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 7	Archive 8	Archive 9

Sorry to keep pushing this, but it has been over three weeks now since this issue was raised. Codf1977 (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, sorry. Been tied up. 'll start taking a look now. TFOWR 16:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason that in your asking for arguments the argue for and argue against are for different things? ROI has For inclusion in infobox, against use in article. UK has For use in lead, Against Use in geography section. I for example, am against both using it in the infobox of ROI and dicluding it from the ROI article (although fair enough there is the "group of islands" pipelink), and I'm not exactly sure what to write! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I initially used "infobox" for all the examples, but I got a wee bit concerned when everyone then commented only on infoboxes, so I changed some of the examples to - hopefully! - make clear that it's anything, not just infoboxes. I'd suggest a separate paragraph for each issue you wish to comment on - something like...

• I disagree with including the term in the infobox because the article is about a country. TFOWR 15:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with including the term in the geography section because there's precedent - see example link. TFOWR 15:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...I'm hoping that this new (well, old, really) way of structuring things may make life easier - partly for me to wade through, and partly because it focusses things on arguments - policy, precedent, etc. Hope that makes sense! TFOWR 15:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good call closing that talk thread at AN. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Though it was very tempting to add my 2 cents on Pending Changes again ;-) TFOWR 14:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry on that part...At first look the article had a scent of vandalism, but when I searched google on the same subject, I found the article to be fair. I also welcomed the user on behalf of Wikipedia. The over tagging was an act of defence from my side...excuse me for that... :)  arun  talk  15:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! It's better to cover all bases and let "fixers" removed once fixed - it was just a bit disconcerting half way through copy-editing ;-) TFOWR 15:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• IB Diploma Programme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:IB Diploma Programme/GA1
• User:TFOWR/Sandbox/IB_Diploma_Programme

I thought I'd delisted the article from WP:GAN - I really thought I had, but it seems not, after all. I don't want to put out a call to editors to help with the lead on the discussion page for obvious reasons, but need some help with the lead. Are you interested? I've contacted Candorwien who seems to be semi-active - anyone else? That's what happens when you delete a bunch of stuff ... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You always run for the hills when IB rears its ugly head. I'll ping HelloAnnyong too, but wondered if you can explain how my deleted entry [1] is no longer deleted [2]. Weird, huh? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damn straight ;-) Nah, a lead should be non-contentious and straightforward - I'll take a look tomorrow morning. No idea how it got un-un-submitted... I'm checking through diffs now (easy stuff for late evening...), I'll let you know if I find anything exciting! TFOWR 19:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm checking too. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check the "Culture and society" section immediately before "Education": as of 17:47, today it's there. Added sometime after 1 September, 20:44 25 August. TFOWR 20:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Got it! Wikzardman iz the bad man ;-) Looks like a good-faith re-submit. TFOWR 20:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just found it myself. Still weird. I've deleted before and that hasn't happened. Anyway, I can't work on it all this week or for the next few weeks, so if you, or Candy or someone else is interested in finishing it - it's there! At least it's not what we thought it might be. That would have been plain scary. I would have considered running too! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed we've had this conversation without resorting to email...! There's been a few times recently... anyhoo, I should be able to take a look tomorrow. I was slightly facetious with the "non-contentious and straightforward" comment - leads seem to be the favourite POV target - but with the article buttoned down the lead should be easy enough. I'll be bold...! TFOWR 20:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see well enough to edit well at the moment. Talkpages, yes. A lead, not at all. Be bold. Most of the material is in there, but might need a mention about the reception. That, of course, is the hard part. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Draft up at User:TFOWR/Sandbox/IB_Diploma_Programme. Fairly rough-and-ready at this stage, it could do with some polish, but I think it gets everything lead-y in, and manages to stick to three paras (4 is the lead-limit, I think...?) TFOWR 10:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Conversation continues at User talk:TFOWR/Sandbox/IB Diploma Programme. All welcome! TFOWR 17:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to say - I am stunned. Thanks so much for the final push! Like HA - not sure you'll help yourself to this, but know that it's well deserved. So nice to know that some nasty situations have good conclusions. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • No worries, glad to have helped - frankly I feel like it was the only real editing help I've provided, so I'm unconvinced this shiny gift is remotely deserved - I was half-tempted to forestall you, and say to divvy it up amongst the real editors, but I'm greedy and didn't and I'll be blagging this just as soon as your back's turned ;-) It does feel like some kind of belated reward for a shed-load of past grief, though. Kind of like "closure", in a way. TFOWR 20:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ahem: read the archives and to remind youself of the bloodbath! You kept the wolves at bay so some of us could edit, and then you did the most important editing at the very end. Yes, very much deserved! Closure is a good word. Done with that nightmare. So glad. 20:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• (talk page stalker)Having studied the IB for 2 mindnumbing years, I am extremely impressed that you managed to write a good article about it :p GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should check the history - scary, scary stuff. ANI and back, AN3, SPI... I kid you not. Like old soldiers, we try not to speak of "those days" ;-) I've added the GA userbox, not so much as a "I got a GA at long last!" but as a military campaign medal... I think I may have got (or be due, or failed to apply for, or left down the pub) a GA for Gordon Brown - but that was easy. Prime Minister of a G7 country? Non contentious, nice and fluffy. Educational programme? Demon spawn of the United Nations, intent on corrupting American youth, instigated by the Comintern, might even teach about Islam or something equally corrupting. Since IB I've been relaxing in Greece/Macedonia, Arabia/Persia, Israel/Palestine and now in Britain/Ireland. Sooner or later I'll need to do some real work in education... TFOWR 00:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was by far the worst battleground I've seen on Wikipedia. Catholic Church is a walk-in-the-park compared to what we went through with this. Having it promoted is nothing short of amazing. I'm never touching another education article again! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TK-Thank you for the badge of courage that I posted (quite awkwardly) on my user page. TK and TFOWR-Considering that it was my first experience with wikipedia, I feel quite proud that I survived the bloodbath. I probably could have learned a lot more about editing, formatting, citing (good Lord!), had it not been for the crazy, delusional rants not to mention the outing and insults (sorry for the run-on, but it's late...) Anyway, thanks for the memories. I might continue editing elsewhere, if the spirit moves me. If nothing else, I've learned to "Be Bold!" Regards!La mome (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found another one: you know what I mean. This one is really obvious, and I can't believe I missed it. Shall I put the diffs here or send you an e-mail? Honestly, I'd rather put it here, because it should be seen on-wiki. Let me know - still writing it out... Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 09:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If no revision deletion is needed, diffs here should be fine. I'll get me duck-hunting gear ready...! TFOWR 10:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! I'll have it here shortly... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 10:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) bait and hook ;-) DocOfSoc (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay: here we go. Again, the stalking of DocOfSoc and editing articles SRQ (& co.) edited makes this pretty ducky. User:NeoNeuroGeek, after making a few "grammar changes" and undos, reverts DocOfSoc here[3] without comment, then adds in the 1980's" (this comes into play later). Some more undos (including to Asperger's, which SRQ volunteered[4] she suffers from): then stops editing on July 28. The very next edit a month later is again to revert DocOfSoc[5], rapidly start "changing grammar" at the article, even using a Republican(!) blog as a reference when reverting DocOfSoc's revert[6]. Then, an unsigned(!) tirade against DocOfSoc concerning Judaism(!) on the talk page[7]. Leaves a "SRQ special" custom warning to a user here[8]. Then goes to Prosody (linguistics) for some grammar work: an article edited by another SRQ sock[9] followed by the IP sock attack there. Now NNG is back at Prodosy (linguistics). On NNG's user page, they say they work in speech pathology: note that RDMH also showed an interest in speech pathology[10] (and in stalking DocOfSoc)...

ILuvAMrRadio comes along to Christine Craft (which both SRQ and NNG have edited) and basically re-inserts what NNG had put in a revert of DocOfSoc: "in the 1980's"[11]. No edit overlaps at all, (most importantly) NNG and ILAMR, who were editing at the same time.

I think I covered it - sorry about the long read. What do you think? Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 10:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks ducky enough for me - I've just blocked as an obvious sock. There are some things I saw which I'll refrain from mentioning per WP:BEANS, but there were just too many "tells" for it not to be SRQ. TFOWR 10:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail me about the beans if you want: I don't want to "give 'em any ideas", for sure! I can't wait to see the unblock request. Way too many tells, I agree. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 11:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Nothing exciting, I'm afraid, you had it all well set out already. TFOWR 11:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You might be interested in this question I asked at WT:SPI... TFOWR 09:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The former was blocked in April 2010 & the latter was created in March 2010. I hope my suspicions are proven wrong. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the comm ban discussion at ANI - what struck me was the "X, having been born in England, is not Welsh/Scottish/Irish" approach of Irvine22. I've seen that more recently... Still not sure if the two are related, and I'm far to close to the problem to opine, but it's an interesting thought... TFOWR 15:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...obviously you've seen my ANI comment ;-) Seeing as you've replied... TFOWR 15:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find that the TR accout is becoming more like the Irvine account. Basically, sitting back & having a huge laugh at us. PS: Remember Irvine's parting shots at Wikipedia & Jimbo? GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't - or didn't - but I had a look at Irvine22's contribs just now. Best hundred bucks I ever spent. I do find it odd that an editor would repeat behaviour which had got them into trouble in the past. I appreciate there won't always be a Pavlovian response, but recently it just seems to be a rush to get blocked as quickly as possible. The recent (past two blocks) thing about "how can I defend myself?" is interesting, too - hence my reply to Beeblebrox at ANI: TR has been told by multiple editors, on multiple occasions that his comments can be copied to ANI, yet there's still this "how can I defend myself?" nonsense. Something's not right. TFOWR 15:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, he/she is 'bleeping' around with us. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loved the post and a very good point. I hope some take heed. BUT, you are way too hard on yourself. You were never a dick! LOL You handled it all very well, and I found a quite wonderful friend. TY Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) P.S. Just read your post again. Conceptually, it is not in you, to even come close to being as mean as AtlalntaBravz was. You were not hurtful. We just disagreed, end of story. You came back with your fairy wand and made it all better :-D

BTW he now says he is retired but not before mocking me again. AND you stop apologizing, I don't store those things! With great regard, DocOfSoc (talk) 09:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (1) Sorry, but I'll never stop apologising! Never! Sorry! (2) Aye, I saw the retiring on ANI. Hopefully it's just part of the usual wiki-drama, and he'll return - I've had a few wiki-friends retire, only to return once they have a chance to think things through. Don't take it to heart, this was a response to ANI, not you, and I honestly think ANI was quite kind on this occasion. TFOWR 11:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Looks like there is a degree of consensus for at least a trial of the Template, I have not had time to work on a version that can sit at the top of a talk page (i.e. with added options for resolved and links to archived discussions), I do intend to do that (if it looks like there is consensus for continued use) as it is the correct place for it to stay long term so that id does not get archived of into artical talk page archives.

So with that in mind, I am thinking of creating a template in template name space and pasting the source over so that I can continue to work and develop mine without in any way impacting any trial - with this in mind can you recommend a name eg Template:BIDiscus (of the top of my head) - I would also like to have the template add a category to the Talk Page (for tracking purposes as the template is subst) would plan to use Category:BIDiscus (or the mirror of any better name) and would use {{hiddencat}} on the Category page.

I would also plan to add the correct {{Documentation}} section to the Template.

Any Comments ?

Codf1977 (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created {{YGM}} in my userspace, and after it was moved to template-space a sysop renamed it to {{You've got mail}} (keeping "YGM" as a redirect) on the basis that more explicit names are better (something I'd agree with). So... could I suggest "British Isles" instead of "BI"? Beyond that, all sounds good - we'll use the template space template, you'll develop the userspace template (another option would be to create a template-space sandbox under the template, like template documentation, e.g. {{British Isles Discuss}}, {{British Isles Discuss/doc}} and {{British Isles Discuss/sandbox}}? (I'd also suggest {{BID}} as a redirect to the template-proper, on the basis that I'm lazy and like short-cuts...) TFOWR 11:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - I will create those and test that they all work and report back here !!! Codf1977 (talk) 11:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the template, the redirect at the hidden Category British Isle Discussion - Please check for me ! Codf1977 (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both variants look good - fancy sticking examples of both (delete and insert) in a sandbox (if you haven't already) and letting WT:BISE know? (I'm slacking off for an hour or so...) TFOWR 13:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- see User talk:Codf1977/BISETest

Notified. Codf1977 (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bugger - just noticed a typo in the Category British Isle Discussion - should be British Isles Discussion can you move it (without redirect) ? if not delete it and I will create new one. Codf1977 (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey, well spotted. I must have stared at that a fair few times today without seeing anything amiss. OK, apparently I can't move categories. I'm as surprised as you are! Go ahead and create the new cat, then I'll delete the old one. (I'm also tempted to post at WP:VPT to try and work out why I can't simply move the damn thing...) TFOWR 16:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Moving a page - "Pages in category namespace cannot be moved. To change the name of a category, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion." I assume it's because everything in the cat would then have a broken cat. In this case I think just go ahead and create the new one - it's what WP:CFD would do, and no one's going to care if we side-step process slightly. TFOWR 17:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you delete the old one then WP:CSD#G6 or WP:CSD#G7 ? Codf1977 (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is done: I opted for G7 and referenced your request. TFOWR 17:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - have updated the template, documentation, sandbox example and WT:BISE Codf1977 (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Thanks for helping me out with Nick Robinson. I hadn't done a Good Article review before, so I was finding it all a bit fiddly. I'll get the hang of it in time Regards, --bodnotbod (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! You did a better job of it than me, and I only learned that "oldid" trick quite recently! TFOWR 15:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot all about the talk page, but yes, please also delete User talk:Crusio/Autobio. Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - figured as much, but wanted to check first! Anyway, it is deleted. TFOWR 15:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is someone I don't know distorts Camilia Shehata Zakher's page, can I restore my info back? By the way, there are 'citation needed' and 'not in citation given' stuff. Apparently, this person has deleted and corrupted my links! How can I restore it back?

