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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
My edit, which you reverted, isn't the edit I made. All I did was remove a stray character before the two equal signs of the header so it would show up as a header. It looks like I removed your sig, which wasn't even there when I edited the page. Your revert of what I didn't do makes sense, but I can't figure out the rest. Of course it looks fine now and it's not important at all, but I like everything to make sense (you can only imagine what a curse that is).-- Bbb23 ( talk) 21:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
So, you said, on my talk page, referencing (presumably) several of my edits, that they were "opinions and guesses". While I understand this (I mean, opinions and guesses are not anywhere near good for the encyclopedia), I was wondering, which of my edits were you referring to?
AnimosityAnimalEdits ( talk) 17:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello Floquenbeam - just letting you know your recent post at the ArbCom case re. The Rambling Man needs a little bit of copy editing. If you're busy, I don't mind doing so for you. Please don't take this the wrong way - just a friendly notice. Zero talk 14:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I apologize for giving in a classic example of hostility and vitriol as I had on my talk page. I also apologize to @
SchroCat: for assuming that the editor assumed that I had been purposely edit-warring and to @
TJRC: for calling that editor "ignorant", for which that is the first time that I have ever wanted to be blocked. I usually keep my tone restrained from being insane, but I became fed up this time, and there is no way that I could possibly, possibly become one among administrators because that is my typical personality. I would also like to tell you that I have read your thoughts on my talk page so many times that I have lost count, and I was not even counting. Lastly, the only thing that I am worried about is the fact that I may repeat my hostile behavior (and have somewhat more confidence to do so) now that I have finally done it.
Gamingforfun365
(talk) 06:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
The drive-by busybody who reverted that one section is most likely a banned user. That's why I reverted it. Your own deletion is fine. :) ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for closing that AN/I thread. Good grief. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 20:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC) |
Yeah, that discussion jumped the shark a while ago. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 20:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I have referred to you here: [1] - Roberthall7 ( talk) 19:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Recently, I've had this extremely unhealthy obsession with editing articles. Apparently I seem to be taking WP:NPOV too seriously. I do get that a large edit is more likely to hit an edit conflict since they take more time to do. I just can't help myself. I want to replace every mention of pass away with die. Pass away is an euphemism that should not be used. Die is more accurate. I don't believe that articles should say nice or rude things about anything, they should just assume indifference towards everything.
I try to make sure that articles that read like this:
become more like this:
Don't you notice how non-neutral the red example is and how encyclopedic the green example is?
I don't like the use of positive or negative bias in articles, such as this;
I would want that to look like this:
Do you really think that the positive loading and puffing in the red text is really necessary for Wikipedia articles? I don't think so. I'm one of those strictly neutralist Wikipedians.
Just because you think that something is [peacock] or you think that [weasel] that something is [peacock] or that almost everyone agrees that something is [peacock] that doesn't make it a fact, it's still an opinion, but if you want those words in the Wikipedia articles, at least cite a reliable source and put it in quotes so as to preserve the neutrality of the articles. You can criticize, bite, attack or even threaten to block or ban me just because I just started this account a few weeks ago and your account was here for years collecting all kinds of knowledge and wisdom on Wikipedia but no matter how much we learn, we can never know everything. I believe that we should not let personal bias get to the best of us as editors when trying to contribute to Wikipedia.
As the worst editor ever (and I think I should get a Wikipedia's Dumbest Editor award) I'd like to figure out how to make Wikipedia articles as neutral as possible without inadvertently terrorizing its contents. I keep having to realize again and again that I have to make small edits. That makes sense to me because if I take too long to edit something, I'd most likely crash into an edit conflict. If I keep making multiple small edits each only changing one small area or word at a time and then telling what I did in the edit summary would that be okay?
#NoobLivesMatter -- Turkeybutt ( talk) 17:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.
Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.
Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here
For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
At the AI noticeboard, you described one of my comments as "really poorly thought out." The editor opening the request closed it shortly afterwards, so I didn't have a chance to respond. As you noticed, I wasn't trying to say that the allegations made against the Israeli team were true. Personally, I think the chances that they were true are vanishingly minute. I think there are reasons not to absolutely discount them though. My knowledge of the sequence of events is a bit hazy, but I think it's true to say that it started when the President of Haiti made accusations that some of the helpers who'd entered Haiti after the disaster were engaged in organ trafficking. That might have been true or false. If it was true, then it means that it was possible that any helper may have been involved ... and that includes the Israeli team. So, there is your possibility and I don't think that thinking that way makes me credulous. My purpose at the Jenny Tonge article to this point has been to make sure that the rules on sourcing were followed. As you'll know, to state that something is false, you actually need a source which says that thing is false; if all you have is a source which reports that someone has said that something is false, all you can cite the source to state is that someone has said that something is false. That's basically what it came down to. If any of that is badly thought out, please get back to me. ← ZScarpia 21:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Floquenbeam, another editor has pointed out the note at the top of your talkpage to me. Sorry to hassle you. I'll clear off. ← ZScarpia 11:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I was going to let this discussion die off without intervening, but today I saw a recurrence of this disturbing editing pattern- ZScarpai removed a description provided by a mainstream newspaper (Jersualme Post) , and replaced it with a description that comes from a web site that alongside the usual anti-Israeli, pro-BDS activism material also that dabbles in Holocaust denial and wild conspiracy theories . Perhaps a topic ban is not a bad idea, after all. Epson Salts ( talk) 23:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
We protection-collided. Mine was shorter. I think that's what she would prefer, but she can do what she wants when she returns tomorrow. If there are further problems before that, you (or I) can extend it.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Getting excited about going to Bruges, tomorrow! (more on top of my talk) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Floquenbeam, regarding this warning, you might be interested in this user's contributions, my reverts, their discussions on talk at
I just undid two more of their edits ( [2], [3]), but following and checking all of them is getting a bit tiresome. This continued misinterpretation of guideline and policies (and essays) might be a slight case of wp:CIR perhaps. Cheers - DVdm ( talk) 09:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
There's another instance that I have documented on Talk:Human rights#The_.22replace.5Bment.5D_.5Bof.5D_synonyms_for_said.22, which I think you will also find useful and relevant. Chenzw Talk 02:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
This purely trollish act speaks for itself. Please consider extending block and revoking TP access. John from Idegon ( talk) 23:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
One followup comment I was trying to post: "It's one of Vote(X)'s occasional tactics. Whether he's also the Nazi troll is hard to say for sure. But it's perhaps telling that the Nazi troll's latest IP got reverted and blocked a little while ago, and then this Wilson popped up, so they might indeed be the same guy." ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
There's some concern that this editor may be back. See my talk page. I don't know much about this. Doug Weller talk 19:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for curing the heartburn!, Your closure/comment and about 3 lots of cuppa teas had seemingly done the trick ... for now .... I give it a week before something else sends me to an early grave
,
Ah well thanks for your comment/closure - You've already restored about 60% of my faith here so you're on a roll lol,
Anyway thanks again & Happy editing, –
Davey2010
Talk 02:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Suggest revoking TP access- just FYI. The rants have become increasingly bizarre. Muffled Pocketed 13:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
If we had a barnstar that featured a shovel, I'd be giving it to you. This particular incident required considerable shoveling of what is left on the street after the parade has ended. Great patience and use of rope. We'd be in a lot better shape if more admins used the discretion they are entrusted with, as you did very well here, and there was much less reliance on ANI. Thanks for a fair job well done. John from Idegon ( talk) 19:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Flohquenbeam,
You are the admin that, ultimately banned my account User:SimonTrew for making legal threats. It was quite right for you to do so, also quite right I believe to express my doubts about right of reply; usually in a legal case the two sides have a chance to discuss rather than have a blanket ban.
However, I revoke all legal threats and will suggest in a constructive way to the Wikimedia Foundation that they should amend their policies to allow users a right of reply before a ban. The only way I can constructively do that, without impersonating and so on, is to do it under my own name User:SimonTrew (which is my real name). I have very much missed contributing to Wikipedia, especially in the small slips written by non native english speakers which could be so easily fixed, but I have not edited at all under any other name or any IP except to give you this, for that you have my assurance. I did create User:SimonTrew2 in an attempt to get a right of reply, but that can be safely deleted, and was certainly not WP:SOCK (it would be a pretty thin veil I think I could have chosen a better disguise).
My beef, over at RfD, really was I was being hammered for as I see it intelligently going through the Neelix redirects and getting rotten tomatoes thrown at me for bad Neelix redirects. As far as I can gather, having gone through thousands of them, Neelix created them in good faith when the Wikipedia search engine was not as good as it now is. Some I have marked as keep, some I have taken to CSD, and some I have listed at RfD. Some take me up the garden path,. as London Buses route 43 did, and spend two days sorting out all the redirects to London Buses.
The real start of the problem was when I marked them at RfD as (neelix redirect), which is what the policy think says I should do, then being told I am a Neelix hater. You can see from the RfD discussions and from my history of keep, csd, refer that if I am not entirely sure it is a speedy delete I take it to RfD for discussion, so quite right that sometimes the outcome is keep, I would not have expected otherwise. I have been made to be the stool pigeon for Neelix but I am a big enough man to take it, as I hope and am sure he is, he was doing his best when the search engine was not as good as it is now. But every time I read Wikipedia and see something against the WP:MOS and so forth that I could quickly correct as a minor edit, it reminds me why I want to be part of this community that tries to make the world better in its own way.
If you could somehow give me, through the channels, a chance to edit in any kind of limited way, that would be better than not editing at all. I do read too, but when I see something that is wrong I want to correct it. 84.3.187.196 ( talk) 12:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC) ( User:SimonTrew under IP, this is the only time I have used this IP or anything near it. Were I want to fake an IP I have a VPN that will send to various contries in Europe, I come here with clean hands. 84.3.187.196 ( talk) 12:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Floq, I was actually in 2 minds on whether to revert or not, Seeing the IP remove someones name I just automatically assumed vandalism, Had I looked at the other users contribs first I probably wouldn't of reverted however I prefer to be safe than sorry that's all,
Anyway hope all is well, Thanks, –
Davey2010
Talk 22:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Floquenbeam. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Please review
the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators'
mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 17:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I've just seen you post at ANI. Do you fancy blocking 86.45.5.6 ( talk · contribs) for a few hours? They've just vandalised a template and an article so I think they may be settling in for a bit of fun. - Sitush ( talk) 17:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
Even though the Broncos do suck (go Giants), I award you the barnstar of good humor for this block description. Dat Guy Talk Contribs 19:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC) |
Giants are the best FBDB -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 19:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
My apologies I was reverting an IP that removed another users comment and some how removed your in the process my apologies. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 21:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Just checked the history and it looks NeilN got the IP reverted as I was trying to do the revert with twinkle and other edits were coming in, so again apologies I was not trying to remove anything. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 21:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@ Floquenbeam: IF Possible - my somewhat recently created template => " Template:Human timeline", transcluded on 155 pages at the moment - has now been vandalized several times (ie, vandalism-1 and vandalism-2) - and may require some page protection - perhaps similar to what you performed on " Template:Life timeline" and " Template:Nature timeline" not too long ago? - in any case - Thanks, at least, for considering the issue - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 13:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
-should have reported this two days ago ;) Muffled Pocketed 12:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I saw that you grasped the nettle and blocked Zaostao. Thank you.
I remain gobsmacked at the amount of leeway that Wikipedia's editing community is consistently willing to extend to dog-whistle racism of various flavors. Even after the thread closed, I see another editor chiming in that unless a user very nearly scrawls "I am a Nazi" on their userpage, we should just ignore this stuff. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 14:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Not cool. I'm trying to find something out on a talk page. I'm trying to find out what happened from another person's perspective. This is not vandalism nor some kind of disingenuous snark. Your threat is not in the spirit of wikipedia. if you wanted to be constructive maybe you could tell me more about what happened to Treasury Tag.-- Dr who1975 ( talk) 14:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Your perspective is incorrect but clearly you have your mind made up about me so it's pointless arguing. I may decide to ask the question again on his page in a more matter of fact way if that will satisfy you but please do not abuse your power and ban me.-- Dr who1975 ( talk) 14:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Wow.... Dennis Brown wants to start a witch hunt against me. I've been on wikipedia for over a decade. I'm sure you could find things you don;t like if you look hard enough. Thanks for confirming all my paranoia about the way this place is run.-- Dr who1975 ( talk) 17:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Dennis Brown actually owes me an apology and teh Don Sahline redirect needs to be put back. It was not a "secret vandalism" link. None of my redirects are "secret vandalism" even the ones that have been deleted because people have misinterpretd nicknames that these people actually have. I stopped arguing on some of them because of that but this is ridiculous. The Don Sahline redirect shoudl be put back and Brown owes me an apology.-- Dr who1975 ( talk) 17:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I found a request on my talk to translate an article - the one I started the year with, and which was on DYK on Wikipedia's 15th birthday. Interesting discussion followed, - such a nice break from the usual being held responsible for all evil on the site, especially annoying FA authors (by doing nothing). -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
For doing good work, making good choices and being an all around good person.
Ratatosk Jones (
talk) 17:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Fair enough on closing that thread - I wasn't aware that blanking talk page messages like that was permitted (hence why I was checking), neither was I aware that I had to notify someone when discussing their actions. In any case, I don't appreciate being labelled a troll just because I did not know. TGS is causing a lot of disruption, has recently been blocked for socking (only 1 week!?!) and I believe is taking as all for a ride. I'm compiling evidence for an SPI, and I'll make sure I let them know when I post it. 68.232.71.82 ( talk) 22:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Being an uninvolved editor concerning the baiting and continued harassing of Cassianto, I believe that any trolling comments, like this posted on Cassianto's talk page should result in a block. Your thoughts? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 20:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Block me for what exactly? The user is breaking Wikipedia policy by removing not only my own comments but my notices of breaches of Wikipedia policy, whilst claiming I have no idea of them despite quoting them. They made a 3RR, then when I placed a friendly notice on their talk page, I was slighted. How is exactly is this being civil and assuming good faith? Then they add a disruptive editing tag to my talk page for reverting the removal of one of my comments on their page, which I did not give the permission for. Every edit to their talk page since then has been reverted, without my permission, and without archiving either. That's a pretty hefty list of breaches, a good few I have seen users banned for.
Uamaol (
talk) 03:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Not to aslo forget the cheek of adding a "Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates" despite doing it themselves!
