User talk:TFOWR/Archive 7

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 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

I am having consistant problems with the 75.170 range on the WGGH page. For the past year, it has been the same repeated vandalism over and over and over. It is tiresome. I have, again, requested page protection (got it last time), but I think a rangeblock is needed. Could you take a look at the history and see if a rangeblock can be put in place? Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You'll have better luck at AIV, I'm afraid, as you'll get a competent admin ;-) I've never done rangeblocks, and I'm trying to avoid doing anything other than one thing right now - the one thing being something likely to take a lot of time, and create a whole load of unpleasantness. Sorry! (Incidentally, you asked me to do something else - I've not forgotten, and I'm not avoiding it, I just haven't done it yet. I need to dot Ts and cross Is (or something)). TFOWR 19:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, no worries. :) I think Xeno is around, I will ask him, he has done rangeblocks before. Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Catching up now (I think I've annoyed everyone I'm going to annoy for the evening, though boy, are they annoyed...) is this all OK now? I gather WGGH is protected? If I'd taken the time to think about it that would have been a sensible thing for me to do... sorry! TFOWR 20:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it was protected, the rangeblock hasn't been done, but now a bigger mess has happened with another notability question. Oy. So, I am handling that, as another WP:WPRS gets the article up to "Start" class. No worries on your end, everyone will like you by tomorrow. :) I have found that people are only upset with you for about 24 hours. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Strikes me I never welcomed you back, so, erm... Welcome back! Hope the break was good. Begoon^talk 19:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It was... but I need another one! TFOWR 19:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Medrate.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 21:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll recuse myself and let SPI handle it, but ...

Looks like a duck to me ;-) TFOWR 21:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Ya mean I gotta keep my jocularity in check? ouch. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So long as you avoid mentioning other editors' possible POVs, you're fine. I feel like a party-pooper, but the past few days have been increasingly hostile, and a line needed to be drawn. I suspect it'll just push the nonsense to user talkpages (in fact, it has already achieved that, which I'm less than impressed with) but if we can keep WT:BISE vaguely cordial and on-topic it'll be so much better. TFOWR 22:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

If I want to merge information from a series of pages into another page, can the old pages be blanked, or does that require an AfD? Hope this makes sense. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they can be deleted, as the history needs to be kept for attribution. The old pages should probably be kept as redirects to the main page. Which pages are these, out of interest? I assume it won't make a difference, but it'd help to have some context... TFOWR 22:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Help:Merging#Performing the merger seems to support this - keep the old pages as redirects and all should be fine. TFOWR 22:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that what I thought. Too bad a talkpage was created today or yesterday. I see that needs a redirect too. Long story. Some of it is on the bottom of my talkpage; if you stalk my edits, you'll see what's happening. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Sharon Kay Penman, gotcha. The talkpage shouldn't be a problem - if the "article" remains as a redirect, having a talkpage is no problem. Hey, talkpages can exist even if the article itself has been deleted (sometimes useful, if a discussion is ongoing with an annoyed article creator). I'd suggest just leaving the talkpage as-is - don't bother with redirecting it. Maybe add a comment at the top, pointing to "Sharon Kay Penman". TFOWR 23:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Got irritated and went on a tear. Not something that shouldn't have been done ages ago in my opinion. I'd already decided to leave the talkpages as is. Not much there anyway. Thanks for the help. Btw - have been traveling and haven't even had time to look at the referencing examples you mentioned on my talk, but am interested that you managed to get quotes into the harvard templates, so will definitely have a look at the mark-up. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hanhuras (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have experience of this user and he is repeatedly adding extremely controversial uncited accusations to BLP articles. He is a vandal only account and imo requires indefinitely blocking of his account. Off2riorob (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't hold back, stick it on him. Off2riorob (talk) 12:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You almost got your wish - I indef'd by mistake, I've changed it to 24 hours now. That's probably too short for BLP blocks, but it's my first BLP block. I'd be inclined towards an "Uncle G" (1:1:1:1) approach to future blocks: one day, one week, one month, one year... but I'd have no problem with being told that this was too lenient ;-) TFOWR 12:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a clear case for Indef, account has repeated added content that attacks living people that is uncited, that is all he is here for, he doesn't edit every day and a 24 hour block is worthless. Block his ass to the other side of Zog so he can never set foot on wikipedia soil again. Off2riorob (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Pass me that button, hehe. Off2riorob (talk) 12:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, a day may not be appropriate. I'm inclining toward a week, with next block being indef (looking at his contribs he would almost certainly notice a week-long block, but he might miss a 24 hour block). Let me ponder it - I need to dive into real-life for an hour or so. Incidentally, how did you spot this? Or did you report it? I didn't notice you at AIV but I pay more attention to the reportees than to the reporters... TFOWR 12:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I was in communication with the reporter on my talkpage and his, and I have been reverting him at the two BLP articles he edited today, no worries, there is nothing so sure as he will come back and do it again and we can indef him then.

Today Elvis is leaving the building, have a nice day TFOWR, see ya later. Off2riorob (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Will do. I hope the weather is nicer where you are - it's a lot more grim and grey here than it was yesterday... Anyhoo... I'm going to keep the 24 hour block (and read up on the blocking side of BLP) - Always happy to provide WP:ROPE... TFOWR 13:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to disturb you, but the Indonesian misinformation vandal is back! This time, he's using 118.137.68.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Need action ASAP. Thanks. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 13:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I went block them for 31 hours and discovered John (talk) had already blocked them ... for 31 hours. Great minds think alike! Anyway, looks like problem solved ... until the next time. TFOWR 13:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, he is able to do this know because the six-month rangeblock on the range this address is in, 118.137.0.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), had expired more than 24 hours ago. And he will use another address from this range for sure. I don't know if you can impose rangeblocks, but if you do, can you block the range? You can even check the range's block log if you want to know its history. Thank you. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 13:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to mention that the guy also struck yesterday, using 118.96.56.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). And that's after over a month of dormancy (before this, the most time he was gone was about 20 days). - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 13:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

My first range-block ;-) I've set it at six months - the last block was six months as well, but as it's my first I don't feel comfortable bumping it up to the more usual 1 year. Feel free to remind me of this is six months time! (Oh, and thanks for using the {{user5}} template - it made my life a lot easier!) TFOWR 13:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Bothering you again! This editor's contributions consist almost entirely of adding spam links to articles. How is this typically dealt with? Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

With an indefinite block. The editor had previously been warned about this, so I have no hesitation in blocking them. I've mentioned that they can request an unblock, and given them advice about doing so: i.e. demonstrate that they understand WP:SPAM, and make a commitment to not spamming in future. Based on past experience I fully expect them to make an unblock request... Oh, and no bother - I'd rather be bothered than spam continues unabated. TFOWR 14:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) In future WP:AIV is the best place to take this sort of thing though, if they've continued after a final warning. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You do need my assistance you. Be careful who you mess with. It has been a long time since I was last banned. I am too valuable to the project now so back off or else... ~~MickMacNee (talk)~~ 17:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by EeNcaMkciM2010 (talk • contribs)

Block this account User_talk:EeNcaMkciM2010 (indef) for impersonation. Off2riorob (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Already blocked. Does Mick know about this? TFOWR 16:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

According to his contribs he last edited about an hour ago. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Not as I know, he needs a little note perhaps. Off2riorob (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't tell him, no. I just took this for any other random impersonation vandal and was doing RBI (well, skipping R since Off2riorob had already alerted after the edits). Syrthiss (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I left him a note and pointed to this discussion. I dare say he'll have his suspicions... not much we can do further except block 'em as they pop up. I doubt anyone will take it seriously - does anyone actually read anything other than in diffs?! TFOWR 16:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Just to explain that ref in episode 3. I inserted that a few weeks ago, before the series had started to be broadcast. At that time we needed references. Now that the show has aired, the information is now verifiable by the primary source. I didn't bother to remove the ref myself after "The Great Game" had been transmitted (it was doing no harm), but I guess User:Xeworlebi is justified in removing it. Cheers. The JPS ^{talk to me} 11:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I've just seen you've acknowledged that on Xeworlebi's talk page. Ignore me. I'll go back to sleep. The JPS ^{talk to me} 11:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries! Should have been obvious to me, too, but I just saw a ref disappear and I didn't think it through properly. Xeworlebi's second edit summary made it all clear. TFOWR 11:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm also trigger happy with rollback when I see refs disappear. The JPS ^{talk to me} 21:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Enough! ANI is thattaway... TFOWR 08:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This has become ugly. Thanks for your TPSing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Since they appear to be concerned about what you can and can't do on your own talk page, ~~I'd suggest {{Discussion top}} and~~ walking away. They want the last word - let them have it. They're not going to take the advice of two admins, clearly, so let them take the advice of the AfD. (And I do hope they stop edit warring on another user's talkpage... that's not going to end well). TFOWR 11:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

He clearly has a unique reading of Wikipedia - and is reaaaaallly taking an AfD personally. Arrgh. I'm not sure how many more policies we can ask him to read that he then fails to read. He's digging deep holes for himself. His lack of "getting it" is frustrating as anything. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems to have quietened down now. I guess the option of taking the matter to ANI didn't satisfy. TFOWR 14:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I wrote a short aide memoire ... let me know if I missed any part of my role that you can see (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh! I thought is was familiar for some reason - I'd seen the post to Accounting4Taste's talkpage, too (I've been trying to avoid making crap "there's no accounting4taste" jokes since Accounting4Taste first muttered about retiring...) That looks like you've got it all. Incidentally, I don't know if you saw (I reverted it as "unhelpful", though in hindsight I probably shouldn't have done) but an IP posted a strongly-worded defence of your actions mid-way through my involvement. TFOWR 14:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. I missed the IP's post...it must have been deleted quickly. I'll go take a look! I'm not used to having IP defenders LOL (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

... er, where should I look? Your talkpage, my talkpage, A4T's talkpage, Iain's talkpage? The article's talkpage? The AFD? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I reverted it here. TFOWR 14:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL ... no issue my friend. I don't see anything worth deleting, but it's your call. Iain's back, and now removing things from my talkpage that he does not like ... Golly, he doesn't get it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I reverted at the time simply because I felt it was pouring oil on already troubled waters, my concern now is that I removed an editor's comment while lecturing another editor about removing comments... ho hum! I'm almost inclined at this point to punt everything to ANI and let other, non-involved admins administer clue. Nothing you, me, or the two non-involved editors have said appears to have sunk in. TFOWR 14:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. I subst'd the contents of the Aide Memoire in. As you're involved, this is your ANI notice :-) Thanks for watching my back. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Already responded at ANI! No worries. TFOWR 15:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The "ugh" continues. They're now really beginning to stick in my craw. I know of toddlers with a better clue. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's real nice that you've got each others back and everything, but rather than have a discussion about me here might I suggest it would be more WP:CIVIL to discuss your views at the ANI. TFOWR - Just so you know, I noticed the IP's comments pretty much straight after you reverted them - and I am glad you did, because having done a little research I have learnt they couldn't be further from the truth. Personally, I think there is no need for this to continue, but all my comments are at the ANI and I would be grateful if you could take this discussion there too. Thanks in advance for showing civility. IainUK talk 07:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that (a) I had commented at ANI, and (b) you wanted to forget about the whole incident and move on. If this isn't the case I'd be happy to comment further at ANI. TFOWR 07:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought so to until his copy/paste then re-add of his "last word" onto his talkpage yesterday. Go ahead and comment at ANI; he still is. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 07:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If you want to comment at ANI I would encourage you to do so, however I think the best thing is just to forget it. I just don't like to see me being discussed in this tone on another user's talkpage, particularly the constant references to me having "no WP:CLUE". It's just not nice. So please stop. Thanks. IainUK talk 07:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not interested in the "last word" - I never 'lock' conversations. IainUK talk 08:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPADE :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If you can justify something with a policy, that doesn't always mean it's ok. And when I say it is not nice to keep saying I have no WP:CLUE so please stop, I don't think "WP:SPADE :-)" is the best reply an admin could give. It makes me feel like you have found a policy to make not being nice ok, and are using the smile to show you are proud of having done so. Being able to find a policy to justify all of your actions makes you a good lawyer, but it does not mean you are always doing right. I was trying to be WP:CIVIL and reasonable with you to try and bring an end to this - don't make it a competition of who is right or who knows the policies better. Leave it to ANI now please. IainUK talk 08:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Look, the article was 100% unsourced when it was nominated for Afd. Admit it. The Afd process is YOUR official notification to fix/reference it because you get 7 days. It is also your OFFICIAL notification to keep all discussion related to the article ON THAT AFD page. You went off half-cocked on my talkpage no matter how much I emphasized the above. You became abusive. Look at your own damned actions, and once you DO, you'll understand WP:CLUE: the fact you're still arguing otherwise proves the point...I did nothing wrong throughout the entire process - zero, zilch, and you STILL have not read the damned policies. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I accept the article was unreferenced, and so I took swift action to rectify this within minutes of the AfD with reliable sources such as BBC. I accept that I got it wrong on understanding the difference between AfD and Speedy Delete - I have never denied that. I do believe that it would have been better to tag the article with 'notability', 'original research' or 'unencyclopedic', to give me and/or other editors chance to improve the article - however whilst I think it is wrong to delete an article with such a media-active subject, I recognise that deletionism is an accepted philosophy here and I don't deny that AfD is a fair process. However, on reading your "aide memoire" it becomes apparent that the reason you sent the article to AfD (rather than reference it or add a tag) was to teach me that article which pass Speedy Delete can still be deleted. I maintain that you could have wrote a note on my talk page when you realised I didn't understand the difference, and that tags would have been better than AfD. With regard to the conversation on your talk page, I think you had a negative tone with me from the start, and I had no desire for the "last word" - I didn't even know you were going to 'lock' the conversation, but to remove my comment before doing so I think was unfair. I feel that you have assumed bad faith with me from the start, and continue to do so. I think it is fair to say you have clearly shown a more negative tone towards me, and the way you express me to others, and I really don't like it. We may disagree, but we can still stay civil and pleasant. And with regard to the policies, I was already familiar with WP:CLUE and I don't think it is fair for you to keep telling me and other people that I have "no WP:CLUE" - despite you citing WP:SPADE to justify this. I believe you acted wrongly when adding the article to AfD, I believe you have been wrong in the way you have dealt with me and spoken to me, I believe you were wrong to edit and lock the conversation, and I believe you are wrongly to constantly cite WP:POLICIES to back up your view - I believe it makes you a good lawyer, not a good wikipedian. Whilst I recognise my errors, I regret that you fail to recognise yours. I am someone who desires to be on good terms with all people, however I am not confident that can be achieved in this case. So what I would like, is to agree to disagree, draw a line under the scenario and forget about it. And most importantly, to stop discussing this on talk pages. Thanks. IainUK talk 08:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talkback

Hello, TFOWR. You have new messages at IainUK's talk page.
Message added 13:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Is New Zealand English the one where eight minus two is "sex"? O Fenian (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be Strine ;-) Good, proper Kiwi English would have it as "sux". We eat fush and chups, they eat feesh and cheeps. And I have several talkpage stalkers who are about to lynch me... I believe South Africans may use a fux machine, if that helps? TFOWR 19:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I see the shoe is on both feet. Some scallywag might be tempted to tag that entire article as a hoax.. O Fenian (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

;-) Only thing I'd object to is the complete mis-characterisation of Aucklanders. It's not widely known, but Aucklanders ("Just Another Friendly Aucklander", or "JAFAs", as we're known) are loved throughout New Zealand. TFOWR 20:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Strine? Crap! We know the difference betwee Sux and Sex! And (pure OR) I have never heard Six pronounced as Sux by a Kiwi, only what sounds like 'Sex', unless it is actually an 'in-between' pronounciation of E and U ! 'Fux' machine?, wouldn't use that in 'polite' company!