You can see the difference between your last version and the current version if you click here. The most recent editor has removed a sentence (I would imagine because it makes a very serious claim about a living person, but doesn't have a reference to support the claim: Wikipedia has very strict rules about protecting living individuals). The {{not in citation given}} tag indicates that the reference provided doesn't support the claim made - I'd recommend double-checking the references tagged like this. {{citation needed}} simply mean that there is no reference provided to support the claim - it's an indication to editors that we need to find a reference. You could discuss this further with the editor responsible - I can't recall working with them in the past, but I have seen them around and believe that they're very approachable. TFOWR 21:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, as usual, the page has been deleted. I had the links but someone corrupt them. Anyway, Wikipedia wouldn't add any importance to my article since this is a hot topic in all Egyptian newspapers nowadays. Thanks anyway! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capolinho (talk • contribs) 19:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry it seems we edit conflicted at the Cameron article, I took it back another edit as that percentage has been at the previous figure for a fair time and there was no explanation. Off2riorob (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I hadn't realised, to be honest. Aye, I saw the percentage change this morning, but didn't know enough either way to challenge it. I think you're right, though - IP change to long-standing value? Nah. TFOWR 19:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a bigger look and checked the figures, looks like the IP was correct and I put that one back. Off2riorob (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it normal for an Admin to block himself for edit warring? Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First time I've seen it! (I mean, I've seen the oops, the "I wondered if I could block myself and - help! - I can! I did! Now I'm blocked! Help!" incidents, but this is a blatant "I was edit warring, which is unacceptable, so I've blocked myself. If I do it again I'll increase the block duration. Naughty naughty naughty!") I'm disappointed that they didn't post a block notice on their talk page - how will they know how to request an unblock?

Slightly more seriously, was there any edit warring? This is their first block, so a 24 hours block seems more than reasonable, but I'd be concerned if there was past history: hypothetically, if I got reported at AN3 I could block myself for 24 hours for edit warring, to forestall a block from someone else. In my case, I've got a prior block for edit warring, so any future block should really be for, say, 48 hours. That's not the case here (Evil saltine has no prior history) but it's an interesting point. TFOWR 21:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing Evil saltine noticed that Evil saltine was edit warring here, and decided to take a firm stance on Evil saltine's edit warring by blocking Evil saltine. TFOWR 21:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ec..He he he... I investigated and it was in relation to this and although there was no report the other user was blocked by Hersfold for 24hrs and evilsaltine blocked himself three minutes later...so it seems like a very fair thing evilsaltine did.. and also a bit amusing.. I am thinking of a barnstar that would be relevant, any ideas? I wonder if he would consider it wheel warring if another admin unblocked him and it would be really amusing to see what happens if he requested unblocking, hehehhe.... Hersfold has commented that there was some IRC discussion , strange that admins can block themselves for things they think they have done, I think its not a correct way to go, anyways its a silly story, and with that I will catch you around, regards.Off2riorob (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, that's very cool! I saw this barnstar earlier - about an hour ago - but can't find it now. It was a UFO beaming up a barnstar, then morphing into the barnstar. Probably better for UFO stuff, though. Best I can suggest right now is {{The Surreal Barnstar}} or {{The Barnstar of Good Humor}} - and I'm sure I suggested these two last time we had a barnstar conversation... but damn, Evil saltine is being surreal, and does have a good sense of humour.

I didn't consider unblocking, but I did consider a formal warning for failing to provide a 3RR warning prior to the block and failing to provide unblock details. I think a barnstar would be better, though... TFOWR 21:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out, RFA things were very different in 2003 Off2riorob (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, my nom was longer that the whole RfA! Add in two co-noms and my question/answers, and I reckon you've got the entire set of RfAs. I reckon in a few years' time new admins will be looking down their nose at me because "only" 100 or so editors !voted in my RfA ;-) TFOWR 21:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This was the UFO barnstar image I was thinking of - eventually found it at WP:VPT. Probably not the best solution for Evil saltine, now that we know they've not been abducted... TFOWR 16:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs CVO Skool Pretoria Vladan Lukić Frederick Forchheimer Instituto de Banca y Comercio Latin American Muslims Xi Kang Holomorphic vector bundle Alberto Undiano Mallenco Shaw College Turks and Caicos Islands Zvonko Milojević Aleksandar Kristić Extreme Ghost Stories Vista Murrieta High School Bratz Girlz Really Rock Polypectomy Bullard Havens Technical High School Gea Happel Amigos Zoersel Department of Agriculture of Puerto Rico

Cleanup E 11 road (United Arab Emirates) Spain Dog Merge Party conference Hispano-Celtic language Pre-Celtic Add Sources Cloe (From Bratz) Vuvuzela Granular Linux Wikify Paul Costelloe Hinduism in Ireland Chennai Public School Expand Heat kernel Delta High School (Clarksburg, California) Gilbert Carter High School

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 04:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'm happy with this contribution, especially the "... except provide a victory for some who would like to see all of those opposed to the removal of the British Isles on wikipedia taken out of the dispute." Its not a battle and suggesting - without evidence - that one side has specific motives, is not very nice. Fmph (talk) 05:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that BW made the comment with the best of intentions, but I also agree that it could have been phrased better, with much less WP:BATTLE rhetoric. I've warned BW to be more careful in future. TFOWR 11:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think we all try to contribute with the best of intentions. Sometimes we say the wrong things. Its very easy to do. Fmph (talk) 12:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While you're here... you mentioned transclusion at WT:BISE. Is that something you've much experience with? Obviously, I can transclude templates etc, but I've never worked transclusion magic across different pages. Is this something you could set up, or write a quick how-to for? It'd neatly settle the local/WT:BISE discussion debate. TFOWR 13:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry. No experience of it other than a recent tentative foray into WP:AFD. As I said, thats how they do it there. I'm pretty sure tha\t I understand the technical difference between substitution and transclusion. But not how it works on MediaWiki. I'd ask Rannpháirtí anaithnid (talk · contribs). He knows quite a bit about that sort of stuff. Fmph (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - I've 'fessed up to my own technical ignorance so I can't really complain about you not knowing ;-) I think I mentioned it in passing to RA at WT:BISE, but I'll check and ping as needed. Thanks anyway. TFOWR 19:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I hope you don't take this comment to be personal. It's not intended personally. --RA (talk) 11:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't, but I did think it was a little defensive. Closing a discussion with a fairly clear consensus isn't rocket science and I don't think you need to be too concerned that I'm going to go all rogue and ignore an explicit consensus in favour of my subconscious biases ;-) That said, I'm more than happy to defer to someone else to close. TFOWR 11:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of how you "would" close it but whether you "should" close it. You are a participant in this issue. I don't think it is appropriate for you to take on other roles in relation to it, which, if you started closing discussions on this topic outside of BISE (as well as inside of BISE), it may seem as if you were doing.

In any case, it is a talk page discussion: does it need to be "closed"? --RA (talk) 11:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not honestly convinced I am a participant: I've followed the discussion at T:ROI and at WT:BISE, but that's in no way the same thing as participating. Anyway, I was asked to close by Scolaire, asked not to close by you, so I'm happy to defer to someone everyone can agree is a non-participant. TFOWR 12:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the more I consider your suggestion the more flawed I think it is. If this discussion had been held in its entirety at WT:BISE there'd be an expectation that I'd close it. You're arguing (at WT:BISE) that the discussion shouldn't be held at WT:BISE, but at T:ROI, and you're arguing (here) that I shouldn't close it because of my involvement at WT:BISE. I'm open to the idea of holding WT:BISE discussions outside WT:BISE, but I can't accept that that somehow disqualifies me from closing discussions. TFOWR 12:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently im the only one who wants it included on the article and ive no problem with you closing rather than needing to get another admin to do it so there should be no problem with this closure. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think in terms of result we're all on the same page; RA's concern is procedural - should I close things at T:ROI if I also close things at WT:BISE? I don't see any reason not to, but it's possible I'm missing something subtle in RA's argument. TFOWR 12:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whuh - I think maybe I've encouraged you to put beans up your nose. --RA (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:LAZY ME (red-linked, but should exist...!) I'm happy to avoid nasal-stuffing, but I am still curious to button you down here as I'm not seeing what you're seeing. TFOWR 13:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TFOWR, can you take a look at User:Engr.Makhdoom and User:Engr.Iqbal?  Looks like a duck to me Thanks. PS: for a bit of info, the former kept repeatedly recreating inappropriate articles and was indeffed at AIV for it; the latter has started creating the same articles. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

QUACK! Blocked as an obvious sock. I've left a bit of advice, but suspect it may fall on deaf ears... TFOWR 14:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, hopefully they'll take the advice. One of the articles recreated has a little more context this time, so it's possible it's a legitimate subject, it was just written so poorly before that no context could be identified for it. It's currently a very difficult read as it is: Makhdoom (clan) Ancestry of Gondal. It may need to be prodded, since I can't find much to support it on google. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the other Jat clans I looked at vary quite a lot from very poor to OK-ish. Musing here, but I'm surprised a Pakistani topic would be so poor: I'd have thought there would be plenty of British, say, editors with extensive knowledge of these topics who could improve these articles. Then again, I regularly look at this Kiwi article and I'm horrified how poor it is... (I've tired to make inroads from time to time, but it's a losing battle... TFOWR 14:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a look at some of these now; I'm probably going to stubify or prod a few of them. By the way, I just found another duck in the history of Gondal (clan): User:Engr Makhdoom Iqbal. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that one may pre-date the others. I should know this, but don't (I'll look it up, but any TPS answers gratefully received, as always...) - I presume I can't block this one for block evasion, since it was created prior to the first block, but I don't feel comfortable leaving a sock lying around. Best way to proceed? Block, with an "Other reason" reason, pointing at the first account to be blocked? Then again, it's entirely possible I'm just having a mental block - it feels like a while since I last did ducky/socky things... TFOWR 15:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say for sure, but whether it predates it or not, I think it can still be blocked for block evasion, since the editor is blocked, not the username, and the editor's clearly using that username as well. Maybe not though, if that older username hasn't been used since the block. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked it (citing block evasion), but its contribs end before the first block. I figure blocking is the best bet, though - you're right that it's the user who's blocked, and I'm damn certain the same user is behind all accounts. TFOWR 15:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if anybody would object to having each discussion collapsed with the note of 'opened' or 'closed' in the collapse bar? GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope not - that page is getting unmanageable, and Scolaire made a good point about transcluding 92k of Talk:Republic of Ireland discussion... suggest it and see, but you've got my support unless there's a compelling reason I've not thought of. TFOWR 19:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another idea: would automatic copying of an ongoing discussion at an article also be possible? (Kinda like they do for Afds). This would sooth the concerns of RA & Scolaire. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's something I've been talking to Fmph about (#Snitching?, above). I'm sure it would be possible, and it would sidestep RA's concerns about where discussions take place. Fmph reckons RA is the person to ask, so I've pinged RA, but realistically any technical bod with AfD experience should be able to do it. TFOWR 19:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis great, there's always a solution. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my outdenting corrections. They're necessary to keep discussions from going into 50+ lines with 2 word sentences. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - and good idea. I'm not hugely protective of my comments, so long as the original meaning is maintained. Indent, outdent, it's all the same to me ;-) TFOWR 16:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Announcement_about_Pending_Changes - Hopefully that means I can continue to request it, since the trial was allegedly over I have had to request higher levels of protection when pending would have done the job. Off2riorob (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I really want to disagree with Jimbo sometime - I've even supported in RfAs on the basis that the candidate had the balls to disagree with Jimbo. But I've already commented - and my comment was to agree with Jimbo ;-)

I had a feeling that you weren't keen on PC - I guess I was wrong? FWIW, your "higher levels of protection when pending would have done the job" is my reason for supporting it. I appreciate that some people are concerned - legitimately - that pending changes is going to get used everywhere (like it is at de.wiki, apparently) but that's something we can solve through policy. We have policy saying when semi gets used and when full gets used - I see no reason why we can't have same for PC1 and PC2 etc.

My obvious political starting point is freedom - IPs get to edit, no one gets blocked, no pages get protected - and then work from there. So I prefer PC1 to semi, I prefer semi to full, etc. I get the feeling that a lot of the folk opposed to pending changes are starting from the same point, just reaching different conclusions.

