| ||||
![]() |
Archive 8 |
Archive 9
![]() |
Sorry to keep pushing this, but it has been over three weeks now since this issue was raised. Codf1977 ( talk) 16:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Good call closing that talk thread at AN. Thanks! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 14:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry on that part...At first look the article had a scent of vandalism, but when I searched google on the same subject, I found the article to be fair. I also welcomed the user on behalf of Wikipedia. The over tagging was an act of defence from my side...excuse me for that... :) arun talk 15:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I thought I'd delisted the article from WP:GAN - I really thought I had, but it seems not, after all. I don't want to put out a call to editors to help with the lead on the discussion page for obvious reasons, but need some help with the lead. Are you interested? I've contacted Candorwien who seems to be semi-active - anyone else? That's what happens when you delete a bunch of stuff ... Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 13:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This user helped promote IB Diploma Programme to good article status. |
I found another one: you know what I mean. This one is really obvious, and I can't believe I missed it. Shall I put the diffs here or send you an e-mail? Honestly, I'd rather put it here, because it should be seen on-wiki. Let me know - still writing it out... Cheers :> Doc9871 ( talk) 09:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay: here we go. Again, the stalking of DocOfSoc and editing articles SRQ (& co.) edited makes this pretty ducky. User:NeoNeuroGeek, after making a few "grammar changes" and undos, reverts DocOfSoc here [3] without comment, then adds in the 1980's" (this comes into play later). Some more undos (including to Asperger's, which SRQ volunteered [4] she suffers from): then stops editing on July 28. The very next edit a month later is again to revert DocOfSoc [5], rapidly start "changing grammar" at the article, even using a Republican(!) blog as a reference when reverting DocOfSoc's revert [6]. Then, an unsigned(!) tirade against DocOfSoc concerning Judaism(!) on the talk page [7]. Leaves a "SRQ special" custom warning to a user here [8]. Then goes to Prosody (linguistics) for some grammar work: an article edited by another SRQ sock [9] followed by the IP sock attack there. Now NNG is back at Prodosy (linguistics). On NNG's user page, they say they work in speech pathology: note that RDMH also showed an interest in speech pathology [10] (and in stalking DocOfSoc)...
ILuvAMrRadio comes along to Christine Craft (which both SRQ and NNG have edited) and basically re-inserts what NNG had put in a revert of DocOfSoc: "in the 1980's" [11]. No edit overlaps at all, (most importantly) NNG and ILAMR, who were editing at the same time.
I think I covered it - sorry about the long read. What do you think? Cheers :> Doc9871 ( talk) 10:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
The former was blocked in April 2010 & the latter was created in March 2010. I hope my suspicions are proven wrong. GoodDay ( talk) 15:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Loved the post and a very good point. I hope some take heed. BUT, you are way too hard on yourself. You were never a dick! LOL You handled it all very well, and I found a quite wonderful friend. TY Namaste... DocOfSoc ( talk) P.S. Just read your post again. Conceptually, it is not in you, to even come close to being as mean as AtlalntaBravz was. You were not hurtful. We just disagreed, end of story. You came back with your fairy wand and made it all better :-D
Hi,
Looks like there is a degree of consensus for at least a trial of the Template, I have not had time to work on a version that can sit at the top of a talk page (i.e. with added options for resolved and links to archived discussions), I do intend to do that (if it looks like there is consensus for continued use) as it is the correct place for it to stay long term so that id does not get archived of into artical talk page archives.
So with that in mind, I am thinking of creating a template in template name space and pasting the source over so that I can continue to work and develop mine without in any way impacting any trial - with this in mind can you recommend a name eg Template:BIDiscus (of the top of my head) - I would also like to have the template add a category to the Talk Page (for tracking purposes as the template is subst) would plan to use Category:BIDiscus (or the mirror of any better name) and would use {{ hiddencat}} on the Category page.
I would also plan to add the correct {{ Documentation}} section to the Template.
Any Comments ?