. The Jafa page seems to disagree on the 'Friendly'! 220.101 talk^\Contribs 06:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

That'll be the lynch mob arriving ;-) In Auckland many of the accents I heard around me were Australian and South African, and the Aussie accents weren't that noticeable in comparison. I didn't really notice any six/sex/sux business. It was only when I returned to Glasgow that people commented that I said "fush sapper" instead of "fish supper" (the Scottish term for "fish and chips" - and, believe it or not, you can even get a "chip supper" here).

I think other Kiwis may just use a different word for "friendly"? ;-) I am familiar with the term they use, but I'm sure it's just unfamiliarity with the proper English we speak in Auckland. Or maybe an accent thing? ;-) I've always wondered how Northlanders feel about the "South of the Bombay Hills" jibe... I bet they "love" Aucklanders just as much as the rest of New Zealand, and don't like being lumped in with us due to their Northernestness [sic]... TFOWR 08:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

In Canadian English, "sux" is sometimes part of "sex", or even a replacement for; we rarely have "sex" with fish or "feesh"; and I don't care how you spell it, a good "fux" can sometimes cure what ails ya...after all, it's a cold country for almost half a year. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

"Sir Vivian Fuchs, the Antarctic explorer, was lecturing in a Yorkshire town hall, and was introduced by the mayor as "Sir Vivian Fucks". Embarrassed, Sir Vivian whispered: "Er, actually, my name is Fuchs." "Ay lad, I know, but I couldn't say that in pooblic could I?"" Letter in The Guardian, 26 July 2010RolandR (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Lynching! Nobody said this was a lynching mob.

I only brought my pitchfork and flaming torch! 220.101 talk^\Contribs 14:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, based on Bwilkins' comments above, I think it's moved on from simple violence to something far more fun! However, being a prude, and it being a nice day here, I'm going to have to run away - and it's got nothing to do with the pitchforks and torches, honest! TFOWR 14:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It's escaping! To Castle Frankenstein!, or Transylvania, call Van Helsing or something.... 220.101 talk^\Contribs15:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like I'm very late to the party... Bwilkins:

My Aussie friends say "seex", I've never heard "sex" except from some Americans! That said, it always jars me listening to Spoken Wikipedia recordings, because "Wikipedia" is pronounced in what for me sounds like "Weekeepedia"... suppose that means my pronunciation is more like "Wəkəpedia", then. As for Aucklanders being loved throughout NZ, I have nothing to say to that but a resounding :P. sonia ♫ 07:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Pisses me off sometimes. Off2riorob (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

AfDs, or rights?! I've noticed a few things annoying you, but only commented on one... the rights thing, I really think it's not DoRD's fault - we did need bodies, and the way to achieve it was to dole out the right like it was candy. In hindsight, we didn't have a good plan in place for what happened after the trial, but that wasn't all DoRD's fault. AfD-wise, I saw you were annoyed with a close. Not much I can say, except, I had a quick look and I'd have swayed between delete and no consensus. One of those AfDs I'd have done my best to stay away from, to be honest. I'm about to go out and enjoy the sunshine while it lasts - you fancy doing the same? Might piss you off less! TFOWR 13:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The AFD was badly closed, there was only one keep comment from the user that added any cite he could find that had two words about the not notable donkey derby racer, more crap. Thanks for the invitation, Off2riorob (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes has been handled badly and Im gonna vote agsainst it and bothering to comment at AFDs is also a waste of time, vandal fighting is a waste of time also, reviewers accept their false additions and go of thinking I am a wikipedia editor fantastic. Off2riorob (talk) 13:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I love pending changes, but I'm looking at it from the point of view of someone who isn't too keen on semi. You've not commented at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Closure yet? (I saw you advertise it at WP:BLPN. I'd make your case at the Closure page - we need to know whether to keep it (so consider it your opportunity to vote against it) but also, if we do keep it, we need to know how to make it work properly (and letting 1001 idiots keep a right they don't know how to use probably isn't what we want to be doing).

Thinks that are pissing me off is the RfA nonsense - "can't !vote, because I can't see a handy graphical pie-chart". Fucks sake! It's either no big deal (but I still check contribs anyway, even though I reckon it's no big deal) or it is, and !voters should be checking carefully - not glancing at pretty pie-charts. Either that, or it's not bothering to read the bloody RfA and complaining that the candidate has only been around since 2009 when they've been around since 2006. This from a content creator, who I'd at least expect to be a better reader than many of the numpties around here. </rant> TFOWR 14:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I replied to this with a couple of my rambling moans, luckily I stopped myself from posting them. RFA is a joke really, its like AFD somehow civility standards are acceptably lower at those locations. Off2riorob (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I spent the day in the sunshine, now I'm back to the joys of WT:BISE. I'm about to go through the page removing crap, and generally kicking up a shit storm. Wish me luck... TFOWR 19:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I should have gone out also but I am a stay at home bird today, sometimes I get a bit agoraphobic...You are doing well there from the point of keeping them on topic and reducing the edit warring, well done. I fear you will be there a long time though. Off2riorob (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that the pain of today may lead somewhere - what really annoys me it involves very clever people, who would achieve a lot more if their cleverness was more evident, and not hidden in a shit load of vitriol.

I was snooping recently and noticed you were a mulberry fan. I'm ashamed to say my knowledge of mulberries doesn't go further than nursery rhymes, but when I was off last week I did get some serious blackberry picking done. Nothing better than fresh blackberries (but I've not tried mulberries yet, so I could be wrong). TFOWR 21:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Londoners (that may include Rob, if not TFOWR) may know the magnificent mulberry tree in the garden of Hogarth's House in Chiswick. Luscious fruit that just drops on your head when ripe! RolandR (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I occasionally reside in London, thanks for that picture Roland, nice looking old tree and a double connection for me as although no one has spelled out the exact connection I have always been told that Hogarth is in my family tree on my Grandmothers side. Nice. Off2riorob (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I certainly didn't know it - I spent a few months in Hackney around 1990 but never spent much time in West London. Beautiful house, very different to Hackney ;-) But that tree - I see why it's called a mulberry bush. Not quite a bush, not quite a tree... I've just learned that blackberries are aggregatefruit and mulberries are multiple_fruit - now that's useful stuff! Why couldn't they have taight me that at school instead of making me cut up rats...? TFOWR 21:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I too lived in Hackney in 1990. We probably have friends/acquaintances in common. RolandR (talk) 09:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC) And by the way, there is a very beautiful Tudor house in Hackney, too. RolandR (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Possibly! I was young and dumb in those days, and didn't get involved in much until this but after that I knew a fair few folk on the left - it was difficult not to notice battle scars on fellow passengers on the journey back home ;-) Folk I'd seen down the pub I suddenly knew a lot better! I was Stamford Hill, but spent most of my time in Seven Sisters, if that helps...? It was only a few months, casual work and dossing at a mate's house, before heading north for college, but it was an interesting time. Formative! TFOWR 18:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I was at the "riot" in Hackney. (I remember the bookshop in Mare Street, where everything had been taken except a copy of The Country Diary of an Edwardian Lady.) Then we drifted to the Pembury. RolandR (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Haha, me too, thanks for that, interesting. I can't say I have noticed that multiple flowering thing...this is interesting though from the main article.. Unripe fruit and green parts of the plant have a white sap that is intoxicating and mildly hallucinogenic...I must try that as the fruit are starting to ripen around this time of year. I like experimental investigations with nature.Off2riorob (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that again. I've made some changes to my Talk: page which may slow him down in the future. Or maybe not. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 04:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh! Hopefully that'll help a lot. I've done the same (I'm officially "jewboy" now, I guess because I reverted the idiot on your talkpage...) and they have other targets, too - but you're still their favourite! TFOWR 13:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I notice it didn't - your fans simply replaced the template with their "preferred" text... ho hum. Still, there's always WP:RBI... TFOWR 22:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, One of the editors involved in Kourosh Zolani’s discussion page deleted a huge part of our contribution to the discussion. Now even if we do contribute to the discussion we are not sure that it is going to stay there. Please advise me what to do. Here the link to what they did. Thomasshane (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

My Internet connection is pretty broken right now - so I can't check or fix much. However, posts shouldn't normally be deleted from AfD discussions. I'll take a look later, but in the meantime if any of my friendly talkpage watchers could do something it would be appreciated. I think I've probably warned both sides in this AfD at various points - they're all pretty approachable and willing to take good faith criticism on board. TFOWR 18:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Reverted there and warned, but about to leave for today so someone else may have to stalk it. Syrthiss (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I will take a check later on tonight before I go to bed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for watching the discussion. Thomasshane (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Aye, thanks to Syrthiss for fixing/advising, and Eraserhead1 for monitoring. I should be back now - my connection seems OK (and - as of tomorrow - I should be back to proper, normal, broadband - with apologies to anyone on dial-up or - like me at present - on 3G...) TFOWR 20:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

3G is merely a short form for "guess, grunt and groan" :-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That's about the size of it, yes! I haven't moaned nearly enough, but it's been awful - connection dropping is one thing, but recently, and for reasons I presume are more browser-related, my browser has been crashing each time the connection died. And it took me until today to work out that Chrome, bless it, did actually save the edits I was half-way through making. As a result there's a whole load of witty, intelligent and articulate posts that I never got round to making because I thought I'd lost them and started afresh. Obviously, once I've got broadband I'll be unable to make witty, intelligent and articulate posts... TFOWR 20:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That will indeed be a nice change LMAO (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello again,

I just realized that it was not the first time that beeshoney deleted the comments from the discussion board. On August 15, 2010 and August 16 he/she deleted a big part of the discussion too. The incident on August 16 was reverted but what was removed on August 15 is now missing from the discussion. Is there anyway to bring back the missing part to the discussion board? Thank you again Thomasshane (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Manually restored. Blimey, that was way too much work! If there are any more that I've missed, you can restore them yourself - or give me a shout if you're unsure how to do it. (I just copied from the "diff" of the link you gave me, and pasted into the current page at the right place). TFOWR 22:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I deeply appreciate your help. Thomasshane (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm impressed you did that manually! I was sent a link and when it said "conflicts" I gave up. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, just a quick one for you - I wouldn't mind a second opinion on Knafo Klimor Architects if you have time. (Its new, but carefully written - I think it could be aimed at PR. I had removed some content but was reverted. Not willing to start an edit war, I thought I'd check with someone else.) Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Gone. That was a pretty blatant advert. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Interesting IP edits - reverting Clovis, then removing small "promotional" parts themselves. TFOWR 00:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I'd say it's probably the company's marketing division, but the IPs and the account could well be the same person. Anyway, I can't be arsed with an SPI and if I see that again, I'll block the account for spam and I'd bet good money that the autoblock would affect that IP. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I struggle a bit figuring out the notability of companies (Eg do you consider a dozen non-notable design awards?). I knew it could be pruned, but didn't want to throw out the baby/bathwater (partially as I hadnt had enough sleep so didnt trust my judgement). Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I think you went too far.

I can see how commenting directly, like saying "xyz is an unsubtle abc nationalist arsehole" is wrong, damaging and punishable. Fine. I agree.

But, at the same time, asking what someone's qualifications and experience is fair and valid in a situation which requires some expertise.

There is a saying in the bikers' world, "Opinions are like arseholes. Everyone has one" and that is true, without one we really would be full of shit. It means, "opinions" really are not that special, valuable or important. What is required is expert knowledge and experience; knowing how to ask for it and when to defer to it.

HighKing is obviously clever enough and is investing his cleverness into his pet project (to whatever end he might intend) but does he know anything about that specific issue at hand? The answer to that is an obvious no and so, really, he should withdraw from any area where he does not.

"Cleverness" can be useful and benign. It can also be used wastefully, manipulative and malevolently. In my short time, I have seen there a lot of "cleverness" being misused on this website.