Anyway, Jimbo's comment has already kicked off a shitstorm - comments about proposals with near-unanimous support. Bollocks. I !voted in at least one proposal on that very page, and I stopped after the 97th proposal, so I really can't say that that last proposal was near-unanimous - it was just that most folk had long ago given up hope of anything getting done. So I'm very glad Jimbo at least had the balls to move things forward. TFOWR 20:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and Jimbo's line is not to remove pending from articles. Dammit. I spent the past few days doing just that. And at least one or two pages I put back to semi... TFOWR 20:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what told you do do that? I support anything that helps protect articles from attack content. Jimbo has the pulse, he is in this case completely correct, a few vocally activist users, with huggle as an alternative should not be allowed to derail what is clear support for continuation of the tool. If I was Jimbo I would log off for a day or two, I expect the vocal opposer's will be livid, as I have seen its mostly the free-speechers, and the vandal fighters (why support a tool that takes your position away) that vocally object. The simple truth is its a simple tool that helps us protect articles, this is the foundations clear position, many people here are not interested in that position at all. If we truly allowed the vocal activists to control the wikipedia we would be closed down in six months. Off2riorob (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No one told me, I did it so to occupy the moral highground when dealing with opposers. And, slightly Machiavellian, but so if a page I'd un-PC'd suffered I'd have an example to use ;-) TFOWR 20:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am so happy that I can still have the tool to use and request if it is needed. The other day an article was semi protected for a year just because of a singe disruptive user and pending would have been plenty to restrict him, none of the free-speechers and huggle warriors reverted any of the attack additions, occasionally they were there for more than a day and picked up by google bots and propagated across the whole internet, it is indefensible that wikipedia is responsible for that sort of libelous degradation of a living persons global image. Off2riorob (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand the free-speech argument - we have semi now and it's non-controversial. PC1 is much better than semi. "If we can't hear the IP the IP isn't being censored." Weird. TFOWR 20:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also do not see it at all but perhaps that is an geographical issue, users from the USA have the right to free speech or at least believe they do whereas in the UK we are used to not having some unalienable right to say anything you want. This claim is also linked to one of the original goals that anyone can add anything they want, which might have sounded idealistic in the early days but now that we have half a million bios of living people and are unable to watch them, looks extremely dated.Your point is quite correct, I have the feeling that for the project to continue the alternative if pending is not implemented is the semi protection of a half a million BLP articles as the demanded alternative. Off2riorob (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you experienced enough to help me with this, I altered my archive format in this edit closer to your format but the bot is not coming around, any ideas as to the issue? Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's weird - you haven't changed Misza's config at all. The only issue I had with Misza was when I tried to shift the config into my talkpage header - that's not the case here. As far as I can see, the way you've done it is more or less identical to the way I've done it. But the only thing that would stop the bot is the config be broken... and as it hasn't changed that's not the case. I'll keep looking, but make no promises. Maybe try WP:VPT or the Help desk? (True story: first time I asked a question at the help desk was a month ago...) TFOWR 21:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking, its likely a minor issue. Chzz got it working B4 and I might ask him or revert my edit and go again... I love the help desk it is well responsive although archive bots are a bit of a specialist issue.Off2riorob (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You ensured the COI tag was maintained on this article, but where's the COI at the moment? It seems to have been stripped of any COI/fluff/advertising to me. Bigger digger (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I copy-edited it, mostly for COI/spam, a few days ago, but the IP responsible has been quite active since then. {{COI}} is intended to serve as a warning that "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" and that the article may require clean up. It's possible that the latter case may not apply (though I think the infobox could probably do with a good check, and any external links too) but the former case certainly does. TFOWR 21:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

/slaps head. Sorry I hadn't seen that the IP was blocked for being a sock, I guess your explanation is acceptable ;-) Bigger digger (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, but ... neither had I! I'll go off and dig up the gossip now ;-) My reasoning was based mostly on the editor who created the article (I forget their name, but something like "StewartB") and then the run of IP edits from a few days ago. Definitely worth keeping an eye on, though, and thanks for nudging me - it made me go off and look again at the article. The external link was OK (official site) and the infobox does seem OKish (a little too long and product-listy) but otherwise OK. I suspect there will be more IPs, though...! TFOWR 21:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! The latest IP (the one who removed the COI tag) looks suspiciously similar to the blocked-sock IP... definitely worth keeping an eye on ;-) TFOWR 21:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that. It's a bit complicated becaue there are so many pages involved but should be OK. You can see it here. (Though, still favour simply taking discussions to the talk pages.) --RA (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:174.125.215.61 marked his article as a GA himself without even sending it for review. I undid it, but was wondering if there was anything else I should do. Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 02:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so - though it might be an idea to let the IP know about Wikipedia:Good articles. I suspect the IP simply doesn't know how the Good Article process works, and felt that they had created a "good article". TFOWR 08:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...on second thoughts - The IP was only active for an hour or so, several hours ago. I doubt they'd ever see any message. The article is at AFD right now. I'm trying to avoid AFD as much as possible, but this article really does look like a case for deletion or incubation. Unreleased, very little detail about it as yet, etc. TFOWR 08:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where as your closing of the debate on the Talk page about British Isles was in line with the views expressed, as a fair number of the 'do not add' responses were arguments based on the fact to some it is contentions - this is to me a POV position and as a result I am minded to tag the article {{POV}} for failing to mention it.Codf1977 (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was one oppose that I discounted for that very reason, but the others - while they did in some cases cite contention - had other arguments as well. On balance, I felt "non consensus" was reasonable, as there were valid arguments to exclude as well as valid arguments to include. A {{POV}} tag, however, would potentially draw in new faces - which could be beneficial. TFOWR 14:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying your closer of the debate was in any way at fault, I have taged the page in the hope as you mentioned others may be draw in. I have cross posted to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard hereCodf1977 (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I've commented there with a link to my WT:BISE proposal, and commented that outside eyes are very, very welcome. TFOWR 16:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please may you review this edit ? Codf1977 (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it, and the back/forth edits that preceded it, and commented on the talk page - basically WTF? All of you need to stop edit warring - it's advertised at NPOVN, let someone neutral and uninvolved make the call. TFOWR 19:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The NPOVN, sound advice. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have had a look around and all logos seems to be showing fine now. Crazy-dancing (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I'll let ANI know. Thanks for looking into this. TFOWR 12:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to leave me a terse warning about incivility on my talk page then I expect you to also do the same regarding the editor who is constantly harassing me on my talk page - you only have to read his latest offerings for further evidence of this. I really don't appreciate the way in which you have conducted yourself in this matter - it's completely unacceptable from an administrator. All you have managed to do is to encourage the other editor's abuse! Afterwriting (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expect away all you want - but maybe check the past history first next time. I've already replied on your talkpage, but in summary I've blocked GPW for this kind of behaviour in the past, and I will have no hesitation in blocking either of you if you don't knock it off - i.e. disengage or find a way to get along. I sincerely doubt GPW feels encouraged by my comment - they are perfectly well aware that any repetition of the behaviour which led to their previous block will result in another block of increased duration. Complaints about my conduct can, of course, be directed to WP:ANI. TFOWR 12:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is all completely irrelevant - and you should realise this yourself. Do you seriously expect me to check your history with him? And so what anyway? Your whole response to this matter has been completely inadequate - editors are entitled to expect better from administrators than this. Afterwriting (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You breached WP:CIVIL. I warned you. You then tried to use GPW's behaviour as some sort of justification for your behaviour. Now, if you have a complaint against my conduct I've already told you that you can take it to WP:ANI. Do you intend to do that, or would you prefer to continue arguing the toss? If it's the latter, I'm happy to let you get the last word: I'll ignore any further comments from you here or at your talkpage. TFOWR 12:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You really just don't get this at all. Why do you have such a problem recognising your obvious failures in handling this matter? And don't make false accusations that I "tried to use GPW's behaviour as some sort of justification for your behaviour". This is both false and very offensive. If you cannot do your job as an administrator consistently and responsibly - and without making gratuitous comments about things that are actually none of your business - then you should seriously reconsider being one. As I wrote before, editors are entitled to expect better than this from administrators. This is one of the worst cases of the misuse of an administrator's "authority" that I have yet come across. Afterwriting (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've requested review at ANI. TFOWR 13:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not incredibly pleasant on the eyes since I got lazy and just threw it together, but behold what happens if you add giftig_toolbox_sidebar=true; to your js (assuming you still have my toolbox.js imported). I'll probably make it look a little (or a lot) better later on if I get time. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually commented it out, because I still had issues with some tabs (generally the ones that I hadn't used that much, being bogged down in WT:BISE and not doing my fair share of admin-y stuff as a result...) but I've just un-commented it. I'm using Chrome, and I get a very thin bar (with no content) under the "langauges" box on the left-hand side (Monobook, Chrome, etc). I'm guessing that's not what I'm supposed to see ;-) Incidentally, I keep meaning to take a closer look at toolbox.js - I'm sure I should be able to work out why I have issues with it that the rest of you don't (I also have issues with easyblock.js, which no one else seems to have... so experience with toolbox.js would help me resolve my easyblocking issues...) TFOWR 14:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, multi-browser compatibility (and in wikipedia, multi-skin compatibility as well); the bane of the lazy developer... ;) I'll come up with some fixes and additions at some point, but right now it's mainly for my convenience anyway. Let you know if you find out why chrome has issues with it and I'll see if I can improve its compatibility with other browsers / skins. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, and will do. I've kept toolbox.js in my monobook for now, it'll "encourage" me to avoid admin-y stuff, which is good because I've got a ton of off-wiki stuff to do yesterday..., so testing will be quick if needed. TFOWR 14:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what you mean about the thin bar under languages; try it on a page where that div box hasn't been added to the content. The issue is that two boxes on the page have the same id (which technically should never be allowed in HTML), so it's adding the content to one (the one I put on your talk page) but not the other (in the sidebar). It's not a chrome issue after all. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that previous thread has been archived now so it shouldn't cause problems on your talk page here anymore. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TFOWR, could you block Afbile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) please? I reported it to AIV but it hasn't been noticed yet, and the user has been repeatedly and rapidly removing speedy deletion templates from a copyvio article, and recreating it when it's deleted. Thanks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, PeterSymonds blocked the user. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I was on my way to speedy the article (blatant copyvio, but of the annoying kind where I know fine well that the editor creating the article is probably also the individual behind the blog...) when I saw that Peter had got there first. Apologies for the delay: I was on it when you first posted but had to field a RL event... TFOWR 11:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I can hardly complain that your response time was minutes rather than seconds ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, did you try plugging the text into Google translate or similar? Google, at least, fails quite spectacularly, which surprised me - it normally does a half-decent job, and Tagalog (? Google says "Filipino") isn't that unusual. TFOWR 12:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about it, but first I dumped it into google itself and found a word-for-word copy (and then realised it was in a link in the article anyway). I didn't think it was of much interest what it said since it was a copyvio, and while sometimes I'll just stubify and reword problematic articles, trying to rewrite a copyrighted foreign article isn't my idea of fun. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, translating it wasn't required - it was obviously a copyvio. I suspect the editor got their *.wikis muddled up, and didn't intend to create the article at en.wiki, and didn't understand what was going on. Based on Google's failing, I also suspect that the editor's Filipino is probably fairly poor as well... TFOWR 12:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sine you marked this edit as "bold", I thought I'd drop by and express my agreement. Debresser (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and apologies - I should have let you know I'd done it (or was planning to do it). For what it's worth, I've previously protected high-vis templates without thinking; it was only the recent thread on ANI, and the apparent consensus, that prompted the change. TFOWR 14:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldnt it be easier to just use Twinkle to undo all 2000+ protections in a matter of minutes? That's how he got them protected in the first place. Or are you only unprotecting some of them and therefore having to go through it manually one by one? —Soap— 15:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The latter ;-) Some were already protected (I guess they shouldn't be on the db report...) and I'm checking first so as not to unprotect templates protected before the batch. But yes, Twinkle would be much easier - I'm finding this very tedious ;-) TFOWR 15:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if we could find the ones that were already protected through the different entries in my protection log ("changed protection settings" as opposed to "protected"), then we can mass-unprotect and then restore the previous settings to those that had them. It would save you about 2,700 log entries. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, I like that idea. How would mass-unprotect work? We feed a list into "something" and it does then in a one-er? TFOWR 15:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mass unprotection is as easy as mass protection and if it's not, I'll set it to change everything to just move protection. The trouble is separating the changes of settings from the protections, but once that's done, it's pretty simple. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Party shading/Federalist#Protection level change. —Markles 16:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})[reply]

Hi, this is just to inform you that elections for Clerkship at WP:UAA have started on the talk page. You have been sent this message because you were recently active in handling submissions or discussions. Discussion is ongoing and you are encouraged to voice your opinion on the candidates.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Fridae'sDoom (talk) at 06:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Could you take a look at Talk:Desert Valley Knights and let me know if you think these are quacky enough to warrant duck-blocking? Or should I start an SPI? It seems an individual is trying to have the page kept by creating an army of socks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, page is gone, they fail. I suspect you're right, and I think a case could be made for illegitimate socking. I'm not convinced it'd be worth it - at this stage - however. Though I have a sneaking suspicion that the deleted page is going to be recreated in 5... 4... 3... TFOWR 09:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I left a couple of modified {{firstarticle}} welcome templates that included a link to WP:SOCK for good measure :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's cool - how did you modify it? I'm assuming you dumped firstarticle into a sandbox and tweaked it? I can't see any magic parameter for {{firstarticle|sock=probably}}... TFOWR 09:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simply subst'd first article on the first usertalk. Then edited it and changed "created" to "edited", and added the sock link. Then copy and pasted the whole thing to the second usertalk. Et voila! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Thanks. I suspect you're probably right, it may be a waste of time to take it to SPI over a failed attempt to prevent an A7 using accounts which now effectively have a zero contribution total. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well your countdown was a little off, but only by a few hours. It appears (judging by previous speedy notifications on his talk page) that this is the fourth time they've created it, and they've also removed speedies from it and socked to try to keep it; I've given them a final warning and hopefully they'll knock it off... but I won't hold my breath. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, and editor warned (again - you'd already warned them, obviously). I haven't salted the article - I suspect if I did that they'd find a creative new title and avoid detection. It has reached my salt-threshold, however... TFOWR 18:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that's likely. If it happens again they're likely to be blocked anyway, which is more likely to solve the problem. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, and you probably know already, but I "volunteered" you (and me, and the help desk) to field questions from the article's creator. I suspect nothing will come of it, but I live in hope. Anyway, sorry for volunteering you without warning! ;-) TFOWR 19:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh I noticed that and was considering a trout, but I'm still stockpiling most of my fish for now... GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a trout would be a little harsh - just like ANI, where if someone raise an issue they should expect their own conduct to be reviewed, if you get me to do something you should expect me to volunteer you ;-) (I'd settle for a minnow...!) TFOWR 19:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? It's harsh to treat a fellow editor to a nice meal? ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but in WP:EASTEREGG (well, what that redirects to) it says: Keep piped links as intuitive as possible. Do not use piped links to create "easter egg links", that require the reader to follow them before understanding what's going on. Also remember there are people who print the articles...The readers will not see the hidden reference...unless they click or hover over the piped exceptions link. In a print version, there is no link to select, and the reference is lost. Instead, reference the article explicitly... "After an earlier disaster, the Bombay Explosion (1944), ...", not "After an earlier disaster..."