Uamaol (
talk) 03:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, what KB said. You can't do something to someone's message to change its meaning, but you can delete it from your talk page. While I don't understand the choice of a lot of editors to communicate via templates, Meters is certainly not the only one who does this (you did it too), and there is nothing disruptive on your page from him, and there is nothing malicious in his removal of anything from his own talk page. I assume this has settled down now. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 18:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Might you be so kind as to lock down their talk page access? RickinBaltimore ( talk) 20:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Done -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 20:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Can I ask you to block the user who made this edit when you get a moment? A revdel would be good too. I've emailed the WMF emergency address. agtx 18:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
In case you hadn't seen it, there's an AfD for Larry Pretlow here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Pretlow. An anonymous IP posted the same legal threat as was on the page you deleted, Remove Salt Delete All Current and Pass Articles and Debates on Larry Pretlow. I suggest a block for User:RemoveSaltDelete for legal threats and likely sockpuppetry per WP:DUCK. -- Drm310 ( talk) 20:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
All caps is really, really annoying, and you're just copy/pasting pages
| |
---|---|
Important Request: Larry PretlowPLEASE REMOVE ANY PAGES, TEXT OR MENTIONS OF ANY ARTICLES OR DEBATES OR DISCUSSIONS ABOUT LARRY PRETLOW OR ANY DELETION, BLANK OR SALT OF ANY ARTICLES OR DEBATES OR DISCUSSIONS REGARDING THE SUBJECT. THERE SHOULD BE NO INDICATIONS OF ANY DISPUTES WITH WIKIPEDIA OR DEBATE ABOUT NOTABILITY. THIS CAN DAMAGE THE SUBJECT AT THE FAULT OF WIKIPEDIA. THIS IS NOT A LEGAL THREAT. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR THE RESPECT OF PRIVACY OF A LIVING PERSON WHO DOES NOT WISH TO BE INCLUDED ON WIKIPEDIA DESPITE ANY OPINION OF THE SUBJECT'S LIFE AND CAREER. PLEASE ALSO REMOVE THIS ARTICLE AND ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT MENTIONS OF LARRY PRETLOW AND HIS STAGE NAME LAPRET. SUBJECT IS NOT NOTABLE BASED ON WIKI STANDARDS WHICH DOES NOT DETERMINE AN SUBJECT'S PUBLIC STATUS EXCEPT FOR ONLY INCLUSION ON WIKIPEDIA. HOWEVER, THE SUBJECT REQUEST THAT WIKIPEDIA WITHDRAWS ITS OPIONION OF HIS SAID OR UNSAID NOTABILITYSINCE HE DOES NOT REQUEST FOR DESIRE TO BE INCLUDED IN THIS WIKI ENVIRONMENT EVEN IF HE WERE DETERMINED TO BE NOTABLE BASED ON WIKIPEDIA STANDARDS. PLEASE DO NOT INCLUDE SUCH STATEMENTS AS GIVEN BELOW OR RETAIN ANY LOGS THAT CAN APPEAR IN SEARCH ENGINES. AT NO TIME HAS LAPRET WORLD MADE ANY LEGAL THREATS, HOWEVER, THE REQUEST AND COMMANDS FOR FULL REMOVAL FROM A WIKI ENVIRONMENT UNWARRANTED BY THE SUBJECT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN UNDERSTOOD AS A LEGAL THREAT - BUT A RESPECT FOR PRIVACY AND CAREER. Includes: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry PretlowThe following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was Delete and Salt per (a) WP:CSD#G4, (b) WP:SNOW below, and (c) apparent request from article subject.. Floquenbeam ( talk) 20:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. /info/en/?search=Larry_PretlowThis page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference. 20:26, 13 October 2016 Floquenbeam (talk | contribs) deleted page Larry Pretlow (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Pretlow) |
Please Read Page FULLY then REMOVE. Can also remove and delete this account too. SUBJECT doesn't wish to be included nor mentioned on Wikipedia at all at any time past, present or future. Subject has never claimed to meet WIKIPEDIA Notability Standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syfy Xfinity ( talk • contribs)
*cough* Mlpearc has requested on IRC for this IP to be blocked for something like 5 minutes *cough* Dat Guy Talk Contribs 21:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Done -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 21:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
Great team work - Mlpearc ( open channel) 21:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC) |
Obviously the same person: /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/222.29.61.49 Is there some piece of bureaucracy I'm supposed to go through to get it dealt with? -- JBL ( talk) 18:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for helping with
Draft:Maternal Health in Texas
And a second thanks for helping when there was an urgent schedule. "They doubly benefit the needy who gives quickly." - q:Publilius Syrus Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC) |
There appears to be consensus in regards to the linkspamming @ WT:MMA, which is that the links should be gone. Can I have your permission to remove them? TBMNY ( talk) 01:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, you blocked User:AI RPer as a Turkeybutt JC sock. I'm pretty sure UnforgivablyPotatoes is the same person who keeps adding blocked templates to user talk pages for some reason. See [6] [7] [8]. Sro23 ( talk) 14:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
...oh nice..you froze it with one editor having "redacted" another editor's comments. Juan Riley ( talk) 20:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
It. Doesn't. MATTER. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 20:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
May want to add 2600:1000:b035:ef5a:5afa:9a71:e4b4:493 to that list if you haven't already seen it. TimothyJosephWood 19:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
How come you oversighted EVERYTHING I did? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:2820:E11:29E4:76F:96C2:9240 ( talk) 14:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
For those talk page watchers who are curious about accusations of misuse of oversight: I revdel'd (not oversight) several instances of this user posting the same large silly thing in multiple places using multiple IP's, istead of simply reverting them, on the off chance they hadn't saved a copy offline, so they wouldn't be able to paste it again without significant effort. I realized the likelihood of it working was relatively small but figured I'd give it a try. Oh well, I guess back to RBI. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 17:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
At the thread WP:ANI#Tendentious IP. JzG's there, but he's involved. I've asked more than one admin, so no pressure. Thanks. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js Custom summaries ( Special:Contributions/NQ-Alt) along with API rollback, so no additional windows popup when you mass rollback. - NQ (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
For dealing with the mess I made with CitationCleanerBot! Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC) |
I was catching up on wiki stuff on my phone and saw you posting your arb candidacy, yay! ...Then I read the edit summary. Are you sure you're not running? Hrmph. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 04:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello F. Looks like the editor I should not have to register to make a template ( talk · contribs) has returned as 217.99.0.160 ( talk · contribs). Since it is possible they will move on to another IP or stop (wishful thinking I know) this is more of a heads up than anything else. Regards. MarnetteD| Talk 20:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Sca ( talk) 02:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Per the NY Times: President-elect Donald J. Trump, who campaigned against the corrupt power of special interests, is filling his transition team with some of the very sort of people who he has complained have too much clout in Washington: corporate consultants and lobbyists. I'm not surprised. The "Reagan Democrats" who voted for him are going to get disillusioned with him even faster than the left gave up on Obama. wbm1058 ( talk) 22:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
See outreach: Here. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 00:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Take a look at User talk:67.162.203.107. It appears to be more of a static IP address, as he simply waited out his previous two-week block. Sro23 ( talk) 18:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
...for the fast reaction! Cheers! -- 87.123.36.37 ( talk) 21:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
...7 candidates for 7 positions open on ArbCom, with about a day to go before nominations close. Any thoughts about throwing your hat into the ring? Beyond My Ken ( talk) 22:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
This edit by Alexis Ivanov seems rather ominous considering this user's recent editing history. -- Adam in MO Talk 03:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Floquenbeam.
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins). MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
here?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 18:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Floquenbeam, please protect this page because large ammount of sockpuppetors are trying to modify this topic you must protect with page for a week and block sockpuppetors. MUHAMMAD ALI HAROON ( talk) 08:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm replying here because my talk page is being flooded with edit conflicts. You can take it down, I did not realize RfAs were so serious around here. I hope this little prank will fall under the category of 'humorous content' and not 'vandalism' UNSC Luke 1021 ( talk) 20:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I really hated to go to a second noticeboard on this, but the brusqueness with which my report was dismissed didn't sit well. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 18:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Floquenbeam. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I read this for the first time today. I actually laughed out loud; and would have laughed harder, had it not been altogether too accurate. Cheers, Vanamonde ( talk) 08:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I wanted that the insults stop and thats is the case. The solution is OK for me. Best regards. -- Ms10vc ( talk) 19:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi I don't want to provoke any people. I accept your decision issued yesterday but I ask you what do I have if I am harrassed again ? Reagrds. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 13:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry but I undid you closure. There have been many attempts to sweep this under the carpet, not saying that's your motivation, but it's clear that issues remain unresolved, mainly from my point of view the erroneous claims of IBAN infringements which are lodged in my sanctions. Mike V doing a runner should have no bearing whatsoever on this, we need to ensure someone in his position, i.e. with checkuser and oversight, is held to account, primarily WP:ADMINACCT but more than that since he has super-trusted tools. I would be asking WMF if he has made any CHU requests on me given his sudden interest in my editing patterns. It's a sad decline but it seems apparent from numerous notes from numerous other editors, not a surprise. Better to get this properly resolved now rather than wait for Mike V to return in a puff of smoke and continue in the same damaging way. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
In German we say: Der Klügere gibt nach. There are articles to be written, as you probably know. I miss my friend Alakzi since Mike V blocked him. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, MarnetteD. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you too. Here's to 2017 being better than 2016. I know, it won't be, but one can dream... -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 00:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Auto-confirmed status will not work. Vandal has sleeper accounts. Thank you, nonetheless. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 00:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Rubbish computer (
HALP!:
I dropped the bass?) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
-- Rubbish computer ( HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Merry Christmas! Better not open the box! The Bishonen Conglomerate talk 11:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC).
Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!
|
Thanks, Davey. We did have a very Merry Christmas, hope you did too. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 17:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Wishing you a
Charlie Russell Christmas, Floquenbeam! |
"Here's hoping that the worst end of your trail is behind you That Dad Time be your friend from here to the end And sickness nor sorrow don't find you." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1926. Montanabw (talk) 23 December 2016 (UTC) |
Thanks Montana. Very elegant card, thank you. I too hope the worst end of our trail is behind us, but will be surprised if it is. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 17:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Doug Weller
talk is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.
Thanks, Doug (though this looks vaguely familiar....) Hope yours was special too. Cheers! -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 17:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 19:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy (
talk) is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.
Thanks Iryna Harpy, mine was Christmas (well, and partially the solstice: when the sun sets at 4:30 it's nice to know the days are at least getting longer now), but I'm hoping you enjoyed whichever yours was! -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 17:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I have dealt with this editor before on Wikipedia, and have reported said user to other WP users, diff here for reference
[10]. I noticed the user has now been indef. banned from Wikipedia. The reason for my interest is that the decision behind the users block appears entirely political, i.e The user may hold different political, ideological opinions to the rest of the Wikipedia editing community. This is what you wrote to justify your decision: contained nazi dog whistles, editor now blocked
. Now, I find those views to be morally reprehensible because I strongly disagree with them. However, since when does holding such views qualify someone to be blocked from editing on Wikipedia? Looking at Zaostao's contributions, many were quite constructive and beneficial to the project and the user certainly was no vandal. What if it was decided that I should be blocked from Wikipedia because I have a user-box supporting marriage equality? Or that my user page contained 'social democratic/communistic/socialist dog whistles' due to the red flag that I display on there? I find this logic and reasoning to be deeply distasteful, unfair and without any Wikipedia precedence. --
Donenne (
talk) 12:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
-- Rubbish computer ( HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 12:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
:D thank you for not being around all the time, and playing role of admin to greatly serve this community. Merry Christmas, Woqa Floqqa ;) Deouble ( talk) 19:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC) |
Heh, thanks, Deoble. I very much like the idea behind "thank you for not being around all the time". You're welcome. Merry Christmas to you too. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 17:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Deouble ( talk) 00:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC) Yeah, this site can't take much more chaos from ya! :) Deouble ( talk) 01:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC) Your welcome, and happy new year :)
You recently wrote "Have I mentioned lately that I hate it when someone who is actively edit warring places an edit warring template on the other person's talk page?" I don't know about you, but I certainly have, and indeed I have boomerang 3RR blocked at least one editor for it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Just be up front with the name in future. The Rambling Man ( talk) 22:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
(originally posted to User talk:Umair Aj)
I am not belittling you; indeed, it looks like you're attempting to belittle me with "my dear", although I wonder if this is a language issue, and you misunderstand what "Oh dear" means. It is an expression of surprise, like "Wow" or "Oh my", it is not a form of "my dear", which used the way you used it is demeaning. Anyway, if you really don't want to be dragged into this issue any more, that's fine, but then DanJazzy will probably revert your changes. Is that what you mean? You can't impose your preference thru edit warring, accuse the other editor of edit warring without acknowledging your own share of the blame, then refuse to discuss, and instead make ad hominem attacks, and still expect to have your edits stick. So either participate in the talk page discussion, or accept that your edits will be reverted, whichever you prefer. I will block you from editing for a week if you revert that article again without making a good faith effort to discuss first. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 23:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
(end of cut and paste)
Lie? You are calling me a liar? Very strong accusation again from your side. I think your shallowness is compelling you to resort to this offensive behavior. Do not call me 'Oh dear' and stop lying about not giving one statement again and again regarding your powers of blocking me. Third, better concentrate to justify your edits especially when you are writing someone a liar. Umair Aj ( talk) 00:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Again you are showing your shallowness and mendacity. You are just trying to be sanctimonious and that is all. Next time when you post a message on someone's talk page, do not mention your blocking powers and be a little reasonable. You entirely lack depth in your expressions keeping in mind that English is your first language which amuses me a lot. Finally, an administrator of your stature must show some maturity on his part because you neither inspire respect nor truthfulness. Let me know if you have more complaints. Umair Aj ( talk) 00:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I'll leave it up to you decide what, if anything, to do with this after-close parting shot. — ATS 🖖 talk 23:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Floq, sorry but I got seriously sidetracked. As it happens I have a Hemingway TFA on the horizon, am trying to tidy the associated articles and need User:Victoriaearle/Hemingway sandbox to be resurrected. It has a lot of edits (I don't know if that makes a difference in terms of amount of work involved) but would be thrilled if you could bring it back. Thanks. Victoriaearle ( tk) 19:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Floquenbeam. You recently blocked the above editor for disruptive editing. I removed the section entirely. I have been trying to remember exactly which of our banned trolls this is, I don't think he's posted since the fall of 2015 or 2014 even. His modus operandi is usually to ask about a moral doctrine, an ideology and a geographic location, along the lines of "If Ameicans are so Christian, then why don't they support socialism as the more charitable doctrine?" Last time I came across this person I mentioned him to one of our ref desk regulars, who said "good catch". I think it was @ Jayron32: or @ Nil Einne: who recognized him at that point. I think the geolocation to a proxy server is also telling. μηδείς ( talk) 04:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. O Fortuna! ...Imperatrix mundi. 15:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
It's from Go Fish. When you ask someone else for a card they don't have, they tell you to go fish, i.e. draw from the deck. If you happen to draw the card you asked for from the deck, you fished your wish (and you announce it by saying "fished my wish!"), and you get to continue as if you got the card from a person. So, metaphorically, it's getting something you asked for; I tend to use it somewhat ironically (or on Wikipedia I guess it'd be "borderline ironically" *eyeroll*), where someone gets something they asked for but don't necessarily want. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 18:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Acknowleding the "ease" of doing what you did here, there is still the transparent violation of sanctions involved in the original posting, which I think probably requires some form of addressing. John Carter ( talk) 18:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Normally, I edit happily, but this time, I am feeling upset partly because of my overall performance this month; I have not been doing as well as I could have been, but that is not the main reason why I request a block. No, the main reason is that I feel upset that I am constantly giving up self-control for staying logged in to the English Wikipedia with little progress being made. I think that I am showing signs of Wikipediholism, as I am waiting for a chance to edit particular articles but despite not doing really much am still logged in.
