but i just feel that the additions was taking sides yes, but the acutally conent when edited would not be taking sides as it merely say a flaw of the system that phorm wish to use. If you feel that it should still be remove since you kindly explained to me why you remove it i wont change it back as i agree with you on the point of the article not taking sides, but i did try to edit it to be more neutral.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late response, yeah that sounds like the best way forward unfortunately my English isn't good but i have formatted it out of a POV or opinion status.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 11:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I wonder if you could add the footnote to the infobox concerning the limited powers of the PM and Queen as voted for in the straw poll. I hope you don't think I'm being cheeky here, but I do think you did a good job when giving examples of possible footnotes earlier. Cheers! Jack forbes (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much appreciated erm, what do I call you? This flag? once was red? Or do you prefer the more formal This flag once was red? I don't want to get it wrong. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TFOWR it is then. And thanks. Jack forbes (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two things, I completely agree with the fact that this should not be cited to Bosnian as my lyrics website (not blog, as it happens to appear as) does not state that it is in fact Bosnian. I am trying to get this verified by Regina as I write for esctime.com also and we will resolve this issue as soon as possible. For now, put the language as Serbian, cited to Diggiloo Thrush. Please reply on my page. ńăŧħăń - ŧăłķ 20:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Well Luke Fisher of Oikotimes (Serbian speaker) has confirmed that due to the "j" in some words, it makes it Croatian, not Serbian. Bosnian and Croatian are dialects of Serbo-Croat, but this song is in Croatian. I am just adding that to the bottom of the lyrics on 4LYRICS so that we can cite it. I'm sure that it will be okay, if it's still a disputed citation, even after my explanation, then I will have to write an article on it for esctime explaining why it's Croatian, just so we can sort this out! ńăŧħăń - ŧăłķ 21:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Here is the explanation for the language. Surely that's citation material? ńăŧħăń - ŧăłķ 21:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Stephen to do it as I can't technically cite my own work, and you're in an edit war. I'm glad we've solved the problem. I have, however, also asked the EBU about the FYROM title (cause it's driving me mad that they've spelt it wrong, and so we've copied it) and also for the official language choice of the Bosnian song. ńăŧħăń - ŧăłķ 21:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I've been an "on-and-off" member of the project for the last 4 months since I started work on 4LYRICS, but I do get called into action in arguments and stuff, so I thought I'd help out here. Add my MSN: nathan-7@live.co.uk - so that if you need me, I'm always there! ńăŧħăń - ŧăłķ 21:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize for "spam." Thank you for taking and interest in this article. From my brief encounters with it, it seems to be something of a battleground between folks with very strong opinions about the company both ways. It's always a good idea for steady hands to help right the ship. Sadly, concerning the notability of the article or what should be added to bring the article up in quality, I can't really offer an informed opinion. I have no knowledge of the subject matter. My only involvement was to remove obviously POV statements. From a cursory reading, however, it does seem much improved with regards to sourcing. The company does seem to be large/notable enough to merit inclusion on Wiki. My vote, if it came to it, would be to keep it. If I had to be nitpicky, some of the language in the "New Business Ventures" section does seem like it might have been taken from company literature. Overall, though, the article seems to be moving in the right direction. Monkey Bounce (talk) 10:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please see the talk page on Kate Nash. The references that have been put in place are generic artist entries, where the info is based on other articles. These incorrect birth details have been removed from Wikipedia numerous times, but have been copied onto other sites which take their info from Wikipedia and aren't updated.

92.11.165.113 (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seen it, understood, and posted on your talk page ;-) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Wikipedia seems to be a hot bed for people targetting articles on people with Irish backgrounds and putting false Irish places of birth on them - which isn't exactly helpful. I have no doubt it will be changed back, using the same generic artist profile as a reference.

92.11.165.113 (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...for reverting and turning in the latest pair of Liebman socks. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! First time I've reported vandals without a final warning - the second one in particular was blocked without any warning. Does this guy ever get bored?! Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 00:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to discuss the case with you. The first MS case had two different accusations. One on tying of WMP with the Windows OS and the other on levering of dominance from the OS market to the WGSOS market. The document I linked to in the main thread is an early draft of my LLM Dissertation ( http://croesy.web.nowhere-else.org/web/Dissertation.pdf ). I can't find the final version, I will hunt about. To be honest I didn't look at the tying accusation on WMP in the dissertation. From a competition law perspective it is not interesting/controversial. I believe a similar logic will be used by the Commission/ECJ in the new investigation into Internet Explorer. I find the accusation of levering of dominance between markets much more interesting and the response of the Commission to the abuse fascinating! The remedy of the Commission made no sense legally or economically, and yet the Court of First Instance pretty much rubber-stamped it. Anyway I more than willing to discuss anything else about the case and the potential Internet Explorer case. Lwxrm (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're far more knowledgeable than me, clearly! I followed it through the news, basically, rather than look at it in any depth. My understanding was that the DoJ case was considered an "Internet Explorer" case: it sound as if the 1st EU case wasn't - is that correct? To my untoutored mind it seems a little late to be considering IE, but I had gathered that a new IE case is happening - Opera were supportive of the EU prosecution, if I recall correctly?

Anyway, I really just had a few questions to fill in gaps in my knowledge - and I wanted to get it off Talk:European Union because it was rapidly becoming off-topic - thanks for shifting it here!

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep you are correct the first EU case did not contain anything about IE. Why? Truthful answer: I don't know. The Commission is far from transparent and logical in its choice of competition law battles. It does seem late in the day for the Commission to try and counter the toxic effects of MSs' OS dominance on the browser market.