This seems to me (but please correct me?) that things like "a [[British Isles|group of islands]]" and "[[British Isles|an archipelago]]" are discouraged against.Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really go into detail at the template talk page, because that example wasn't relevant in that case, but this was re: a different discussion about leads, where the explicit link to British Isles was in the geography section, and the lead simply mentioned "an archipelago". TFOWR 09:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the above policy covers pipelinks everywhere, including the lead. I used the group of islands and an archipelago just as examples I remember being discussed off the top of my head (from I'm sure you know where), trying to get a clarification in general about the guideline. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, Wikipedia:Piped link isn't policy. Hence my slightly liberal interpretation for leads: WP:LEAD, as a guideline, should carry more weight, and - provided the article-proper avoids surprises - I think it's appropriate for the lead to pipe in the interests of summarising the article-proper. TFOWR 09:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I obviously have no idea what a policy or a guideline is. Alright then, thanks for clarifying. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Take a look at WP:LEAD if you haven't already - the box at the top gives the status (policy, guideline, etc). Broadly, policies need to be followed tightly, guidelines should be followed, essays can be followed, and anything else is fair game ;-) In the case of WP:EASTEREGG, it's none of the above - I think it's good (I'm citing it a lot, as it's the only guidance I can find for pipes) but because it's not a policy or guidelines there is wiggle-room. In this case, I think being flexible with it is good for leads, less good for articles-proper.

Well, first, I hate shoehorning names that don't really fit into blurbs to identify the picture. And I picked Kimmy over Rafa because Nadal was just up there for Wimbledon not three months ago... and the French a month before that. Feel free to change it to an All Black if you like, though. Courcelles 11:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, not at all - I think Kim was a good choice (I prefer pictures to match the top item, where possible). My comment was more about HTD's suggestion that it should be a "white" guy from the All Blacks - I don't see why colour should matter, but the logical choice (for me) wouldn't have been white anyway. Mils is Samoan, and many of the ABs are Pasifika or Māori. TFOWR 11:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes you're right, the two paragraphs are pretty much paraphases of each other. It's interesting that they have different tones:

• "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred" - (WP:OWNTALK)
• "Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but archiving is strongly preferred" - (WP:TPO)

Subtle but do you see what I mean? Jebus989^✰ 15:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do, that is interesting. I suspect because similar things are said in different places someone's updated one but not the other.

For my part, I prefer the "strongly prefer" version: I never delete anything on this talkpage; everything gets archived (fairly rapidly, admittedly) so anything anyone's ever said is in my archives somewhere.

Part of the reason this is on my mind is there's an IP vandal who regularly deletes warnings, and I've noticed several good-faith editors reverting the IP. I looked up WP:TPO earlier today so I could post at the IP's talkpage without sounding like an idiot. Anyway, that's by-the-by - I'm sure you're not interested in why I'm suddenly interested in WP:TPO ;-)

When I have some time I'll post at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines to see if we can get some clarity on the two variants of "preferring archiving" - it's pedantic, but I'd like to see WP:OWNTALK and WP:TPO say the same thing ;-) TFOWR 15:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Raised at WT:TPG. TFOWR 19:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

could you help me in your admin hat? Off2riorob (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"It depends". What needs done, and where? TFOWR 15:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sock blocking any questions and permission User talk:Tnxman, here Off2riorob (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Banhammer armed and ready, I'm off to block me some socks... TFOWR 15:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, many thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Azamishaqu doesn't seem to exist - they have a talkpage, but the user itself is a non-user. You'll need to double-check with Tnxman307. All the others are blocked (HJ had already got one before me). I'm off to bag-and-tag now. TFOWR 16:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Case edu this one...? Off2riorob (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's Azamishaque (note the "e"). TNXMan 16:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tnxman307. This one's now blocked as well. TFOWR 16:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All good, a big chocolate biscuit to you all. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case edu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Azamishaque (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and all other sock puppets now blocked and tagged. First time I used the "checkuser confirms..." tag, so I make no promises I tagged rightly... thanks for the choccie biccy ;-) TFOWR 16:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive work indeed. Off2riorob (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the headsup. Here's the diff [12] - it looks pretty conclusive to me. As to the last part of your comment, it would have been polite for you to ask what contribution I have made to the project before suggesting to the entire community that this was my first ever edit. (no tilde on this keyboard) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.111.136 (talk) 11:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That edit was made by Jc3s5h (talk), not Elockid (talk).
• The edit reverted several editors, including QuartierLatin1968 (talk) and SieBot (talk), in addition to Doradus - the blatantly obvious target, however, was 92.24.104.161 - a blatant sock puppet of Vote (X) for change (as I'm sure you're perfectly well aware, being another sock puppet of Vote (X) for change). I don't believe that anyone, including yourself, was in anyway confused by this, and I'm equally sure that if Doradus took issue with Elockid's revert they could take it up with Elockid themselves.
• Vote (X) for Change is indefinitely blocked: your "contributions" are not appreciated. I felt I was being polite by stating that your current IP had made few edits: in future I'll simply block you as a sock puppet - how's that?
• While you're here - your previous crap about me editing religious articles was, well, crap. I have no interest in religious articles, I'm agnostic, bordering on atheist. Your selective interpretation of my talkpage post was also crap. I invite anyone interested to review the original thread, and judge for themselves whether Vote (X) for Change is capable of honesty.

TFOWR 11:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do seem to have an issue with Vote (X) for Change. I think you would be better advised to stand back and let others exercise their own judgment. In the time that I've been contributing to Wikipedia I've not been aware of editors queuing up to lambast this particular contributor. The way the system works seems to be that other editors first air their views on the offending editor's talk page. If the behaviour continues, an administrator may impose a short block, which may be followed by blocks of increasing length if the situation does not improve. An indefinite block is the last stage in the procedure. Examination of Vote (X) for Change's record shows it was retired at the time the ballot it was concerned with closed and a single block was effected at that time. Nothing there supports your allegation that it alienated any member of the community other than the two troublemakers Jc3s5h and Chris Bennett it was in dispute with at the time.

Jc3s5h's reversion has to be examined in the light of the prior history. If your theory is correct, what is the explanation for the reverts performed by Jc3s5h to the edits of Siebot, QuartierLatin1968 and Doradus? As we are both in agreement that none of these is a sockpuppet there can be no objection to all their edits being restored. If we consider only the complaints of the editors who don't have a POV - pushing agenda, three striking facts emerge.

(1) They are directed to personality, rather than content

(2) Vote (X) for Change displays a markedly Christian agenda

(3) All the complainants are either self - admitted or apparent non - believers.

Apart from yourself, as a Japanese Atama is most likely to be non - Christian and tmorton166 describes him/herself as a scientific humanist. A non - believer would not realise that describing himself as a "Buddhist/Sikh/Pagan educated by non - Christians/atheists/robots" will inevitably cause deep offence to the Buddhist and Sikh communities.

I've been following the debate and my recollection is that there was a reference to religious project pages, not articles. Your declaration that you have no interest in religious articles sits uneasily beside the reference to Catholic Church elsewhere on this talk page, where the correspondent takes your familiarity with this article for granted. Also, at the beginning of the archive extract you say that you are a regular visitor to East - West Schism.

Long term protection of Gregorian calendar will only exacerbate religious differences. One of the five pillars of Wikipedia, WP:NPOV, was raised partly to ensure that no one major religion got any more coverage than any other. Had there been a worldwide outcry, such as the one which led to the cancellation of Florida's "Burn a Qu'ran" demonstration scheduled for today, it might have been justified, but negative feedback (apart from Jc3s5h) was zero. We don't know (because he won't say) whether he is pushing what he conceives to be the Catholic viewpoint. You can easily find out, since the Pope is visiting Scotland on Thursday, by going to Edinburgh before then, handing the Church's representative a copy of the disputed diff, and asking to be informed of any comments which His Holiness may have on the subject. 81.147.186.91 (talk) 10:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vote (X) for Change does seem to have an issue with sock-puppetry. I think Vote (X) for Change would be better advised to stand back and let non-blocked editors exercise their own judgement. In the time I've been contributing to Wikipedia I've seen many sock puppeters come and go; Vote (X) for Change is just another in a long line of ex-editors who don't understand why their "contributions" are not appreciated. Vote (X) for Change is indefinitely blocked - that didn't occur because Vote (X) for Change was doling out choclates and roses.

I don't believe I've contributed to religious project pages either. I've contributed to dispute resolution, as I'm required to do as an admin. This includes protecting pages as required, and it is through protecting one religious article due to a dispute (unrelated to calendars) between two editors. This was an article, and my participation was on the talkpage and solely in terms of dispute resolution.

I assume you're joking about me going to Embra. Not going to happen. Either me going, or the Catholic Church taking your complaint any more seriously than I do.

So, let's recap: your complaint against Elockid was crap. The diff shows it was another admin entirely. You posted this complaint to ANI at least twice, and no one took it remotely seriously (indeed, as anything other than crap). You attempted to portray me as involved in editing religious articles and/or project pages - again, this was crap. You misrepresented a talkpage post - again, this was crap. You objected to me labelling your crap as "crap", while continuing to spout crap. I really do think you'd be better advised to stand back and let more detached editors exercise their own judgement - yours is clearly questionable. TFOWR 11:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to me to be someone who gets worked up about trivial issues (A "Type A" personality, in the jargon). Surely you can get your point across without swearing every other sentence. Whether you edited an article or its talk page is just a matter of detail. What interests me most about your post is where you say

Vote (X) for Change is just another in a long line of ex - editors who don't understand why their "contributions" are not appreciated.

There is a list of ex - editors - the Banned List - and I don't see Vote (X) for Change's name on that.

Then you say

Vote (X) for Change is indefinitely blocked - that didn't occur because Vote (X) for Change was doling out choclates and roses.

I don't follow the reasoning here - if editors don't dole out "chocolates and roses" they don't get blocked either.

The link to Elockid is that (s)he protected the talk page of a protected article, which is outside Wikipedia guidelines.

So far as the Pope's visit is concerned (he's coming to Glasgey as well, by the way) I can't imagine that the Catholic Church would have the slightest interest in anything which is said about it on Wikipedia.

On misrepresenting what is said on talk pages, were your schoolteachers really robots or just decent human beings who people like you just like to make fun of because of their profession? 81.147.186.91 (talk) 13:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've got me banged to rights! I am indeed subject to the psychological failings you identify - I'm so crushed!

I'm not sure why you'd look at the list of banned editors: I've never said that you're anything other than indefinitely blocked, surely? Guilty conscience, maybe? Can't help there...

I'm sorry you can't follow my reasoning re: choccies and roses, I can't really help there either.

If you believe Elockid failed to follow protection policy then you are really in the minority. It's standard practice to protect pages when they're subjected to frequent attacks by sock puppets.

I too can't imagine that the Catholic Church has any interest in your witterings - that was, after all, what I said previously: I assume you're joking about me going to Embra. Not going to happen. Either me going, or the Catholic Church taking your complaint any more seriously than I do.

I'm sorry, too, that you didn't understand the talkpage comment that you didn't understand. I can't really help there, either.

In summary: you clearly have lots of issues, none of which are going to be solved by your continued presence here, either on Wikipedia or, more specifically, my talkpage. TFOWR 13:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have I made a complaint to the Catholic Church? No.

Do I understand what you're on about? No.

Does anybody else understand what you're on about? No.

Goodnight. 81.147.186.91 (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we interrupt the party for a moment? Earlier in this thread you suggested that my checking whether Vote (X) for Change was banned was evidence of guilt feelings. Not a bit of it. It actually relates to your 5th July response to Crohnie who asked you

If the edit is made by a banned sock puppet do we still revert them and then revert the edit to what is proper per policies?

Your reply:

If general, for an indef blocked sock puppeteer, no. For a sock puppeteer that's subject to a community ban, yes.