I hereby request a block as a means of taking a wikibreak so that I would not feel as if I have to stay being signed onto Wikipedia. Because you are one of the administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks, would you like to place a block on my account?
Gamingforfun
365 03:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Hey there, you recently have blocked Abhinav619's account for being WP:COMPROMISED. The user have since contacted me in real life and was able to recover the account. I confirm the real identity of the user as they served as the former Executive Committee member for Wikimedia India chapter. I think the block can be lifted now. Cheers! Jim Carter 18:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Floq, please could you revoke talk page access for 185.75.56.168? Thank you. Linguist talk| contribs 22:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Couldn't have put it better myself. Help yourself to User:Ritchie333/Userbox Trump; several other Wikipedians have. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.
13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I am involved in an edit war at Joseph Crook. Some is repeated reinstatement of contested material, some is one-off changes that are not, in my opinion, an improvement. I did try to engage - sort of - on the other person's talk page but they're not responding. Their first edit to that article today was particularly bad and now I think they're just trying to wind things up. Any chance you could take a look? If you have to block me for warring then so be it but I don't think I can be "done" for 3RR because of the range of issues. - Sitush ( talk) 15:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Hey, I filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alaninter, but even there I wasn't sure if the master was actually the master or just a compromised account. While I completely accept Bbb23's findings that Alaninter is not related to the rest of the gang (and I guess the prior contributions are too stale), I still have a lingering suspicion that it's a compromised account. The current contributions around Ananya Birla are quite different from earlier ones which are UK or biology/nature related and the language seems a bit different too. Could you take a look and let me know if you think I'm just seeing ghosts where I shouldn't be? cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 03:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
This smells really fishy to me. Although the user removed the tag later, I still really don't feel good about the user.
Stikkyy
(talk)
(contributions) 17:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).
Please explain this and this. This notice serves as a warning about personal attacks. El_C 23:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
No thank you |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I won't comment on the rest of this, but I find this especially disappointing coming from a functionary. -- Rs chen 7754 21:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think I have the words to reflect the disappointment I felt on reading this thread. I disagree with those above as to who was doing the baiting. I have always respected your work on this project, but baiting a sanctioned editor into potentially breaching the terms of their ArbCom restrictions is beyond the pail, and it's what I see in that thread. I gather there is history between you and TRM that would provide context to this rather uncharacteristic behavior from you, but that only reinforces my concern as to why you got into an argument with TRM on WP:ERRORS in the first place. Might I suggest if you have trouble holding your cool in discussions with TRM that you simply avoid him? Others can respond to his posts on WP:ERRORS. WJBscribe (talk) 12:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Ȝor prettikes ar profane, Puir ladeis to supplant, Alexander Scott, 1568 is the earliest confirmed use of this meaning—albeit in Scotland—with Richard Braithwait's
So should our prophane Pamphleteers restraine their libidinous writings morein 1614 the earliest confirmed use in England itself.) I think we can allow that this meaning has had enough time for anyone who disapproves to raise objections. ‑ Iridescent 18:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Don't sweat it Floq, anyone who's spent any serious amount of time editing here will have bad days, and while I don't think I have told anyone directly to fuck off, I have come very close, up to and including of hitting "Show preview" showing me replying to a comment with "Fuck off" + signature and hovering the mouse over the "Save changes" button while wondering of the consequences of clicking it. I'm glad Beeblebrox wrote that essay, the most important part of which (IMHO) is "don't do this, it's not worth the hassle". (PS: I lied, though that's not directly telling a specific person to fuck off, and I did apologise) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Could you please take a look at the trolling going on at this article? Every principle of common sense I have tells me to just fix it, but I suppose it could technically somehow become a 3RR violation. I'm forcing myself to take Gerda's advice and not feel I have to fix everything myself. Thanks. Joefromrandb ( talk) 14:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Joefromrandb:, Lectonar's protection seems like a good idea. Philafrenzy may be right or wrong, friendly or unfriendly, reasonable or unreasonable, but (and this is, I believe, a first) I agree with PBP here that they clearly aren't a troll (of course, PBP immediately calls you a troll, which is obviously stupid, so that didn't last long). It seems like 90% of the key to success around here is to overcome your frustration and be willing to discuss things you really don't think need to be discussed, if the person you disagree with is acting in good faith. I think Philafrenzy is acting in good faith. I don't necessarily agree with them, and am not a huge fan of tagging an article without trying to fix it, but that isn't part of the deal. And to be honest, I've done that before myself, and you probably have too.
Gerda is right; there are (breaks out template to check) 6,829,517 articles, many of them in horrible shape. You'll drive yourself crazy if you insist on fixing every one you come across yourself, and getting frustrated every time someone disagrees with something you think is obvious.
And lastly, take it from someone who narrowly escaped Serious Sanction for Personal Attacks: go extraordinarily lightly on saying rude things about people, even if they deserve it (or, as in this case, because they don't actually deserve it). Far better to mutter it under your breath. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 16:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Assuming good faith works miracles ;) - I have been called passive-aggressive because I thanked someone, - so even thanking is dangerous when met with not so good faith. - Assuming good faith works miracles. If you want to know about a user you put their name to a little test: Joefromrandb, The Rambling Man, Philafrenzy, Floquenbeam, - and then lets get together and have a drink. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Incidentally, I think it was Floq who said something (this is probably a bad paraphrase) about how much different the conversations would probably be if we all worked in a setting where we were physically present together and risked a punch in the mouth for one off-color remark or another. I'm surprised to see friction between you and The Rambling Man. In my (admittedly limited) discussions with him concerning issues with the main page, I've always found him to be an amicable guy. You're obviously a rather friendly individual, and you seem to have extremely thick skin; the situation between the 2 of you is probably an anomaly of interpersonal relationships as they exist in cyberspace. I always thought you were a nice guy, until the time that you blocked me. By the way, that was an egregiously shitty block; maybe not the most unfair block in the history of the project, but by far the most unfair one I've ever received. I digress–what I mean to say is that my opinion of you went from quite high to less-than-zero after that incident. I've come to believe I got that very wrong. At the time, I figured that you had to be a giant, Machiavellian asshole to make a block like that. Aside from that incident, I've generally found your conduct as an administrator to be beyond reproach (your block of JClemens had no basis in policy, but in terms of hilarity, as well as much-needed and long-overdue poetic justice, it was a beautiful IAR-move). I've long wondered how such an otherwise-circumspect individual could do something so contumelious. I suppose the answer is that it wasn't contumelious; that you are an amicable and circumspect individual and you are not a Machiavellian asshole. Sorry for rambling on (pun half-intended). It's just that the row between you and TRM prompted me to do some thinking. The block itself is still an issue to me, but it's obvious now (and should have at least been evident earlier) that it wasn't the act of perfidy that I made it out to be. I thought (sincerely) that I was reciprocating your "dickishness", and felt moved to do so in spades. In hindsight, I was actually stultifying your character with canards ("attempting to stultify" is likely more accurate - I wouldn't think that Wikipedia (or you) gives a shit about my opinion of anyone). To that end, I apologize. Joefromrandb ( talk) 03:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Turkeybutt JC has come back as Stikkyy. [17] [18] Special:Diff/764779368 Special:Diff/764779302 Sro23 ( talk) 02:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Sro23: I'm not saying you're definitely wrong - edits like that to sockpuppet notices are very often a red flag (lack of self control on their part? It's really odd) - but I don't see any other evidence that would make me confident that this is him. I have not done an exhaustive evaluation, I really have no time for that due to real life. If they're actually being disruptive somewhere that I haven't seen, then consider an SPI. But in my brief skim through their contribs I didn't see anything besides the sock notice changes. I just sent you and email with a list of things to look for if you want to, but decided not to list them here on-wiki. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 18:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Assam Rifles, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages VSM and YSM. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Sorry for the delay - I just realized, whilst sorting out newsletter subscriptions, that I never thanked you for this. So, many thanks for the useful and friendly intervention - I was getting very, very frustrated! Have a lovely Saturday, cheers, DBaK ( talk) 10:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Hey, Thanks a lot for your help with the IP hopper. The editor is a long term abuser for Taiwan related topics and has been POV pushing on numerous related topics for the last few years. I and some other editors have been dealing with the editor for the past few months. This has resulted into stalking and attacks on other pages we edit. The IP hopper uses a VPN to edit pages and thus difficult to track or block. I can provide more information(list of pages affected, editor behavior) if required. Any help will be greatly appreciated. Also, the editor is back at this IP [19]. Thanks. Adamgerber80 ( talk) 23:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
There were a rash of these reported to ANI in January and February. Just nuke, restore good versions, move to proper place, and block the undisclosed paid editor/spammer. -- NeilN talk to me 21:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Glad you checked that out. I made the assumption that as the anon was adding Donald Trump to some (yet another) bizarre article, it was vandalism. Cheers Jim1138 ( talk) 08:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Please let me know when you're online and have a few minutes. If you don't mind, reply on my talk page (I just want to make sure we can have a 2-way conversation; at my page I'll be able to revert any 3rd-party comments without issue). Thanks. Joefromrandb ( talk) 01:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm posting the same message (with minor rewording) on my talk page, Joe's talk page, and PBP's talk page.
Oh for Pete's sake; I didn't remember I'd already blocked PBP for harrassing Joe back in 2013. At the time, I blocked PBP for a week because it was a similar pattern of behavior to PBP's hounding of JPL ealier that year; now I look thru PBP's recent contribs, and he's still trying to get Joe and JPL blocked.
I'm officially warning PBP that initiating contact with Joe, or reverting Joe on any page PBP has not previously edited, or making derogatory comments about Joe anywhere, or templating Joe, or editing Joe's talk page at all except as required to notify him of a noticeboard discussion, or pinging him unnecessarily, will be considered harassment and will result in a 2 week block.
I'm telling Joe that the above warning is null and void (as least as far as I'm concerned) if Joe initates contact with PBP, or reverts PBP on any page Joe has not previously edited, or makes derogatory comments about PBP anywhere, or templates him, or edits PBP's talk page except as required to notify him of a noticeboard discussion, or pings him unnecessarily.
This is not a complete IBAN. For example, I don't think I can prevent PBP from reporting Joe to ANEW if Joe has actually been edit warring, without an IBAN discussion at AN/ANI. But PBP cannot insert himself into someone else's ANEW report to snark about him; that would be considered harassment. There is no limitation on participating in the same discussions as long as there is a reason for it, and no baiting/harassing is going on; so a discussion about an article they've both edited is OK (though they both need to bend over backwards to be polite), but jumping into a talk page discussion the other is in on an article you've never edited in order to disagree is not.
In other words, this is as close to an IBAN as I think I can get without going to AN/ANI. PBP because he is harassing Joe; Joe because the whole point is unwanted contact, so it needs to be mutual. If either one of you actually wants an official IBAN, go to AN/ANI. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 21:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
While I guess most editors have their niches, I'm about as much of a nomad as one can be here. I have a few pages that I check regularly, but for the most part I just wander from place to place, making improvements where I can, while in turn always learning cool new shit along the way. The same goes for WP-space. The "Vital Articles" project has never been a big interest of mine, and the regular presence of another user there has always been all the more reason for me to stay away. Nonetheless, I have chimed in on rare occasion, in instances I deemed important. One of these times was during a very spirited debate over the proposed removal of George W.Bush. Incidentally, I believe this was my first encounter with a certain nameless user (I could be wrong). In an astounding coincidence, that user again proposed the removal of President Bush immediately after the quasi restrictions you imposed on the two of us. There could be a solid claim made that I have no business showing up there for literally any other reason. Even the other handful of times that I've opined at that page were for largely trivial issues. This, however, was a debate in which I was quite entrenched. I was going to come here yesterday to seek your guidance, but I figured I would wait a bit, and see which way the proposal was going; if there was clear consensus to retain, there would be no need for me to add a pile-on "oppose", while if there was clear consensus to remove, my "oppose" would be largely pointless. As I had expected (and like last time), it serms very evenly divided. I feel that I'm both entitled and obligated to register my opinion. I intend to sign my name to the "oppose" section, adding the following comment: "If anyone is interested in my reasoning, it can be found in the archives/history. I discussed this the last time it was proposed, and my views have not changed. For reasons of which others may or may not be aware, I will have no further comment about this, nor will I respond to ANY questions, so please don't ask me." Would this be OK? I'm not asking if it's technically permited within the boundaries that you drew - I'm assuming it is, and if I'm wrong, this whole thing is a non-starter anyway. I'm asking, rather, if you think it's "OK". In your honest opinion, am I on solid ground here? If you think that it looks like gaming/testing, or even comes close to looking like that, then I will respect that. This, I have to assume, is an anomaly. I can't think of any other situation based on my history that would necessitate my "responding" to him. I'm sure you've had more than your fill of this whole situation, so please don't think I'll be coming here regularly to ask for clarification about this or that. My intent is to stay as far away from him as possible. Joefromrandb ( talk) 13:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Joefromrandb and Purplebackpack89: Sorry I'm late in replying, I try to avoid WP on weekends because it's generally a depressing place these days. But to answer previous question(s) from both of you: I think, in spite of my admitted suckiness at crafting impossible-to-game solutions with all the i's dotted and all the t's crossed, I actually covered this. If there's a topic both of you previously were involved with, there's no requirement for either of you to avoid it. I don't really want to start parsing what level/type of previous involvement "counts". It's not an interaction ban, it's a harassment ban, with the realization that tricking/baiting someone into harassment will make me lose interest in enforcing it. So do by all means have a civil discussion on any subject you're both already involved in. Don't by any means follow people to articles you've never participated in before to tweak someone's nose. As another example, I seem to recall PBP participates in AFD a lot (can't recall about Joe); that doesn't mean he can't participate in an AFD Joe has commented in. It does mean that he shouldn't be AFD'ing an article Joe has worked on. Or Joe AFD'ing one of PBP's articles of interest. Nor should etiher one chime in on subjects they've never demonstrated interest in. This is just one example, not an exhaustive list of what's OK and what's not OK. No need/reason to reply or start a discussion here. And remember if anyone wants to actually turn this into an actual interaction ban, ANI is that way. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 14:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm all in for attribution, and its a requirement. And if there is any question, obviously credit should be shared. And you could give them credit for the DYK, too, if it runs. DYK is not a
Zero sum game.