My best guess would be that the Commission is so overstretched it waited until a complaint was made and eventually "got around to it". This typifies the Commission's approach to (in)effective enforcement...Secondly it may have wanted to see how its first case on interoperability/WMP was received by the CFI/ECJ before embarking on another costly investigation. Thirdly, perhaps it wanted to wait to see how DoJ case worked out. Also browser "innovation" has exploded in recent years. This means there is a huge market for innovative browsers. The average Windows user is robbed of the opportunity to utilise these, being tied (through ignorance) to IE. Probably a mix of these things XD And certainly I think the Commission wants to show their power over even the "untouchables". I mean if they wanted they could prevent Windows being marketed in the EU, so a bit of showing "who is boss". Also the money from the fines goes to the EU budget and these MS cases look like cash cows to me, big, juicy and prime for the slaughter! Lwxrm (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TFOWR. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Goldsztajn (talk) 01:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied, and Goldsztajn's wonderful new map can be seen on commons and on the "Oman" article. Thanks, Goldsztajn! Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just did a slight retouch to the map, to make the view better when the map is clicked (basically increased nominal size from 600px to 1000px). If you're happy with this, can you mark the entry on GL/I with a {{resolved}} tag, please. --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I will say is that it should present facts supported by credible references. Anything less than that does not belong on the Wikipedia. Timeshare as a concept has attracted flak from all quarters. Perhaps, it is due to the wrongs done by a few companies who fleeced the public and vanished with the loot. However, you ought to be mindful of the fact that if you have chosen to put the company information on Wikipedia, users are going to edit it and anything, criticism or praise, backed by references deserves to be displayed on the page. This is the nature of Wikipedia, and perhaps this what makes it so unique.

Caccophonix (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are unduly worried about the page. Wikipedia is a community of wise people. Let the community take over from here. As of now, the page is there but if the community decided to delete the page, then so be it. You have done your bit and one person can do only so much. effort.

Caccophonix (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied (two replies). This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for your kind words.

Caccophonix (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On calm reflection I agree this was jarring in the context of the article. I've left it alone. However, you may wish to consider that in the context of the BoE's long history it was a "relevant" event. Particularly when you combine it with unprecedented Weimar Republic levels of "quantitative easing". Something is up. I humbly suggest that every single day has been "historic" for the Old Lady in her 315th year. She's beginning to show her age. Who knows, she may be showing signs of brain cancer :-) - CrisisFeedsLeviathan (talk) 08:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also deeply regret using the too brutal, too explicit version of "B*tch". If I could delete the unnecessarily gratuitous comment I would. Then again, given the destruction she has wrought, the description, though gratuitous and unnecessary, is deadly accurate. So perhaps it's justified in a weird "long-term" cosmic sense. If you wish to add anything on the protests or QE and their historic significance please feel free. I will refain from commenting on the Old Lady further. - CrisisFeedsLeviathan (talk) 08:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied. Executive summary: thanks for your thoughtful comments, and I have no issue with describing the Bank as "a bitch" ;-) This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You seem to have a user thingy in a different colour. How do you do that? Please reply on my talk page. Other question: Do you know the instrument in the background that is played all the way through on Love Sex Magic? Please reply on this one on my talk page too. Thanks. Andrew R (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more question: Are you allowed to use one or more accounts unabusively? Just wondering, as I need to ½ disguise my tracks from one particular vandal who believes I wrote about them. Andrew R (talk) 10:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what I meant was your signiture. Andrew R (talk) 10:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Question 2: Have you ever been RFA'D? I would be happy to nominate you. [[Andrew RACK]] (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied. Executive summary: I'm not worthy, too inexperienced, but thank you very much! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I think my edit summary explains it all. If we are going to include a sentence in the article that says the video has received more than X number of views and more than X number of comments, it should be ok for an editor to update it to include more accurate information. If we don't want to keep these running tallies going, the sentence should be removed altogether. Howver, I personally don't want the sentence removed, because that information is interesting. 98.220.43.195 (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, Are you editing an encyclopedia or helping vested interests add random tidbits? 117.204.80.233 (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied. That IP address looks very familiar, by the way... This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I have no objection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.204.80.233 (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

It is apparent that this User:117.204.80.233 is a puppet of User:Kuntan. Please see the discussion between me and User:Abd in my talk page. All the text that he removed are cited with third party material (news paper clips) as I see it. So he has no reason to remove. It is certainly vandalism --Radhakrishnansk (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Did you notice that this User:Kuntan has come up with a new user name; the name of the Kerala State Secretary of [[SUCI].--Radhakrishnansk (talk) 11:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied - will keep an eye out. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Another probably puppet of User:Kuntan = User:Uzhuthiran. Blaming me to be a puppet of several other editors!!--Radhakrishnansk (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify. The main youtube video(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lp0IWv8QZY) is over 30 million(currently 33 million). Total for all online videos of her performance (http://www.viralvideochart.com/dailymotion/susan_boyle_on_britain_got_talent?id=x8ymn0) is currently 70 million. The Washington Post gave us some figures yesterday. SunCreator (talk) 10:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied, thanks for the clarification. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, agreed. I did the same with the lead yesterday. SunCreator (talk) 11:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

To be honest I didn't give it much thought, just seemed to roll off the keyboard and didn't strike me as being peculiar or odd - perhaps it should... Just looked at Gender-specific_pronoun#Ships_and_countries - perhaps I'm just being old-fashioned. By all means revert to "it" if you wish. Regards Endrick Shellycoat 10:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Started thread and replied. Executive summary: I'm happy, it just looked a bit odd. Probably just me being caffeine-deprived...! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

It is long since we talked. If you aren't the stuff the suci boy is made of just hear me for once. Check the course that article on that minuscule party underwent on pedia. See what those ideology-blinded accounts tried to throw in and what I attempted to weed out. Do you believe in NPOV or in red flag? 59.91.254.32 (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied to Kuntan sock. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.91.254.32 (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would be thankful if you could provide me information about tagging an article. Where can I find the list of tags that are used while editing an article?

Caccophonix (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Got It.

Caccophonix (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At 7th Studio Album, I have opened a vote on the discussion page, regarding whether the article should be kept and deleted. I encourage you to make a vote and state your reasons. --Sky Attacker (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied. Executive summary: !voted delete, with explanation and suggestion that Sky Attacker may wish to remove the {{prod}}-tag. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you man :) 85.197.21.80 (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mind if I copy your I-don't-speak-Polish user box? During my half-year in Warsaw, my favorite Polish phrase was, Czy mówisz po angielsku? (Do you speak English?)

I'm curious how you managed to edit an article on Polish Wikipedia.