Why then are you hassling a good - faith contributor who is not community banned? 81.147.186.91 (talk) 09:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you possibly take a look at my two requests at WP:RFPP please? The dynamic IP vandal is quite persistent. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 09:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On it now. I'm putting off some serious admin bizness, but RFPP will serve that purpose nicely, too... TFOWR 09:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Once you see the edits to Dublin and Monaghan bombings you may wish to reconsider the "well-intentioned" part though.. O Fenian (talk) 09:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Well intentioned": well-known New Zealand English phrase meaning "biased as". Blimey, that really wasn't in the spirit of neutral point of view. Both articles semi'd for one week. Maybe a little excessive, but dynamic IPs tend to take a while to "find" the talkpage... TFOWR 09:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He found mine ok. O Fenian (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it becomes clearer now. "Time to accept"? Time to accept that this user isn't here to contribute constructively. TFOWR 09:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And this just proves it. Dammit, I hate it when I WP:AGF and it proves to be misplaced. TFOWR 10:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure if you had seen the Dublin and Monaghan edits first you would not have assumed good faith. O Fenian (talk) 11:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damn straight. I work from the bottom up at RFPP (oldest first), so missed it. The IRA edits weren't stellar, but the D&M edits were straight out of the POV-editing handbook. The crap on your talkpage sealed the deal. Since the user appears to have a dynamic IP address, I'll semi your talkpage, too, if this nonsense continues - do you have an alternative talkpage for such "happy" occasions? TFOWR 11:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. I am sure any IP editor can always use the talk page of any article they need to ask about though. O Fenian (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True. I suspect once the attraction of having their POVvy edits readily visible disappears, they'll lose interest, so talk pages won't appeal nearly so much. Hopefully that means they've already lost interest in your talk page, too. TFOWR 11:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too need to borrow your mop- this should only take a few seconds. one, and two. Thanks in advance :) sonia♫ 11:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is done ;-) And the good thing about this request is I don't fear IPs popping up to harass me for "supporting" the Provisional IRA... TFOWR 11:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that- I thought I'd fit a few more AfC reviews in before getting an early night- it's incredibly backlogged. Night. (or can I share a blanket again? ;) ) sonia♫ 12:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're always welcome - but it's past noon here so I may keep you awake, hammering away at the keyboard ;-) TFOWR 12:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, while you're still awake (!), I guess I should have removed this, too? (AFC is new territory for me...) TFOWR 12:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was rather amused by your block log entry when you deleted Aquastranza. You are not actually required to be so frank, if you don't want to. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! An editor had applied a {{db-hoax}}, the author removed it, then the CSD editor applied {{db-author}}. I'd missed that the author blanked the page when removing the db-hoax tag. So, it's true, I am an idiot! I'm happy to be frank, hopefully it inspires other editors to own up to and fix any mistakes they make - leading by (bad) example...! TFOWR 12:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they say the first step on the road to recovery is to admit it. (And don't I know it!) And since you're happy to be frank, should we call you Frank from here on out? Is "Frank" jake with you? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley, you can't be serious? And "Frank" or "Jake"? Make up your mind! The road to recovery is long and fraught with danger, but I feel good that I've made the first step... :-) TFOWR 12:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, or my full name, Shirley U. Jest. You were supposed to say "Yes, Frank is jake with me", and I was supposed to say, "OK, so tell me, Jake..." and Groucho was supposed to spin in his crypt. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprisingly bad when it comes to the Marx brothers. I think I've seen every film at some point, but typically during "festive" seasons, when my ability to remember is severely "impaired". This is something I keep meaning to rectify... if only so that I can make "Marxist" jokes more effectively. But I'm hindered by "my" philosophy on television: I find television very educational. Every time someone switches it on I go into another room and read a good book. (Someone else may have said that before me). TFOWR 12:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woody Allen described Groucho as "the finest comedian this country ever produced". I can't argue with that. Sometime when you're in full possession of your faculty members, members of the faculty, students of Huxley, and Huxley students, check out the Groucho stuff on youtube. It's all good, and much of it is in short clips of 2 to 5 minutes. I always liked this Father's Day bit he did on the Cavett show when he was approaching 80 years old.[13] Note the cute ad-lib around 1 minute in. And these from both sides of the panel on What's My Line? (listed here in reverse timeline order, purposely) [14][15] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our Indonesian misinformation vandal had returned today and yesterday, this time using addresses 114.57.114.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (today) and 202.70.54.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (yesterday). Same MO, same kinds of articles (i.e. anime, Power Rangers, Televisa, and Little League related articles). - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 13:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Could this warrant a longer rangeblock on the 202.70.54.0/24 range? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 13:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

202.70.54.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

JamesBWatson (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has blocked the 114... IP, and I've rangeblocked the 202.../24 range for one week. Interestingly, this range has been blocked several times, with the duration decreasing each time (first block was for three months). I keep promising to do this, and keep getting side-tracked, but I think at this point it'd be useful for me to trawl through my archives and work out all the ranges used by this user. Also interestingly, this seems to be one of those frustrating good-faith-but-incompetent editors - I saw one useful edit from 114... in amongst a whole load of typical Indonesian misinformation vandal edits. TFOWR 13:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, considering also that he recently uses addresses from the 114.57.x.x range, which may would be way too overkill for a rangeblock. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 13:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   IMO, speaking admin to admin, that you made a called-for move at (and back to) 2010 Qur'an-burning controversy, but would better have noted in your comment on the talk paage that

_ the proposer of the rename was the one whose move was at best the last straw in eliciting the protection,

_ the proposal elicited no support, & 6 quick objections (IMO, each clearly indicating, at least implicitly, pref for the immediately prior title), and

_ protection was a unilateral act of an admin, and does not constitute an implicit request that other admins refrain from changing the title during protection.

   I also think using "Meh." in the talk summary (BTW, i needed Wikt to distinguish it from the expression of disgust, "Feh."?) in declaring the move, may be at best too informal, too seemingly casual, for an action requiring admin priv. (Oh, shit: i'm about say that as an edit to your protected talk page!)
   On the other hand, good call on all the direct results!
--Jerzy•t 00:05 & 00:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I must admit, I didn't feel too comfortable moving it, but I couldn't see who had protected it in the logs, and as you note the proposer moved it immediately after proposing. That said, that's all the more reason for a more considered comment than "meh"... so apologies for that. I was hoping to be light-hearted and not too bitey with respect to the proposer, but re-reading it I'm not convinced I even achieved that - c'est la vie. I try not to do admin actions late in the day for that very reason... Anyway, thanks for your note. If it was you who protected it, apologies for wheel-warring/treading on toes - not something I tend to do, but the "proposed" title was so clearly unnecessary, and the support clearly wasn't there. TFOWR 00:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be me! I added the move prot, but which page's log it's in beats the hell out of me! It's been moved more times than most articles ever are in their entire lives! I'll dig it out of my log. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

log entry:

• (del/undel) 22:39, 10 September 2010 HJ Mitchell (talk | contribs | block) changed protection level of 2010 United States Qur'an-burning controversy [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 04:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (indefinite) ‎ (Highly visible page: please make up your minds on the talk page) (hist | change)

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry HJ - I've just apologised to you on the talkpage, too (Jerzy, I interpreted your advice as "leave a more considered comment explaining my actions", so I left a proper comment). OK, I can see all the gory details at the redirect's logs, that explains my earlier inability to see... and puts my mind at rest slightly. But HJ - I never thought that my first wheel-war would be with you ;-) I'm going to stop now, before I do further damage...! TFOWR 00:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's wheel warring. At least you didn't delete it, anyway, much as it needs to be, but I couldn't post my opinion of the whole thing without violating BLP! You only moved it to a consensual title. I put the move prot on to stop people moving it back and forth based on "I proposed it, nobody objected in 30 seconds, so there must be a consensus", which is annoying, and, as you can see, it makes one hell of a mess of the logs! ;) Anyway, no apology necessary (even if it was a reversal, I believe a wheel war requires a reversal of a reversal). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spoil sport! There was me thinking I was being controversial ;-) Useful learning (or remembering...) experinece for me - I had got into a good habit of doing certain types of things at certain times, and serious admin bizness was something I did earlier in the day... this is why. Various things - real-life and WT:BISE - have distracted me from my routine, and I'm paying the price. Time to get back into my routine... TFOWR 00:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment of my HelpDesk contributions was sooooooooooooooooo much appreciated!!!! :):) Thanks a ton!!! Really!!! Wishes and regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 19:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! I was surprised no one else had commented on it - your former signature is was very distinctive, and I see it all over the help desk! By the way, I hope you don't mind but I added {{administrator}} to your userpage - just my way of saying "congratulations" ;-) TFOWR 19:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the admin tag :):) Yes, I know the signature was splattered all over the Help Desk; but that's alright. It'll still be in a few days from now :) Take care TFOWR; great to have you around Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 20:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was resolving the issue by providing the answer, and changing the article text accordingly. Is there still an issue to be resolved? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've not seen your change to the article yet, but as I understand it, you (and me, for that matter) have a source that state "born in Scotland", and HighKing has a source that states "born in England". I suspect after a bit of too-ing and fro-ing we'll probably need to end up with "place of birth disputed", and use either Great Britain or UK (of GB and Ireland) as the generic area. TFOWR 11:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, sorry, I spoke too soon. I've amended the text of the article but not and now also the infobox, and will now go away again.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Born in England, born in Scotland. In otherwords, born in Great Britain (geographically), born in the United Kingdom of GB & I Kingdom of Great Britain (politically). GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Born in the Kingdom of Great Britain, in fact. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, that correct. GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either of those work for me, though I suspect there may be subtle nuances I've not considered. Regardless: wrong talkpage ;-) Interesting case, though, and proof that we should be able to drag Americans kicking and screaming into the BI dispute if we try hard enough!!! TFOWR 14:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing my level best with Afterwriting. When he failed to follow BRD on Anglicanism I stopped at 2RR and fact tagged, now he has edit warred over that tag and went on to a series of accusations on my talk page and else where (bullying, hypocrisy etc. etc.) Two other editors are now engaged in a series discussion on the issues. I really don't want to go to a formal 3RR report, but its getting very weary maintaining civility in my response. I saw you also had a run in with the same editor. If you think I have done something wrong then please point it out, advise appreciated. --Snowded ^TALK 16:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following the discussion somewhat - I caught the start earlier, and I've just caught up with the rest of it just now. I'm loath to get involved, because I doubt Afterwriting will take advice from me, either, and my involvement is likely to worsen things. I hate to say it, but WP:AN3 may be your best bet in the short term. I don't think you've done anything wrong in how you've tried to discuss matters. Not wishing to condone Afterwriting's behaviour here, but they've been dealing with a very tiresome editor (it was through this other editor that I became involved with Afterwriting) so they're maybe a little stressed right now. Hence AN3: cooler, calmer heads may well be needed than you or me. TFOWR 16:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advise was what I wanted not involvement so thanks for providing it! It may have to be a 3RR report. I'll let it go overnight and see where we get to in the morning.--Snowded ^TALK 16:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Surreal Barnstar
		for your steadfast dignity and courtesy, even under Kafkaesque circumstances. UgoGuy!!! DocOfSoc (talk) 05:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much - I'm not sure what I've done to deserve this, but much of what I've done recently seems to be in the realm of the surreal.

Incidentally, I've got to come clean about my gender - I'm male! Not that I mind, I don't advertise the fact and my username is very unrevealing, but seeing as we're friends I thought I should be honest :-) TFOWR 21:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I must admit when I heard someone refer to you as "she" I was very, very confused. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come on TFWOR, make your mind up. if your confused or unsure we have plenty of related articles that may help. Transgender, Transvestite, Androgynous ...Off2riorob (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally, I was nosey-ing around someone's userpage earlier when I found this great userbox: {{User:FingersOnRoids/ProGayMarriage}}. There's also the "straight-not-narrow" one. But basically: I'm sure about many things ;-) My userpage used to show how boring I was: in terms of me being interesting I score 0.5/10 :-( I get half a point for coming from the Southern Hemisphere - I figure only half a point because I now live in the Northern Hemisphere. My score has gone down since I started editing Wikipedia :-( But basically I'm a boring straight white guy... So I guess "I'm sure, but I'm sure I don't mind" is my philosophy! TFOWR 22:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, you've never come across as female to me. Mainly because I think I first came across you discussing chicks with HJ. But just to check- this says you're male :P sonia♫ 22:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, possibly. I seem to remember comments about red-heads at Talk:Main Page... I try to be politically correct but don't always succeed...! TFOWR 22:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take that back, actually. Searching through HJ's archives and 220.101's page evidences that I've talked with everyone but you, apparently! (like this, for example...) Sorry for misremembering :( sonia♫ 22:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do remember a discussion here about this woman's attractiveness (I like her for her mind...), and I do have a massive crush on this woman (picture here), but the women I like are often quite understated... TFOWR 22:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia meet TFOWR, TFOWR meet Sonia, there is something in the air methinks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong hemispheres, mate :-( We missed our chance... TFOWR 22:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then come back here, silly. ;) Although somehow I suspect I'm not your type. :P sonia♫ 22:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"My type" isn't limited to dead anarchists ;-) Not much hope of returning anytime soon, I'm afraid :-( Though as Winter in the Northern hemisphere draws ever nearer I do waver... TFOWR 22:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, get your bag and lock your door and get on that jet liner and never look back. Off2riorob (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis probably a good thing that you aren't that limited, else you'd have significant trouble finding a woman. :P Summer- we've had, what, two weeks of spring so far, and it's absolutely sweltering over here. sonia♫ 23:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) He who smelt it, dealt it. ;-) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...Differences between men and women, The birds and the bees... GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Even educated fleas do it"? :-) What do the fleas that drop-out of school do about procreation? Wikipedia, eh? More questions than answers... TFOWR 22:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am used to saying "UgoGirl" to my Boss, he is bit gay LOL and adorable! Fondly---DocOfSoc (talk) 23:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all - best thread here for a while! TFOWR 23:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any thread including a chat-up line like this can't be all bad. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, there was always something attractive about sonia's typing ... and I remember a conversation that went down a certain road ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're thinking of the conversation I'm thinking of, several of us ended up "in bed" :-o I had a trawl through me archives looking for it, but it didn't leap out in quite the way I assumed such a thread would leap out, so perhaps that prurient bot Misza censored it?! TFOWR 08:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, found it. Bwilkins, as I recall, just stood watching and sniggering... much more fun being involved, I say ;) Although, "something attractive about my typing"? That's new... sonia♫ 08:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's Bwilkins for you! Though we did both discover Bwilkins' "assume ignorance" essay, so I guess we can't complain too much... incidentally, my Oman sandbox has now been completed, and Begoon (talk) pushed the update to Oman. And I learned some really useful referencing stuff along the way... but I'm going off-topic from blankets now...! TFOWR 08:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need your "Blanket permission" renewed?"  ;-) DocOfSoc (talk) 08:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ssssh! People will talk! But this does demonstrate that I'm as broad-minded as my reply to Rob, above, tried to suggest - hey! We're all obviously very broad-minded! TFOWR 08:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, sorry for interrupting you two last time, now that I remember how things went down... ;) Re the essay, it was a good one- I wrote one about the opposite type of newbs: rule-sticklers. Grats for getting Oman done, it looked insurmountable. (Did you need a security blanket? :P) sonia♫ 08:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If things get any hotter in this thread, a blanket is definitely going to be needed... GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ GW - oh, I've got a nother batch of 100 unprotections looming - that's the Wikipedia equivalent of a cold shower ;-)

@Sonia - superb essay. I actually wish en.wiki policies etc were written like that. Any reason it's in your userspace and not in project-space? TFOWR 09:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice threat to Davtra, btw. I'll make sure he gets it. As for things heating up- maybe TFOWR will be warm well into the winter then?