I know you don't like any of this. If it were a cut and paste, I also think it should not run at DYK. Old wine in new bottles, so to speak. And indeed, the same article is ineligible for DYK. But I still don't think this was cut and pasted, and I would think that if
The C of E copied he would have noted it in the edit summary and the talk page. He didn't. You are fast on the accusations (this time of 'plagiarism', last time 'off wiki conspiracy', and short on proof once again. Whatever happened to
WP:AGF?
If there was a cut and paste then it should be admitted and corrected.
7&6=thirteen (
☎) 14:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
So this is another "sit there and listen to me but I refuse to listen to you" thread. I guess that's fairly common on WP, and I'm probably guilty of doing it sometimes myself. Indeed, I kind of did it in the section above, although I had the good grace to do it on my own talk page. Maybe we should have a separate namespace for it, where the person being lectured is prevented by the software from responding, saving people from needlessly typing "I'm done here"s; maybe User lecture:Floquenbeam. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 19:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I think this has legs. Four of them, probably. This is aard work. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 21:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Surely Aardvark's RfB should run on Saturday, given the date. Sadly, I won't be editing then, but I could knock up a nice nom statement anyway in aadvance. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 22:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Re your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cell Phone Signal Booster, I seem to recall a time when new accounts (not yet confirmed) could not create pages in mainspace. Perhaps the persons behind the coopt an existing page tactic recall similarly? — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 06:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Fl., I am surely partly responsible for this turn of events- I took my eye off the ball. I was going to leave a 'stern message' this orning about the lack of article work (one edit every 24 hours, I think it looked like at the time)- but, I forgot. If I had, maybe something would have changed- or at least we would be discussing it. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 14:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I spent about 10 minutes today catching up on what the Category Police have been up to lately. I would not even begin to know how to explain this to someone not familiar with Wikipedia. 28bytes ( talk) 02:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello Floquenbeam, can you please take care of this as well. Thank you – GSS ( talk| c| em) 16:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).
I saw your note on WP:BLPN but all I can think of is this Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Floquenbeam. I probably used the worng tag to request the deletion of Duits. If that is the case, please let me know what is the appropriate tag. Keeping a page called Duits as an alternative name for the German language is nothing short of absurd. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 16:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. (User:Nyttend is unavailable, so he asked me to have a look.) Seems like a pretty clearcut case of violating the interaction ban, to me, but I wanted your input because you were involved in the initial discussion, and I wasn't. I've blocked User:Dennis Bratland for 72 hours accordingly, since it appears he violated the ban last week as well. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 14:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I edit conflicted and managed to undo your removal of the unblock request here. I just left it as-is; if you think it should still go, please feel free to remove it. Sorry about that! ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 22:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the recent unblock review. The block didn't expire, it just went away (I forget the expiration time but it was Apr 22). There was some screwiness with the Unblock Ticket Request System -- when I checked the "My account is blocked" item, it came back saying it wasn't; when I checked "IP address is blocked", it came back saying that wasn't. During all that I did some editting tests, and they were all blocked.
I don't need any attention on this, just thought I'd let you know.
BMJ-pdx ( talk) 22:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I read Wikipedia a lot. Its just I rarely if ever edit things because I'm not typically researching something worthy of a post. I am new enough to the editing process that I wasn't sure how to flag something as vandalism. When I have time after work or this coming weekend I'll read through the stuff you sent me. Thanks again. Drakesax ( talk) 18:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
I am not sure if you remember me, but we came across twice
first here, and then
here.
There are two reasons why I am contacting you. First, I wanted to let you know, contradicting to my word, I am back to editing wikipedia. I hope it is okay. Second: I want to apologise to user Swarm. But you specifically told me not to contact him, so I cant. I factually respect him, and I feel very guilty about what happened. Would you please let him know about this post? I apologise again to both of you for the trouble I caused in those days. I was in a lot trouble because of my lack of sleep for 5-6 consecutive days. It caused agitation all the time.
I hope you guys dont think of me as a troll, or some vandal. Thanks, and I apologise again. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Anyways, I am not going to contact you guys casually. But some incidents might occur where you will need ask me "why are you edit warring with a bot?" lol
PS:would you please tell Swarm about apology? Please, tell him kiran honestly wants to apologise from his heart. Not a part of formality. Cheers. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Because everyone needs animals in their life!
UpsandDowns1234 (
🗨) (
My Contribs) 23:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey,
You reverted my edit to Template:R3. Should I stick noinclude tags around that for template?
-- UpsandDowns1234 ( 🗨) ( My Contribs) 19:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Despite all the many people telling UAD1234 (with gradually decreasing levels of patience) to quit treating Wikipedia as his personal sandbox, he's never actually received a formal warning. Given that his (we can safely assume this is a "he", I think) response to the above was to go to the user talk page of the US Congress and write "Uncle Sam rocks!", I've rectified that situation. ‑ Iridescent 00:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).
Not sure why this was reverted? If the indents are not prefixed with #
the numbering restarts. —
foxj 21:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm a little curious, and I had some interaction with you in the past, and seem to remember you being fair and competent, so I thought I would ask.
Let me first say that I don't know where you find the patience to do what you do. Had I to make a decision about UAD1234, he/she would already be permanently banned. He or she is having you on, having a party at en:WP's expense. On the other hand, I have found Whiskeymouth to be competent, knowledgeable and sympathetic. I know editors sometimes seem to suffer burnout and begin to act irrationally. I saw that he was blocked more than once. So many times, though, I run across a username I recognise and decide to check their usertalk to see if they are still active, only to find them banned or blocked, sometimes "retired" or on indefinite sabbatical. There's so much to be done. I thought you might be a person to ask, as this most recent block is not by you, but you did once block him in the past.
If you feel it's none of my business, you may say so. You won't hurt my feelings (or I'll get over it). If this forum is too public, I can be reached via Ragityman(at)gmail, but I don't check it as often as I should. As I'm sure you can easily verify, I am not a sock, and I really don't even have a dog in this fight. As I said, I'm just curious.
I like your Schiller quotation. I may borrow it. If I do, I'll put it back. rags ( talk) 02:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
—usernamekiran
(talk) has given you a
Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{ subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. |
Hi. I didnt know who else to tell to.
If one looks at
Anita Sarkeesian's article from computer, one can see bullet points between her occupations. But if one looks at it from mobile/tablet, there are two-three spaces between the occupation.
I think it goes like this for all the infoboxes with flatlist parameter, not just person (or any human).
Like being discussed in the section above, i saw you using profanity because of a user made unhelpful changes regarding templates lol. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to WP:AN can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you. -- Slither Snake Sempter, 20:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
One hopes you didn't mean to protect Syndicalism indefinitely. Mark Schierbecker ( talk) 00:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Please avoid the phrasing you used at User_talk:Burning_Pillar#De_facto_topic_ban. You can accomplish the same thing by noting that further controversial changes, especially accompanied by edit warring, are highly likely to result in a block for disruptive editing. Your specific phrasing that you're enacting a de facto unilateral topic ban oversteps what a single administrator has the authority to do. In particular, if he were to make a non-controversial edit (typo fix, etc.) and you felt the need to follow that up with a block per your "de facto topic ban", that would cause an unnecessary hubbub. In this case, phrasing matters. ~ Rob13 Talk 23:53, 12 May 2017
You know, you might consider "de facto topic banning" the person in question from any namespace that isn't the main namespace per WP:NOTHERE. WP:VPP#Perennial proposal:Delete unreferenced articles is their latest proposal.... -- Izno ( talk) 01:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, would you take a look at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#.27not.27_favourable
The discussion was hatted by user Ian.Thompson after I and Baseball Bugs suggested it. We've had an edit warring IP 2606 restoring it, then hatting and refactoring my comments. The single-use IP interference speaks for itself. Thanks. μηδείς ( talk) 02:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi.
If i want to see source code template, how can i do that? I just want to see, not to edit, so read-only mode would be okay too. For example, of this template: {{subst:deletion sorting|cat}}
Thanks a lot. :-) —usernamekiran (talk) 09:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
With regards to this discussion at ANI, what is your opinion on these actions ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8) to circumvent any pending discussion at Module talk:Webarchive and make the same disputed changes to 7 other templates without soliciting any input from other editors? 2601:5C2:280:8043:F126:B333:2DF4:1FEA ( talk) 05:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
A truly monumental thing today,- just the scoring was too long for a DYK, and the list of authors and quoted works would have filled the section. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).
A user reverted your removal of unearned user privilege badges. Cordially, Mathglot ( talk) 08:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm laughing so hard that I'm crying! Thanks for making me laugh during a very depressing time in my life. - JohnAlbertRigali ( talk) 07:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Five years! |
---|
In case you like some music in between, here's Andreas Schager, with some good stories such as stepping in as Siegfried before ever singing the role on stage. He came to my attention in 2012, in the good old times of Hammer. Nail. Door. We are in the year of reformation. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi there. You locked the Nudah page, however I've done nothing to vandalize it. I was working on adding credible sources to the article to establish the subject's notability. We're talking about a very established online personality. I have seen lesser known YouTubers on the site before. So I don't think you should immediately dismiss this subject as non-notable. Perhaps you are not so familiar with the gaming / eSports community? StarWars96 ( talk) 21:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Am I correct that you previously told a certain user that he was not permitted to edit my talk page? Joefromrandb ( talk) 01:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I'm not sure if the Arb case is the right place for this, so I figured I'd play it safe and contact you here. I saw you had a problem(?) with my sentence ""Reminds me of the old "I'm not a racist, but..." excuse." Just to be clear and prevent misunderstandings, I am of course not suggesting Godsy is a racist. I was making the comparison because he wrote "I've always been one to respect community consensus, however", which is the same kind of contradiction. As in 'I will never do [whatever], but..'. The best and most well known example of this is the "I'm not a racist, but.." and that's why I mentioned it. As an example of self-contradiction, nothing more. Regards, Yintan 18:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).
?fuzzy=1
to the URL, as with
Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.Hi Floquenbeam - have a question for you. I created an
essay a few years ago that was unjustly attacked. When I reported the disruption at ANI,
the discussion was hijacked and I was unfairly taken out by a boomerang based on -0- supporting evidence and 100% asininity. Bygones. I'm here now because one of those same editors has made his troll-like presence known after all this time. I am trying to AGF, but saw where there was a previous issue that involved the hijacking of the subject editor's
account, so now I'm wondering if the hijacking may have happened again.
My initial concerns were raised over the edits at
WP:AVDUCK - petty actions that do nothing but notify me via my Watchlist. I thought maybe it was a BOT. The last edit was most troubling because it appears it was done to promote an essay that editor authored rather than trying to improve the AVDUCK essay. Please refer to the following edit summary:
(See Wikipedia:Citation underkill for a serious essay.) which is spam in disguise. The edit aroused my curiosity, so I asked about it at the editor's TP. The exchange sequence follows:
(1),
(2),
(3),
(4), and it isn't just me who is being reverted and ignored:
(5),
(6). Your input will be greatly appreciated.
Atsme
📞
📧 22:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the housekeeping at my talk page. I presume you already figured out it was this. Maybe BOLO for more socks, they tend to run in waves. I saw this, which also fits the LTA pattern. FYI. Montanabw (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
Would you mind disabling this IP's talkpage access again. Another admin blocked them shortly after your one week block expired and they're clearly abusing their talkpage once again. Thanks. 59.84.253.250 ( talk) 12:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I think this needs an indef. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&diff=prev&oldid=791121938 is an implied threat of violence. MarkBernstein ( talk) 17:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for hatting the comments to my oppose at Cullen328's RfA. Unfortunately piling up and attacking is (still) all too common, thank you for cutting it short, specially because most likely you also disagreed with me. I admit I have was not aware that my poor interaction with him was from 5 years ago, so I striked my oppose with a short explanation. If you think it is best moved into the hidden text, to avoid any more confusion, please do so (or say so, and I will). Thank you. - Nabla ( talk) 20:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
DYK ... that I put my memories on the Main page again? Saw Die Walküre of the Ring mentioned. - A good argument is fine, but a revert with edit summary "ridiculous" hardly makes me deviate from my New Year's resolution. - This year, I missed this, for this (to be expanded, see external links). -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Regarding this, I certainly don't think I am somehow better than the user because he made his edits before I signed up. That would be absurd and I said nothing to suggest that I felt that way. On the contrary, I objected to the fact that the editor in question implied he was somehow better than those who signed up after he made his contributions. I understand why you didn't like what I had to say, and you might very well be right, but I was surprised that you interpreted my words in such a fashion. Even though we often disagree, I respect you a great deal. Lepricavark ( talk) 01:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I have [23] posted] a request about Paraduin, an article you deleted, at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Paraduin. Dolberty ( talk) 11:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC) |
I assume you've watchlisted all 900 users who voted in your RFA and you thanked. So I'll just say "you're quite welcome, glad to have you aboard", and not bother pinging you. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 14:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
For this. I should have suggested SoWhy change their username to User:Aahing SoWhy before RfB. Please pass my best to User:Aardvark Floquenbeam. Maybe I should add a link to this page to the RfB instructions? -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 13:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Wotcha Floq, for what it's worth I vaguely remember a similar !vote on a recent RfA along the lines of our laundry-based friend - good spot :-) -- There'sNoTime ( to explain) 13:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).
Floq, I saw your posting on User talk:Filigumba. You might want to have a look at this list of accounts created by Filigumba. Quack quack. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 14:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Thanks for you edits. I don't want to sue anywone, but I have been stalked by the named user for over a year now. Please see what she is doing: I am a wikipedia-user of nine years meanwhile, there has never been anything. But since a while, this lady gained an obsession about my person. She nearly tries to change every legit edit I am doing and worse, she even started doing edits to my very own userpage with permission. I the meanwhile, someone from California (checked over the IP) tried to log in and take control over the e-mail account I am using for wikipedia here, and I presume, that is clearly her. This woman is a stalkerand there are rules in the state of Califoria. Please keep that in mind. I don't want to go into legal action, if she stops. But in the last weeks, it does not seem like that. So give her that warning, she has to stop or beeing taken into consequences. And, as I am an avid editor her, of course I don't want to stop working on here. But I am not the bad guy. She is. And there is a breaking point, and here actions will make reaching this point. You always need to here both sides of the story. But with your text, it sounds like only her part is interesting for you. There won't be any legal actions, as it is quite complicated to sue in the US from my part of the world, anyway. But if things need to be done, my contacts will help me doing this. But this is something that don't need to happen-- Robberey1705 ( talk)
Hey,
Hope you don't mind the Thanks I sent for your action on that report you handled. Quick question, but this was posted under your response by the reported user:
"Can we all at least put on wrong version tags? Anmccaff (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)"
Any thoughts on this? GUtt01 ( talk) 21:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
My edit, which you reverted, isn't the edit I made. All I did was remove a stray character before the two equal signs of the header so it would show up as a header. It looks like I removed your sig, which wasn't even there when I edited the page. Your revert of what I didn't do makes sense, but I can't figure out the rest. Of course it looks fine now and it's not important at all, but I like everything to make sense (you can only imagine what a curse that is).-- Bbb23 ( talk) 21:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
So, you said, on my talk page, referencing (presumably) several of my edits, that they were "opinions and guesses". While I understand this (I mean, opinions and guesses are not anywhere near good for the encyclopedia), I was wondering, which of my edits were you referring to?