Sca (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied. Executive summary: my Wiki-skills drastically outweigh my linguistic skills ;-) This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Djiękuje bardzo! That's one of my six phrases in Polish. It means thank you much. Sca (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re this. Yep, I recall watching that live myself. Whilst I'm not a reliable source, I'm sure someone has published that transcript or quoted it somewhere. Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 10:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, hold on there cowboy! The only edit I've made to 2009 Christmas specials (Doctor Who) is this one, in which I reinstated an HTML comment removed by an IP. Ironically, the HTML comment reads "Please don't add companions without a reliable source" ;-)

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry I spotted that and removed the warning :) I got you mixed up with with someone else...think I need more coffee. magnius (talk) 12:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, no worries! I'm on my third cup and still don't feel fully awake ;-) Must be a Wednesday thing! I removed my message from your talk page when I caught up with you and realised that you'd realised what had happened. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

for fixing that List of YouTube celebrities table i tried but i could not figure it out.Cheers Kyle1278 19:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I agree with you whole-heartedly that the red-link was extremely confusing. I was just getting ready to mark it with the "under discussion" template, when I saw your edit. I don't know how the original editor will react, however. Stay tuned! --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(No problem! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 22:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Be RFA'D yet? I am a changed person since last month and would like to also apologise to every editor I have upset. A bloke called Andrew^Convos_{My Messies} 08:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hey there,

Sorry to bother you, but I am still not sure if this is appropriate since you usually get "This is not an article and so does not come under our jurisdiction", kinda thing. Sometimes I just go soddit and think well at least that gets someone's attention who is usually quick to grumble help. Like, since both seem to have equal weight the only argument really seems to be which of them goes. SimonTrew (talk) 13:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied. Looks like WP:CFD may be the way to go. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You suck! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.213.180 (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied. Why thank you! I sure do value the opinions of anonymous IPs with that many warnings for vandalism! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You should listen to me because I'm Barack Obama —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.213.180 (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

	You are cordially invited to join WikiProject Eurovision!
	You appear to be someone that may be interested in joining WikiProject Eurovision. Please accept this formal invitation from a current member of the project. We offer a place for you to connect with users who also like Eurovision and facilitate team work in the development of Eurovision articles. We also publish a monthly newsletter that keeps you up to date on project, member, and Eurovision news.
	If you decide to join the project, please add your name to this list.
	I hope you accept! - Grk1011/Stephen (talk)

Not sure why you haven't joined already! Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(signed up and replied - thanks for the invite! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Lol. I was just doing some general stuff on the project page and was surprised when I didn't see your name in the members section even though you edit Eurovision articles pretty routinely. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's mark it resolved and just keep an eye on it for a couple. I have both users contribs open on tabs to keep an eye on them and they look like they are behaving. If they get out of line, they can always post back to the ANI post even after it is resolved....so let's mark it resolved. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 13:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Relied, and marked as resolved at WP:ANI. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Perhaps you can help. I an having ALOT of trouble with him adding copyrighted information, under OTRS ticket #2008091610055854, to List of television stations in North America by media market‎. He has threatened many times to continue. I have emailed User:Swatjester who has seen the OTRS ticket inside and out and has blocked Theaveng previously and now with his misuse of templates and edit-warring Compact fluorescent lamp is there something you can do to stop him...at least for a couple hours? Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • 15:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am Not violting the ticket. I am adding a link to FCC.gov as a source. That breaks no rules. ---- Theaveng (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's all the same to you, I'd prefer to hear from Swatjester first, rather than take the work of an editor who has already been repeatedly blocked for similar edits. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it matters, but Swat hasn't edited since the 6th of May (10th now in the US). I emailed him, but I don't know if he will recieve it. Should we take this to ANI or AIV for further admin input or wait it out? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 15:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am heading off to bed (been up all night with jaw pain) and will leave everything up to you. If you wish to take this to ANI, you have my backing on that. Please message me if you need any input and I will post it when I wake up (which shouldn't be too late). I would keep List of television stations in North America by media market‎ on your watchlist as well. Take Care. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 15:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the accident deletion, I re-added it. Also, think about creating pages beginning with User:This flag once was read/ and copy & paste each months messages into your recently made archive. I'm sure you already know how to do this!

Thanks,I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied. Getting to the point where archiving is unavoidable... I'm well over the 100 mark now... This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 00:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

When I went on your page I was like... WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!! Happy Archiving! :)

I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 00:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message, I will take care of those notices ! Wow Scotland ! (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a question for you about the SPI case for Nimbley6. Could you respond when you have the chance? Thanks. Icestorm815 • Talk 22:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, I sometimes go through my contributions to see the status of my edits, and I just noticed that you reverted someone who reverted me on Leo McGarry. With the thousands of Mc sort keys I've been changing to Mac, I'm actually surprised at how infrequently I've been reverted, in spite of my explanatory edit summary. Anyways, I just wanted to say thanks. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hi flag!

I thought i should let you know that i copied over a comment you made on this AFD to a relevant SSP case as evidence supplied by other users. It was a perceptive comment indicating that the user is indeed a likely vandal. I hope you won't mind that i did not ask in advantage for permission for this copyover.

With kind regards, Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 11:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! No worries! As hoaxes go, I thought it was fairly blatant. "Yu tust gud" reminded me of a haka in bro'Town: off-hand it sounds legit, but when you listen closely you realise the performer is singing in English and is discussing "the bus service that runs to Whenuapai".

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in retrospect its rather blatant, but when i first tagged it i only saw that "Yu tust gud" along with that weird Jimbo Lampa name (First thought: Jimbo Wales?). The page is just an edited mash up of several articles. Brussel sprouts called (pèpper bukas)? And farata edited to resemble farta? Lovely how he went in with that IP to try and protect the article though. Instead of protecting it he pointed us to a nice cache of proof and vandalism edits :)

Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Wow Scotland !" has been blocked of a sockpuppet of Historian19. The edits look quite difficult to revert due to the amount of edits since, would you like to revert anything back that is problematic? Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for offering its very kind of you, when you put a signature in does that take over from your username when you type a comment?Willski72 (talk) 08:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied. Good luck with your new signature! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		for all your spontaneous help and for the help you have given others looking at your talkpage! Willski72 (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate, for helping a lost user in the barren wilderness of Wikipedia, i was torn between this one and the humour one (for your quips etc!). Plus of course all the help you appear to have given others!Willski72 (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I've added it to my collection! Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You deserve it!Willski72 (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 05:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied. Probably not at the moment, thanks! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hello, TFOWR. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Can't Stop Feeling.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied. I would never harm an otter. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, I see you prodded this, but that's a speedy deletion candidate (WP:CSD#G8). Please respond on my talk page if you have any objection to the speedy deletion. - Dank (push to talk) 16:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied. Nope, no objection! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hello, TFOWR. You have new messages at Blurpeace's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