The essay in project-space? Eh... at simplewiki, even the WikiProjects are in userspace. Sorry about the simple English- I'm trying to de-simplify it and localise it, but it's actually a little hard... that's the way I did John Joseph Woods, hence the slightly clumsy prose. Oh, and the shortcut WP:IIAR is taken here :( sonia♫ 09:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense. No worries about the simple English - I actually thought that was a plus: it was that style of writing I'd like to see here (less chance of wikilawyering...) I presume you meant simple:John Joseph Woods, by the way? TFOWR 09:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I wrote the article's first draft at simple, copied it over here, expanded it here then copied it back over. Caused a right mess of simplification/desimplification. Do you think the essay would be fine here without my tweaking it, or would it sound a bit condescending? sonia♫ 09:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A sneaky way to do it would be to mention that it was copied from Simple, and leave it at that... worse-case scenario is that anyone who finds it condescending would simply edit it, but I would like to see policies written with a lot less legalese (but I guess that's something that would need widespread community consensus, etc...) TFOWR 09:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm currently enjoying searching for terms like Endoplasmic Reticulum, Protein biosynthesis, and Simple Mail Transfer Protocol on simple wiki. There's nothing better (and more agonising) than seeing SMTP described as "the opposite of the POP protocol"... GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too ignorant to comment on the first two, but I feel your pain with the third. It's interesting seeing what articles exist and what articles don't - I had a look at sco.wiki at the list of articles that all *.wikis would ideally have, and there were some weird ones missing (sco:Feminism, I think) and some equally weird ones that exist. I guess it's the same as here with FAs - folk are always complaining at Talk:Main Page that we have featured articles on obscure stuff, but that articles on X aren't featured. Same reasoning applies, I assume - editors create and improve the subjects they're interested in. TFOWR 09:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. That first one needs serious fixing. If either of you can help with accuracy, don't worry too much about the simple English. Accuracy is more important, and it's easy enough for a copyeditor to follow you through afterward, or link words to wiktionary. We're more in need of up to date, correct info- the articles on iPods etc are quite outdated as well. Not being a techie, I'd probably make it worse. sonia♫ 09:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{sofixit}}? I guess we walked into that one! GW, you got an account at simple? I'll take a look at simple:SMTP later, if I get a round "tuit". TFOWR 09:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, how do we go from barnstars to sexual innuendos then back to article stuff. The innuendos were more fun :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) I already had to fix part of Endoplasmic Reticulum when I saw it, because simple or otherwise, claiming that "smooth endoplasmic reticulum are cells" is just blatantly false :( I'm somewhat reluctant to edit other wikipedia projects though, as I'm only familiar with en-wiki policies. Also TFOWR, Chzz told me how to make my account unified, so it seems to have created a simple wiki account for me when I edited endoplasmic reticulum. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Reluctant to edit other wikis? I sympathise... if only we knew a friendly Simple editor, or, better yet, an admin... do either of you know such a person? ;-) I'm certain if we knew such a person they'd be willing to help guide us...! TFOWR 09:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)? I've had so many editing this section it's not funny! No worries. Simple has this guideline which should reassure you! There's not much different in the way of editing that isn't notated here by yours truly. Bar the completely different DYK system. If you get in trouble, blame me. Unless you redirect spoiled brat to my userpage (which a user actually did), I'd be happy to defend you :)

@Bwilkins: you want innuendo? I'll give it to you. sonia♫ 09:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia: now that you mention it, I'm very tempted. I'll be sure to fix up any more blatantly false / silly descriptions I see on simple.wiki in passing, but I think editing it too much will make my brain hurt. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I popped by simple:Endoplasmic reticulum and made it a little more informative; hopefully the level of detail and the language is appropriate to the project. It's unreferenced, but a lot more accurate than the previous content, at least. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't comment on its accuracy, knowing nothing about the subject, but it was unreferenced before, so I'd suggest it's no worse off, at least, and probably better off than it was. Sonia, what are the referencing requirements on simple? I assume refs are preferred? Or can articles simply say "it's referenced elsewhere e.g. en.wiki"? TFOWR 11:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that a cursory search showed several unreferenced articles without templates asking for them, but also that bigger articles like simple:Marilyn Monroe are well-referenced. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like here, articles do go by unreferenced- sources are of course preferred, but you can just copy them intact from enwiki if they support what you've written. sonia♫ 19:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at doing that earlier, but it was all biology-cellular-endoplasmic-gibberish to me... :-( TFOWR 19:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just like I have no idea what's wrong with "SMTP is the opposite of POP"... sonia♫ 20:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...now that one I do know! I can see why the editor wrote it like that, but it's overly simplistic to the point of being inaccurate. I'll take a look at that one tomorrow (UTC-wise), though, if GW hasn't beaten me to it already. TFOWR 20:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have, TFOWR ;) I (hopefully fairly simply) explained the contrasting functions of SMTP, POP, and IMAP. I'm sure you can think of something to add, though. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I'm far happier with the new version. I wasn't keen on "suite" - Sonia, you'll know Simple English better than me, and it may be that it's OK, but it seemed overly confusing - even if it had been fixed to point to simple:Software suite. (And no, can't think of anything to add! What did Bjarne Stroustrup say - something about make it as simple as possible but no simpler? You seem to have achieved that). TFOWR 20:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my userpage.Ronk01 talk 21:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! The IP must have been sore that you'd warned them for some very unimaginative vandalism - they seem to have behaved since, though. TFOWR 21:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TFOWR, could you delete this page but preserve the talk (just copy and paste it back in). I created it in main space without thinking. Thanks, --— RA (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done How's that for speedy, eh? ;-) TFOWR 19:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Señor Gonzales. --— RA (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was a bit short with the IP but xhe gave us a right runaround last month with the same content ;) Was in the middle of a aggravating issue on Talk:Libertarianism (trying to break up too quite radically opposed groups... fun) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 19:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I don't envy you with the Libertarian "fun" - it's an area I've studiously avoided, though I see it pop up here and there (and what I see annoys me greatly). TFOWR 19:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sigh I know.. right now I figure avoiding the actual content discussion and just try and stamp on off topic/nasty stuff will keep it on track... don't worry, if I want to poke an admin for their help I have someone else in mind for this one :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 19:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. If that ip/range carries on doing this twice daily without a source, I'll request semi again. It's a weird history - I originally went there to join in a discussion asking a tag bomber to stop. Then it settled down for ages, and I went back to comment on an IP's message about these reversions, because he was being a dick about it. I've ended up agreeing with what he was doing, but not his methods, so after going there to "bollock" him for incivility I'm now doing his reverts for him, because the information is sourced. Not every change from the ip/range is necessarily bad, but they always manage to squeeze in the alteration to the sourced Cancellation section - and usually to different, seemingly random, figures each time. Just to add to all that fun, the IP I bollocked got an account, and got a block on a different article for edit warring (confused yet?) All a bit bizarre...  Begoon•talk 21:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, totally confused! I couldn't remember why The Benny Hill Show was on my watchlist - something to do with you and RFPP I remembered, but not much else. But watchlisted it is, so I saw the IP edit and did some digging. They changed The Two Ronnies as well, and the edit was wrong as far as I could see, and I remembered that the Benny Hill problem was odd changes, so I reverted that too. If I'm around, and haven't already noticed, I'd suggest bypassing RFPP and just coming straight to me - it may be quicker. I'd cheerfully semi for this kind of silliness. Maybe the IP is going on (hazy) memories or something? Regardless, it's silly and they need to behave. TFOWR 21:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, I'll leave it for now - I'd like to leave a couple more warnings so they understand why, but once it becomes a pain I'll avail myself of the graciously offered shortcut.  Begoon•talk 21:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Indonesian misinformation vandal did his dirty work again on the same kinds of articles (i.e. Televisa, Little League, Power Rangers, and Digimon, not mention a few others). This time, he used the address 118.137.143.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This address is now outside the coverage of the now blocked 118.137.0.0/17 range. So can the 118.137.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) range be blocked as well because of this? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 06:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the /16 range for three months - /16 is a little too wide for my comfort zone. This range does have a substantial block log (with several six month blocks, including the most recent), however, so I'm maybe be a little too cautious. Time will tell...! TFOWR 08:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately for us, JamesBWatson shortened the time of the block to 24 hours for his own reasons. See his reply to my latest message at his talk page. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 08:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the article protected is the primary target of the vandal, a shortening of the rangeblock may well be appropriate - I've confidence in JamesBWatson, and less confidence in me making long-duration rangeblocks ;-) I mentioned a day or two ago that I would compile a list of this vandals ranges - I've started doing that, but it's incomplete. However, once it is complete it should enable admins to rangeblock every range for very short durations - I suspect that once the vandal realises that every range is shut out whenever they appear, they may lose interest quite rapidly. TFOWR 08:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may reimplement the 3-month block on the /16 range you mentioned tomorrow; after all, it was just 24 hours. But it seems he targets articles of specific topics, but the range is way too absurdingly broad as you would see (Digimon, some anime, Televisa, telenovelas, news programs, news channels, movie studios, Power Rangers, and recently Little League). I don't remember anymore if I told you this, but while he has been active since November or December 2007 using a wide range of addresses (and I've reported about his activities back at WP:AN/I several times, as well as other sharp-eyed editors' reports on the guy), I've compiled a list of addresses he used since July of last year alone. The list is in my userspace's sanbox and I may copy the list here if it would help in your effort. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 08:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You have indeed provided me with the ranges in the past. I've been using them to looks at target articles and, more importantly, previously block lengths. I'm no expert at IP ranges, so it's slow going...

I'll see about reimplementing the rangeblock tomorrow, but it will be contingent on further vandalism from that range - I won't reimplement it simply because the 24 hour block expires. Sadly, I suspect that this vandal will give me ample cause to reimplement a rangeblock... TFOWR 08:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the reports I made to WP:AN/I back in December 2007 to show how far back he persistantly does his vandalism:

• First report
• Addendum to first report, containing a detailed list

He seemed to stop using addresses at the 61.5.*.* and 61.94.*.* ranges after the resulting blocks, but as we all are aware, he's still doing it as later reports to WP:AN/I by other users about him would show (I can list links those reports later if you want). I hope the reports I list here help. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 09:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TFOWR, I was wondering if you could block the IP addresses, 192.168.2.6 and 58.168.107.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) since my brother is threatening to create spam accounts, see User talk:Airplaneman for more info. Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 08:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CHANGE YOUR PASSWORD IMMEDIATELY!!!

It won't matter if your brother tries to log in with the saved password, if you've already changed it.

I, uh, won't block 192.168.2.6, as it's a local range - similar to 127.0.0.1 or the hostname "localhost" ;-)

I'll keep an eye on 58.168.107.123, however.

CHANGE YOUR PASSWORD IMMEDIATELY!!! TFOWR 08:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. According to my brother he can still do something despite the fact that my IP is now being watched and my password changed. What am I missing? —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 08:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing that that's how brothers behave ;-) He maybe thinks that if he misbehaves as an IP address, it'll affect you. I sincerely doubt it: if the IP is blocked then you're already ipblock-exempt. A checkuser won't reveal anything we all know already. You've warned us in advance of possible vandalism from an IP address - hardly the actions of a vandal. I'd say you're in the clear, and your brother is trying hard to be cool (without much success...) TFOWR 09:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, thanks for the help. I really appreciate it. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 09:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick question, why are the editnotices for my user and talk page invalid? User:Fridae'sDoom/Editnotice and User talk:Fridae'sDoom are the links. Did I create them wrong or is there something I missed? —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 09:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They look OK to me - I'm seeing the same things at User:Fridae'sDoom/Editnotice and , and the same things at User talk:Fridae'sDoom/Editnotice and . Are you not seeing the edit notices when you click edit? (You should be - I get my edit notices whenever I edit my user or talk pages). TFOWR 09:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see them the problem is when I edit them it says their invalid, but when I goto Mlpearc's edit notice it says it's valid... —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 09:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I see that too. I wonder if it's the apostrophe in your username? Alternatively, and possibly more likely, is that the formatting is outside the editnotice template. I can't for the life of me work out how Mlpearc is doing it, but their editnotice appears to be empty. I'd suggest trying to work out what magic Mlpearc is invoking, and follow it exactly. Not sure if it'll help, and you might want to raise it with Mlpearc or another clueful editor first...? TFOWR 09:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I always wondered if it was the apostrophe, will do thanks TFOWR, just had dinner and am going to play cards with my family (annoying brother and all) so I won't be on for the rest of the day. Thanks again! Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 10:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too much bickering in our card game, I'm back. I'm going to go ask Mlpearc now and if he knows the problem then I'll tell you :). —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 12:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the userpage revert :) I guess it's time for me to remove the atheist userbox as that's the second time it's been picked up and I suppose it can be considered divisive. Anyway thanks! Jebus989^✰ 19:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I tend to think meh! Keep it! If people aren't able to edit here without responding like that they shouldn't be here - we all have to work with people with a variety of opinions. But it's your userpage - remove it if you want ;-) TFOWR 19:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind keeping an eye on Humaliwalay‎‎ (talk · contribs) and AllahLovesYou‎‎ (talk · contribs) they appear to be having a bit of a religion war.