AnimosityAnimalEdits ( talk) 17:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello Floquenbeam - just letting you know your recent post at the ArbCom case re. The Rambling Man needs a little bit of copy editing. If you're busy, I don't mind doing so for you. Please don't take this the wrong way - just a friendly notice. Zero talk 14:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I apologize for giving in a classic example of hostility and vitriol as I had on my talk page. I also apologize to @
SchroCat: for assuming that the editor assumed that I had been purposely edit-warring and to @
TJRC: for calling that editor "ignorant", for which that is the first time that I have ever wanted to be blocked. I usually keep my tone restrained from being insane, but I became fed up this time, and there is no way that I could possibly, possibly become one among administrators because that is my typical personality. I would also like to tell you that I have read your thoughts on my talk page so many times that I have lost count, and I was not even counting. Lastly, the only thing that I am worried about is the fact that I may repeat my hostile behavior (and have somewhat more confidence to do so) now that I have finally done it.
Gamingforfun365
(talk) 06:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
The drive-by busybody who reverted that one section is most likely a banned user. That's why I reverted it. Your own deletion is fine. :) ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for closing that AN/I thread. Good grief. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 20:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC) |
Yeah, that discussion jumped the shark a while ago. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 20:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I have referred to you here: [1] - Roberthall7 ( talk) 19:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Recently, I've had this extremely unhealthy obsession with editing articles. Apparently I seem to be taking WP:NPOV too seriously. I do get that a large edit is more likely to hit an edit conflict since they take more time to do. I just can't help myself. I want to replace every mention of pass away with die. Pass away is an euphemism that should not be used. Die is more accurate. I don't believe that articles should say nice or rude things about anything, they should just assume indifference towards everything.
I try to make sure that articles that read like this:
become more like this:
Don't you notice how non-neutral the red example is and how encyclopedic the green example is?
I don't like the use of positive or negative bias in articles, such as this;
I would want that to look like this:
Do you really think that the positive loading and puffing in the red text is really necessary for Wikipedia articles? I don't think so. I'm one of those strictly neutralist Wikipedians.
Just because you think that something is [peacock] or you think that [weasel] that something is [peacock] or that almost everyone agrees that something is [peacock] that doesn't make it a fact, it's still an opinion, but if you want those words in the Wikipedia articles, at least cite a reliable source and put it in quotes so as to preserve the neutrality of the articles. You can criticize, bite, attack or even threaten to block or ban me just because I just started this account a few weeks ago and your account was here for years collecting all kinds of knowledge and wisdom on Wikipedia but no matter how much we learn, we can never know everything. I believe that we should not let personal bias get to the best of us as editors when trying to contribute to Wikipedia.
As the worst editor ever (and I think I should get a Wikipedia's Dumbest Editor award) I'd like to figure out how to make Wikipedia articles as neutral as possible without inadvertently terrorizing its contents. I keep having to realize again and again that I have to make small edits. That makes sense to me because if I take too long to edit something, I'd most likely crash into an edit conflict. If I keep making multiple small edits each only changing one small area or word at a time and then telling what I did in the edit summary would that be okay?
#NoobLivesMatter -- Turkeybutt ( talk) 17:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.
Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.
Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here
For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
At the AI noticeboard, you described one of my comments as "really poorly thought out." The editor opening the request closed it shortly afterwards, so I didn't have a chance to respond. As you noticed, I wasn't trying to say that the allegations made against the Israeli team were true. Personally, I think the chances that they were true are vanishingly minute. I think there are reasons not to absolutely discount them though. My knowledge of the sequence of events is a bit hazy, but I think it's true to say that it started when the President of Haiti made accusations that some of the helpers who'd entered Haiti after the disaster were engaged in organ trafficking. That might have been true or false. If it was true, then it means that it was possible that any helper may have been involved ... and that includes the Israeli team. So, there is your possibility and I don't think that thinking that way makes me credulous. My purpose at the Jenny Tonge article to this point has been to make sure that the rules on sourcing were followed. As you'll know, to state that something is false, you actually need a source which says that thing is false; if all you have is a source which reports that someone has said that something is false, all you can cite the source to state is that someone has said that something is false. That's basically what it came down to. If any of that is badly thought out, please get back to me. ← ZScarpia 21:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Floquenbeam, another editor has pointed out the note at the top of your talkpage to me. Sorry to hassle you. I'll clear off. ← ZScarpia 11:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I was going to let this discussion die off without intervening, but today I saw a recurrence of this disturbing editing pattern- ZScarpai removed a description provided by a mainstream newspaper (Jersualme Post) , and replaced it with a description that comes from a web site that alongside the usual anti-Israeli, pro-BDS activism material also that dabbles in Holocaust denial and wild conspiracy theories . Perhaps a topic ban is not a bad idea, after all. Epson Salts ( talk) 23:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
We protection-collided. Mine was shorter. I think that's what she would prefer, but she can do what she wants when she returns tomorrow. If there are further problems before that, you (or I) can extend it.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Getting excited about going to Bruges, tomorrow! (more on top of my talk) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Floquenbeam, regarding this warning, you might be interested in this user's contributions, my reverts, their discussions on talk at
I just undid two more of their edits ( [2], [3]), but following and checking all of them is getting a bit tiresome. This continued misinterpretation of guideline and policies (and essays) might be a slight case of wp:CIR perhaps. Cheers - DVdm ( talk) 09:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
There's another instance that I have documented on Talk:Human rights#The_.22replace.5Bment.5D_.5Bof.5D_synonyms_for_said.22, which I think you will also find useful and relevant. Chenzw Talk 02:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
This purely trollish act speaks for itself. Please consider extending block and revoking TP access. John from Idegon ( talk) 23:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
One followup comment I was trying to post: "It's one of Vote(X)'s occasional tactics. Whether he's also the Nazi troll is hard to say for sure. But it's perhaps telling that the Nazi troll's latest IP got reverted and blocked a little while ago, and then this Wilson popped up, so they might indeed be the same guy." ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
There's some concern that this editor may be back. See my talk page. I don't know much about this. Doug Weller talk 19:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for curing the heartburn!, Your closure/comment and about 3 lots of cuppa teas had seemingly done the trick ... for now .... I give it a week before something else sends me to an early grave
,
Ah well thanks for your comment/closure - You've already restored about 60% of my faith here so you're on a roll lol,
Anyway thanks again & Happy editing, –
Davey2010
Talk 02:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Suggest revoking TP access- just FYI. The rants have become increasingly bizarre. Muffled Pocketed 13:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
If we had a barnstar that featured a shovel, I'd be giving it to you. This particular incident required considerable shoveling of what is left on the street after the parade has ended. Great patience and use of rope. We'd be in a lot better shape if more admins used the discretion they are entrusted with, as you did very well here, and there was much less reliance on ANI. Thanks for a fair job well done. John from Idegon ( talk) 19:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Flohquenbeam,
You are the admin that, ultimately banned my account User:SimonTrew for making legal threats. It was quite right for you to do so, also quite right I believe to express my doubts about right of reply; usually in a legal case the two sides have a chance to discuss rather than have a blanket ban.
However, I revoke all legal threats and will suggest in a constructive way to the Wikimedia Foundation that they should amend their policies to allow users a right of reply before a ban. The only way I can constructively do that, without impersonating and so on, is to do it under my own name User:SimonTrew (which is my real name). I have very much missed contributing to Wikipedia, especially in the small slips written by non native english speakers which could be so easily fixed, but I have not edited at all under any other name or any IP except to give you this, for that you have my assurance. I did create User:SimonTrew2 in an attempt to get a right of reply, but that can be safely deleted, and was certainly not WP:SOCK (it would be a pretty thin veil I think I could have chosen a better disguise).
My beef, over at RfD, really was I was being hammered for as I see it intelligently going through the Neelix redirects and getting rotten tomatoes thrown at me for bad Neelix redirects. As far as I can gather, having gone through thousands of them, Neelix created them in good faith when the Wikipedia search engine was not as good as it now is. Some I have marked as keep, some I have taken to CSD, and some I have listed at RfD. Some take me up the garden path,. as London Buses route 43 did, and spend two days sorting out all the redirects to London Buses.
The real start of the problem was when I marked them at RfD as (neelix redirect), which is what the policy think says I should do, then being told I am a Neelix hater. You can see from the RfD discussions and from my history of keep, csd, refer that if I am not entirely sure it is a speedy delete I take it to RfD for discussion, so quite right that sometimes the outcome is keep, I would not have expected otherwise. I have been made to be the stool pigeon for Neelix but I am a big enough man to take it, as I hope and am sure he is, he was doing his best when the search engine was not as good as it is now. But every time I read Wikipedia and see something against the WP:MOS and so forth that I could quickly correct as a minor edit, it reminds me why I want to be part of this community that tries to make the world better in its own way.
If you could somehow give me, through the channels, a chance to edit in any kind of limited way, that would be better than not editing at all. I do read too, but when I see something that is wrong I want to correct it. 84.3.187.196 ( talk) 12:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC) ( User:SimonTrew under IP, this is the only time I have used this IP or anything near it. Were I want to fake an IP I have a VPN that will send to various contries in Europe, I come here with clean hands. 84.3.187.196 ( talk) 12:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Floq, I was actually in 2 minds on whether to revert or not, Seeing the IP remove someones name I just automatically assumed vandalism, Had I looked at the other users contribs first I probably wouldn't of reverted however I prefer to be safe than sorry that's all,
Anyway hope all is well, Thanks, –
Davey2010
Talk 22:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Floquenbeam. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Please review
the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators'
mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 17:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I've just seen you post at ANI. Do you fancy blocking 86.45.5.6 ( talk · contribs) for a few hours? They've just vandalised a template and an article so I think they may be settling in for a bit of fun. - Sitush ( talk) 17:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
Even though the Broncos do suck (go Giants), I award you the barnstar of good humor for this block description. Dat Guy Talk Contribs 19:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC) |
Giants are the best FBDB -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 19:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
My apologies I was reverting an IP that removed another users comment and some how removed your in the process my apologies. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 21:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Just checked the history and it looks NeilN got the IP reverted as I was trying to do the revert with twinkle and other edits were coming in, so again apologies I was not trying to remove anything. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 21:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@ Floquenbeam: IF Possible - my somewhat recently created template => " Template:Human timeline", transcluded on 155 pages at the moment - has now been vandalized several times (ie, vandalism-1 and vandalism-2) - and may require some page protection - perhaps similar to what you performed on " Template:Life timeline" and " Template:Nature timeline" not too long ago? - in any case - Thanks, at least, for considering the issue - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 13:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
-should have reported this two days ago ;) Muffled Pocketed 12:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I saw that you grasped the nettle and blocked Zaostao. Thank you.
I remain gobsmacked at the amount of leeway that Wikipedia's editing community is consistently willing to extend to dog-whistle racism of various flavors. Even after the thread closed, I see another editor chiming in that unless a user very nearly scrawls "I am a Nazi" on their userpage, we should just ignore this stuff. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 14:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Not cool. I'm trying to find something out on a talk page. I'm trying to find out what happened from another person's perspective. This is not vandalism nor some kind of disingenuous snark. Your threat is not in the spirit of wikipedia. if you wanted to be constructive maybe you could tell me more about what happened to Treasury Tag.-- Dr who1975 ( talk) 14:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Your perspective is incorrect but clearly you have your mind made up about me so it's pointless arguing. I may decide to ask the question again on his page in a more matter of fact way if that will satisfy you but please do not abuse your power and ban me.-- Dr who1975 ( talk) 14:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Wow.... Dennis Brown wants to start a witch hunt against me. I've been on wikipedia for over a decade. I'm sure you could find things you don;t like if you look hard enough. Thanks for confirming all my paranoia about the way this place is run.-- Dr who1975 ( talk) 17:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Dennis Brown actually owes me an apology and teh Don Sahline redirect needs to be put back. It was not a "secret vandalism" link. None of my redirects are "secret vandalism" even the ones that have been deleted because people have misinterpretd nicknames that these people actually have. I stopped arguing on some of them because of that but this is ridiculous. The Don Sahline redirect shoudl be put back and Brown owes me an apology.-- Dr who1975 ( talk) 17:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I found a request on my talk to translate an article - the one I started the year with, and which was on DYK on Wikipedia's 15th birthday. Interesting discussion followed, - such a nice break from the usual being held responsible for all evil on the site, especially annoying FA authors (by doing nothing). -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
For doing good work, making good choices and being an all around good person.
Ratatosk Jones (
talk) 17:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Fair enough on closing that thread - I wasn't aware that blanking talk page messages like that was permitted (hence why I was checking), neither was I aware that I had to notify someone when discussing their actions. In any case, I don't appreciate being labelled a troll just because I did not know. TGS is causing a lot of disruption, has recently been blocked for socking (only 1 week!?!) and I believe is taking as all for a ride. I'm compiling evidence for an SPI, and I'll make sure I let them know when I post it. 68.232.71.82 ( talk) 22:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Being an uninvolved editor concerning the baiting and continued harassing of Cassianto, I believe that any trolling comments, like this posted on Cassianto's talk page should result in a block. Your thoughts? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 20:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Block me for what exactly? The user is breaking Wikipedia policy by removing not only my own comments but my notices of breaches of Wikipedia policy, whilst claiming I have no idea of them despite quoting them. They made a 3RR, then when I placed a friendly notice on their talk page, I was slighted. How is exactly is this being civil and assuming good faith? Then they add a disruptive editing tag to my talk page for reverting the removal of one of my comments on their page, which I did not give the permission for. Every edit to their talk page since then has been reverted, without my permission, and without archiving either. That's a pretty hefty list of breaches, a good few I have seen users banned for.
Uamaol (
talk) 03:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Not to aslo forget the cheek of adding a "Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates" despite doing it themselves!