(Replied. Blurpeace is awesome! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

so what do i have to do to keep my article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vh1-fac (talk • contribs) 19:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent edit to the article, please keep in mind that the {{Rating}} template is only to used for reviews that actually use star ratings. Please see Template:Rating and WP:ALBUM#Professional reviews for further information. just64helpin (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied - sorry, and thanks for the info. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] ~~~~~

Yes, I saw you around recently and was remembering our work together, I should not be talking to the IP really as he is a block evading sock User:HarveyCarter who used to come a lot disrupting Brown and saying he was autistic, but I can't be bothered with tagging him today, good to see you. Off2riorob (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I wondered if anyone else would make the connection between a Carphone Warehouse IP and edits to Jack Wild and UK politicos! Sad to see something never change! I've adopted a new policy with socks - I'm no longer going to WP:SPI unless they're really disruptive - if they want to troll talk pages (and the main article is semi-d...) all power to them. It should give future readers a good laugh if nothing else. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is sometimes a good policy. I will archive the discussion when I can, as its excessive discussion for a talkpage and it is getting large. Off2riorob (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sure - I don't want to suggest anything contrary to WP:NOTAFORUM - it was that policy that prompted me to mark the thread as resolved - the original issue was addressed, and the IP wanted to drag out the discussion without discussing anything that would add value to the article. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is going to be a very interesting time in politics for a while, We are used to the simple majority situation and to get to watch then having to work together is going to be interesting indeed. Off2riorob (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I was talking to my (11 year old) niece on Thursday about when the results be out, what would happen, etc. It's a good first election for her to pay attention to, precisely because it's so unusual.

I understand the Tories and Labour position on FPTP (it's served them both well thus far) but I do wonder whether this will make either party more amenable to electoral reform. The last general election I voted in was in New Zealand, and both Labour and National (Tories) seemed quite happy with PR - and both Labour and National remain the dominant two parties...

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes very good for people to understand a bit more of the process, PR will take a vote of the people to get it in. The question is do the people want it? Personally although I do like collaboration I would not like to see issues preferred by minority parties implemented because someone needs then to form a government. The winners in the PR issue will be the liberal democrats so giving it to them to get into power is a double edged sword indeed. Off2riorob (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the Lib Dems will be the only winners - I suspect the Greens etc will be quite happy too! It does make for interesting governments - in NZ Labour had to cosy up to the Greens, "the Progressives" (Old Labour), and NZ First (kind of a centrist BNP if you can imagine that...) In the next government, National (Tories) had to keep various junior parties happy as well. And the Maori Party happily hopped between the two, so it stayed in Government even though the government went from Labour to National.

Your point about "the People" is well made: PR isn't something most people (outside the Lib Dems...) care about: I think there are more pressing issues, but if we don't start thinking about it we'll be left wondering "what happened?" the next time there's a hung parliament!

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 20:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hes blocked and the forum discussion is archived. I reverted his Jack Wild edits, that sure is a sad story. Off2riorob (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three cheers for the Mighty Parrot! TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 20:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. I have had a fair few run ins with the carphone dynamic IP. We don't seem to have a way to stop such accounts from as you say troll talk pages and being unable to edit but such accounts are disruptive, I should have ignored him. Personally I support only accounts and no IP edits, that would go a long way to stop many of the vamdalism and socking issues but it might make it a tad quiet. Best regards TFOW, nice to see you again. Off2riorob (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right back atcha! Sadly, I agree almost 100% with your point about IP editors. Maybe flagged revisions would help - but it's not something I've looked at enough to have an opinion on yet. Part of the reason I took an (unannounced, unplanned) wiki-break was the hassle of socks using dynamic IPs...

...anyhoo - great to see you again! No doubt we'll edit-conflict with each other again soon!

TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 20:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rain man indeed, as you saw I though I would make a report, it is good to make one every now and again to get confirmation and bring it to peoples attention and then when you shout sock and start reverting him people remember, recently he reported me to ANI bt it only lasted about five mins and he got blocked. Off2riorob (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm trying to stay away from WP:SPI but figured I'd pile in! I've tried WP:AIV and WP:ANI in the past, and SPI does seem the preferred approach - but it's not hugely fast... the IP is already blocked, but I suspect the registered account will either survive a day or two longer, or Harvey will get bored and create a new account (or simply use a new IP address). Sockers don't ever seem to get bored - part of me has to admire their stamina, though I suspect they have special qualities that I probably wouldn't want...! TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this is funny from his talkpage Off2riorob (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:-) ... though I think Harvey suffers from "understanding issues", so clicking the link may not reveal as much as we might hope... TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha ha..ROFL..Full agreement there, you take it easy I didn't realize you have had six months away, don't burn yourself out again. I was just looking, my last talkpage comment to you was way back in October 2nd. Off2riorob (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just wanted to tell you that User:Ariana310 has also summarized his points at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ahmed_shahi. Tajik (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for letting me know. I'll keep an eye on the discussion, and nudge administrators to take a closer look. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protection is a good thing. If you get any more disruption from unconfirmed accounts we can protect your user pages. Off2riorob (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - it's something I've been thinking about. I'd be happy to avoid protection unless their nonsense here is disrupting other editors unduly (e.g. if I'm about, I'm happy to either revert or just mock them, but if I'm not I appreciate other people will have to clean up the mess so short-term protection may be a better option). I could care less what some anon IP thinks of my sexuality (I'm not Jason Donovan ;-) )and I figure it's better for them to mess up my talk page or user page than an article.

One thing I noticed today was that articles I'd linked to on my user page suddenly became vandal targets - that's something I'm going to look at fixing over the next few days...

Cheers, and thanks for keeping an eye on me pages!

TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 23:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Harvey-I'm-not-a-sock-JackWildFan seems to have been blocked - for being a sock. I'm flabbergasted! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 23:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no its clearly not me..As I said, protection is a good thing, my talkpage is protected until July and that is a good thing, my user page is indefinitely protected, it stops disruption and harassment. You will enjoy it. Off2riorob (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can tie it to Opal, because it is almost certainly Special:Contributions/89.240.131.49. Anything you can show me to tie it tighter to Nimbley6? There has to be more than one Wikipedia editor using Opal.—Kww(talk) 23:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUCK, mostly, I'm afraid - editing patterns (same articles - Scotland, pop music (especially Scottish bands), Scotland == Scotland but England == UK, spelling and grammar). I'm about to bow out for the night, but I'll have a dig through Holywood56's contribs in the morning for more detail.

Incidentally, it was more as an FYI - I decided not to go to WP:SPI and see how Holywood56's edits panned out - they had been editing for a while (since January), and I've only just got back from a 6 month wiki-break - I figured they may well have become a half-decent editor in the intervening time (obviously they haven't ;-)

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 23:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead after review. A large heap of G5 deletions as a result.—Kww(talk) 00:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that conclusion, FWIW. Amalthea 01:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brown-do you think we should get it fully protected? Off2riorob (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the wrong person to ask - I tend to view protection as an absolute last resort. Right now it doesn't look too bad - there's a bit of too-ing and fro-ing, but it's all good. I've personally reverted TreasuryTag (an editor I have utmost respect for), albeit I did add a ref in response to TTag's edit summary.

Right now I'm not too happy with the suggestion that he has resigned - someone's added a term finish of 2010, which I understand the reasoning behind, but my preference would be to leave it blank until, you know, his term actually has finished!

...naturally, my view on protection may change! I'll ping you once I change my mind ;-)

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is ok as it goes, I also don't think we should add term end until it actually has. Off2riorob (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.wordmagazine.co.uk/content/gordon-brown-resigns-skys-adam-boulton-loses-it-with-alistair-campbell totally amusing. Off2riorob (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey! I rarely see Sky, that was a real eye-opener! I suspect Labour (and bruisers like Campbell, in particular) have had much longer to come to terms with the result - the Tories are only just beginning to realise they didn't do as well as they'd expected... TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 23:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He totally lost it didn't he. I agree the Tories had only one good option and that ws a majority and now the situation is sinking in. (its exciting and amusing to watch them all scheming) Good morning. The alt text was removed without explanation in an edit by pointer, I just replaced what I could find. I think we added it for the GAR. Some people don't like it but I think for removal at least a discussin is in order. Off2riorob (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I thought I remembered doing some alt text in the past - it was with you, on Gordon Brown. Damn, I feel silly now! Never mind, keep up the good work! TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be getting into trouble since you've returned, so I'll blame it all on you. Joking aside - I'm about to get in an edit war I don't want. Am trying to explain to an editor that material copied verbatim requires quotation marks, and that material cited to a source must be in the source. Fancy having a look over my shoulder? The article is Quicksilver and the issue is (somewhat) explained on the close paraphrasing and source verification threads of the talkpage. Won't be worried if you don't want to get into it. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loved the Baroque Cycle! Looking into it now. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good, glad you know it - I hoped you would. One of my favorites too! Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments yesterday. Since you know the author and the books don't be shy about making suggestions on the talk-page. The article has been to FAC once, and the main editor asked for help. I read Quicksilver about five years ago, and need to refresh my memory before I can tackle the plot section, but it seems to me that the themes section needs tweaking. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and way ahead of you! I added the 4 articles (3 novels plus cycle) to my watchlist yesterday! (I'm on a mission to seriously reduce my watchlist - yesterday I was savage and went from 2200+ to just over 1800 articles, so you'll appreciate that these 4 articles getting added was a major event for me!) TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very savage about my watchlist - keep it as lean as possible. Thanks for adding four more to yours; that's 3 more from the series than I have watched!! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried Wikipedia:Third opinion. Joe Chill (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I hope it works out. I notice you're discussing it at the Anime and Manga wikiproject - that's an excellent way to get additional input, and it looks like at least one other editor thinks you're reasonable and that discussion is the way forward. Let me know how you get on, and good luck! TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 23:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ever considered requesting adminship? Feel free to tell me to bugger off if you're not interested ;). Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! There are now candidates at WP:RFA! No need to get desperate ;-)

Seriously, yes, I've considered it in the past and concluded that I wasn't ready. Since then I've taken an extended wiki-break, from which I've only recently returned, so my view right now is that I'm still not ready. Not ruling it out for the future, but not ruling it in, either!

...but thanks for suggesting I'd be suitable! I'm flattered!