Ta

Codf1977 (talk) 08:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)‎‎[reply]

Will do. I gather this centres around Criticism of Sunni Islam? Blimey, I hate these "Criticism of..." articles, they're a magnet for disagreements. There is, I think, a discussion about similar "Criticism of..." articles at User talk:Jimbo Wales at the moment. Anyway, I'll keep an eye of both editors. Thanks for the heads up. TFOWR 08:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted at WP:CCN as well - hopefully non-involved editors with more knowledge than me will help... TFOWR 08:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Codf1977 (talk) 08:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he did not hear any of that, do you wish to step in again or should I go to WP:AN/I ? Codf1977 (talk) 08:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that (WP:IDIDSEETHAT ;-) ) I'm reluctant: I don't think I'd help, and I'm not sure we're necessarily at a stage where a block is needed. Describing good-faith edits as vandalism isn't on, but isn't by itself justification for a further block. The AfD should at least draw more eyes to the issue. There do seem to be issues with WP:COMPETENCE - the post-block talkpage posts point to that - but, again, I'm not sure we're at the reblock stage yet. I'll update WP:CCN with the AfD details; while this is at CCN I'd be wary about taking it to ANI unless it gets really unpleasant. TFOWR 08:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we are not at the block point, will see how it goes. Codf1977 (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While you're here, I did mention the AfD at WP:CCN - mostly in response to another editor's comment about merging in the ...Sunni article into the equivalent ...Islam article. TFOWR 12:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented on the AfD, hope you don't mind me using your CCN post to make my point. Codf1977 (talk) 12:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's fine. I'm not sure I'd necessarily !vote for delete&salt, but I haven't looked at the article in enough detail to be in a position to !vote. Leaving aside WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, Humaliwalay makes an interesting point about Criticism of Twelver Shi'ism, and I suspect Itsmejudith (talk) had articles like that in mind when they commented at WP:CCN. Many editors see "Criticism of ..." as a justification to pile in everything negative, forgetting that criticism is critical analysis, not a POV opportunity... TFOWR 12:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you on Igloo chatting with the IP and saw you mention something about automation. If you have a list of pages that you know you want to completely unprotect, you can just use Twinkle. For example, if he has a list of pages where mine was the first log action, you can just set Twinkle to unprotect them all. It's much, much quicker! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned that before, but I'm not sure how I'd go about it - I'm used to clicking the "pp" tab, and up pops Twinkle's protect/unprotect page. Would it be the "p-batch" tab instead? (I've always avoided the "unlink", "deli-batch" etc tabs, but I did use the "p-batch" tab for the first time t'other day - I assume it would work here, too? TFOWR 23:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, "p-batch". "deli-batch" would delete them all, so don't click that one! ;) Then it lets you choose the settings you want almost the same way ass the "pp" option does. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic - that's going to make things a lot quicker. I'll hold off for now (it's late, and I want to be awake if I balls it up...) but I'll give it a whirl tomorrow. 67.119 will be happier! TFOWR 23:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Artemisia vulgaris still contains TR's additions, which should have been reverted as no consensus was reached, and the article is still unresolved. Is it OK if I revert to the previous version? --HighKing (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, the article Arts and Crafts Movement still contains TR's additions, etc, etc. OK to revert? --HighKing (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(The most recent revision to Artemisia vulgaris by Triton Rocker didn't actually have "British Isles", except in a ref. The heading "British Isles" was subsequently added by LevenBoy).

Procedurally, the thing to do would be to revert the additions as soon as they occurred. My gut feeling is that doing it now is going to be messy, in that several editors have edited both articles since then. Rather than revert, couldn't we just wrap these two up as quickly as possible? I realise that in the first case that's largely down to me, in that I've been holding out for some sort of flora settlement like we had for fauna. In the second case (Arts & Crafts) I'm quite keen to see it progress, but I will need to see arguments for and against. So... going forward get me to revert as soon as the issue arises. In these two instances, while it might be the correct thing to do I'd prefer instead to wrap up the discussions, then enact the result, rather than revert and then enact. Not ideal, but easier and less disruptive, I think. TFOWR 15:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, ta. --HighKing (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, A&CM should be easy to wrap up - I set up for/against sections a while ago, I think it just got lost amongst the recent Robert Scot and White Nationalist stuff. I need to do some archiving, hopefully that will high-light the remaining issues like A&CM. Flora I feel more guilty about - it's obviously not an ideal situation, and it is because I've been hoping we'd get a blanket process for flora set up, so Artemisia vulgaris has suffered as a result. TFOWR 15:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The key one after those will be a geography settlement. Most of the delete argument at the moment appears to be based on an entity having to appear all over the islands to qualify for inclusion. I and others don't agree and we need to thrash it out. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are allowing Snowded to take the piss at the thread on Ireland. It's a valid suggestion I've made and is a different issue from the previous debate. Maybe it could be extended to include Great Britain. LevenBoy (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no problem with you raising the issue for Great Britain - you don't need GoodDay or anyone else to do it for you. As regards Ireland, given that this very issue has been done to death in the past week my only concern is that is that I'm bending over backwards to accommodate an editor who didn't participate in the discussion at Talk:Ireland, at the expense of everyone else. I'm doing that because your proposal specifically involves the lead, and I can see a small argument in favour of discussing the lead now that one sentence has been added to the geography section. But I sympathise with the obvious lack of enthusiasm everyone else has for going over the same ground again, days after the previous discussion closed. Make your arguments for inclusion in the lead, and make them good arguments, because I can't see patience lasting too long. TFOWR 20:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion in the lede was discussed in the previous discussion. Inclusion in the geography section was accepted as a compromise between positions that wanted no mention at all, and those who wanted it in the lede and the geography. --Snowded ^TALK 20:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that - I followed the debate closely, even if I only posted in it a few times. I see only a small argument for inclusion in the lead. I'm hopeful that LevenBoy will justify the continuation of the discussion with sound arguments. If not I intend to close the discussion. TFOWR 21:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A joint discussion over the lead of both article (Ireland & Great Britain) would be preferable. I only wish this proposal wasn't so soon after the previous discussion at Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Great Britain doesn't mention "British Isles" at all I don't see any argument for the lead at this time. We'd need it discussed in the article-proper before it was included in the lead. I'd imagine, since we managed to get consensus for including BI at Ireland, then Great Britain should be a walk-in-the-park - but we'd still need to do that first (get consensus for inclusion in the article-proper) before including it in the lead. TFOWR 21:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, misread your comment at WT:BISE. Great Britain does discuss "British Isles" - your point was that it doesn't in the lead. My mistake. TFOWR 21:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, LB's proposal should also cover the articles Isle of Mann & Channel Islands, as they're a part of the British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing it, to be honest. The leads should summarise the respective articles, so it boils down to whats most pertinent at each article. I'd much prefer to treat each article separately for the lead - to be honest, for major articles (like I and GB, also IoM and CI) I think it's up to the local editors to assess due weight. But leads are always the first victim in POV battles... TFOWR 21:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUCK, this is disruption pure and simple --Snowded ^TALK 21:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still holding out hope there'll be a compelling argument forthcoming. The argument for the GB lead doesn't inspire confidence, but I'm waiting for the rewrite. TFOWR 21:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Operating the "give them enough rope ..." principle?  :-) I'm going to bed, between Libertarianism and now this I have done by duty to the big W for today at least --Snowded ^TALK 21:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey, Libertarianism. It's been on my watchlist for the past few days. You have my sympathy. TFOWR 21:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely best to put LB's proposal on hold, for atleast 6 months 3 months. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TFOWR, an IP just left a comment on Anthony Bradbury's talk page (diff), identifying himself as User:Zsfgseg, who is marked as being a banned user. I reverted it as WP:DENY since he's banned, and I don't think Anthony is online right now, so if you wouldn't mind breaking out the patent-pending sockbuster? Thanks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to, but Tide rolls got there first ;-) TFOWR 22:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Ah it seems the IP's been blocked 31 hours for vandalism; I'm not sure if the IP should have its block extended / user page tagged though? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's best just to treat it as vandalism, per WP:RBI. The clown hit ANI, AN and ArbCom/Clerks - this wasn't so much "block evasion" as "see how many places I could hit before they stomp on me"... I'm inclined to think "high-class vandal, but vandal all the same" rather than "high-class sock puppeteer" - decent sock masters try not to get caught...! TFOWR 22:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I hadn't noticed the comments left at AN or ANI; that'll explain the rapid block. Looks like bringing it to you was unnecessary then; sorry about that. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I didn't notice until after Tide rolls' block. (I'd have blocked without that, and almost certainly for the "vanilla" 31 hours that Tide rolls blocked for - anything less is silly if the IP address is static, anything more is gratification for a dynamic IP vandal). TFOWR 23:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TFOWR, I've just looked at the recent changes page and its full of your twinkle edits unblocking a mass of artictles! Crikey what did you do to make that happen?--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle's "p-batch"! This was discussed at ANI, and we were conscious that it would throw up a lot of recent change noise, but as it was in response to another "p-batch" job, that had also thrown up a lot of noise, the consensus seemed to be that it was justified. For what it's worth, it should be over very soon, and normal service should be resumed. Apologies for the noise...! TFOWR 09:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, (it was that issue with Hj mitchell that caused the last p-batch, I remember now), i just saw a message you posted to an IP, 1000 unprotections? it looked like sheer madness, keep up the good editing!--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Although I did manually unprotect several hundred templates, I can't really claim credit for the latest batches - Twinkle basically does them all for me. I was posting to the IP's talkpage while Twinkle was unprotecting. Far quicker, and far less tedious ;-) TFOWR 09:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You unprotected Template:CatPair citing "Consensus at WP:ANI was to unprotect; emerging consensus at WT:HRT may yet be to re-protect some/many/all..."-- but you do not link to any partiular incident or such at WP:ANI, so we cannot see any claimed consensus.

I think you should cite something more clear in such edit summaries-- or better the discussion pages-- which was also not done. Please comment or unprotect. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 09:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point about providing a diff/oldid/archive link, but, uh, the template was unprotected: that's the default - all I did was restore the same level of protection (i.e. none) that existed until a week ago. This is the ANI discussion. TFOWR 09:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to be posting this on multiple editor talk pages to get some discussion going. We have yet another section on the talk page requesting Ray William Johnson be added to the List of YouTube personalities. Something has to be done because people request he be added and don't give any references for the most part but someone tried to give references, but I checked them and they were not good ones. We don't need a new section everytime someone wants him added. We have umpteen sections requesting him be added. Again, something has to be done! Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 14:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought was an edit notice... but there is one already. I suspect if people fail to pay attention to the edit notice, then they're going to ignore an FAQ as well (which would have been my second thought...)

I'm a wee bit ... uh, interested by the most recent requests (and some of the previous requests, too). The requester clearly knows about {{Edit semi-protected}}, yet only has three edits. I wonder if there's an attempt to bombard the page with requests until a kindly-but-naive editor fails to spot the lack of a reliable source?

I'm not sure if this suggestion will solve the problem, but it might make the existing requests easier to see - both by requesters and by responding editors: we create a section exclusively for RWJ. As soon as a new RWJ request comes in, it gets moved to the existing section. We'll end up with a large section, but it'll become obvious to requesters that it's a common request, and that they'll need to try harder (i.e. provide reliable sources). Editors responding to requests will see that the same issue has occurred time and again, so there's less chance they'll skim over poor sources and action the request.

Incidentally, I added an Additional line to the edit notice warning that failure to follow the edit notice advice will result in requests not be acted upon. I doubt it'll work, but at least we tried... TFOWR 15:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The RWJ section seems like a good idea. Would that be on a subpage of the talk page? --Stickee (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it (already! I was WP:BOLD ;-) as a section on the main talkpage - I thought making it as visible as possible would be useful. I added a big, obnoxious header complete with red warning triangle, as well! No objections if anyone wants to revert/modify, etc. TFOWR 15:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) just a thought; you could use {{hat}} for each of the sections bar the last one to collapse them - to save space --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It keeps the entries in the TOC, which makes it easier to see just how annoying frequent this issue is, but saves on scroll-bar work... TFOWR 15:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An 'indefinite ban' for something as innocent as writing "HighKing's nuts" in a summary over his opportunistic insistence that the Irish never used the term "conkers" for chestnuts (when their government does)?

That was a little bit of overkill, wasn't it? Others seem to think so.

So, can you please "define terms" specifically --- or are you just going to retain the right to fuck me over for any minor typo, alliteration, light pun or little happiness that you happen not to like, or do not understand, for the rest of time?

Why not send the HighKing off to do his own homework before he makes false suggestions requiring other to do his homework for him? Why not account for them all and put some limitations on how often he makes such time and energy consuming errors for others to deal with?

Again, as happy as I am to play scapegoat for you, all the punishment seems to be a little asymmetric.

Thank you --Triton Rocker (talk) 04:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was overkill, and I apologise. In hindsight a month's block would have been more appropriate, but I'm happy with DGG's two weeks.