You as an admin, if you also do not have expert knowledge in any area you chose to engage yourself in, really ought to learn how to value, recognise and ask for expert knowledge first --- not be pushed about or manipulated by cleverness. The truth is, you do not need to know everything in life IF you can just learn how to ask and recognise expert knowledge and experience first. --Triton Rocker (talk) 05:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) WP:EXPERT ... everyone's edits hold equal weight. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 07:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Qualifications? I'm not so sure. I have seven degrees, but my colleague Bwilkins (above) has two Nobel prizes. On the Internet we have no way of proving that, and you have no way of verifying it (well, there are some ways that Wikipedia has in place but by and large no one uses them and more importantly there's a general feeling that, counter-intuitively - it doesn't matter) Obviously I don't have seven degrees, and I have no ideas how many times the Nobel committee have contacted Bwilkins, but you get my point. Editors don't need any qualifications to be good editors, except editing skills (including research). That's why I've been pressing the references point in the footy thread at WT:BISE - we're all talking out of our respective arses, or however MickMacNee phrased it, unless there are references on the table.

High King doesn't need to know the first thing about any topic under discussion - I don't know the first thing about most of the topics, and I'd hazard a guess that most folk at WT:BISE - despite what might appear - are the same. I agree with you about asking for expert knowledge - I'd like to see the regular posters at WT:BISE commenting far less, and I'd like to see editors from the relevant fields brought in far more. Frankly, if the topic of "British and Irish motorcycle manufacturers" comes up I'm going to attach far more weight to your comments than to High King's. And I think that much was obvious in the thread on Celtic Christianity, where I largely ignored, say, Snowded's comments (though I believe he may actually be fairly knowledgable in the topic in real-life). But it's not always as simple as bringing in experienced editors - we took the issue to the Footy WikiProject, and they seemed broadly happy with "Great Britain and Ireland". To my mind that's complicated by the stunning lack of references. It may be common knowledge, as MickMacNee suggests, to anyone familiar with football but we're writing an encyclopaedia for precisely the opposite reader - folk like me who no nothing about football. Folk like me need to be able to verify what the article says, and if we had been able to verify it this debate would have been much shorter. To my lay eye, the footy article really seems to be a classic case of "British Isles is OK" (i.e. not "Great Britain and Ireland", due to the Channel Islands and Manx teams falling under the English FA). But there are no references, what's common knowledge to experts isn't obvious to the rest of us, and so it goes...

Finally, due to the history of this area there's a lot of concern about POV pushing. I think that concern is largely unwarranted. If POV pusing is that obvious you can rest assured that I either notice it, or discount it without consideration - I tend to take everything anything the WT:BISE regulars say with a pinch of salt anyway, because they're all too involved. POV pushing is nothing new, and I've seen it all over the project in areas as diverse as Greece/Macedonia, Arabia/Persia, Israel/Palestine, British/E,NI,S,W, and British/Irish. The tactics remain largely the same, and range from the blatant to the subtle. In some of these areas there have been fairly credible suggestions that paid editors (working for governments, PR companies or even intelligence services) are at work. I don't believe that's the case here, but I also believe that the usual defences against POV pushing are just as useful: sourcing, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, more uninvolved eyes, etc. I'm not going to start shutting people of the discussion simply because they're too clever - but I really don't feel I have to, any more than I'd block someone because they seem to have Macedonian government press releases two hours before they hit the news wires.

TFOWR 08:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Please, I did not suggest the High King of Ireland was "too clever". I was questioning how and to what end that cleverness was being used.

--Triton Rocker (talk) 09:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I was addressing your comment "asking what someone's qualifications and experience is fair and valid in a situation which requires some expertise". You'd need to ask High King how and to what end they believe their cleverness is being used. TFOWR 09:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Since you're an admin, we were wondering if you could help at List of European countries and territories. There was a consensus to move to a new title. The other continents have been moved, but this one has multiple archive pages, and we can't seem to move it. If you could move it to List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe that would be much appreciated. Thanks, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but I won't promised to do it immediately - I fear mistakes before my coffee/blood ration reaches normal levels...! TFOWR 08:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone has already moved all of the talk and archive pages. The move option is now not appearing for me too on that page, so if you could just move it, it would be very much appreciated. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well that was fun - I deleted the redirect, then my Internet connection died...! Anyway, I have done it. It looks like I could have moved all the sub-pages as well, but since they're done - great! Let me know if I've missed something. Incidentally, why were the two move discussions at the top of the talk page? Just curious - I don't care where they are, just so long as there's consensus. TFOWR 09:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That talk page was/is a mess, people created new sections everywhere on what was really the same debate. Eventually the move discussion was just posted on the top so people could find it. The whole thing should probably be archived now anyway. Thanks alot. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Ciarán Mór (talk · contribs) made a edit to the British Isles page (here) which I reverted here.

I have also posted to there talk page with links to pages they might like to read, and said they should ask you here if they have any more questions.

Hope you don't mind.

Codf1977 (talk) 09:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, that all looks good (though I'd add that Black Kite (talk) is also looking over the BI issue). TFOWR 10:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Will do Codf1977 (talk) 10:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi there TFOWR, I see you passed RfA while I was away! Not to worry {I don't need to block Nimbley socks for you now :)}, though I would like to mention that had I been around at the time, I would have supported your candidacy. Best. Acalamari (from Bellatrix Kerrigan) 14:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Aha! I wondered where you'd got to! I've already blocked at least one Nimbley6 sock, though I did punt it to SPI for review. To be honest, though, I'm trying to avoid Nimbley6 - it drove me mad. I've still got his favourite Templates watchlisted, and I'll investigate if they pop up on my watchlist, but on the whole I decided a leaner, meaner watchlist was a positive thing. Thanks for your belated support - I'll be adding it to my thank spam page! TFOWR 15:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not getting into the middle of the hash/de-hash dispute here (which should perhaps be taken up at WT:RFA), but when you made this edit, were you aware of this; the fact that their other oppose votes have also been nullified; and the fact that there has already been some back and forth over the Dabomb87 oppose in particular? Your edit summary gave the impression that you thought it was forgetfulness/sloppiness rather than intentionally missing. –xeno^talk 15:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't (though I should have been - I remember seeing a post from Suomi about it). I'll self-revert now. Thanks for the heads-up. TFOWR 15:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Cheers, –xeno^talk 15:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Good morning, would you have a look at this and comment as to your opinion as to why after threee days there has been no response at all to the template? Off2riorob (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I really wanted it inserting as I had formated it but no worries, what is with that youtube template with no attribution or anything? Off2riorob (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mate, your date/time maths is as shocking as mine! I count it as just over two days ;-)

No idea why no one has commented, but after two days with no objections I figured it's safe to assume your request has consensus, and I've actioned the request. If anyone wants to object now I'll cheerfully revert myself. TFOWR 13:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I can add the Fora.tv bit if you think it's necessary? No idea about the Youtube template (one of the first times I've used it, I think) - I try and use templates where possible for external links because hopefully it scares spammers... probably not, but I can but try... TFOWR 13:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No its fine, I agree about the templates, it makes the additional typical ELNO stand out like sore thumbs. Thanks Off2riorob (talk)

Are you broadband dancin yet? Off2riorob (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Not yet - it's back, but I need to configure the modem/router/mysterious-box-thingy. Which I keep putting off, as it'll involve phoning the ISP, and I hates that. I guess I should go and do it now... TFOWR 15:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yet! It's back, I have a new static IP address (which has incidentally resulted in me restoring my old userpage: User:TFOWR/Old userpage), and everything is right with the world. Happy, happy days! TFOWR 19:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations TFOWR, take your time with your new found abilities. Off2riorob (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh, catching up on massive downloads and uploads. Boring work crap, needed done though. Looking forward to some iPlayer and 4oD "work" later ;-) TFOWR 20:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Side issue Off2riorob (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Seen it, need to catch up with the PC/C reading later. 2 weeks seems reasonable, 'crat closes seem reasonable. I'll comment once I can do so from a position of competence ;-) Also, you've got mail! TFOWR 20:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Has it stopped working already........ Off2riorob (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope, but having it working necessitated me devoting some time to doing stuff I get paid for ;-) TFOWR 20:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

He he, I recommend Inheritance Off2riorob (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I wish ;-) No millionaires in my family, I'm afraid. I'm holding out for my Great Aunt Doreen's favourite vases, though! TFOWR 20:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Just got the mail, congratulations, very impressive indeed, hilarious, I have only ever been worthy of a mere mention. Off2riorob (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello TFOWR ,

I apologize to bother you again. Beeshoney, the same user who caused problem in Kourosh Zolani’s AfD discussion by deleting big part of the comments has nominated many Iranian musicians articles for speedy deletion today. Here are links to two pages of names (page 1) and (page 2). She is proposing to delete almost all the history of Iranian classical music from WP. Many of these articles are not biographies of living people. They are master musicians with prominent roles in the history of Iranian classical music since centuries ago. Is there any policy in WP to stop this user’s strange behavior? Thank you, Sozlati (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sozlati. As far as I can see, another editor is already discussing this with Beeshoney. I wouldn't worry about this too much: if the speedy deletion requests are without merit they'll be declined. Admins tend to be quite conservative with speedy deletions. TFOWR 19:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)There were some really odd taggings... I just removed a few. A little indiscriminate for my taste :( --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 19:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your note! As an Iranian-American, I am really outraged by this user behavior. I feel someone has put my history and identity for speedy deletion! :( Sozlati (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

...that means you're taking Wikipedia too seriously :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

That may be true...! :) but have you seen how many articles about Iranian musicians or artists this user has nominated for speedy deletion in just one day? Sozlati (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

True, it's pretty sucky. I find that "suspending disbelief" while editing here can be really beneficial, i.e. just shrug and ignore as much as possible. It's one user being a bit disruptive - but if you let that bother you it can quickly eat you up (and that would suck) My advice; decline a few of the speedies (where legitimate of course) to help out and then go edit another article. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 20:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It's now being discussed at ANI. I think Beeshoney probably understands now that they need to read-up on speedy deletions: the ANI disucssion is more about fixing the speedy tags (i.e. reverting them). TFOWR 20:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I was hoping for a less dramatic WP day today! :) I’ll take your advice and log out for a while until my head cools down for a good WP edit…! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sozlati (talk • contribs) 20:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This little bugger has been running amok on a dynamic IP the last few days. Thought you should know and he's been targeting me, User:Favonian, User:Jac16888 and User:Syrthiss. Tommy! [message] 22:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI has been discussing it. I made my first rangeblock yesterday, and it was nowhere near as difficult as I'd feared, so I'd be happy to re-apply zzuuzz (talk)'s rangeblocks if this charmer reappears after the current rangeblocks expire. TFOWR 22:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that! Thank you for informing me. Tommy! [message] 22:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I have put a good deal of time into non-western classical music and have posted to AfD only for this reason. I notice that all editors with knowledge of the field have supported retention of the page. I also note that no editor has who supported deletion has worked in this region of wiki. I further note that a good deal of inaccurate data has been offered in support of deletion, and incivility, and that standards have been set that given editors do not set for matters that interest themselves. I have noted language that suggests, as I have before had reason to believe, that a few editors actually enjoy destroying others' work, and habitually complain of missing data while discouraging further work. I have had reason to believe that one editor is mounting an attack on all things Iranian.

I do not address these: I address the one editor who has attempted some rigour in proposing deletion but failed due to some of the above-mentioned conditions, chiefly to entire lack of knowledge of musical terminology. The above matters are clearly of relevance to the discussion and I have stated them in ways that fall far short of the unpleasant tone and language of some respondents. I demonstrated assumption of good faith by inviting the editor to examine and review such standards and assertions in the interests of the outcome I consider just. The editor is new - and has begun backing deletions after having had own article deleted. We are all vulnerable to attempting editing beyond our range and unknowingly judging ourselves and others differently. The subject to which (s)he has chosen to contribute, perhaps, unfortunately, when detailed by me, may appear to reflect badly upon the editor: I cannot help that, though I have my own doubts about notability.

I appreciate threats and accusations as little as you yourself do, and therefore invite you also to review your language and approach in this light, while thanking you warmly for your efforts on behalf of wikipedia which, I believe, is a matter of good faith that you and I may share. Redheylin (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Redheylin, this was a problematic AfD due to a large influx of inexperienced editors. During the course of the discussion IP socks engaged in vote-stacking, newish editors removed comments (including mine...), the AfD was used as a surrogate talkpage to discuss article improvements, and so on. As you can see above the issue is ongoing (and is even now being discussed at ANI). In that context we look to experienced editors to lead by example. Editors such as yourself - with over 15000 edits - should not be using an AfD to comment on other editors in the way you did. Editors closing AfDs are perfectly capable of assessing !voters rationales, and separating the "wheat from the chaff". They do not need - nor should they expect - experienced editors to question other !voters motives or editing history. As I said in the AfD: everyone is allowed to participate, regardless of experience or knowledge (even IPs, unless - as happened here - their participation becomes unconstructive).