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

12 hours later and both candidates seem to have disappeared. I ain't changing my minds, though, not no how, not no way! TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 00:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That Brown has quit, according to sources . looks like he will be off to see the queen soon. Off2riorob (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got BBC News 24 on in the background, and I caught a wee bit about "luggage" being seen at the back of No. 10. I still maintain - as do you, I'm sure - that until the Queen invites Cameron (or Clegg - might happen, I s'pose...) to be PM there should be no change. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Report is from the standard http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23832558-david-cameron-its-decision-time-for-lib-dems.do , Yes your right it needs to wait until the actual moment. Off2riorob (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(set to resign) tonight. It is going to happen, expect Brown to make an announcement around 6 00. Off2riorob (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind that, expect the next hour to be a nightmare for you and me ;-) TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck, I have to go off line in twenty minutes and will not be back till 21 00. Off2riorob (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damn you, you coward! Seriously, enjoy the (well earned) rest! TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not rest, study! brain exhausting thinking. I would must prefer to stay online. Off2riorob (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry mate - I was trying to undo someone who had jumped the gun, but accidentally undid a different version instead. I should have been more careful. --Dizzy hiss (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! I've been dealing with this all day and I'm getting a little short - time for a break, methinks ;-) Thanks for your note! TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You're probably out of date. The 7 pm Channel 4 News showed live coverage upto 8 pm. Gordon Brown gave an resignation speech outside No 10 about 7:15 pm and drove to Buckingham Palace - again live from helicopter coverage - and was seen arriving at the Labour Party HQ just before 8 pm. In his Downing Street speech he said that he resigned immediately as Leader of the Labour Party and was resigning as PM. We don't appear to have been told whether the Queen accepted has resignation, but Channel 4 stated that we don't currently have a PM. Pyrotec (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely. Brown has resigned. The issue now is editors claiming Cameron is PM - until he meets the Queen, and she offers him the job, he ain't. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I spotted your reversion on Scotland where an editor removed Gordon Bown as leader, that change was I think valid at that time. Channel 4 seem to think that the Liberals won't be having their meeting until 9 pm and they can't accept a Lib-Con pact unless they agree at the meeting, but Dave Cammeron could become PM before that provided if he goes to Buckingham Palace (we agree on that point, i.e. be aint PM until the Queen asks him to be). Pyrotec (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This one? I changed the article to read that the post was "vacant", because the post is, well, vacant. David Cameron isn't PM (yet) in Scotland or the UK. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on David_Cameron. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Melonite 19:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No you haven't but thanks for reasoning. Pointer1 (talk) 23:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once does not equal "several". Reversion does not equal explanation! Pointer1 (talk) 23:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving: apropos of this thread. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 00:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! — e. ripley\^talk 17:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! For future reference, I respond well to more forceful reminders, too ;-) TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight I'm less than impressed by my comments. I've made a more detailed comment at Matt57's talk page. Thanks for nudging me; I'd prefer not to think about where that thread would have ended up if you hadn't poked me when you did! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 23:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was a very decent thing to do. Thanks for that. — e. ripley\^talk 03:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strange description? "Head and shoulders of a smiling man in a suit and striped tie with dark, greying hair and rounded face with square jaw" ... they don't like that alt text do they, hehe. Off2riorob (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to be getting a lot of attention of late, I guess because the article itself is getting a lot of traffic... I wonder if there's anything we could do to help editors realise the purpose before they remove/change it? At a very simple level we could put in HTML comments - but I wonder if there's a better solution that could work everywhere alt text is used?

I'm spread thin at the moment - apart from bad jokes at ANI etc I'm mostly focussing on learning everything I can about Kabul, Kabul Province and their respective populations (see here for why, and pity me!) but I'd be up for dropping by WP:ALT's talk page and seeing if other alty-people have encountered this, and how they dealt with it.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While you were gone the use of alt text cropped up again. Am not sure what the outcome was, but some felt it's not necessary, and it may have been decided to drop the requirement for FA articles. I'll dig around the FAC talkpage archives to find the thread, but the discussion then moved elsewhere and I lost track. I wouldn't worry too much about it at the moment. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK - thanks for the update. (Off topic, but I meant to mention it yesterday and didn't (busy with Kabul): your comment in the "Ban Bugs from ANI" thread - specifically "chilling effect". Best comment there, wish I'd thought of that phrase!) TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a legal term used in the US to indicate that freedom of speech is being impeded. I learned it from a friend and thought it to be very descriptive. Here's a loong thread about alt text. Honestly, I stopped reading after a while and can't remember whether a decision was made. Shortly after this discussion Eubulides seems to have left, or have taken a wikibreak. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[5] were you aware that it was impossible to edit the English Wikipedia from Ireland? I certainly was not.. O Fenian (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, duh! This is the English Wikipedia! (I'm writing this from Glasgow, England, and I've previously contributed from Takapuna, England ;-)

I really want to WP:AGF, but it's difficult to take an editor seriously when their username and WP:POV are marching in lock-step. I reckon see how it progresses, but I foresee a ton of attention from, uh, more "equipped", less involved editors over at WP:ANI if clue isn't obtained soon...

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When-oh-when are people going to realise that I have no national sympathies - not with New Zealand, not with Scotland, not with Ireland, England, Israel, Egypt...

Since we're dealing with "a British city in a British country" maybe we could get rid of the Irish - and the English - names? Would Welsh names be satisfactory, do you think?! Welsh is the ancient language of Great Britain (OK, maybe not that large island near Britain, but we're dealing with a great British city), before those pesky Angles and Saxons came over here... ;-) TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is the IP dubbed the "Welsh name vandal" I think? Perhaps a catchy nickname for BU will be in order? O Fenian (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly not much opportunity for the nickname to stick - the Derry GAA/Londonderry GAA crap was just ridiculous, so I figured a report to WP:AIV was in order. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...or not - apparently I closed the tab without submitting. The editor seems to have calmed down; I'll see how they are when they return. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience people like that do not change over time, the bitterness cuts deep into the bones. O Fenian (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess now we'll never know ;-) TFOWR^propaganda 18:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a shame :( O Fenian (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - I've access to a good library system so check references when it looks like numbers are fudged (Offline references are easily misquoted). I stuck some journal refs on the talk page of the article (unlinked as my access system is in the url by default, so my links wouldnt work for anyone but me.). To support my position anyway, I found this one online, [[6]] which has the author of the disputed reference quoting at least 50,000 deaths. Not 3 million. Good work on leading the discussion - I'm a scientist, so get impatient when people push unsupported views. Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir/Madam/Kittycat:

I have no clue.

Sincerely, --WaltCip (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Apropos of this and this) Now how will I remove pro-Star Wars bias from the Main Page????!!11! TFOWR^propaganda 21:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't hinting. I don't mind the light green, but the garish green is ugly. Didn't even realize you had green, but the red is nice. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't mean a hint like that (I can't think what you might think, to be honest...!) - I saw you tweaking your user page, started looking at it, then decided to tart up my collapsy-box thingies! TFOWR^propaganda 19:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC) Now I'm off to recheck your edit summaries to see what deeply offensive things you had to say about my green ;-)[reply]

Got it! TFOWR^propaganda 19:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the one. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I didn't see it at the time and aren't offended now! And red is much better here. I tried black as well, but the "show"/"hide" buttons disappeared... TFOWR^propaganda 19:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried black too, with colored text. There should be a way to set the colors for the show/hide buttons. Decorating is fun, and playing with colors too, but I always worry that it's getting a little too serious when I start decorating my space! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

..."my space"! An apt phrase for userspace tweaking! TFOWR^propaganda 20:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern

I'd like to apologise for that immature edit about user EOGUY, however I do have a complaint; if you are monitoring misconduct by users of wikipedia and flagging their edits; then why was user EOGUY allowed to edit the page of Abdur Razzaq (politician) and subsequently tarnish the name of an honourable individual. He edited that page and changed the contents from its factual write up to personal opinion and a lot of us have found it offensive to find out that he discredited a respected individual in that fashion.