Uamaol (
talk) 03:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, what KB said. You can't do something to someone's message to change its meaning, but you can delete it from your talk page. While I don't understand the choice of a lot of editors to communicate via templates, Meters is certainly not the only one who does this (you did it too), and there is nothing disruptive on your page from him, and there is nothing malicious in his removal of anything from his own talk page. I assume this has settled down now. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 18:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Might you be so kind as to lock down their talk page access? RickinBaltimore ( talk) 20:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Done -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 20:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Can I ask you to block the user who made this edit when you get a moment? A revdel would be good too. I've emailed the WMF emergency address. agtx 18:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
In case you hadn't seen it, there's an AfD for Larry Pretlow here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Pretlow. An anonymous IP posted the same legal threat as was on the page you deleted, Remove Salt Delete All Current and Pass Articles and Debates on Larry Pretlow. I suggest a block for User:RemoveSaltDelete for legal threats and likely sockpuppetry per WP:DUCK. -- Drm310 ( talk) 20:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
All caps is really, really annoying, and you're just copy/pasting pages
| |
---|---|
Important Request: Larry PretlowPLEASE REMOVE ANY PAGES, TEXT OR MENTIONS OF ANY ARTICLES OR DEBATES OR DISCUSSIONS ABOUT LARRY PRETLOW OR ANY DELETION, BLANK OR SALT OF ANY ARTICLES OR DEBATES OR DISCUSSIONS REGARDING THE SUBJECT. THERE SHOULD BE NO INDICATIONS OF ANY DISPUTES WITH WIKIPEDIA OR DEBATE ABOUT NOTABILITY. THIS CAN DAMAGE THE SUBJECT AT THE FAULT OF WIKIPEDIA. THIS IS NOT A LEGAL THREAT. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR THE RESPECT OF PRIVACY OF A LIVING PERSON WHO DOES NOT WISH TO BE INCLUDED ON WIKIPEDIA DESPITE ANY OPINION OF THE SUBJECT'S LIFE AND CAREER. PLEASE ALSO REMOVE THIS ARTICLE AND ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT MENTIONS OF LARRY PRETLOW AND HIS STAGE NAME LAPRET. SUBJECT IS NOT NOTABLE BASED ON WIKI STANDARDS WHICH DOES NOT DETERMINE AN SUBJECT'S PUBLIC STATUS EXCEPT FOR ONLY INCLUSION ON WIKIPEDIA. HOWEVER, THE SUBJECT REQUEST THAT WIKIPEDIA WITHDRAWS ITS OPIONION OF HIS SAID OR UNSAID NOTABILITYSINCE HE DOES NOT REQUEST FOR DESIRE TO BE INCLUDED IN THIS WIKI ENVIRONMENT EVEN IF HE WERE DETERMINED TO BE NOTABLE BASED ON WIKIPEDIA STANDARDS. PLEASE DO NOT INCLUDE SUCH STATEMENTS AS GIVEN BELOW OR RETAIN ANY LOGS THAT CAN APPEAR IN SEARCH ENGINES. AT NO TIME HAS LAPRET WORLD MADE ANY LEGAL THREATS, HOWEVER, THE REQUEST AND COMMANDS FOR FULL REMOVAL FROM A WIKI ENVIRONMENT UNWARRANTED BY THE SUBJECT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN UNDERSTOOD AS A LEGAL THREAT - BUT A RESPECT FOR PRIVACY AND CAREER. Includes: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry PretlowThe following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was Delete and Salt per (a) WP:CSD#G4, (b) WP:SNOW below, and (c) apparent request from article subject.. Floquenbeam ( talk) 20:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. /info/en/?search=Larry_PretlowThis page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference. 20:26, 13 October 2016 Floquenbeam (talk | contribs) deleted page Larry Pretlow (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Pretlow) |
Please Read Page FULLY then REMOVE. Can also remove and delete this account too. SUBJECT doesn't wish to be included nor mentioned on Wikipedia at all at any time past, present or future. Subject has never claimed to meet WIKIPEDIA Notability Standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syfy Xfinity ( talk • contribs)
*cough* Mlpearc has requested on IRC for this IP to be blocked for something like 5 minutes *cough* Dat Guy Talk Contribs 21:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Done -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 21:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
Great team work - Mlpearc ( open channel) 21:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC) |
Obviously the same person: /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/222.29.61.49 Is there some piece of bureaucracy I'm supposed to go through to get it dealt with? -- JBL ( talk) 18:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for helping with
Draft:Maternal Health in Texas
And a second thanks for helping when there was an urgent schedule. "They doubly benefit the needy who gives quickly." - q:Publilius Syrus Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC) |
There appears to be consensus in regards to the linkspamming @ WT:MMA, which is that the links should be gone. Can I have your permission to remove them? TBMNY ( talk) 01:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, you blocked User:AI RPer as a Turkeybutt JC sock. I'm pretty sure UnforgivablyPotatoes is the same person who keeps adding blocked templates to user talk pages for some reason. See [6] [7] [8]. Sro23 ( talk) 14:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
...oh nice..you froze it with one editor having "redacted" another editor's comments. Juan Riley ( talk) 20:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
It. Doesn't. MATTER. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 20:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
May want to add 2600:1000:b035:ef5a:5afa:9a71:e4b4:493 to that list if you haven't already seen it. TimothyJosephWood 19:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
How come you oversighted EVERYTHING I did? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:2820:E11:29E4:76F:96C2:9240 ( talk) 14:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
For those talk page watchers who are curious about accusations of misuse of oversight: I revdel'd (not oversight) several instances of this user posting the same large silly thing in multiple places using multiple IP's, istead of simply reverting them, on the off chance they hadn't saved a copy offline, so they wouldn't be able to paste it again without significant effort. I realized the likelihood of it working was relatively small but figured I'd give it a try. Oh well, I guess back to RBI. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 17:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
At the thread WP:ANI#Tendentious IP. JzG's there, but he's involved. I've asked more than one admin, so no pressure. Thanks. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js Custom summaries ( Special:Contributions/NQ-Alt) along with API rollback, so no additional windows popup when you mass rollback. - NQ (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
For dealing with the mess I made with CitationCleanerBot! Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC) |
I was catching up on wiki stuff on my phone and saw you posting your arb candidacy, yay! ...Then I read the edit summary. Are you sure you're not running? Hrmph. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 04:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello F. Looks like the editor I should not have to register to make a template ( talk · contribs) has returned as 217.99.0.160 ( talk · contribs). Since it is possible they will move on to another IP or stop (wishful thinking I know) this is more of a heads up than anything else. Regards. MarnetteD| Talk 20:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Sca ( talk) 02:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Per the NY Times: President-elect Donald J. Trump, who campaigned against the corrupt power of special interests, is filling his transition team with some of the very sort of people who he has complained have too much clout in Washington: corporate consultants and lobbyists. I'm not surprised. The "Reagan Democrats" who voted for him are going to get disillusioned with him even faster than the left gave up on Obama. wbm1058 ( talk) 22:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
See outreach: Here. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 00:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Take a look at User talk:67.162.203.107. It appears to be more of a static IP address, as he simply waited out his previous two-week block. Sro23 ( talk) 18:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
...for the fast reaction! Cheers! -- 87.123.36.37 ( talk) 21:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
...7 candidates for 7 positions open on ArbCom, with about a day to go before nominations close. Any thoughts about throwing your hat into the ring? Beyond My Ken ( talk) 22:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
This edit by Alexis Ivanov seems rather ominous considering this user's recent editing history. -- Adam in MO Talk 03:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Floquenbeam.
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins). MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
here?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 18:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Floquenbeam, please protect this page because large ammount of sockpuppetors are trying to modify this topic you must protect with page for a week and block sockpuppetors. MUHAMMAD ALI HAROON ( talk) 08:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm replying here because my talk page is being flooded with edit conflicts. You can take it down, I did not realize RfAs were so serious around here. I hope this little prank will fall under the category of 'humorous content' and not 'vandalism' UNSC Luke 1021 ( talk) 20:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I really hated to go to a second noticeboard on this, but the brusqueness with which my report was dismissed didn't sit well. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 18:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Floquenbeam. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I read this for the first time today. I actually laughed out loud; and would have laughed harder, had it not been altogether too accurate. Cheers, Vanamonde ( talk) 08:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I wanted that the insults stop and thats is the case. The solution is OK for me. Best regards. -- Ms10vc ( talk) 19:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi I don't want to provoke any people. I accept your decision issued yesterday but I ask you what do I have if I am harrassed again ? Reagrds. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 13:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry but I undid you closure. There have been many attempts to sweep this under the carpet, not saying that's your motivation, but it's clear that issues remain unresolved, mainly from my point of view the erroneous claims of IBAN infringements which are lodged in my sanctions. Mike V doing a runner should have no bearing whatsoever on this, we need to ensure someone in his position, i.e. with checkuser and oversight, is held to account, primarily WP:ADMINACCT but more than that since he has super-trusted tools. I would be asking WMF if he has made any CHU requests on me given his sudden interest in my editing patterns. It's a sad decline but it seems apparent from numerous notes from numerous other editors, not a surprise. Better to get this properly resolved now rather than wait for Mike V to return in a puff of smoke and continue in the same damaging way. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
In German we say: Der Klügere gibt nach. There are articles to be written, as you probably know. I miss my friend Alakzi since Mike V blocked him. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, MarnetteD. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you too. Here's to 2017 being better than 2016. I know, it won't be, but one can dream... -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 00:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Auto-confirmed status will not work. Vandal has sleeper accounts. Thank you, nonetheless. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 00:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Rubbish computer (
HALP!:
I dropped the bass?) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
-- Rubbish computer ( HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Merry Christmas! Better not open the box! The Bishonen Conglomerate talk 11:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC).
Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!
|
Thanks, Davey. We did have a very Merry Christmas, hope you did too. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 17:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Wishing you a
Charlie Russell Christmas, Floquenbeam! |
"Here's hoping that the worst end of your trail is behind you That Dad Time be your friend from here to the end And sickness nor sorrow don't find you." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1926. Montanabw (talk) 23 December 2016 (UTC) |
Thanks Montana. Very elegant card, thank you. I too hope the worst end of our trail is behind us, but will be surprised if it is. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 17:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Doug Weller
talk is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.
Thanks, Doug (though this looks vaguely familiar....) Hope yours was special too. Cheers! -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 17:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 19:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy (
talk) is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.
Thanks Iryna Harpy, mine was Christmas (well, and partially the solstice: when the sun sets at 4:30 it's nice to know the days are at least getting longer now), but I'm hoping you enjoyed whichever yours was! -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 17:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I have dealt with this editor before on Wikipedia, and have reported said user to other WP users, diff here for reference
[10]. I noticed the user has now been indef. banned from Wikipedia. The reason for my interest is that the decision behind the users block appears entirely political, i.e The user may hold different political, ideological opinions to the rest of the Wikipedia editing community. This is what you wrote to justify your decision: contained nazi dog whistles, editor now blocked
. Now, I find those views to be morally reprehensible because I strongly disagree with them. However, since when does holding such views qualify someone to be blocked from editing on Wikipedia? Looking at Zaostao's contributions, many were quite constructive and beneficial to the project and the user certainly was no vandal. What if it was decided that I should be blocked from Wikipedia because I have a user-box supporting marriage equality? Or that my user page contained 'social democratic/communistic/socialist dog whistles' due to the red flag that I display on there? I find this logic and reasoning to be deeply distasteful, unfair and without any Wikipedia precedence. --
Donenne (
talk) 12:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
-- Rubbish computer ( HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 12:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
:D thank you for not being around all the time, and playing role of admin to greatly serve this community. Merry Christmas, Woqa Floqqa ;) Deouble ( talk) 19:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC) |
Heh, thanks, Deoble. I very much like the idea behind "thank you for not being around all the time". You're welcome. Merry Christmas to you too. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 17:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Deouble ( talk) 00:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC) Yeah, this site can't take much more chaos from ya! :) Deouble ( talk) 01:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC) Your welcome, and happy new year :)
You recently wrote "Have I mentioned lately that I hate it when someone who is actively edit warring places an edit warring template on the other person's talk page?" I don't know about you, but I certainly have, and indeed I have boomerang 3RR blocked at least one editor for it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Just be up front with the name in future. The Rambling Man ( talk) 22:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
(originally posted to User talk:Umair Aj)
I am not belittling you; indeed, it looks like you're attempting to belittle me with "my dear", although I wonder if this is a language issue, and you misunderstand what "Oh dear" means. It is an expression of surprise, like "Wow" or "Oh my", it is not a form of "my dear", which used the way you used it is demeaning. Anyway, if you really don't want to be dragged into this issue any more, that's fine, but then DanJazzy will probably revert your changes. Is that what you mean? You can't impose your preference thru edit warring, accuse the other editor of edit warring without acknowledging your own share of the blame, then refuse to discuss, and instead make ad hominem attacks, and still expect to have your edits stick. So either participate in the talk page discussion, or accept that your edits will be reverted, whichever you prefer. I will block you from editing for a week if you revert that article again without making a good faith effort to discuss first. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 23:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
(end of cut and paste)
Lie? You are calling me a liar? Very strong accusation again from your side. I think your shallowness is compelling you to resort to this offensive behavior. Do not call me 'Oh dear' and stop lying about not giving one statement again and again regarding your powers of blocking me. Third, better concentrate to justify your edits especially when you are writing someone a liar. Umair Aj ( talk) 00:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Again you are showing your shallowness and mendacity. You are just trying to be sanctimonious and that is all. Next time when you post a message on someone's talk page, do not mention your blocking powers and be a little reasonable. You entirely lack depth in your expressions keeping in mind that English is your first language which amuses me a lot. Finally, an administrator of your stature must show some maturity on his part because you neither inspire respect nor truthfulness. Let me know if you have more complaints. Umair Aj ( talk) 00:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I'll leave it up to you decide what, if anything, to do with this after-close parting shot. — ATS 🖖 talk 23:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Floq, sorry but I got seriously sidetracked. As it happens I have a Hemingway TFA on the horizon, am trying to tidy the associated articles and need User:Victoriaearle/Hemingway sandbox to be resurrected. It has a lot of edits (I don't know if that makes a difference in terms of amount of work involved) but would be thrilled if you could bring it back. Thanks. Victoriaearle ( tk) 19:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Floquenbeam. You recently blocked the above editor for disruptive editing. I removed the section entirely. I have been trying to remember exactly which of our banned trolls this is, I don't think he's posted since the fall of 2015 or 2014 even. His modus operandi is usually to ask about a moral doctrine, an ideology and a geographic location, along the lines of "If Ameicans are so Christian, then why don't they support socialism as the more charitable doctrine?" Last time I came across this person I mentioned him to one of our ref desk regulars, who said "good catch". I think it was @ Jayron32: or @ Nil Einne: who recognized him at that point. I think the geolocation to a proxy server is also telling. μηδείς ( talk) 04:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. O Fortuna! ...Imperatrix mundi. 15:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
It's from Go Fish. When you ask someone else for a card they don't have, they tell you to go fish, i.e. draw from the deck. If you happen to draw the card you asked for from the deck, you fished your wish (and you announce it by saying "fished my wish!"), and you get to continue as if you got the card from a person. So, metaphorically, it's getting something you asked for; I tend to use it somewhat ironically (or on Wikipedia I guess it'd be "borderline ironically" *eyeroll*), where someone gets something they asked for but don't necessarily want. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 18:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Acknowleding the "ease" of doing what you did here, there is still the transparent violation of sanctions involved in the original posting, which I think probably requires some form of addressing. John Carter ( talk) 18:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Normally, I edit happily, but this time, I am feeling upset partly because of my overall performance this month; I have not been doing as well as I could have been, but that is not the main reason why I request a block. No, the main reason is that I feel upset that I am constantly giving up self-control for staying logged in to the English Wikipedia with little progress being made. I think that I am showing signs of Wikipediholism, as I am waiting for a chance to edit particular articles but despite not doing really much am still logged in.