I do not believe there is anything wrong in the language I used at the AfD or on your talkpage: if you feel otherwise - as you apparently do - I'd welcome pointers as to the specific parts of my posts that you feel may have been inappropriate. However, I reiterate my earlier request: do not use AfDs to comment on a !voter's motives or understanding of the topic: use AfDs to argue for retention or deletion. TFOWR 07:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I know you are right in principle, yet most of the deletion seekers in this case are seeking deletion of multiple pages for unclear reasons not related in any way to actual knowledge and commitment to the subject area, and were advancing inaccurate and unfair arguments. I regret that the editor concerned neither saw fit to alter the wildly inaccurate summary on that AfD page nor, so far, to improve the pages they created to the standard they demand of others. I understand the consternation you must feel at such a case, as a regular worker on such pages and, while you may feel I added to the trouble, at least the bickering stopped and closure was achieved! You will find that, when arguments of any substance are advanced, I confine myself to such arguments. I do not, however, approve of the obstruction of new contributors' work without such substantial reason, as you may have gathered. Regrettably, such actions are not always decided with painstaking attention to detail as you imply. Redheylin (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks TFOWR, the revert by Kingpin and the protection by you were ridiculously fast there; I barely had time to see it on my watchlist before the vandalism on my userpage was reverted and semi-protected. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries - had a lot of practice with this recently! ;-) TFOWR 10:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

...do the kiddies go back to school? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Very soon, I think. England and Wales have gone back, Scotland has a week or so to go. Don't know about Canada (please tell me it's soon...) or the US. TFOWR 10:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

England and Wales have gone back? Isn't it usually September? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, that should be: Scotland has gone back, England and Wales have a week or so to go. I only just updated my general status subpage (see the smiley at the top of this page) to reflect exactly that point. Oops! TFOWR 10:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, the IP's are from Turkey, when do they go back? LOL (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Doh! Good point. Hopefully soon. Might be a pre-schooler, however... TFOWR 10:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...a possibly valid concept: people with even grade school education know that vandalism and childishness are ... well ... childish. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

English schools do not go back until the first week of September, or even later (writing as a stressed-out parent...). RolandR (talk)

this article Prizes in the "Best Zionist Editor" competition - a trip in a hot-air balloon over Israel. - have you been on a course, are you up for winning a few prizes? Off2riorob (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh! That second link has an excellent comment on "how to get away with partisan editing": "strict neutrality with excellent citations". Gaza flotilla raid has just been semi'd again, I suspect largely as a result of this hot-air ballooning... there was a post on the talkpage warning about this, and I noticed a few edits from new editors who clearly hadn't heeded the "strict neutrality, excellent cites" advice... I suppose it's all good. Editors with extreme POVs can still become NPOV editors once they understand what's going on and why. Once upon a time I planned to "right a few wrongs" 'round here, but fortunately saw some good editors setting good examples. TFOWR 13:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This from the first site is a clearly an issue to deal with, "The Internet is not managed well enough." I do agree, contributors can discover NPOV or can and do become valuable editors in fields other than their chosen subject. Off2riorob (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Aye, that made me laugh. It wasn't that long ago that people were saying that the Internet isn't managed at all. TFOWR 16:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you do some archiving as the page now tops 500K - takes forever to load when there is an edit conflict ! 13:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Codf1977 (talk • contribs)

Will do! Probably not immediately, but I'll try and some done today. TFOWR 13:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

thanks for closing "List of foreign Scottish Premier League players", was not going anywhere - could you consider archiving it as well and leave the close notice plus a link to the archive - it would really reduce the size of the page ? Codf1977 (talk) 07:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I'll leave it a day or two for the inevitable complaints to flood in, then archive it. But damn, that felt good! Definitely needs archived - I was disappointed at the lack of difference my recent archiving spree made - the archive page seemed huge, but WT:BISE still seemed huge as well... TFOWR 07:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR has been made a member of the Order of the Mop,
for their work as an admin and is entitled to display
this award for being such a great admin,

Kind regards and happy editing,
Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 08:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 08:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thank you very much! I promise I'll do my best to live up to it! TFOWR 08:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. You deserve the award :) Thanks for creating the ubx by the way :) Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 23:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

		Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience
		I remember with what complete claass you handled our first communication,TY! DocOfSoc (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

For your kindness... Some days the wiki deluge wears me down. Then . Deep breath. Thank you for being you. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You remember it more fondly than I do - it wasn't my finest hour, though I managed to pull back from the abyss! Thank you - I need some peace and serenity right now. TFOWR 10:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

And well deserved, altho it didn't seem to last long enough! Again, I am thankful for the day we had a slight joust and you came thru like the Champ you are! Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

as a metawiki admin will be valued as regards the handling and oversight of user pages such as;

that may or may not be socks but are definitely not much use.

Please write on my page. Redheylin (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Replied there. Any talkpage stalkers here have any idea? My advice to Redheylin was that the second, Starmouse, was probably OK (practising article writing?) but the others all look... odd, and that I'm considering WP:MFD. Before I get three different editors annoyed with me, and I overreacting? TFOWR 15:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Shmantranny and Dramama and Julissie, clearly long gone, just blank them, doesn't really need MFD or over-sighting, imo. Off2riorob (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a limited appetite for hunting snarks myself, but it is amazing what you find if you type a rude word into "search" and check "user". Thanks for info regarding existence of WP:MFD. Redheylin (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I've blanked the three I mentioned. Starmouse seems to have also disappeared, but I'll leave it up as it seems relatively inoffensive. TFOWR 16:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

An interesting way to whittle away a few hours. Hey Red, good to see you around. Off2riorob (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean Red, it is amusing this rant was a bit excessive from 2004, in the good old days user wasn't even blocked. Off2riorob (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Pac off

(talk page stalker) I had a similar idea at one point, I used Special:PrefixIndex to search for words like fuck, etc. before: I found a rather amusing redirect from Fuck man to Pacman, which surprisingly turned out to be justified, and had been supported by an RfD. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That's just bizarre. Fuckman was deleted as a result of an RfD, but Fuck man still exists as a redirect. I'm more confused that one of those ghosts the second after I gobble up a pill. TFOWR 16:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Was Fuckman a redirect to the same page? I hope not, because I was confused that one existed and the other had been deleted at RfD and just created it as a redirect to pacman. I figured the Fuckman redirect was to elsewhere. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup! Fuckman → Pac-Man RfD. I guess RfD is as unpredictable as anywhere else on Wikipedia ;-) TFOWR 17:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Just deleted it under G4, although I'm not entirely sure I personally agree with the out come of the RfD, seems like a reaction to the page having the word "fuck" in it, rather than any proper review being done, could DRV or something? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I think Fuck man can probably be re-nominated given how old the RfD is and the result of the Fuckman RfD, but I think this is probably just one of those things which isn't worth the time of the community. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That's also a possibility, given that the result was speedy delete. Is it worth dragging it back to DRV after 2 years though? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Since you've both indicated interest in this redirect, I thought I'd point out that Off2riorob has nominated it for deletion here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Fuck, man, that's harsh! Seriously, though, I suppose my interest is more historic curiosity - why did Fuckman go and Fuck man stay? Though the more I look at it (Pacman)_it does seem to make some sense - "Puck man", not "Puckman", etc. The RfD is going to just folk from this thread, isn't it?! TFOWR 20:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'll stay away from the RfD. I've advertised it at Talk:Pac-Man#Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 August 19 (not that that's why I'm staying away, just I have no strong view either way). TFOWR 20:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think if fuck man is a valid redirect, fuckman is as well; there's nothing particularly meaningful about the space there. Also, looking at the RfD discussions, it seems that the main "keep" argument simply wasn't raised at the RfD for fuckman, and it was decided to speedy delete it as it was never explained what the relevance was. Not faulting the community there, when I first saw Fuck man I tried to speedy delete it until I found the RfD and discovered the reason why it passed, but it seems they didn't have all the information so I think we can now form a more informed consensus. It's likely that it's not going to attract much attention outside of this thread and the RfD regulars, no, although Xeno appears to have taken an interest (though he seems to be remaining neutral). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I kind of hope it does attract some interest, if only because it's piqued my curiosity...! TFOWR 20:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Telling me to pac off? Harsh :o GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh! I assumed WP:WQA would get involved, but ANI? You don't have a ghost of a chance. I'll be a-maze-d if I lose here. All I can suggest is that you take a chill-pill. ;-) TFOWR 21:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm I think it's time to pac it in now. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

And miss all the fun?! <sarcasm>That's just super.</sarcasm> Still, on the plus side, you don't need to be a professor to realise that this is going to end manically with a batle royale. ;-) TFOWR

You've got me Jonesing for a game of Pacman (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh no! Just when I thought we'd turned the corner the bad puns return! TFOWR 07:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

SCOTTISH PEOPLE COVERS SCOTTISH PEOPLE, IN THAT CASE CHANGE THE NAME TO "SCOTS OF THE WORLD". MAKE IT CLEAR. I'M SHOUTING. Tamarin2010 (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry thought you where starting a debate, no problem. Tamarin2010 (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no worries, I think. Any debate should really take place at Talk:Scottish people, but I continue to maintain that "Scottish people", like every other "...people" article (French people, Welsh people, etc) should cover not just natives and residents, but the diaspora as well. TFOWR 20:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - at last you closed the FOOTY discussion. You commented There are some pretty unpleasant posts in this thread: rather than read through and extract all the bile I'm just going to close it. Fine, but that lets Mick and TR off the hook. The bile was one way. You should at least issue warnings - the last warnings were successful for a couple of days to keep the page civil, and it's going to take effort to keep it that way. It's a tactic being used (usually very successfully in the past) to label any effort as a "crusade", etc, etc. BTW, thank you for sticking with this - do not get burned out!!! --HighKing (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty busy today, so I'm focussing on low-impact stuff as much as possible. I'll be free-er this evening, at which point I'll go back and read the thread, and remove-and-warn as appropriate. I noticed some unpleasantness, but really didn't have time to read it all. You also need to stop responding: by all means make pertinent points, but you should not be making comments like: And that post just about sums up your contribution here to date. Irrational and illogical ranting based on zero references and zero sources. Let's all bow down to Mick cos he has spoken and we're all ignorant. TFOWR 11:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC) TFOWR 11:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. For whatever reason, Mick presses my buttons better than anyone else. But that comment ain't a patch on his comments and I'd say it was a small but fair response. Thanks. --HighKing (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Cause and Effect --- Two to Tango HighKing. It is as inescapable as all laws of physics --- and insults in a Beuenos Aires brothel.

Accept it all as part of the Universe's justice --- and stop prostituting your intelligence.

Honestly. Stop all this gaming and backbiting on admin and other editor's pages. Just ride it out like a man. Let it die down of its own accord. --Triton Rocker (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi.

This has been brought up before, received well enough, and then left hanging.

At present there are 4 or more pages all with a combination of ongoing and stale policy talk and specific examples going back years, added to which there is now archiving going on by more than one person --- God knows where, e.g. here

Part of this problem I think, being HighKing's baby, is the High King of Ireland's overly complex mental structuring.

It needs to simplified and clarified for we lesser mortals. There needs to be a clear record of previous decision and archives.

How or where are you archiving?

At present we have:

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:British_Isles_Terminology_task_force

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:British_Isles_Terminology_task_force

3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:British_Isles_Terminology_task_force/Specific_Examples

4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:British_Isles_Terminology_task_force/Specific_Examples

I propose:

(1) British Isles Terminology task force should remain, e.g. introduction, history, page index and a list of stable policies.

All discussion on the currently active page (4) talk:Specific Examples should be moved to (2) talk:British Isles Terminology task force where would be easily found and becomes the only ongoing discussion forum.

(3) Specific_Examples should remain just as am example list of stable decisions. Common law precedents in other words.

I see plenty of models for the archiving of administrative pages elsewhere, with boxes etc, but I have no idea how to make them. (I also don't know how to make a page without a talk page. Perhaps one cant).

You are the self-appointed, voluntary janny, what do you think? --Triton Rocker (talk) 11:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you should start using people's correct names. Do not refer to me as High King of Ireland. I also think you should make this proposal at the BISE page for a wider audience. --HighKing (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I was going to make a joke about I read a book once about hiking in the United Kingdom. Off2riorob (talk) 11:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Very funny. When it all gets depressing, I always keep in mind an image of a Naked HighKing.

Thanks but no thanks right now HighKing. I did. It was drown out. So I am just having a 'wee' word with the responsible janny first. --Triton Rocker (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) At the moment we have two systems (one old, one new): individual articles, and what I've been erroneously referring to as "blanket rulings". The archived threads mostly relate to individual articles. The decisions made in those threads might inform us how to proceed with other issues, but don't really do much beyond deciding on individual articles. Going forward the "blanket rulings" (like we now have for fauna) should hopefully make things easier. As we get blanket rulings hammered out and working well, I'd be happy for them to be "set in stone", presumably at WP:British Isles Terminology task force. I've not really looked at anything other than WT:BISE, so I don't have strong views where this stuff should end up.

If you create a page, it'll automatically have a talkpage (though the talkpage will be red-linked and empty). I'm not sure why we'd need one with no talkpage, however. I realise it's a nightmare keeping on top of discussion all over the place, and I appreciate it's good to centralise discussion as much as possible. I'm keen to keep discussions at WT:BISE so far as is possible.