I have edited the contents as best I could and can also back it up with documentary evidence for everything that I have written. I would also appreciate it if the same warning that was sent to me is sent to user EOGUY.

Sincerely,

Fahim Razzaq —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fahim.razzaq (talk • contribs) 20:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted! Thanks.

I'm not monitoring "misconduct by users"; I have a number of articles and userpages on my watchlist, and when I see vandalism occur I revert it and warn the editor responsible.

You can do this, too!

You can also discuss issues with users on their talk page - EoGuy's talk page, for example.

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 20:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, am new to wiki so ya could use the help. Thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fahim.razzaq (talk • contribs) 20:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what people are talking about. About all I ever do is correct misspelled words.

EoGuy (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - the user above had vandalised your user page. I reverted the vandalism, and warned them. Beyond that you'll need to discuss it the user themselves. TFOWR^propaganda 22:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Beck is some rabble rouser and on his show a couple of days ago he asked his supporters to be active on the internet against this Maurice Strong person, I don't know the ins and outs but its got global warming and other conspiracy type issues, the Strong article was attacked the other day and is semi protected there is also a comment on the BLPN for eyes. Off2riorob (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, gotcha. The editor seems receptive, though, and there are so many eyes on them right now that they should be safe... Fingers crossed... TFOWR^propaganda 22:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I notice he presented the guardian which is about the Beck thing.http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/13/glenn-beck-fox-news%20http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/18/bilderberg-charlie-skelton-dispatch1 Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That's pretty out-there. "Ex-UNEP guy speculates about a novel, 20 years later he's suddenly The New Left's number one plan for world domination." Thank you, Mr Beck, for bringing this terrible plan to my attention. Now I come to recall, I had Glenn Beck watchlisted a long time ago (thought the name was familiar). The article was a nut-magnet. TFOWR^propaganda 22:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find all that conspiracy stuff and global warming stuff a bit silly really, the ego inflating idea that us humans can control the global weather patterns of a sphere that sometimes gets hit by massive meteorites and is rotating through space at a speed of 67 000 miles an hour. http://www.solarviews.com/eng/earth.htm Off2riorob (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in - looking at the edit stats you'll see that our friend was active on that article. Stay away! No - run away! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its starting to look like a conspiracy. Off2riorob (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coren has blocked our newest friend for 31 hours but it is unclear as the exact reason. He created this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UNLiMiTED_TRUTH/Bilderberg_Group which may have had something to do with it. Off2riorob (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm outta there! Am I right in thinking ONY is now... gone? Based on my memories of Glenn Beck I'm guessing <no-outing>she or he</no-outing> was blocked there, rather than at an IB article? TFOWR^propaganda 12:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gone and IP blocked, but I don't think the IP block is indef. I can't remember which article caused the indef block, but not IB. Glenn Beck or another like that. Will check some links for you when I have time. Very busy at the moment.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't look it up on my account; I'm happy to content myself with the peace and tranquillity ;-) TFOWR^propaganda 15:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edit per WP:AT. The standard name of that body of water is Persian Gulf, which is what the title of the main article is. You can not change the standard name though piping or otherwise, NPOV does not apply when it comes to standard common geographical names in English. What you are doing is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines and polices on the geographical namings. Please do not repeat this in the future. Kurdo777 (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I publicised the change widely because I wasn't sure whether the change would be OK or not, despite the apparent consensus at Talk:Dubai.

On a related note, the article could do with further eyes on it - "Arabian Gulf" will almost certainly reappear with discussion.

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 10:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble with that is that all the different peoples around that body of water have a different name for it, the Persian Gulf must be defended at all cost. imo Off2riorob (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he is only one editor on that article and if your feel its correct start an RFC to check consensus. I think we take those articles one at a time, I was involved in an RFC on the talkpage of Persian Gulf. It is like the PGulf, a minefield similar to the united kingdom, imo I start to feel it is better kept out of, too much stress and little reward. Off2riorob (talk) 11:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go with an RfC over "Persian Gulf" (because I agree with the status quo - PG is the internationally recognised term), though I did give a wee bit of thought to asking here, but in the end I figured if editors are happy to deal with the pov-warriors I can back off and happily let them fight it out amongst themselves ;-) TFOWR^propaganda 11:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is insightful indeed. Our new friend got himself unblocked and is looking for comments on his desired addition (essay/cut and copy)(something not well known but needs telling to the world), which is the ongoing new user experiment. Off2riorob (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that. I must admit, I was a wee bit surprised at the block - the blocking admin was someone I respect - and it looks like there may still be confusion as to why our friend was blocked: it's been suggested it was for the large removal of comments from the talk page. I'd have - I did - assume it was our friend's lack of knowledge of talk page norms. Regardless, I strongly suspect that won't be the first block... it does appear to be absolutely vital that the awful truth is revealed to us poor ignoramuses... TFOWR^propaganda 11:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the show goes on. I think the first action was taken in knee jerk reaction to the loud quacking sound. Off2riorob (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes a lot more sense...! Speaking of which, about the same time this fine fellow was innocently coming to terms with creating an encyclopaedia in a collaborative environment... until they suddenly became very clued-up about RfAs. The exchange about "why was I blocked?" that followed was predictable and short... TFOWR^propaganda 13:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems there is quite a backlog on the SPI page today. Thanks for dropping by. Lucy is quite a character! Bksimonb (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your good will to settle the disagreements with Ahmed shahi (talk · contribs), but as long as he continues his extremely disruptive behavior as in the Pashtun people and Ghurids articles, I do not have any hope that a consensus can be reached. Most of all, because he keeps ignoring already discussed decisions and consensuses. I am really tired of reverting his nonsense, and except me, nobody else even dares to correct his POV and falsifications of academic sources. Tajik (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A favour please.