I hereby request a block as a means of taking a wikibreak so that I would not feel as if I have to stay being signed onto Wikipedia. Because you are one of the administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks, would you like to place a block on my account?
Gamingforfun
365 03:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Hey there, you recently have blocked Abhinav619's account for being WP:COMPROMISED. The user have since contacted me in real life and was able to recover the account. I confirm the real identity of the user as they served as the former Executive Committee member for Wikimedia India chapter. I think the block can be lifted now. Cheers! Jim Carter 18:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Floq, please could you revoke talk page access for 185.75.56.168? Thank you. Linguist talk| contribs 22:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Couldn't have put it better myself. Help yourself to User:Ritchie333/Userbox Trump; several other Wikipedians have. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.
13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I am involved in an edit war at Joseph Crook. Some is repeated reinstatement of contested material, some is one-off changes that are not, in my opinion, an improvement. I did try to engage - sort of - on the other person's talk page but they're not responding. Their first edit to that article today was particularly bad and now I think they're just trying to wind things up. Any chance you could take a look? If you have to block me for warring then so be it but I don't think I can be "done" for 3RR because of the range of issues. - Sitush ( talk) 15:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Hey, I filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alaninter, but even there I wasn't sure if the master was actually the master or just a compromised account. While I completely accept Bbb23's findings that Alaninter is not related to the rest of the gang (and I guess the prior contributions are too stale), I still have a lingering suspicion that it's a compromised account. The current contributions around Ananya Birla are quite different from earlier ones which are UK or biology/nature related and the language seems a bit different too. Could you take a look and let me know if you think I'm just seeing ghosts where I shouldn't be? cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 03:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
This smells really fishy to me. Although the user removed the tag later, I still really don't feel good about the user.
Stikkyy
(talk)
(contributions) 17:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).
Please explain this and this. This notice serves as a warning about personal attacks. El_C 23:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
No thank you |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I won't comment on the rest of this, but I find this especially disappointing coming from a functionary. -- Rs chen 7754 21:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think I have the words to reflect the disappointment I felt on reading this thread. I disagree with those above as to who was doing the baiting. I have always respected your work on this project, but baiting a sanctioned editor into potentially breaching the terms of their ArbCom restrictions is beyond the pail, and it's what I see in that thread. I gather there is history between you and TRM that would provide context to this rather uncharacteristic behavior from you, but that only reinforces my concern as to why you got into an argument with TRM on WP:ERRORS in the first place. Might I suggest if you have trouble holding your cool in discussions with TRM that you simply avoid him? Others can respond to his posts on WP:ERRORS. WJBscribe (talk) 12:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Ȝor prettikes ar profane, Puir ladeis to supplant, Alexander Scott, 1568 is the earliest confirmed use of this meaning—albeit in Scotland—with Richard Braithwait's
So should our prophane Pamphleteers restraine their libidinous writings morein 1614 the earliest confirmed use in England itself.) I think we can allow that this meaning has had enough time for anyone who disapproves to raise objections. ‑ Iridescent 18:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Don't sweat it Floq, anyone who's spent any serious amount of time editing here will have bad days, and while I don't think I have told anyone directly to fuck off, I have come very close, up to and including of hitting "Show preview" showing me replying to a comment with "Fuck off" + signature and hovering the mouse over the "Save changes" button while wondering of the consequences of clicking it. I'm glad Beeblebrox wrote that essay, the most important part of which (IMHO) is "don't do this, it's not worth the hassle". (PS: I lied, though that's not directly telling a specific person to fuck off, and I did apologise) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Could you please take a look at the trolling going on at this article? Every principle of common sense I have tells me to just fix it, but I suppose it could technically somehow become a 3RR violation. I'm forcing myself to take Gerda's advice and not feel I have to fix everything myself. Thanks. Joefromrandb ( talk) 14:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Joefromrandb:, Lectonar's protection seems like a good idea. Philafrenzy may be right or wrong, friendly or unfriendly, reasonable or unreasonable, but (and this is, I believe, a first) I agree with PBP here that they clearly aren't a troll (of course, PBP immediately calls you a troll, which is obviously stupid, so that didn't last long). It seems like 90% of the key to success around here is to overcome your frustration and be willing to discuss things you really don't think need to be discussed, if the person you disagree with is acting in good faith. I think Philafrenzy is acting in good faith. I don't necessarily agree with them, and am not a huge fan of tagging an article without trying to fix it, but that isn't part of the deal. And to be honest, I've done that before myself, and you probably have too.
Gerda is right; there are (breaks out template to check) 6,829,517 articles, many of them in horrible shape. You'll drive yourself crazy if you insist on fixing every one you come across yourself, and getting frustrated every time someone disagrees with something you think is obvious.
And lastly, take it from someone who narrowly escaped Serious Sanction for Personal Attacks: go extraordinarily lightly on saying rude things about people, even if they deserve it (or, as in this case, because they don't actually deserve it). Far better to mutter it under your breath. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 16:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Assuming good faith works miracles ;) - I have been called passive-aggressive because I thanked someone, - so even thanking is dangerous when met with not so good faith. - Assuming good faith works miracles. If you want to know about a user you put their name to a little test: Joefromrandb, The Rambling Man, Philafrenzy, Floquenbeam, - and then lets get together and have a drink. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Incidentally, I think it was Floq who said something (this is probably a bad paraphrase) about how much different the conversations would probably be if we all worked in a setting where we were physically present together and risked a punch in the mouth for one off-color remark or another. I'm surprised to see friction between you and The Rambling Man. In my (admittedly limited) discussions with him concerning issues with the main page, I've always found him to be an amicable guy. You're obviously a rather friendly individual, and you seem to have extremely thick skin; the situation between the 2 of you is probably an anomaly of interpersonal relationships as they exist in cyberspace. I always thought you were a nice guy, until the time that you blocked me. By the way, that was an egregiously shitty block; maybe not the most unfair block in the history of the project, but by far the most unfair one I've ever received. I digress–what I mean to say is that my opinion of you went from quite high to less-than-zero after that incident. I've come to believe I got that very wrong. At the time, I figured that you had to be a giant, Machiavellian asshole to make a block like that. Aside from that incident, I've generally found your conduct as an administrator to be beyond reproach (your block of JClemens had no basis in policy, but in terms of hilarity, as well as much-needed and long-overdue poetic justice, it was a beautiful IAR-move). I've long wondered how such an otherwise-circumspect individual could do something so contumelious. I suppose the answer is that it wasn't contumelious; that you are an amicable and circumspect individual and you are not a Machiavellian asshole. Sorry for rambling on (pun half-intended). It's just that the row between you and TRM prompted me to do some thinking. The block itself is still an issue to me, but it's obvious now (and should have at least been evident earlier) that it wasn't the act of perfidy that I made it out to be. I thought (sincerely) that I was reciprocating your "dickishness", and felt moved to do so in spades. In hindsight, I was actually stultifying your character with canards ("attempting to stultify" is likely more accurate - I wouldn't think that Wikipedia (or you) gives a shit about my opinion of anyone). To that end, I apologize. Joefromrandb ( talk) 03:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Turkeybutt JC has come back as Stikkyy. [17] [18] Special:Diff/764779368 Special:Diff/764779302 Sro23 ( talk) 02:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Sro23: I'm not saying you're definitely wrong - edits like that to sockpuppet notices are very often a red flag (lack of self control on their part? It's really odd) - but I don't see any other evidence that would make me confident that this is him. I have not done an exhaustive evaluation, I really have no time for that due to real life. If they're actually being disruptive somewhere that I haven't seen, then consider an SPI. But in my brief skim through their contribs I didn't see anything besides the sock notice changes. I just sent you and email with a list of things to look for if you want to, but decided not to list them here on-wiki. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 18:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Assam Rifles, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages VSM and YSM. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Sorry for the delay - I just realized, whilst sorting out newsletter subscriptions, that I never thanked you for this. So, many thanks for the useful and friendly intervention - I was getting very, very frustrated! Have a lovely Saturday, cheers, DBaK ( talk) 10:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Hey, Thanks a lot for your help with the IP hopper. The editor is a long term abuser for Taiwan related topics and has been POV pushing on numerous related topics for the last few years. I and some other editors have been dealing with the editor for the past few months. This has resulted into stalking and attacks on other pages we edit. The IP hopper uses a VPN to edit pages and thus difficult to track or block. I can provide more information(list of pages affected, editor behavior) if required. Any help will be greatly appreciated. Also, the editor is back at this IP [19]. Thanks. Adamgerber80 ( talk) 23:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
There were a rash of these reported to ANI in January and February. Just nuke, restore good versions, move to proper place, and block the undisclosed paid editor/spammer. -- NeilN talk to me 21:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Glad you checked that out. I made the assumption that as the anon was adding Donald Trump to some (yet another) bizarre article, it was vandalism. Cheers Jim1138 ( talk) 08:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Please let me know when you're online and have a few minutes. If you don't mind, reply on my talk page (I just want to make sure we can have a 2-way conversation; at my page I'll be able to revert any 3rd-party comments without issue). Thanks. Joefromrandb ( talk) 01:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm posting the same message (with minor rewording) on my talk page, Joe's talk page, and PBP's talk page.
Oh for Pete's sake; I didn't remember I'd already blocked PBP for harrassing Joe back in 2013. At the time, I blocked PBP for a week because it was a similar pattern of behavior to PBP's hounding of JPL ealier that year; now I look thru PBP's recent contribs, and he's still trying to get Joe and JPL blocked.
I'm officially warning PBP that initiating contact with Joe, or reverting Joe on any page PBP has not previously edited, or making derogatory comments about Joe anywhere, or templating Joe, or editing Joe's talk page at all except as required to notify him of a noticeboard discussion, or pinging him unnecessarily, will be considered harassment and will result in a 2 week block.
I'm telling Joe that the above warning is null and void (as least as far as I'm concerned) if Joe initates contact with PBP, or reverts PBP on any page Joe has not previously edited, or makes derogatory comments about PBP anywhere, or templates him, or edits PBP's talk page except as required to notify him of a noticeboard discussion, or pings him unnecessarily.
This is not a complete IBAN. For example, I don't think I can prevent PBP from reporting Joe to ANEW if Joe has actually been edit warring, without an IBAN discussion at AN/ANI. But PBP cannot insert himself into someone else's ANEW report to snark about him; that would be considered harassment. There is no limitation on participating in the same discussions as long as there is a reason for it, and no baiting/harassing is going on; so a discussion about an article they've both edited is OK (though they both need to bend over backwards to be polite), but jumping into a talk page discussion the other is in on an article you've never edited in order to disagree is not.
In other words, this is as close to an IBAN as I think I can get without going to AN/ANI. PBP because he is harassing Joe; Joe because the whole point is unwanted contact, so it needs to be mutual. If either one of you actually wants an official IBAN, go to AN/ANI. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 21:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
While I guess most editors have their niches, I'm about as much of a nomad as one can be here. I have a few pages that I check regularly, but for the most part I just wander from place to place, making improvements where I can, while in turn always learning cool new shit along the way. The same goes for WP-space. The "Vital Articles" project has never been a big interest of mine, and the regular presence of another user there has always been all the more reason for me to stay away. Nonetheless, I have chimed in on rare occasion, in instances I deemed important. One of these times was during a very spirited debate over the proposed removal of George W.Bush. Incidentally, I believe this was my first encounter with a certain nameless user (I could be wrong). In an astounding coincidence, that user again proposed the removal of President Bush immediately after the quasi restrictions you imposed on the two of us. There could be a solid claim made that I have no business showing up there for literally any other reason. Even the other handful of times that I've opined at that page were for largely trivial issues. This, however, was a debate in which I was quite entrenched. I was going to come here yesterday to seek your guidance, but I figured I would wait a bit, and see which way the proposal was going; if there was clear consensus to retain, there would be no need for me to add a pile-on "oppose", while if there was clear consensus to remove, my "oppose" would be largely pointless. As I had expected (and like last time), it serms very evenly divided. I feel that I'm both entitled and obligated to register my opinion. I intend to sign my name to the "oppose" section, adding the following comment: "If anyone is interested in my reasoning, it can be found in the archives/history. I discussed this the last time it was proposed, and my views have not changed. For reasons of which others may or may not be aware, I will have no further comment about this, nor will I respond to ANY questions, so please don't ask me." Would this be OK? I'm not asking if it's technically permited within the boundaries that you drew - I'm assuming it is, and if I'm wrong, this whole thing is a non-starter anyway. I'm asking, rather, if you think it's "OK". In your honest opinion, am I on solid ground here? If you think that it looks like gaming/testing, or even comes close to looking like that, then I will respect that. This, I have to assume, is an anomaly. I can't think of any other situation based on my history that would necessitate my "responding" to him. I'm sure you've had more than your fill of this whole situation, so please don't think I'll be coming here regularly to ask for clarification about this or that. My intent is to stay as far away from him as possible. Joefromrandb ( talk) 13:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Joefromrandb and Purplebackpack89: Sorry I'm late in replying, I try to avoid WP on weekends because it's generally a depressing place these days. But to answer previous question(s) from both of you: I think, in spite of my admitted suckiness at crafting impossible-to-game solutions with all the i's dotted and all the t's crossed, I actually covered this. If there's a topic both of you previously were involved with, there's no requirement for either of you to avoid it. I don't really want to start parsing what level/type of previous involvement "counts". It's not an interaction ban, it's a harassment ban, with the realization that tricking/baiting someone into harassment will make me lose interest in enforcing it. So do by all means have a civil discussion on any subject you're both already involved in. Don't by any means follow people to articles you've never participated in before to tweak someone's nose. As another example, I seem to recall PBP participates in AFD a lot (can't recall about Joe); that doesn't mean he can't participate in an AFD Joe has commented in. It does mean that he shouldn't be AFD'ing an article Joe has worked on. Or Joe AFD'ing one of PBP's articles of interest. Nor should etiher one chime in on subjects they've never demonstrated interest in. This is just one example, not an exhaustive list of what's OK and what's not OK. No need/reason to reply or start a discussion here. And remember if anyone wants to actually turn this into an actual interaction ban, ANI is that way. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 14:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm all in for attribution, and its a requirement. And if there is any question, obviously credit should be shared. And you could give them credit for the DYK, too, if it runs. DYK is not a
Zero sum game.