Incidentally, stick to using people's usernames. This isn't the first time you've caused offence like this, and it's not the first time you've been warned not to do it. For the record, I could care less what people call me, but I'll take a dim view of editors calling other editors by non-usernames or obvious abbreviations - especially once they've been asked not to do it. TFOWR 12:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Why do so many people use the phrase "I could care less" , surely it should be "I couldn't care less" otherwise the statement misses the point lol. That different usage has always confused me. On the issue though i do think it would be helpful to try and keep everything in one place, a specific examples page no no longer really seems needed, it could be handled in one place although i do like the WT:BISE name. I think the project page should redirect to the talk page to avoid people missing the up to date stuff on the talk page if they are looking for the first time. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

"I could care less (but that would take too much effort)" :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know! I do know that, growing up, I always used "I couldn't care less", and that "I could care less" is a comparatively recent thing... I guess I picked it up from someone... though I do like Bwilkins' suggestion, but I'm too slothful to comment ;-) TFOWR 12:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Id hate to be an English teacher, what is consider right and wrong one day seems to change the next. I get depressed when i hear the latest list of words or phrases that are being added to the Oxford English dictionary. Some of these "language changes" are as annoying as use of a country name ive debated with Bwilkins about before lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I wonder what people thought of Shakespeare at the time :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 12:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Bill Shakes' friends were known to utter things such as "what and wherefore thou fuckest? He speaketh some bullshit about 'iambic pentameter' or some crappath as such, forsooth!" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting vandalism on my TP. Geez, I go to sleep for a few hours and look what happens! Tyrol5 [Talk] 13:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries. This seems to be a particularly keen Turkish IP-hopper. There are several rangeblocks now in place, and ready to spring into life when required ;-) TFOWR 13:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You get all the best (i.e. inventive) vandalism! All I ever seem to get is people "inventively" inserting swear words into articles. *sigh* ;) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 16:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh! I seem to be the favourite target of an IP-hoper right now. Fairly unimaginative, though - mostly Freudian fixations. On the whole I've been quite disappointed recently about the standard of vandalism: I saw some on a typical POV-targeted article the other day, and it was just silly - no POV-pushing at all! TFOWR 16:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Related to this, I've just semi'd most of this vandal's targets within my userspace. The usual "I won't consider it wheel-warring etc" caveat applies, and if anyone wants to protect something I've missed - be my guest! I've indef'd most of it, simply to avoid giving the vandal a "target date". TFOWR 10:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the addition to my user page. The process felt a little like the running of the bulls :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries, and congratulations! Aye, it's definitely something I'd only want to do once... Anyway, I'm still very much a newbie, too, but if you need anything I can help with don't hesitate. TFOWR 22:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi again! When I want to defend myself, due to users accusing me for old and time-barred things, etc, what should I do? What do you do in such cases? /Hey Mid (contributions) 23:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Heymid. Sorry I've not replied to this, I wanted to give it some thought and unfortunately I've run out of time for today. Hopefully some of my talkpage stalkers will offer some good advice, and I'll be back tomorrow with a more considered response. TFOWR 10:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem dude, I've just found you as a good admin. Also, in the future, don't waste your time trying to talk with Greenock125/Andy593, or any of his other sockpuppets. You'll waste your own time. I think Greenock125 is a troll and wants to waste your (and others') time, or he is just dumb and don't understand or listen to our advices. /Hey Mid (contributions) 10:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HappyDudeThe_MadTim#Religious_agenda —Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyDudeThe MadTim (talk • contribs) 23:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Replied there. Executive summary: aye, richt. TFOWR 06:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Context, for the curious. TFOWR 06:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I LOVE the status icon up top. Brill. Someday I want one! I have a request, would you please find the target sign from your person and immediately remove it!!! ;-) FYI, I am taking a short Wikibreak, will be around, but only doing what I consider fun and eluding the argumentative "children" that pop out of nowhere. You will receive a cupcake when I return. :=D You taught me a new word today, TY! I have lots more effusive things to say, but am tiptoeing off to bed. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 08:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at {{Statustop}} - it's surprisingly easy to get it all working! I'd be happy to help if you need a hand (I added User:Xenocidic/statusChanger2.js to my Special:MyPage/skin.js page which makes changing my status really easy, but might be tricky if you've not done stuff like that before).

Your userpage will remain on my watchlist while you're away ;-) No promises about removing the target sign: I'll continue to battle vandalism whenever and wherever I see it!

What was the new word? I use odd words quite often - sometimes real, sometimes madeyuppy [sic]...!

Enjoy your wikibreak! TFOWR 08:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI, I had to revoke this user's access to their own talk page because of a completely unacceptable response to an admittedly not very elegant message from another editor. Favonian (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw that, no concerns from me. Not hugely impressed with the other editor's post, it looks like they refactored it to address a third-party's concerns, but even post-refactoring it was fairly poor. Hopefully GPW will have calmed down when the block expires. TFOWR 10:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to clarify on there. I think you believe I am a good faith editor, but I wasn't sure if you thought if I was a troll for my comment, and I wanted apologize if I anyway did act improperly at AN/I. I'm concerned that Mick's behavior will frighten away valuable users. Doc Quintana (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Replied already, your belief is correct, and you were right to seek clarity - my original post was lacking in clarity. TFOWR 11:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, it seems we edited almost simultaneously :) Doc Quintana (talk) 11:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of the communicating at BISE occurs when I'm in sleep mode (some would claim I'm always in sleep mode). It seems I'm the only Canadian, if not the only North American, involved at BISE. GoodDay (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You could work shifts and join in properly. Off2riorob (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hahahaha. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

...after the British North America Act, 1867, I gave less of a shit about BISE LMFAO (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I was surprised to learn that it was latter re-named the Constitution Act, 1867. Apparently, the Irish aren't the only ones who were sensative about still using British. Heck, even more surprising, as Canada is still a monarchy, who's monarch is the same person as the UK's monarch. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, we all have our favourite monarchs ... even we Canucks are not above modifying history to suit our needs. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm waiting for Canada's next Constitution Act. The one that makes us a republic. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Even Trinidad and Tobago is a republic. Someone I once wrote an article about had some good ideas surrounding the subject...of course, we don't even worry about the treason that occurred when "her majesty's loyal opposition" was once a separatist party...we're so damned polite. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

totally amusing thread. I have always though of republics to be a bit of a modern political hard edged solution to nation building. I prefer a fluffy mix of historical and traditional and modern nuances such as we are left with in the United Kingdom, excuse me I have got into a reactionary thing where as I can't type UK without involuntarily internally linking it, hehe. I think I'm a bit of an internationalist at heart. A Citizen of the World - Off2riorob (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

'The Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland', has a nice ring to it. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It does actually..Wikipedia:Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland specific examples, WP:ROGBNISE, one for the future perhaps. Off2riorob (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh! I read that as "Roger, be nice". Internationalist here, too, though I like small communities (like Manhattan in The Difference Engine, the various communities on Anarres in The Dispossessed, etc. I have no strong attachment to modern states, which are mostly made-up legal fictions from the past three or four centuries. Culture seems to me to be more important than lines on a map. TFOWR 14:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello again TFOWR, please can you delite this list of articles for me (I created them all) thankyou very much. Please note that I looked on your talk page and saw that the reason that you didn't delite some of the articles that I requested for delition before was because several other users had also worked on them, please note that although some of the articles in this list have had other users working on them, I don't think any of them have had significant content added to them.

Wicker Street Green, Walton Summit, Rivenhall, Hardendale, Oddendale, Flakebridge, Steward's Green, Sunbiggin, Budds, Sheet Hill, Keisley, Cathkin, Lanarkshire, Ellenborough, Cumbria, Cotman's Ash, Maplescombe, Ewanrigg, Ivy Chimneys, Mount End, High Park Corner, Bures Green, Waldringfield Heath, Beggarington Hill, Flockton Green, Bournebridge, Great Stoke, Blackwell, Cumbria, Thundridge, Great Crosthwaite, Sleagill, Warwick Bridge, Ivegill, Fox Royd, Heybridge, Brentwood, Highwood, Essex, Reagill, Portsmouth, West Yorkshire, Sherbourne Street, Broad Street, Suffolk, Calais Street‎, Wivenhoe Cross, Wivenhoe Village, Fordstreet, Lankaber, Gilts, Cumbria, Castletown, Cumbria‎‎, Fair Hill, Cumbria, Yopps Green, Harlow Tye, Linburn, Whiteclosegate, Romney Street, Tiptree Heath, Outlane Moor, Hackthorpe, Hycemoor.

If you decide not to delite any of the articles in this group, please leave a reason on it under this message rather than on my talk page.

Thankyou very much for your time Hamish Griffin (talk) 06:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean delete, not delite. /Hey Mid (contributions) 11:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The bigger question becomes "why do you want them deleted"? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

...and let me add, I see that Hamish has done a similar but denied request in the past. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I also note that out of a random sample of articles I checked the histories of, all of them have had at least some contributions from other editors; it's not up to the creator to decide whether they should be deleted, then. CSD G7 can be used to speedily delete any article with only one significant contributor if desired. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hamish

I'm pretty busy offline at the moment, so I doubt I'll have time to look into these any time soon. It'll be far faster for you to use the {{db-author}} tag so that other admins can do the deletions. With many deletions, like your list here, it's far better to spread the work between many admins.

Why are you needing so many articles deleted, by the way? I could understand the first time as it seemed you had created duplicates, but the last time I looked at this you had created some pretty good articles, which other editors had started working on. TFOWR 13:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi TFOWR, a username very similar to a troll who was 24h-blocked yesterday has popped up on newpages and has created a page of a similar nature (hoax pages thinly disguised, with additional issues); could you check out their deleted contributions and see if there's anymore to this, or if I'm just being paranoid? User:Pigtuba and User:Pigsnorfus. Thanks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I just realised you mentioned in a message above that you're busy at the moment, so don't worry about it. If pigsnorfus is the same user, his actions are likely to get the new account blocked as well. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Pigtuba's deleted contribs exactly match the speedy warnings on their talkpage (i.e. My pants, My Pants II, and the respective talkpages). Pigsnorfus has no deleted contribs. I am busy, but checking in every now and again - easy stuff like this I can do ;-) TFOWR 14:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Also what was said on my talk page by the user you defended was not polite and not true either. Inka 888 (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Dragged here for ease of examination:

{{helpme}} How do you customize your signature?

Wikipedia:Tip of the day/December 5, 2007. Instead of messing with your signature, please consider writing an article and actually contributing the content of this encyclopedia. Thank you, —fetch ·comms 20:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

If you read the link, you'll see your question answered so read the link like you're supposed to instead of blindly accusing me of telling you what's best for the project. —fetch ·comms 21:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Based on your incorrect claim that Fetchcomms hadn't answered your question, based on your rude claims about what volunteers are "supposed" to do, I'm not going to take your post seriously. Sorry. You could try raising it at WP:WQA, but I'd imagine they'll point out that your post to Fetchcomms' talkpage was (a) incorrect, and (b) rude, whereas Fetchcomms "helpme" response and followup were (a) correct, and (b) civil. TFOWR 21:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

fetchcomms post was incorrect about me not doing any work i do write articles and i do work as well. That is my main objective on wikipedia Inka 888 (talk) 01:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Fetchcomms didn't say that: what Fetchcomms actually said is copied above, for ease of reference. If you still feel Fetchcomms said what you claim they said, WP:WQA is that way. TFOWR 07:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

All fetchcomms has done here is quite legitimately suggested that you should spend less time worrying about how to make your signature pretty, and more time helping to contribute to wikipedia articles first. And he only made that suggestion after pointing you to a very informative link answering your question. As TFOWR suggested, you could take it to WP:WQA, but it is likely to be a WP:Don't shoot yourself in the foot case. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any idea what caused this? sonia ♫ 02:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

In the process of all o that, I created the account TFWOR. If you want the password, I can email it to you. wiooiw (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh, there's more!

"This flag once was red" was probably never SUL-ed (as there are a few This flag's..." kicking around, on simple and commons at least, and maybe at pl.wiki (check my userpage - I used to pretend I could speak Polish ;-)

However, this is bogus capitalisation: "This Flag 0nce Was Red". I'd guess that "This flag..." is taken here (since here is where I initiated the CHU request), it's definitely taken at simple and commons. My "fan" must have tried it, then settled on using a "zero" with Proper Capitalisation when the real, old username didn't work...

Sonia, thanks for the block - if I saw similar on en.wiki I'd do the same. wiooiw, no need for the password, but thanks. Scramble it, or do with it what you will (and thanks for the timely reminder that I should probably think about dopplegangers...)

Anyway: executive summary: I am only ever "TFOWR", "TFOWR's left sock" or "TFOWR's right sock". There are a few remnants of "This flag once was red" still kicking about, but I'm happy to ignore them. They can, and so can anything else, be ignored/blocked/mocked etc ;-)

TFOWR 07:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Sonia, while you're here... would you mind blocking This flag once was red on simple? That one is mine, pre-SUL, but isn't used, shouldn't be used, and the userpage and talkpage have now been redirected to TFOWR (I'd done commons ages ago, but had forgotten I'd edited at simple back in the day). I'll ping you at commons so there's a paper-trail. TFOWR 07:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Done before you asked, as you'll find. There are no backlogs at simple ;) sonia ♫ 07:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh! That was swift! I clicked "save" on your talkpage at simple, and was met with an orange bar! Thanks for that, I think everything should be sorted now, barring any other impersonators, which should now be much more obvious. Thanks again! TFOWR 07:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"Richwales, you've seriously been trying to mediate this for two months? That's service above and beyond the call of duty." Actually, it's more like I tried a couple of months ago, and went away / gave up, and then decided to try again now. I should probably have escalated the matter in early July — once it became clear that the underlying problem really hadn't gone away — but at least now it's getting more attention and can hopefully be resolved somehow. The next time I end up getting involved in something like this, I'll try to be bolder about escalating it and not let it just fester like I did this time. "Live and learn", as they say. Richwales (talk · contribs) 19:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

At least you did try again. I kind of get the impression that this has been festering, anyway, for much longer than two months. Hopefully we can give them both the boot up their collective backsides. I don't know how to impress upon them that if they don't start getting their acts together this will get messy - it's been through WP:3O, WP:WQA - next step is going to be more drama. Anyway, you were bold enough to comment on a long-term problem at WQA, and that's more than good enough for me ;-) TFOWR 19:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking Britterlr. All the best, Unforgettableid (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I was initially concerned that they only had two edits, but both edits were identical and blatantly spammy. I suspect they may think that they're editing "their" Wikipedia page, and I'd be inclined to unblock if they indicated that they understood that they don't own the page, etc, but I suspect their editing career is solely focussed on that one page. TFOWR 21:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

As the main administrator on the BISE, I'd like your opinion on this article. In my opinion it is a content fork from Malay Archipelago, and something that apparently was quite widespread, I found it on articles like Lesser Sunda Islands. The main claim (as far as I can tell archivewise) to include it is that it is different from the Malay Archipelago in that it includes Peninsula Malaysia. However, this is not even said on that page, instead separating it from what they call "Mainland Southeast Asia" which pipelinks to Indochina of all things. I also found this on Southeast Asia#Geography where it says Mainland southeast asia is synonymous with Indochina, which is obviously false. I mean, right under that, it says that Peninsula Malaysia is part of Mainland Southeast asia as opposed to the Maritime, which is against the apparent difference suggested. I've googled, and sources I've found seem to say they are synonymous (example ), and nothing giving the apparent difference. It seems very similar to the Whole British Isles situation, with a politicization of a Geographical term. Thought I'd get your opinion on this, sorry. If you're on holiday and don't want to bother with this, not exactly an urgent matter. Thank you. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Not so much a holiday for me as a holiday for the good folk staying with me ;-) I could take a look Friday/Saturday if it's still an issue. TFOWR's left sock 13:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's an issue, but it is in no way at all urgent. Personally I see a long term solution being a naming guide, similar to the one for Korea, but that's the future. Anyway, as long as someones happily on holiday, the world must be a better place! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Care to lend 3 minutes of your time here? It's a WP:REFUND rescue. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't really right now: got family arriving at an unspecified time "any minute", and I'm frantically ~~having a coffee break~~ hoovering and otherwise preparing stuff ;-) I guess this'll be resolved by Friday/Saturday? I could take a look then if not... TFOWR's left sock 13:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Another editor drew my attention to the activities of 121.215.163.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). It quacked loudly enough for me to block the IP for a week as block evasion by Guinea pig warrior (talk · contribs). Now the question is if the block of the master account should be extended. What do you think? Favonian (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, on the plus-side at least it shows that GPW isn't retiring...