In respect to your topic ban and civility, I can only suggest that you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Alternatively, avoiding the topic entirely will enable you to contribute constructively to the project without getting into further difficulties. It's obviously a topic you feel passionately about - that's exactly the kind of topic editors should seek to avoid. TFOWR 08:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and once you've read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA you might want to strike or remove some of your recent comments at WT:BISE. TFOWR 08:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are a just decision maker would you step into the ongoing matter of taunting and threatening me of getting blocked again by Codf1977 here[16] and then removed my requests here [17] then again here [18]. I recently edited few Lebanon related articles in which an unintentional wrong edit was made for which I admitted and left message at more than 3 places including one here [19]. What are your views on this?? - Humaliwalay (talk) 07:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think both you and Codf1977 have misread posts and edit summaries. I believe George has explained that to Codf1977.

• This began with George's edit here, in which he reverted several editors' edits, including yours. George removed some vandalism (made by an IP editor), fixed a reference, and removed some text that was repeated elsewhere. You then reverted George's edit here. I assume you only wanted to restore your edit, but in the process you also restored the vandalism, and the repetition. George then reverted you here, again explaining in his edit summary that he was removing vandalism, and repetition, and poorly cited material.
• I believe that both you and Codf1977 were concerned that George had labelled your edit as vandalism. Codf1977 raised this concern with George [20]: "one thing is clear they are not vandalism".
• Per WP:OWNTALK, editors are allowed to remove posts from their own talkpages - it indicates that thay have read the post.
• This is not a threat. Likewise, when I warned you that "Edit warring over this won't help, and will likely result in you being blocked again" I was not threatening you. Several editors - not just Codf1977 and myself, but Atama (talk) as well, have tried to advise you to read and understand policies. If you choose not to do this, or are unable to do this, you are likely going to get blocked. That's not a threat - that's just the grim reality of editing at Wikipedia.

So... you believe that Codf1977 was threatening and taunting you over an edit to Lebanon. No. Codf1977 was concerned that George was describing your edit as vandalism, and raised that with George. How you can possibly read that as taunting is beyond me. This was Codf1977 trying to help you. Drop the WP:BATTLEfield stance, start working with instead of against other editors, listen to what they're saying, accept that everyone makes mistakes, and you'll do fine. Continue to view good-faith editors as your opponents or as sock puppets, and you're liable to get blocked. That's not a threat (I have no intention of blocking you, or Codf1977, or George, or Atama (!)) just a recognition that some other admin will see that several editors have tried to explain this to you, have failed, and the admin will come to the conclusion that the best way to prevent further disruption is to block you. TFOWR 08:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for the consideration, I am not scared of getting blocked if I commit an unpardonable mistake which I did not do even I still say my earlier block was also unjustified hence in protest I did not apply for review. But why is Codf1977 not willing to listen others, if the user scribbles in others talk-page either warning or requesting then why not paying heed to others' requests, deletion of posts is not an issue, but is it OK if done without issue being closed?? Advising of getting block again is only applicable if I do something wrong, refer my edits post block and tell me if that qualifies me to get blocked??? You should pay attention to this fact as well. - Humaliwalay (talk) 08:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Shout Shout Let it all out. These are the things I can do without... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 08:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at your edits post-block, but I have - at your request - looked at your behaviour post-block. I saw an editor who was describing advice as threats, who interpreted support for you as an attack, and who is complaining about another editor's conduct still - despite being told that the other editor has done nothing wrong (well, they stood up for you to George, and I think that that was a mistake - as noted above I don't believe George was in error). Because this project (Wikipedia) involves working with other editors behaviour is as important as edits - if not more so. There is an entire page devoted to issues of editors' behaviour: WP:ANI, along with other pages like WP:WQA that deal with aspects of editors' behaviour. TFOWR 08:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, your reply made me laugh, well no issues whatsoever..No grudges from my side for anyone. Thanks and good luck . - Humaliwalay (talk) 08:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TFOWR. Would you like to comment here? Bishonen | talk 16:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Done. I've got into trouble before for some of the terms I like to use, but "far-right" seems more than reasonable here. TFOWR 17:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 17:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Why be everyone a–talkin' all strangely today?
☠  Because we  ☠ ☠ ARRRRRR! ☠
	With a yo-ho-ho, I be wishin' yer a right rollickin' ☠ Happy International Talk Like a Pirate Day ☠ To be a joinin' the fun and frolicks, yer can be addin' {{User:Chzz/pirate}} to the top o' yer talkpage / userpage for today, fer a fine fancy decoration. Emptied after midnight it'll be, so don't be dallyin' now! Hoist yer mainsail t'wards the I-R-Sea, either a'helpin' new sailors or on me own poopdesk, and let's parrty like it's 1699!  Cap'nChzz  ►  00:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Happy ITLAPD Capn' slappy and Ol Chumbucket Problems playing this file? See media help.	*How To Be Speakin' Pirate-Like *Official website *Auto-translate to pirate speak
Disclaimer: It's very rare for me to send messages like this; it might seem frivolous or hypocritical, as I often complain about myspacing of the project. However, as a pastafarian, this is my equivalent of a Christmas greeting. I seriously believe we need to have fun sometimes. If you object, I apologize; let me know, and I won't bother you again.

That would explain Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 September 18#Yarr. Uncle G (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That be a right pleasure me 'earty. Me native land is Libertatia, where any pirate who takes a fair turn at the rigging can do as he^{[p 1]} please.

Now, gettin me letter of marque was an honest affair—the Governor took a purse of treasure and I set sail with me scurvy crew for Hispaniola. But the rogues in gov'ment get ever more greedy, and an honest privateer must answer for his skills as a navigator.

As one such rogue to another, sir, I must ask a boon. Thou^{[p 2]} and I, sir, we mark our treasure with an "X", and depart for further adventure. Our treasure becomes historic—this much is ordinary, sir, and I crave your indulgence for telling you that which you know. In these more modern and enlightened times, sir, I have seen treacherous vermin ransack treasure afore its rightful owner has departed. And now the location of fresh buried treasure becomes a question for gov'ment to ask the wouldbe privateer. Would I be correct, sir, in saying that the question would be advanced without respect for our calendar and for our traditional, God-given seven-day week?

It is my hope that our cant is like a well considered treasure map—without meaning to all but its designer—but if this correspondence appear too frank, sir, I offer thou my neck for retribution and grant that you might dispose of it as you wish.

I have the honour to remain, sir, your most humble and hobedient servent, Capn. T. Fowr ☠ 09:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• ... I am, quite honestly, speechless. I don't hold an opinion on the matter you're discussing (as I be not a pirate but a landlubber lass who'd never stand a day at sea), but that was an absolutely epic reply. sonia♫ 09:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really know what happened there. My contribs, and the page history, say that I wrote it but I have no recollection of it. There are several empty grog bottles littering my flat, most rooms stink of rum, and outside my front window there's a ship where I'd expect cars to be. I assume I've been channelling my ancestors again... ;-) Hopefully I managed to accumulate some treasure - I've got an electricity bill due for payment... TFOWR 09:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and you already know my views on a life at sea - you'd be well-suited to a life afloat. Someday I hope you'll venture forth from the calmer waters to the Spanish Main... TFOWR 09:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matey, thou art forgetting the Code of the gallant rogue to look upon all men, jack tar or landlubber, fairly and without evil in his heart. With but one look a man who truly is from the sea should discover no fondness for what is told in an old salt's yarn. There be no cause for a qualm of conscience to come athwart yon raw pup's stomach, and Davy hath no grip upon un, aye but he be summoning Charlie Noble and warned about the wind of ball, all for enquiries pursuant to the distribution of justice. The Quartermaster hath his hand stayed upon his cutlass, and with the first light of morn some cruel wretch will be marooned for violations of Ship's Articles. Swing at thy anchor until sunrise, take the wind that it will. Uncle G (talk) 10:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything should be clear, now. Uncle G (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, only just seen this. This deserves some sort of reply. Why wasn't I notified sooner? What is this "pending changes" thing, and why are we having a poll about straw? ;-) TFOWR 20:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, as an uninvolved admin, could you please review WP:ANI#Proposed Solution and decide if a community consensus has been reached and enforcement of the proposal can take place? Thanks, Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 12:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to... however it won't be just now, as I'm about to go offline (I'm really just checking in, between a couple of offline tasks). If no one's beaten me to the punch, I'll close etc in four/five hours' time. TFOWR 13:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 13:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back online and looking at this now. Rob, if you're talk-page stalking this page right now, thanks a bunch for complicating matters ;-) TFOWR 18:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is done. A few random thoughts which might be helpful to me in the future, interested talkpage stalkers, and involved parties:

• For a first run at this, *Kat*'s proposal was very good, and covered most bases. There was clearly a consensus to include a warning to Ryūlóng over and above the proposed remedies, so I included a warning to Ryūlóng. The proposal stated a general ban for one week: I modified that to specify articles and article talkpages: any developments re: mentoring are going to require that Odokee be able to edit user talkpages, so I felt it prudent to limit the ban to articles and article talkpages.
• There's recently been some confusion regarding "how long is a month" (28 days, 30 days, 31 days). I felt it prudent to specify four weeks for the topic ban, and I also felt it prudent to specify when it began. It was clear from *Kat*'s proposal, but I suspect leaving any grounds for doubt might prove unwise.
• I doubt the community is unaware that it can change its mind, and modify community decisions, but, again, I felt that spelling this out was prudent. In Odokee's case, the prospect of editing with supervision from a mentor was mentioned and I felt it best to leave that possibility available. In Ryūlóng's case, the prospect of further sanctions if edit warring continues was also something I felt best to provide for.
• The proposal was not unanimously accepted: Off2riorob clearly disagreed, but did not state why, nor did they provide an alternative proposal. I felt that my resolution - specifically, allowing for subsequent modification by the community - recognised the lack of unanimity.

TFOWR 18:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, TFOWR. I did want to add in a part about how edit warring is never, ever acceptable but wasn't sure if I should re-write the proposal or modify what was already there. As you know I had never done that before and didn't want to do something that messed up the community's consensus.--*Kat* (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, it's a tricky one, changing proposals once people have started supporting/opposing. If I'd been in that position I'd have left it for the poor soul who had to close it ;-) Fortunately the original proposal was basically complete, and it was only the Ryūlóng part that needed added, and that was relatively minor. TFOWR 01:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TFOWR, any chance you could tell me if I did the right thing here? Maybe my judgement is clouded because I'm involved, but I just looked back at ANI and was rather... angry to discover that the one response to what I felt was a perfectly valid thread was an attack made against me by the user in question, which had been there for two hours and no one had even said anything to the user... I'm going to go take a break to maintain my WP:COOL; please let me know if it's me who has erred, if you get chance to look. Thanks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey. You did the right thing. What is ANI coming to? Ironically, today's the first time in ages that I've made an effort to ready everything on ANI - I even resolved a whole load of threads. Missed that though (several hours after I did my rounds, though). I note you've warned the user - I'll keep an eye on them. TFOWR 19:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I appreciate it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TFOWR, I am interested in having a third party come in and help hash something out. [[21]] is a request for someone to review a situation they commented on with a reply that is not in accordance with policy and is highly rude and insulting. I understand reverting or even asking not to post to a page but when you are asked for clarification in a polite manner an appropriate response is not gibberish. I realize that this is not a huge deal as far as attacks go but how in the world is that meant to help stop disruption or foster a more civil environment? I would have attempted furthur discussion myself but I believe you see how useful that was. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like an ideal reply, but I'm seeing it without any context. I don't know anything about the Speed of Light case, beyond what little I've just read. You've raised Guy's reply at WP:A/R, and the request seems to be "going your way" (as far as I can see - this is all a foreign language to me - but it looks like GWH's request has been declined or is in the process of being declined). I'd recommend ignoring Guy's response and trying to disengage as far as is practical. If the A/R does start to go against you, worry about requesting proof then. Sorry I can't be more help, but arbitration really isn't an area I have experience of. TFOWR 20:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here for another breach of Triton Rockers topic ban. I do not care if it was agreed or not to add the term, Triton Rocker should not be doing it. Bjmullan (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was certainly unwise, and I do regard it as a violation of the topic ban. However, as the edit was agreed beforehand (albeit with the expectation that it would be made by an editor who wasn't topic banned) I don't intend to block Triton Rocker at this point. I do think it should count, with any subsequent behaviour, towards any future block. TFOWR 22:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...give him an inch, he'll think he's a ruler... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, and I'm not hugely happy about that. But the next block is going to be a month, and it's going to be hard to justify blocking an editor for a month for what's relatively minor. It's less than ideal: it gives a problematic editor license to be problematic, but in the long run I feel it's the best option. TFOWR 22:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

12hrs block should send the correct message that the project is serious. The next will be a month. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ya want me to delete TR's addition? Certainly he won't revert me. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He can't revert: he's blocked for 12hrs. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solves this dilemma. I assume this in no way resets future topic ban vio block lengths? I don't want to be back to a 24 hour block when the next vio occurs (assuming it does - maybe this time is the time TR realises what the community's problem with him is...?!) TFOWR 22:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that the Isle of Man is no longer part of the British Isles? Off2riorob (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've claimed it on behalf of Canada. It still remains a British Isle, technically. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - I've got some information on TR and another editor we discussed a while back - remember? I can "tease" you and the (talk page stalker) with what beginning I have here (it's even written like a teaser), or send it off-wiki. It was a lot to muck through, so I wouldn't have "it" ready for a bit. Send it or post it: it's up to you. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 02:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's posted[22]. We'll see how it goes... Doc9871 (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]