Is this guy notable I am considering AFD, a Muslim scholar, citations appear self promotional? Off2riorob (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, which guy? ;-) TFOWR^propaganda 13:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot the main bit... Husain_Kadodia Off2riorob (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any opinion? Off2riorob (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry, I completely forgot... had a look just now, and I'm not seeing any notability. The current version has no refs, only external links. The first link was definitely OK (the article subject's website), the rest I'm not so sure about - and at least one was a forum. Notability is the big concern for me - I'm just not seeing why he's notable. It seemed a bit rude, piling another tag on top of the tags already there, so I left it, but I'm actually thinking "AfD"... TFOWR^propaganda 17:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking, I sent him to AFD to see what the community think, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Husain_Kadodia Off2riorob (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I've watchlisted the AfD, I'll drop by towards the end (maybe there's some notability that we're missing...) TFOWR^propaganda 18:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no worries, its all a big learning curve, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have mail. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try again, then! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worked that time! Replied! TFOWR^propaganda 11:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• English: Mind your own business! The argument is between Miranda1989 and me. It's not your business. Stop the focus of our business. Please do something helpful on English wikipedia.
• 中文：管好你自己！这争执在于我跟Miranda1989，不干你的事。停止关切我们两人的事情，请做点对英语维基重要的事。 --俠刀行 (talk) 08:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Archiving note: apropos of WP:3O, my 3O response and User:Rjanag) TFOWR^propaganda 10:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Archiving note: see also my follow up to Rjanag. TFOWR^propaganda 10:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I've set up User:HJ Mitchell/Interaction ban and asked the two editors to review it and sign their agreement, on which condition I've unblocked Tajik. Any thoughts? Btw, I like the editnotice! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got their talk pages watchlisted during mediation, so I've seen it - no concerns from me. As you know, I've separated the three currently involved editors into separate pages - mainly to make my life easier! - which should help them during the interaction ban.

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 17:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You 86.21.103.180 (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Peace and Love[reply]

(Apropos of this)

No problem! TFOWR^propaganda 20:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed at with 99 support, 9 oppose, and 2 neutral. Your support was much appreciated.

Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Your above exchange with WalterClip, and your comments here has proven you have a good sense of humor. Therefore, you get this shiny star as a reminder to never lose it. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 03:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I've added it to me trophy cabinet...! (I refactored the link to the Talk:Main Page discussion so that it doesn't get lost when the discussion falls into an archive)

Interestingly, both the examples you cited involve "bias". This is an emotive topic, and the mere mention of the word can lead to heated discussions. I'd like to think that humour can be used effectively to lighten the mood, with detracting from the (serious and real) concerns. Fundamentally, I believe we're all biased in some way - but that acknowledging our own and others' bias is a positive step towards a non-biased encyclopaedia. I'm pimping this WikiProject a lot; more useful might be for me to actually get involved with it...

Lecture over, and thanks again for the barnstar!

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 13:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it say age i56? I thought that was the length of time in days between archives? The page about clue bot thre is worth a read, paramaters and such if I can find it. Off2riorob (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

168 (one six eight), mate! 168 / 24 = 7 days (and I've just checked - definitely a one. I wish it was something like a misplaced "I"...) Aye, I read ClueBot's page, I figure archiving should be straightforward, it's just something I seem to have a mental block over. My concern right now is that there's a thread right at the top (between you and me, as it happens!) that's from the 8th May - I can't see any later posts - and I figured that's 10 days away now.

Anyway, thanks for looking - any other ideas gratefully received!

TFOWR^propaganda 16:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of Cluebot and use Miszabot - feel free to get the code from my page. Haven't we had this conversation months ago? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly - my brane dusn't wurk, thuogh, wen it coms to ark-hiving ;-) Point taken - once my current connection issues resolve themselves (see current red text above...) I'll make the change. Ta! TFOWR^propaganda 16:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and done. You realise I'll hold you responsible if it all goes horribly wrong? ;-) Nah, thanks for the reminder - and realistically, archiving for me can't get any worse. I've never really got it working, so anything is an improvement... TFOWR^propaganda 17:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whot bot? Mine has also stopped working, some editors don't archive at all, the just delete it all, as the edit history is available to troll through in the edit history there is no must archive guideline. Off2riorob (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This week I have mostly been... using MiszaBot. Not actually seen it do anything, yet, so it may be just as evil "good" as ClueBot III. (Slightly) easier to type, however...! I'll see if it works as advertised, and if not I'll return to the system you suggest: ignoring archiving until someone complains that there are 500 posts on me talk page ;-) (at which point I'll Delete Them All And let God Sort Them Out). TFOWR^propaganda 13:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• MiszaBot and TFOWR, up a tree, K I S S I N G. Thanks guys - this looks like the start of a beautiful new relationship ;-)

• Don't want to disappoint you, but I think you have to add code for the archive page on this page so that you can find your archives. Some people use the little filing cabinet image, but I simply have mine embedded in the {{talkpage}} template. Sorry to keep butting in. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Way ahead of ye! I've got the old stuff commented-out, so the archive search thingy will return. Right now I'm waiting for a move request to be actioned; I've ended up (some time ago) with two archives: "Archives/1" and "Archive 1"; I want to end up with "Archive 1" and "Archive 2" (respectively). MiszaBot is ready and should in future go to "Archive 2" (which is the new name of my current archive). Once "Archive 1" (first archive, not current) is renamed I'll reinstate the search box thingy. No need to apologise for butting in - you're always very welcome here! TFOWR^propaganda 15:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That explains some of the archiving problems. When you were gone Cluebot was wiping your page fairly frequently, when the odd post showed up now and then. So those must have gone to Archives/1. Anyway, you're almost there. BTW - I have a black cat sitting next to me that looks just like the one on your page. I did like the angry cat though - too bad about that. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wnen this is sorted out I am going to copy the settings as my archiver is AWOL as well' Off2riorob (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll wait and check that MiszaBot now sends stuff to "Archive 2", but assuming it does I'm all set. Truthkeeper, I finally saw what you mention above - you're quite right, my "Archive 1" is full of early and recent stuff; my "Archive 2" is full of middling stuff. Dammit, but that's a problem for another day! I've reinstated the talkpage template - figured that's easiest, it shows the archives and has useful advice. TFOWR^propaganda 16:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like we're golden. MiszaBot, you are awesome! TFOWR^propaganda 17:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]