Good block, obvious duck. You're probably more familiar with "what happens next" than me, but I'd agree with extending the block. Would three days or so be appropriate? I'd be slightly reluctant to extend for a week, since it's a doubling of the original block, though that may be appropriate given that the IP socking started more-or-less as soon as the original block, and continued throughout. Your call - but I'd be happy with an extra 3 to 7 days, with the obvious caveat that anymore IP socking should result in further extensions. TFOWR 08:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Three days it is. I'll leave a suitably stern message on his talk page. Favonian (talk) 08:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm, now it's getting kind of personal: 216.66.59.12 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). It could of course be one of my other "admirers" doing a copycat, so I haven't upgraded GPW to indefinite. Favonian (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. I hope my content work doesn't decrease too much - so far, it's the part I like the best! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

After my RfA one of my co-noms suggested that the best thing to do is just to keep on doing what you do best - which in hindsight is excellent advice! Good luck, all the best, and if you need any help/advice/a shoulder to cry on - give me a shout! TFOWR's left sock 15:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you kindly take a look at my talk page and see what this DUTCH Drmies is doing? This is just to point you in the direction of trolling, I am not asking for arbitration (that would be outrageous for something as small as this), I am just asking for you to look at it so you can see the hordes of trolls involved in this.. --Faust (talk) 07:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've looked. My advice would be to either treat it as good faith advice, or, if you're sceptical, to ignore it. You could ask Drmies not post on your talkpage, but it's up to you.

I was impressed with your response yesterday, and I'd hope that other editors listed in the original ANI report could also adopt your position. The best way to achieve that, in my view, is by simply ignoring anything to do with nl.wiki. TFOWR 07:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to do so very hard, but I just can't help getting a bit excited when seeing injustice (imho). Anyway, I will try to be more skeptical about this sort of thing and try to postpone my judgments. --Faust (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

More stupidity from my side: After encountering reason by mods here I assumed the same from dutch mods... Note: This is not an attempt to bring that situation here, just a second realization of my own stupidity which made me think I should inform you of my renewed conviction in the accuracy of your words: ignore anything to do with nl.wiki. --Faust (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi 'Lefty', I was in the process of informing Centpacrr (talk · contribs) about this when the got whole thing got 'closed down' by Sarek! 220.101 talk^\Contribs 17:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh! That was sadly inevitable. I'd have blocked 'em myself, but... well, I'm not an admin. ;-) TFOWR's left sock 19:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe if you find the matching TFOWR's Right sock? :-)) 220.101 talk^\Contribs 08:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

<laugh="evil> Did someone call me?! </laugh> TFOWR's right sock 13:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You closed this at BISE with a summary of "lose the links", but the changes weren't carried out at the article. Is it OK for any editor to implement whatever the closing decision is? --HighKing (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ping. Hope everythings OK - you've gone awfully quiet. --HighKing (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Aye, been tied up with family. Back online now. Damn, Keith Flody is a blast from the past! Sure, go ahead and remove the links. To dot Ts and cross Is (or something...) I'd recommend sticking a link to the WT:BISE thread in your edit summary. TFOWR 13:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, TFOWR. Could you take a look at my talk page please. There is a strange conversation started over there which rather confuses me. As you know exactly the two accounts I've used previously (and I state them on my userpage) I hope you could comment on it. Thanks. Jack1297 (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hoping you're not so retired as to look here!

OK, sorry I got to the party late - but aye, I'm always happy to confirm your credentials. And I'm slightly hurt that my jovial welcomes on two of your userpages weren't recognised by other editors as being a clear sign that you're known and trusted (i.e. not a sock puppet).

I'm concerned at the bit I didn't understand, however: is Jamesinderbyshire someone else? I hadn't picked up on that: Jamesinderbyshire seems to be one of the more sensible editors in the WT:BISE arena, but there will be parts of Wikipedia history which I don't know (or, possibly, don't remember). Is this something that SPI could determine? Would it help hasten your return? TFOWR 13:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, oh dear and powerful one ;-) I am having difficulties with a new user: NeoNeuroGeek He/she has violated the 3rr rule, another admin agreed that I was correct in reverting. As they are a newbie, I left a very nice message at their talk page They in turn left me a very nasty message on the Laura Schlessinger page: name calling, and generally nasty, so I removed it. Apparently, I missed the rule where you cannot remove crap?? so another editor has replaced it. Please remove it. Please speak to the newbie, I totally trust your judgement, but incivility, 3RR and refusing to sign their messages is just too much for me today. BTW , my HMO is finally going to send me to a grief counselor, at last!I hope YOU are having a good day. Mine got better when I saw you were "around" love it! Take care, your Joy who is DocOfSoc (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I restored the comment, which was reasonable (at least compared with the rest of the thread) but redacted the personal attacks. Hope that's ok :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 19:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm properly around today - I fell asleep at the keyboard yesterday... ;-) I'm hoping my friendly TPS has resolved everything: if not, give me a shout and I'll take a look. TFOWR 13:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The Indonesian vandal has returned once again, up to the old same tricks. The address he used this time is 202.70.54.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 12:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Persistent little blighter! Anyway, I've blocked 'em. TFOWR 13:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion at WP:WQA may not be bearing fruit, I'm afraid. Check out Talk:Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences#Suggestion by TFOWR. I also tried a couple more ideas (see here and here), but without clear success so far. Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I hate it when editors ignore sensible suggestions. It's rapidly approaching the point where unless one or other of them is prepared to acknowledge sensible suggestions then I'm inclined to escalate it. I've been tied up the past few days, and I'm catching up now, so give me a day or two and I'll ponder next steps. TFOWR 13:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I also tried posting a request on the talk page of the Eastern Orthodoxy project — hoping that a note focussing on a specific theological dispute may be more successful than a vague, general request for wider involvement. We'll see. Richwales (talk · contribs) 16:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

And I signed up at OrthodoxWiki about an hour ago, and posted a request for additional participation here on two talk pages over there (here and here). Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

...I am still trying to assist the editor with this draft article. Some trusted and prolific editor assistance would be great - or then again, you can tell me I'm nuts for trying. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've started making some (hopefully constructive) changes; it's a bit of a wall of text at the moment, but does seem to have potential. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Taking a look now. All food eaten, all beer drunk :-( TFOWR 13:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking good so far. One thing I'm noticing is that sourcing ain't easy, which is odd for an international org that been around since the late 1980s. The office-bearers seem to be a useful "source of sources" - their corporate biogs sometimes mention PIUG (though not always). Right now there seems to be a lot of primary sourcing: I struggled with Google News and "PIUG" (in acronym and expanded form). I'm kind of surprised at the lack of media attention - patent information is topical (as far as I'm aware) right now, with websites like Groklaw and the whole debate over patent reform and differences in IP law between countries (e.g. software patents in the EU - or lack thereof). I'll keep digging... TFOWR 09:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Say TFOWR, did you get my message the other day? I am wondering what you think you see. --Faust (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

2 day mizabot? The life of an admin must be exceedingly difficult. Anyway, reiterating my previous obnoxious request to have you look over the article/topic. Found this source which talks about what I think is the apparent difference, but even it calls "Marintime Southeast Asia" the Malay archipelago:

"Southeast Asia is geographically divided into two regions, namely Indochina and the Malay Archipelago.

Indochina or sometimes mainland Southeast Asia includes all of Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam.

The Malay archipelago, or maritime Southeast Asia consists of Brunei, East Timor, Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia, and Singapore.

Malaysia is divided by the South China Sea. Peninsular Malaysia is on the mainland while East Malaysia is on Borneo, the largest islands in the region. However, Malaysia is often considered an archipelagic nation."

In a complete coincidence, I actually read a book excerpt about the Filipino Jose Rizal, and the article called him "the pride of the Malay race". This caused a discussion with a couple of filipinos about whether Filipinos were "Malay". Historically, it seems the whole area, from southern Thailand to the islands near New Guinea were known as Malay people by Europeans. Then of course Europeans divvied it up and resulting new nations sought to separate their identities. Just trying to relate it to the British Isles case, as I hope that will help you. Thanks. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC) How's this for coincidence ? That was just added to Malay archipelago. The word "anachronistic" worries me though, NPOV wise. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC) If you could, I'd like you to review my latest actions on New Guinea and Malay archipelago. Not sure if what I did is a minor edit war (I'm fairly sure it wasn't 3RR), but I'll stop editing them both now just in case. Cheers. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

An IP has requested a review of this rangeblock. The IP's talk page is here. Cheers! TN X Man 18:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes ,this is the one after a request from User:Neutralhomer in regards to minor repeated vandalism on WGGH radio article. Though perhaps annoying nothing really warranting a 6 month rangeblock, although I am not an expert. It does appear on a couple of blacklists but how significant that is is presently above my understanding level. Off2riorob (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope, different one ;-) My caffeine intake is too low, and my rangeblock maths is poor, but six months seem way too high here. I've no objection to lifting the block: if the underlying problem recurs we can maybe put in place smaller, smarter rangeblocks? TFOWR 09:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Dammit, excuse me for the misinformation. (who is Dammit?)Off2riorob (talk) 11:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone related to "Surely", Shirley? I was trying to explain "don't call me Shirley" to a very young person once, when I made the mistake of using the word "frankly". That really confused things. TFOWR 11:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Fuck man things take forever round here. Off2riorob (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Indeed. It was an interesting discussion that, if a bit of a waste of time. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh for Puck's sake! Aye, that seemed to take forever. TFOWR 09:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This comment and insinuation is totally unacceptable. --HighKing (talk) 09:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Removed comment, warned editor. TFOWR 09:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well as several editors appear to be going out of their way to moan about other editors actions, i guess ill have to join in. I have concerns about these parts of the following 3 comments on the BISE page.

"It's a bit of POV original research, intended to fight a little nationalistic wikiwar. Total and utter nonsense."

and "And continuing to push silly issues like this says so much about those pushing it."

and "which fit the British POV," - Making out as though there is a single British POV on these matters and that is what is guiding views.

Just thought i would mention those 3 things, they all bothered me at the time. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Not convinced about the third, but the first and second are definitely too far. I've warned the editor. As the offending parts were relatively minor parts of otherwise on-topic posts I've left them "un-snipped", but warned the editor that any repeats will be removed. TFOWR 11:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we have some action on this, it looks like it has been talked out ? Codf1977 (talk) 10:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the "islands" part, I still feel it's too soon for anything much beyond islands - particularly without input from WikiProjects or other third-parties. I'm focussing exclusively on WT:BISE at the moment, but I'm short on time right now (too much offline nonsense that pays bills...) but I'll look at it today. TFOWR 10:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR I've just read that reply by Triton Rocker and that is enough. I have commented on 3 different occassions as an uninvolved sysop without taking action and have been accused by both 'sides' of taking the 'other side' each time (and each time I have seen editors from the BISE page come in and derail threads - hence my draconian attitude). I understand that you & Black Kite are trying to work productively with this group but you can't impose sanctions and not enforce them. The reasoning behind having limited sanctions as the one TR is operating under is to encourage productive editing and reduce the poisonous atmosphere. Comment's like TR's last are inappropriate under wp:civil and also in breach of his editing restriction. Also the specific claim made against me (based solely on nationality) is WAY out of line. I want to give you time to consider that remark by TR in light of site policy and his editing restriction and my post here as I'm considering escalating it (I see that you are very busy here and in RL, as am I, and if you would prefer I simply escalate it that's fine). I am not prepared to allow anyone (including myself) to be the target of accusations of bad faith based on where they come from.
Also separately that post by TR shows what I was saying at ANi - that this user 'doesn't get it' about their restriction or site policy.
I'm sorry to give such an ultimatum and it's not personal (I think you and BK are doing your best) but frankly that kind of comment from TR is just not acceptable on wikipedia. Alone that comment violates WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:TPNO and probably could be called a misuse of unblock process or talk page use while blocked.
This dispute is needless and has gone on to long. I gave HighKing and MidnightBlueMan some rope earlier this year so that the WP:BISE page could be used, in their terms, to create a proposal for the WP:MOS - this never happened. It also turned out that there was sockpuppetry involved in this dispute on both sides (MidnightBlueMan & User:Þjóðólfr). My position is this if I see these editors (from either side) misbehave further I wont be as lenient as you. There are editors who manage to use the WP:BISE page productively and civilly even when they disagree - there are others (on both sides) who don't and if they don't they need to be 'put out of the pool'.--Cailil ^talk 16:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