I know you don't like any of this. If it were a cut and paste, I also think it should not run at DYK. Old wine in new bottles, so to speak. And indeed, the same article is ineligible for DYK. But I still don't think this was cut and pasted, and I would think that if
The C of E copied he would have noted it in the edit summary and the talk page. He didn't. You are fast on the accusations (this time of 'plagiarism', last time 'off wiki conspiracy', and short on proof once again. Whatever happened to
WP:AGF?
If there was a cut and paste then it should be admitted and corrected.
7&6=thirteen (
☎) 14:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
So this is another "sit there and listen to me but I refuse to listen to you" thread. I guess that's fairly common on WP, and I'm probably guilty of doing it sometimes myself. Indeed, I kind of did it in the section above, although I had the good grace to do it on my own talk page. Maybe we should have a separate namespace for it, where the person being lectured is prevented by the software from responding, saving people from needlessly typing "I'm done here"s; maybe User lecture:Floquenbeam. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 19:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I think this has legs. Four of them, probably. This is aard work. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 21:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Surely Aardvark's RfB should run on Saturday, given the date. Sadly, I won't be editing then, but I could knock up a nice nom statement anyway in aadvance. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 22:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Re your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cell Phone Signal Booster, I seem to recall a time when new accounts (not yet confirmed) could not create pages in mainspace. Perhaps the persons behind the coopt an existing page tactic recall similarly? — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 06:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Fl., I am surely partly responsible for this turn of events- I took my eye off the ball. I was going to leave a 'stern message' this orning about the lack of article work (one edit every 24 hours, I think it looked like at the time)- but, I forgot. If I had, maybe something would have changed- or at least we would be discussing it. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 14:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I spent about 10 minutes today catching up on what the Category Police have been up to lately. I would not even begin to know how to explain this to someone not familiar with Wikipedia. 28bytes ( talk) 02:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello Floquenbeam, can you please take care of this as well. Thank you – GSS ( talk| c| em) 16:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).
I saw your note on WP:BLPN but all I can think of is this Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Floquenbeam. I probably used the worng tag to request the deletion of Duits. If that is the case, please let me know what is the appropriate tag. Keeping a page called Duits as an alternative name for the German language is nothing short of absurd. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 16:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. (User:Nyttend is unavailable, so he asked me to have a look.) Seems like a pretty clearcut case of violating the interaction ban, to me, but I wanted your input because you were involved in the initial discussion, and I wasn't. I've blocked User:Dennis Bratland for 72 hours accordingly, since it appears he violated the ban last week as well. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 14:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I edit conflicted and managed to undo your removal of the unblock request here. I just left it as-is; if you think it should still go, please feel free to remove it. Sorry about that! ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 22:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the recent unblock review. The block didn't expire, it just went away (I forget the expiration time but it was Apr 22). There was some screwiness with the Unblock Ticket Request System -- when I checked the "My account is blocked" item, it came back saying it wasn't; when I checked "IP address is blocked", it came back saying that wasn't. During all that I did some editting tests, and they were all blocked.
I don't need any attention on this, just thought I'd let you know.
BMJ-pdx ( talk) 22:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I read Wikipedia a lot. Its just I rarely if ever edit things because I'm not typically researching something worthy of a post. I am new enough to the editing process that I wasn't sure how to flag something as vandalism. When I have time after work or this coming weekend I'll read through the stuff you sent me. Thanks again. Drakesax ( talk) 18:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
I am not sure if you remember me, but we came across twice
first here, and then
here.
There are two reasons why I am contacting you. First, I wanted to let you know, contradicting to my word, I am back to editing wikipedia. I hope it is okay. Second: I want to apologise to user Swarm. But you specifically told me not to contact him, so I cant. I factually respect him, and I feel very guilty about what happened. Would you please let him know about this post? I apologise again to both of you for the trouble I caused in those days. I was in a lot trouble because of my lack of sleep for 5-6 consecutive days. It caused agitation all the time.
I hope you guys dont think of me as a troll, or some vandal. Thanks, and I apologise again. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Anyways, I am not going to contact you guys casually. But some incidents might occur where you will need ask me "why are you edit warring with a bot?" lol
PS:would you please tell Swarm about apology? Please, tell him kiran honestly wants to apologise from his heart. Not a part of formality. Cheers. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Because everyone needs animals in their life!
UpsandDowns1234 (
🗨) (
My Contribs) 23:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey,
You reverted my edit to Template:R3. Should I stick noinclude tags around that for template?
-- UpsandDowns1234 ( 🗨) ( My Contribs) 19:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Despite all the many people telling UAD1234 (with gradually decreasing levels of patience) to quit treating Wikipedia as his personal sandbox, he's never actually received a formal warning. Given that his (we can safely assume this is a "he", I think) response to the above was to go to the user talk page of the US Congress and write "Uncle Sam rocks!", I've rectified that situation. ‑ Iridescent 00:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).
Not sure why this was reverted? If the indents are not prefixed with #
the numbering restarts. —
foxj 21:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm a little curious, and I had some interaction with you in the past, and seem to remember you being fair and competent, so I thought I would ask.
Let me first say that I don't know where you find the patience to do what you do. Had I to make a decision about UAD1234, he/she would already be permanently banned. He or she is having you on, having a party at en:WP's expense. On the other hand, I have found Whiskeymouth to be competent, knowledgeable and sympathetic. I know editors sometimes seem to suffer burnout and begin to act irrationally. I saw that he was blocked more than once. So many times, though, I run across a username I recognise and decide to check their usertalk to see if they are still active, only to find them banned or blocked, sometimes "retired" or on indefinite sabbatical. There's so much to be done. I thought you might be a person to ask, as this most recent block is not by you, but you did once block him in the past.
If you feel it's none of my business, you may say so. You won't hurt my feelings (or I'll get over it). If this forum is too public, I can be reached via Ragityman(at)gmail, but I don't check it as often as I should. As I'm sure you can easily verify, I am not a sock, and I really don't even have a dog in this fight. As I said, I'm just curious.
I like your Schiller quotation. I may borrow it. If I do, I'll put it back. rags ( talk) 02:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
—usernamekiran
(talk) has given you a
Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{ subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. |
Hi. I didnt know who else to tell to.
If one looks at
Anita Sarkeesian's article from computer, one can see bullet points between her occupations. But if one looks at it from mobile/tablet, there are two-three spaces between the occupation.
I think it goes like this for all the infoboxes with flatlist parameter, not just person (or any human).
Like being discussed in the section above, i saw you using profanity because of a user made unhelpful changes regarding templates lol. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to WP:AN can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you. -- Slither Snake Sempter, 20:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
One hopes you didn't mean to protect Syndicalism indefinitely. Mark Schierbecker ( talk) 00:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Please avoid the phrasing you used at User_talk:Burning_Pillar#De_facto_topic_ban. You can accomplish the same thing by noting that further controversial changes, especially accompanied by edit warring, are highly likely to result in a block for disruptive editing. Your specific phrasing that you're enacting a de facto unilateral topic ban oversteps what a single administrator has the authority to do. In particular, if he were to make a non-controversial edit (typo fix, etc.) and you felt the need to follow that up with a block per your "de facto topic ban", that would cause an unnecessary hubbub. In this case, phrasing matters. ~ Rob13 Talk 23:53, 12 May 2017
You know, you might consider "de facto topic banning" the person in question from any namespace that isn't the main namespace per WP:NOTHERE. WP:VPP#Perennial proposal:Delete unreferenced articles is their latest proposal.... -- Izno ( talk) 01:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, would you take a look at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#.27not.27_favourable
The discussion was hatted by user Ian.Thompson after I and Baseball Bugs suggested it. We've had an edit warring IP 2606 restoring it, then hatting and refactoring my comments. The single-use IP interference speaks for itself. Thanks. μηδείς ( talk) 02:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi.
If i want to see source code template, how can i do that? I just want to see, not to edit, so read-only mode would be okay too. For example, of this template: {{subst:deletion sorting|cat}}
Thanks a lot. :-) —usernamekiran (talk) 09:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
With regards to this discussion at ANI, what is your opinion on these actions ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8) to circumvent any pending discussion at Module talk:Webarchive and make the same disputed changes to 7 other templates without soliciting any input from other editors? 2601:5C2:280:8043:F126:B333:2DF4:1FEA ( talk) 05:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
A truly monumental thing today,- just the scoring was too long for a DYK, and the list of authors and quoted works would have filled the section. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).
A user reverted your removal of unearned user privilege badges. Cordially, Mathglot ( talk) 08:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm laughing so hard that I'm crying! Thanks for making me laugh during a very depressing time in my life. - JohnAlbertRigali ( talk) 07:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Five years! |
---|
In case you like some music in between, here's Andreas Schager, with some good stories such as stepping in as Siegfried before ever singing the role on stage. He came to my attention in 2012, in the good old times of Hammer. Nail. Door. We are in the year of reformation. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi there. You locked the Nudah page, however I've done nothing to vandalize it. I was working on adding credible sources to the article to establish the subject's notability. We're talking about a very established online personality. I have seen lesser known YouTubers on the site before. So I don't think you should immediately dismiss this subject as non-notable. Perhaps you are not so familiar with the gaming / eSports community? StarWars96 ( talk) 21:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Am I correct that you previously told a certain user that he was not permitted to edit my talk page? Joefromrandb ( talk) 01:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I'm not sure if the Arb case is the right place for this, so I figured I'd play it safe and contact you here. I saw you had a problem(?) with my sentence ""Reminds me of the old "I'm not a racist, but..." excuse." Just to be clear and prevent misunderstandings, I am of course not suggesting Godsy is a racist. I was making the comparison because he wrote "I've always been one to respect community consensus, however", which is the same kind of contradiction. As in 'I will never do [whatever], but..'. The best and most well known example of this is the "I'm not a racist, but.." and that's why I mentioned it. As an example of self-contradiction, nothing more. Regards, Yintan 18:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).
?fuzzy=1
to the URL, as with
Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.Hi Floquenbeam - have a question for you. I created an
essay a few years ago that was unjustly attacked. When I reported the disruption at ANI,
the discussion was hijacked and I was unfairly taken out by a boomerang based on -0- supporting evidence and 100% asininity. Bygones. I'm here now because one of those same editors has made his troll-like presence known after all this time. I am trying to AGF, but saw where there was a previous issue that involved the hijacking of the subject editor's
account, so now I'm wondering if the hijacking may have happened again.
My initial concerns were raised over the edits at
WP:AVDUCK - petty actions that do nothing but notify me via my Watchlist. I thought maybe it was a BOT. The last edit was most troubling because it appears it was done to promote an essay that editor authored rather than trying to improve the AVDUCK essay. Please refer to the following edit summary:
(See Wikipedia:Citation underkill for a serious essay.) which is spam in disguise. The edit aroused my curiosity, so I asked about it at the editor's TP. The exchange sequence follows:
(1),
(2),
(3),
(4), and it isn't just me who is being reverted and ignored:
(5),
(6). Your input will be greatly appreciated.
Atsme
📞
📧 22:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the housekeeping at my talk page. I presume you already figured out it was this. Maybe BOLO for more socks, they tend to run in waves. I saw this, which also fits the LTA pattern. FYI. Montanabw (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
Would you mind disabling this IP's talkpage access again. Another admin blocked them shortly after your one week block expired and they're clearly abusing their talkpage once again. Thanks. 59.84.253.250 ( talk) 12:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I think this needs an indef. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&diff=prev&oldid=791121938 is an implied threat of violence. MarkBernstein ( talk) 17:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for hatting the comments to my oppose at Cullen328's RfA. Unfortunately piling up and attacking is (still) all too common, thank you for cutting it short, specially because most likely you also disagreed with me. I admit I have was not aware that my poor interaction with him was from 5 years ago, so I striked my oppose with a short explanation. If you think it is best moved into the hidden text, to avoid any more confusion, please do so (or say so, and I will). Thank you. - Nabla ( talk) 20:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
DYK ... that I put my memories on the Main page again? Saw Die Walküre of the Ring mentioned. - A good argument is fine, but a revert with edit summary "ridiculous" hardly makes me deviate from my New Year's resolution. - This year, I missed this, for this (to be expanded, see external links). -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Regarding this, I certainly don't think I am somehow better than the user because he made his edits before I signed up. That would be absurd and I said nothing to suggest that I felt that way. On the contrary, I objected to the fact that the editor in question implied he was somehow better than those who signed up after he made his contributions. I understand why you didn't like what I had to say, and you might very well be right, but I was surprised that you interpreted my words in such a fashion. Even though we often disagree, I respect you a great deal. Lepricavark ( talk) 01:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I have [23] posted] a request about Paraduin, an article you deleted, at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Paraduin. Dolberty ( talk) 11:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC) |
I assume you've watchlisted all 900 users who voted in your RFA and you thanked. So I'll just say "you're quite welcome, glad to have you aboard", and not bother pinging you. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 14:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
For this. I should have suggested SoWhy change their username to User:Aahing SoWhy before RfB. Please pass my best to User:Aardvark Floquenbeam. Maybe I should add a link to this page to the RfB instructions? -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 13:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Wotcha Floq, for what it's worth I vaguely remember a similar !vote on a recent RfA along the lines of our laundry-based friend - good spot :-) -- There'sNoTime ( to explain) 13:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).
Floq, I saw your posting on User talk:Filigumba. You might want to have a look at this list of accounts created by Filigumba. Quack quack. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 14:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Thanks for you edits. I don't want to sue anywone, but I have been stalked by the named user for over a year now. Please see what she is doing: I am a wikipedia-user of nine years meanwhile, there has never been anything. But since a while, this lady gained an obsession about my person. She nearly tries to change every legit edit I am doing and worse, she even started doing edits to my very own userpage with permission. I the meanwhile, someone from California (checked over the IP) tried to log in and take control over the e-mail account I am using for wikipedia here, and I presume, that is clearly her. This woman is a stalkerand there are rules in the state of Califoria. Please keep that in mind. I don't want to go into legal action, if she stops. But in the last weeks, it does not seem like that. So give her that warning, she has to stop or beeing taken into consequences. And, as I am an avid editor her, of course I don't want to stop working on here. But I am not the bad guy. She is. And there is a breaking point, and here actions will make reaching this point. You always need to here both sides of the story. But with your text, it sounds like only her part is interesting for you. There won't be any legal actions, as it is quite complicated to sue in the US from my part of the world, anyway. But if things need to be done, my contacts will help me doing this. But this is something that don't need to happen-- Robberey1705 ( talk)
Hey,
Hope you don't mind the Thanks I sent for your action on that report you handled. Quick question, but this was posted under your response by the reported user:
"Can we all at least put on wrong version tags? Anmccaff (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)"
Any thoughts on this? GUtt01 ( talk) 21:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)