@Cailil, I agree 100%. The disruption starts with breaches of CIVIL and escalates. Many threads get hijacked by editors making bad faith accusations. Also perhaps you missed the attempt at an MOS - [see here. It failed that time (see Talk page), but I honestly believe there's enough to work on from there, and we'll be returning (hopefully) soon. @TFWOR, I honestly don't know how we'd fare without you, but I believe you now have a clear understanding of who is working in good faith, and who is not. I agree with Cailil that small incremental escalations will result in better productivity. We don't want to be still at this in 6 months time... --HighKing (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

For anyone curious, I've replied to Cailil elsewhere. I guess if you are curious you'll wonder where exactly. Tough! TFOWR 10:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Still no end in sight, I'm afraid. In addition to posting pleas for more participation on a couple of OrthodoxWiki.org talk pages, I posted something over there on the user talk page of an Orthodox priest who briefly showed up on WP a couple of days ago to comment on a different subtopic of this issue. And a few minutes ago, I posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theology asking for more participation; too early to say what that will accomplish. It looks right now like LoveMonkey is convinced his sources say what he thinks they say, but one reason we need more editors who are knowledgeable about the subject is so we can be confident that we have a well-rounded set of sources and that our understanding of what the sources are saying is not all going through the perception filter of a single editor (no matter how well-meaning he might be). Richwales (talk · contribs) 21:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Replied elsewhere. TFOWR 10:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

stop by for a chat. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Chatted! And HA's RfA - that one passed me by (like a fair few other RfAs recently). TFOWR 10:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you take a quick look at Anthony LaPanta for me? A sysop recently removed my BLP prod multiple times because it contained an ImDB link, stating that recent discussion (which is thus far a discussion involving 3 people, starting yesterday) has determined that BLPPROD should be a "yes or no" for sourcing, despite the fact that that directly conflicts with the WP:BLPPROD policy page. I've tried discussing it on his talk page, but he doesn't seem to be open to debate on the matter, and has reverted me enough times that I don't want to perpetuate an edit war by readding it further. Could you take a look at the matter and give me some advice? Thanks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems it's been taken to AfD now. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting policy issue, though. WP:BLPPROD states "may be removed only after the biography contains a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article" (my bold). I'd tend to regard IMDB as unreliable, as it's user-generated content, but it looks like the last RFC on BLPPROD didn't gain consensus to cover situations where the only source was from social networking and other user-generated content sites. If that analysis of the RFC is correct, I'd tend to go with it as it's (a) most recent, and (b) more specific to BLPPRODs. I do think it marks a shift away from the long-standing consensus on sites like IMDB, however. I'd like to look at the RFC before going much further, however. It's an interesting issue, I think, because it highlights the tension between wishing to protect BLPs (and generally improve articles) and wishing to preserve (i.e. not delete) articles. TFOWR 12:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I was somewhat concerned that Djsasso actually indicated that his problem was that he was "frustrated at people using BLP PROD incorrectly", and had apparently removed my BLP PROD WP:POINTily despite the fact that he felt it probably needed to be deleted. He seemed very set on his own interpretation of a policy which I felt explicitly contradicted him, especially here. I'm not sure if this is worth pursuing, but I'm not really too happy about receiving bogus threats to claim that I am claiming ownership of a template, from a sysop no less. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Aye, I saw that. I wouldn't pursue it, to be honest - this is an area that's new and vague, and different interpretations are bound to occur. The accusation of ownership was out of line, in my view, but you've proved that wrong by stepping back. I'm OK with removing a prod (BLP or otherwise) even when I think an article should be deleted: I decline speedies and immediately prod, for example - and Jclemens touched on this in the talk page discussion, too. I suspect this won't be fully resolved until the community comes to terms with blpprods, but part of that process might be an RFC on the reliability of IMDB with respect to blpprods, or whether blpprods should move nearer the speedy process (I'd go with the former: we already have speedys, blpprods serve a different need). TFOWR 08:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully there will be some clear community consensus established at some point to give precedent to future discussions; from what I understand of the policy (and how I feel BLP PRODs should be used as well), they should be used to mark articles which unambiguously have no sources which could be considered reliable; as you said, I don't think we need anything else close to a speedy: it's reasonable to allow the 10-day period to find sources, and there's no reason why the creator of an article shouldn't be able to remove it themselves if they've added reliable sources. It also has to be different from a standard PROD as that can be removed by anyone who disagrees for any unspecified reason. It's an interesting policy and, with any luck, will become a bit more concrete over time. Thanks for the comments TFOWR. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I have recently updated this article resting on my userspace. I want you to look it and tell me your opinion, please. Pathare Prabhu (talk) 10:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, it's really not a subject I know anything about. Have you considered asking editors at WikiProject India for advice? They'll have experience with sourcing issues, and should be able to advise whether the article is ready for "prime time". TFOWR 08:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

May I draw your attention to this post on Talk:Republic of Ireland? I have protested on the editor's talk page, but I think there's no harm in you being aware of it too. Scolaire (talk) 12:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I can understand why he makes such comments faced with blatant attempts at censorship on that page to remove even the pipelinked British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't. If he's feeling frustrated he should move on - incivility and attacks on other editors aren't justifiable here. TFOWR 12:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I never said they were justified, although it was partly accurate, i simply said i understand why he makes such comments. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I understand too, but stand by my warning. TFOWR 12:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Although it's also a breach of AGF and close to incivility to accuse people of "blatant attempts at censorship"... Different points of view shouldn't be labeled in this way, and accusations and allegations should be avoided. --HighKing (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

BW I will look forward to a spirited defense of for want of a better word an "anti-BI" editor if and when the need arises. Mo ainm~Talk 17:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I created a little javascript tool yesterday which you and your talk page stalkers may be interested in. Someone has probably made something very similar before, but never mind. If you want to give it a go, import User:Giftiger wunsch/toolbox.js into your javascript and optionally the following style information into your css:

.giftig_input_1
{ color:#009000; font-family:Verdana,sans-serif; size:10px;

background:#E0FFE0; } .giftig_label_1 { color:#009000; font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;
}

And then this box will become a quick search through a few special pages.

Hope you find that useful.

GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh definitely. I had to rebuild my main PC the other day, and I've not got round to adding all the usual Chrome shortcuts I use, so this neatly covers for many of them. Do you have an "advertising" version somewhere? Something like:

File: User:Giftiger wunsch/toolbox

Contents: <div id="giftigerwunsch_user_lookup_box"><span style="background:#FFFFE0;">Add <tt>importScript('User:Giftiger wunsch/toolbox.js');</tt> to [[Special:MyPage/skin.js|your skin's JavaScript file]] to make this box work</span></div>

Renders as:

Add importScript('User:Giftiger wunsch/toolbox.js'); to your skin's JavaScript file to make this box work

I'd be up for adding this to my userpage, but I'd want to be able to point to instructions for users who saw the box in its original state. Also, and I should know this, but is there a similar way to import CSS? (I know there is with HTML, but have never done it through MediaWiki). TFOWR 09:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I threw this together yesterday so I haven't made any documentation / "advertised" it at the moment; I thought I'd get some first impressions first. Also, I wasn't sure about importing CSS from CSS, which is why I just put it straight into my skin's css page, but I believe @import can be used. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries, and consider my first impressions extremely positive. I'll take a look at @import later: I presume you mean importing a CSS subpage into skin.js? TFOWR 09:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for asking... what exactly does it do? sonia ♫ 09:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, into your CSS. You should be able to place the @import statement there. I'll give it a try in a second though. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sonia, it produces a text field, drop down box, and go button, which lets you quickly query a few different special pages (as well as X!'s edit counter). It includes the user list, contributions, logs (for either user who performed the action and target of the action), prefix index, and WhatLinksHere. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since GW has replied, my reply is now redundant ;-) How I use it is as an alternative to my old method of typing "user Sonia" into my browser's address bar (until I inform my new browser that "user" means "search Wikipedia for 'User:%s'" this is my quickest way to quickly locate a user). Interestingly, I've just looked at the box: it doesn't seem to work when previewing. No big deal, just interesting. TFOWR 09:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Another couple of useful scripts are this one from gadgets, and this one, if you're script-collecting. sonia ♫ 09:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That first one I seem to have already: checked my monobook.js and no sign of it. IIRC it predates my mop, so I guess another script I use pulls it in? Weird. TFOWR 09:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The first one is in Special:Preferences, hence my comment "from gadgets". sonia ♫ 10:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh! That would explain it. I've used it for - well, forever. It's only fairly recently that I started adding to my skin.js, so I tend not to associate gadgets with scripts. Though obviously they're the same-ish. TFOWR 10:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I intentionally disabled it while previewing; do you think I should allow it to work on preview? I didn't see much point in wasting the client's time loading it when they're unlikely to use it from a preview. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That's genius! Makes perfect sense. I'll need to peruse your script to see how you did that! TFOWR 09:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

GW, do you think you could possibly upload a screenshot? I can't see anything different, and have no idea what it should look like. sonia ♫ 09:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) By the way, I'm trying out the @import statement, but strangely, it seems that wikipedia is escaping the characters in the css: I add @import "something.php?a=a&b=b"; into my css, and the css on the actual page is @import "something.php?a=a&b=b", which is somewhat of a problem. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a screenshot now. Did you bypass your cache after adding the script? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure if my upload there is per-policy, but I can always have it speedily deleted afterwards if not. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't see it being against policy (but I could be wrong): it's a screen shot you took, of a UI you created, that's intended to help people use a tool on Wikipedia. You've licensed it as PD, too, so as far as I can tell all Ts are crossed and all Is are dotted ;-) TFOWR 10:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Only active when viewing

(edit conflict) TFOWR, here's how I made the script only active when viewing the page:

if(skin=="monobook"&&wgAction=="view")

addOnloadHook(toolboxOnLoad);

wgAction is in a propietary script, and indicates the action being performed on the page. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I have purged my cache, but I still can't see anything. FF 3.6.8 on XP, Vector. Is my browser the problem? I find that some other scripts don't work for me either. sonia ♫ 10:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoops.... one moment, I'll fix the script for you. I had it set to monobook only for us elitists. By the way, I've now rigged the javascript to insert its own CSS style sheet into the document's head. I just made about 30 edits finding a silly mistake; that's the way programming goes unfortunately ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Bypass your cache again and it should work now. You can remove the css from your styles now, as well. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm reasonably sure it's related, but I seem to have lost some tabs from articles (interestingly I still have this on my userpage/talkpage). They're admin tabs, but I rarely (if ever) use them so I'm not too concerned. I don't know if other editors have noticed this, but I get odd problems with importing scripts: I can't use "easy block" because it seems to conflict with something else, and I lose half my tabs (in Firefox: Chrome works, kind of...)) Anyway... no big deal for me, but might be an issue for other admins. TFOWR 10:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that's strange; all my script does is inject some html and css into a tag with a very unique id, it shouldn't affect tabs at all. Has it done this since I created the script, or since I fixed it to include the css automatically? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Can't say - only just noticed it, to be honest. I'll have a play and see what triggers it. Like I said it's no deal-breaker for me since the tabs affected aren't ones I really use, so I've not been too concerned. But I'll play around and see what causes it - keeps me out of mischief elsewhere ;-) TFOWR 10:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  - Have fun ;) The only explanation I can think of is that some of the admin tools' UI may be added by a js function called toolboxOnLoad(), and mine is overwriting it. I could try renaming the function to something blatantly unique to see if that helps? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Done They now have unique names, I've prefixed the functions with gw_. Let me know if that's fixed the issue. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Orl Korrect ;-) Tabs have returned. Thanks for the swift help-desk response ;-) TFOWR 10:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Please have a look. Tim is on break: can you "act" on this duck? There is no question that this is her: I'll amend the SPI if necessary. Where to go with this? Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 10:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ask a friendly admin to issue a WP:DUCK block ;-) Which I have done. I'm far from being an SRQ expert, but that was pretty blatant, even for me. TFOWR 10:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent call! Going from promising never to sock to never stop socking - yikes. Thanks again, TFOWR! Doc9871 (talk) 10:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

"The Whack-a-mole Stuffed Tiger Prize rewards sysops who tirelessly reblock returning sockpuppets"'' Is is hereby awarded to TFOWR! With profound gratitude! Now can you help me figure out how to get the actual picture award that goes with this? lol! Fondly, DocOfSoc (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

...for catching and handling this! --Mkativerata (talk) 10:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I felt this was particularly shameless! TFOWR 10:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I will be happy to show you my identity if you email me privately, as I have done to Snowded, for the avoidance of doubt and any future accusations. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Replied via email. The executive summary is: no need. If there are genuine allegations they should go to WP:SPI. TFOWR 12:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I do like the template idea, and am making this post here as it is more about the functionality than the wording.

Obviously it would need to be subst: template could the error trapping add as a comment into the page an example of how to submit correctly ? is it worth adding a category into it so that it would be easy to track pages that it has been added to ? Codf1977 (talk) 14:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I was assuming we would subst: it, but I don't think there's any technical reason why we'd have to (though I'd want it out of my userspace before that, in case I delete it and mess up a thousand talkpages...)

A category would be an excellent idea. I'll have a browse around the category documentation: I know how to get templates to add categories, I'm less sure about the protocol on creating our own category, however. TFOWR 14:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If it is ok with you, may I make a copy in my own userspace to experiment on the tech side of this ? Codf1977 (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, go for it. Anything in my userspace comes with a "use it, copy it, modify it, steal it, use it anywhere" warranty. TFOWR 14:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you realised already, but the template is at {{User:TFOWR/Sandbox/BISE/Template}}, and User:TFOWR/Sandbox/BISE is just a "display" page for testing/viewing. Steal both ;-) TFOWR 14:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at User:Codf1977/BISETemplate and User:Codf1977/BISETest - it adds a section brake at the start and uses a talk box. I have not been able to work out how to make it correctly subst - but I am sure someone will be able to help. Codf1977 (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Those are really good. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Think I have fixed the Subst issue - usage would be to add "{{Subst:User:Codf1977/BISETemplate|section=Archives|action=delete}} ~~~~" on the talk page of an article and this add a new section and sign the section. Codf1977 (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

As for Category I can see no reason why we cant create our own one, I would think that we should remove the category once the discussion is marked as resolved. Codf1977 (talk) 18:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Liking the orange boxes! Not sure about the header: I thought the orange box would go at the top of the talkpage, among the WikiProjects and "calm heads" boxes. But the header we could steal for the original, signed, post. Something like: (1) orange box on talkpage, no header, unsigned, points to discussion. (2) regular (templated) post as new section on talk page - header, signed. Maybe that's overkill, though? Anyway - I like the orange box. Seems more professional. On categories, 442 has been re-opened, and it occurs to me that a "discussion closed, here's a link to the archived discussion" box might be useful? I guess that would create 1 or 2 new options for the (orange box) template, or we could use a new template for closed discussions? Either way, a cat for closed discussions might also be useful. TFOWR 09:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok - Like the idea of a top box, will give some thought to how that might work with a resolved and link to archive discussion Codf1977 (talk) 10:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You blocked ILuvAMRadio as a sockpuppet. There is now an unblock request at User talk:ILuvAMRadio, with the user denying sockpuppetry. I have looked at all of this accounts edits, and a large sample of edits of SkagitRiverQueen, the supposed sockpuppeteer, and I can't find any convincing evidence. There are two articles and one talk page they have both edited, but even there their edits don't look obviously similar to me. Also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SkagitRiverQueen does not, as far as I can see, mention ILuvAMRadio. However, you are probably better acquainted with the case than I am, and perhaps you know of evidence that I have missed, so perhaps you could look back at it. I shall put the unblock request on hold pending your revisiting it. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I am very familiar with this user, James, and would be very happy to answer any questions you have concerning this case. I can add it to the SPI if you believe it's necessary: but I'm not sure it is, per WP:DUCK. Give me a "shout out" on my talk page, and we'll clear this up. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 06:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm definitely less familiar with SRQ than Doc9871, but confident enough to agree with Doc. I didn't add ILuvAMRadio to SRQ's SPI, as I felt it was sufficiently ducky - but that's not necessarily the case so I'd have no objection to an SPI listing (for that matter, it would be hugely useful if all of SRQ's socks were listed - it's been on my to do list for a while, and I removed it recently as SRQ seemed to have quietened down). For me it was the style of the edits in toto, but there were also definite "tells", like this talkpage post and the corresponding revert. That said, I'd have, as always, no objection if you felt an unblock was warranted - if I'm wrong we get an editor back, and if I'm right we can always reblock. TFOWR 09:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to links provided by Doc9871 I am now of the opinion that it is very probable indeed, so I will decline the unblock request. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Doc, I've had a project on the back-burner for a while, to list SRQ at WP:LTA (or, at least, get more complete records at SPI). I presume you communicated the diffs via email? (At least, my cursory search for your conversation met with no success ;-) Could you email me any SRQ data you've got? Thanks! TFOWR 09:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I usually can't keep my mouth shut, in RL or on WP! I can e-mail you some stuff, but most of it is out here already. But I can dig much deeper: no worries. Give me a day (RL sucks, right?), and I'll have the "start". It's easy, really. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 09:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

A day's fine - to be honest, this has been on my to do list for forever, with no sign of me doing much about it, and I'm pretty snowed under at the moment anyway (onwiki and RL!), so no hurry. Thanks! TFOWR 09:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The Indonesian misinformation vandal reappeared a several minutes ago using the IP address 202.70.54.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). It seems that he's using addresses from the 202.70.54.* range recently. So can you block the 202.70.54.0/24 range? I can give you the addresses that he used from this range alone. Thank you. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 03:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

He struck again, this time using 202.70.54.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 05:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The 202.70.54.0/24 range is now blocked, but only for 31 hours. Knowing this guy's MO, can this block be expanded? Again, thanks in advance. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 06:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Hmm, interesting - the block durations actually seem to be decreasing ;-) Based on the first block log entry ("Persistent sneaky vandalism per 202.70.50.0/24, practically no useful edits from range") I'd say the block was for the same underlying user (the misinformation vandal). I'll keep an eye on this range, and if/when vandalism continues post-block I'll consider a longer block. TFOWR 09:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The consensus on the talk page was to include British Isles on the article, but leave the title till more has been resolved. However, in the meantime, this edit was made by a presumably uninvolved editor. Would it be in order to revert this, or reopen discussion on the title once the AfD pans out? (and it seems to be going towards a strong keep) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I've "un-resolved" the discussion ;-) Prior to the AfD I suggested getting WikiProject input: it looks like there were a few AfD participants who might be worth asking for input at WT:BISE? TFOWR 12:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Flora & Fauna

OK, ya got me. What are those things? GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Best I can tell, Flora makes the shortbread at my local cafe. "Fauna" I'm not so sure about, but has something to do with Roman mythology. Maybe ;-) Trust scientists to devise two separate classification systems for "shortbread" and "mythology"... TFOWR 17:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Just curious, as those words keep popping up at BISE. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute... are you trying to tell me you don't have flora and fauna in Canada?! New Zealand seems to have imported flora and fauna from Britain like it was going out of fashion. I assumed Canada would have ended up with a fair few non-indigenous species of eco-system destroyers shipped over from Liverpool as well. (And hey! It's not all bad! We've managed to get one of the two button-downed). TFOWR 17:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I not certain about the rest of Canada, but I've never heard of the 2 terms on Prince Edward Island. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I checked Prince Edward Island and it doesn't look as barren and lifeless as you led me to believe - I'm disappointed. "Flora" is plant stuff, "fauna" is animal stuff, to use the scientific terms. ("Gubbins" is sometimes used instead of "stuff" in older settings). TFOWR 17:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This flora comes to mind from the East coast. This fauna should have been well-known too :-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, now if ya'll would've said plant life & animal life, I would've caught on. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Is my favorite Kiwi OK today? Shake and bake? Concerned Californian here. Oh and Ty for my new word of the day:Gubbins. DocOfSoc (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Living on a fault line is great. sonia♫ 03:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This user is a known talk page watcher.

;-) DocOfSoc (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

@Doc: ;-) Expatriate Kiwi - I'm safe-and-sound in not-so-bonnie Scotland, though a bit tired (I stayed up to make sure relatives were OK - they were).

@Sonia: I thought you were north of this - though I realise the quake affected the North Island as as well. Are you OK? TFOWR 09:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sonia is fine, I asked on her Talkpage, discussion here @ 'Shaky Isles' Shaking?, and the Cello is well also!

Though earlier, I apparently broke a string on it by my mighty telekinesis! 220.101 talk^\Contribs 01:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

That you did! I've only ever broken four strings before in all my life as a cellist. To break one onstage is just surreal. sonia♫ 03:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes I had a nightmare at 16:35 (UTC) the other night and what happens, Christchurch cops an earthquake! Mea Culpa! 220.101 talk^\Contribs 04:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, can you show me how to add that If you are unable to post here follow this link to post at my unprotected talkpage. to my talkpage so that I can have my talkpage protected and allow the uncomfirmed accounts to post on a special page. Off2riorob (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries I have created a header and a unprotected talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi TFOWR, I was wondering if you could semi-protect my new template: here. Thanks! Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 22:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh and if you could could you make it substitutable? Thanks! Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 23:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sorry Fridae, but protection isn't applied pre-emptively, only in response to vandalism. I'm not sure what you mean by "substitutable"; you can substitute it using {{subst:poke}} GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Really? Oh ok, I didn't know that. Thanks Giftger :) Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 02:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I meant safesubst, since the example in use in the template doc still has the parameters visible. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 02:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Basically what GW said! For a template in your userspace, I'd consider move-protection (sysop only, etc) but for a template-space template there would need to be a "clear and present danger". I think {{YGM}} became less restricted once it hit template-space - I have move-protected it, it should now be non-protected. Template-space should attract more watchers, though, so vandalism should be quickly reverted. On which note, I'mm away and watchlist it now ;-)

Oh, before I forget - for {{YGM}} I ripped the safesubst off from {{Uw-block}}. Not pretty, and needed a lot of playing around with sandboxes. Something like {{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#if:{{{sig|}}}|— <includeonly>~~</includeonly>~~}} should display "~~~~" when you transclude, and automagically sign when you subst the template. You'll need to subst it for the automagic signing to work, and obviously you'd need to tweak this for {{Poke}}'s needs. TFOWR 09:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that's what was meant by safesubsting. I've done that on a couple of my templates, but didn't realise it had its own name ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh ok thanks to you both :) Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 04:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Please look over Triton Rockers latest postings at BISE. They are unacceptable, as is the edit summary of "HighKing's nuts". --HighKing (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

LevenBoy is in breach of the sanctions by inserting BI back into FourFourTwo. I'd prefer to give him the chance to self-revert (a couple of hours?) before reporting at WP:GS/BI. --HighKing (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

How is he in breach of sanctions? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

He has reverted the "Resolved" changes and inserted "British Isles" back into the FourFourTwo article. Hopefully he'll self-revert. --HighKing (talk) 11:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That is not a violation of the sanctions. He has undone the change because the case is no longer resolved as new evidence has been produced showing the area the article is talking about is the British Isles, not just the UK + I. The previous wording has rightly been restored now we have the new evidence so the debate can continue. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't a violation of sanctions, but it did add/remove BI while a discussion was ongoing, so I've reverted LevenBoy until the discussion is closed. And BW: "No one should add or remove BI whilst something is under discussion, i am not sure about adding extra references and text (if done properly) is a problem. If what is added is incorrect then it should be removed, with clear reasoning to avoid edit wars breaking out." Great advice: I wish LevenBoy had followed your recommendation. TFOWR 11:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The change that was agreed to put UK + I was before new information came to light, if that information was available there would not have been agreement to remove it in the first place. The article should have been returned to the original wording b4 we all arrived. Oh and whilst we are on removals, the pipelink to British Isles on Republic of Ireland has now been removed thanks to censorship. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ...and how long will that continue for? When we have the 77th discussion on 442, will we still be reverting back to an antique version of the article? Issues arise, we revert to the state before the issue arose, we address the issue, we move on. We don't have a version of an article set in stone which we must return to with each new issue - that way there will never be any progress. TFOWR 11:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Correct (in response to BW after ec), and TFOWR, you are edit warring on this page so I strongly recommend you revert your recent edit. Please take heed of the fact that I was restoring a more correct version. It is important that Wikipedia disseminates accurate information. LevenBoy (talk) 11:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh. I was following process to restore the pre-incident version of the article. If you think I'm edit warring be sure to take it up at WP:AN3 or WP:ANI. Good luck with that. TFOWR 11:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The "pre-incident" version was what I set it back to and your snide remark about "good luck" is uncalled for. Beofre I take it up at WP:AN3 please let me know precisely what process we are talking about here. LevenBoy (talk) 11:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The version I referred to is the version prior to the most recent discussion at WT:BISE. "Snide remarks" get reported at WP:WQA. Good luck with that, too. TFOWR 11:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Triton Rocker

I note your indefinite block on Triton Rocker and I'm wondering if you've misread the situation. Firstly, his edit summary "HighKing's nuts": HighKing made an inaccurate point about conkers, stating that they are not named as such in Ireland (this is incorrect, they are so named in Ireland). Conkers are actually nuts in the normal sense of the word (see the picture at Nut (fruit)) so Triton was adding an accurate edit summary linking HighKing to the nuts of the discussion. Accordingly, I cannot see what the problem is with this edit summary; maybe I'm missing something. On the other matter, what Triton says is absolutely accurate (and you know it). Furthermore, it is a mild accusation and in no way warrants any sort of block, let alone an indef one. Good luck with AN/I on this one. All I can say is that it will yield many pages of crap debate - again. LevenBoy (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Review of indef block has been requested. TFOWR 11:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Pac off

Flora & Fauna

Triton Rocker

ANI

Talkback

Pac off

Flora & Fauna

Triton Rocker

ANI

Rangeblock Needed

Welcome back...

Something that may be of interest to you,

BISE clamp down

Question deleting pages

ec

Misinformation vandal back!

What to do about a spam editor

copy cat

Sherlock episode 3 ref

Ugh

ENGVAR continued

this place

Talkpage vandal

Need your help

Second opinion needed from an old hand..

Define "commenting"

Move help

User:Ciarán Mór

Your RfA

Hashing/de-hashing

unattended edit request

A question

Note

Your message

Lightning protection

When...

editing prize

Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples

Hi congrats

Mop

Your advice

Scottish people

BISE = BILE

Proposal: Sorting out the BI pages

Thanks

Vandalism

Many thanks

Defending myself

FYI (Old Firm)

Status

User:Guinea pig warrior

User:MickMacNee at WP:ITN

A Canadian &amp; the British Isles, or Britain and Ireland, or the Isles etc

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment

Articles for Delition (Hamish Griffin)

Possible sock?

user talk inka 888

FYI (interesting...)

Esoglou v. LoveMonkey

Thanks

Maritime Southeast Asia

Not likely your specialty (or mine), but

Guinea pig warrior evades block

Thank semi-spam

Request

re ANI "Abuse"

Keith Floyd

My talk page

Your help please

Vandal alert.

More on Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences‎‎

When your guests have eaten all of your food, and drank all of your beer

message

Maritime Southeast Asia 2

Ping

redirect

BISE

Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples#Republic of Ireland

enough is

A Canadian & the British Isles, or Britain and Ireland, or the Isles etc