Codf1977 (
talk)
11:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
YGM}}
in my userspace, and after it was moved to template-space a sysop renamed it to {{
You've got mail}}
(keeping "YGM" as a redirect) on the basis that more explicit names are better (something I'd agree with). So... could I suggest "British Isles" instead of "BI"? Beyond that, all sounds good - we'll use the template space template, you'll develop the userspace template (another option would be to create a template-space sandbox under the template, like template documentation, e.g. {{
British Isles Discuss}}
, {{
British Isles Discuss/doc}}
and {{
British Isles Discuss/sandbox}}
? (I'd also suggest {{
BID}}
as a redirect to the template-proper, on the basis that I'm lazy and like short-cuts...)
TFOWR
11:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. Thanks for helping me out with
Nick Robinson. I hadn't done a Good Article review before, so I was finding it all a bit fiddly. I'll get the hang of it in time
Regards, --
bodnotbod (
talk)
15:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot all about the talk page, but yes, please also delete User talk:Crusio/Autobio. Thanks! -- Crusio ( talk) 15:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
There is someone I don't know distorts Camilia Shehata Zakher's page, can I restore my info back? By the way, there are 'citation needed' and 'not in citation given' stuff. Apparently, this person has deleted and corrupted my links! How can I restore it back?
{{
not in citation given}}
tag indicates that the reference provided doesn't support the claim made - I'd recommend double-checking the references tagged like this. {{
citation needed}}
simply mean that there is no reference provided to support the claim - it's an indication to editors that we need to find a reference. You could discuss this further with
the editor responsible - I can't recall working with them in the past, but I have seen them around and believe that they're very approachable.
TFOWR
21:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)In fact, as usual, the page has been deleted. I had the links but someone corrupt them. Anyway, Wikipedia wouldn't add any importance to my article since this is a hot topic in all Egyptian newspapers nowadays. Thanks anyway! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capolinho ( talk • contribs) 19:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, sorry it seems we edit conflicted at the Cameron article, I took it back another edit as that percentage has been at the previous figure for a fair time and there was no explanation. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Is it normal for an Admin to block himself for edit warring? Off2riorob ( talk) 21:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
The Surreal Barnstar}}
or {{
The Barnstar of Good Humor}}
- and I'm sure I suggested these two last time we had a barnstar conversation... but damn, Evil saltine is being surreal, and does have a good sense of humour.SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom ( talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 04:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm happy with this contribution, especially the "... except provide a victory for some who would like to see all of those opposed to the removal of the British Isles on wikipedia taken out of the dispute." Its not a battle and suggesting - without evidence - that one side has specific motives, is not very nice. Fmph ( talk) 05:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I hope you don't take this comment to be personal. It's not intended personally. --RA ( talk) 11:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi TFOWR, can you take a look at
User:Engr.Makhdoom and
User:Engr.Iqbal?
Looks like a duck to me Thanks. PS: for a bit of info, the former kept repeatedly recreating inappropriate articles and was indeffed at AIV for it; the latter has started creating the same articles.
GiftigerWunsch
[TALK]
14:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if anybody would object to having each discussion collapsed with the note of 'opened' or 'closed' in the collapse bar? GoodDay ( talk) 19:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Forgive my outdenting corrections. They're necessary to keep discussions from going into 50+ lines with 2 word sentences. GoodDay ( talk) 15:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Announcement_about_Pending_Changes - Hopefully that means I can continue to request it, since the trial was allegedly over I have had to request higher levels of protection when pending would have done the job. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Are you experienced enough to help me with this, I altered my archive format in this edit closer to your format but the bot is not coming around, any ideas as to the issue? Off2riorob ( talk) 21:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
You ensured the COI tag was maintained on this article, but where's the COI at the moment? It seems to have been stripped of any COI/fluff/advertising to me. Bigger digger ( talk) 21:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
COI}}
is intended to serve as a warning that "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" and that the article may require clean up. It's possible that the latter case may not apply (though I think the infobox could probably do with a good check, I've done that. It's a bit complicated becaue there are so many pages involved but should be OK. You can see it here. (Though, still favour simply taking discussions to the talk pages.) --RA ( talk) 00:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, User:174.125.215.61 marked his article as a GA himself without even sending it for review. I undid it, but was wondering if there was anything else I should do. Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 02:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Where as your closing of the debate on the Talk page about British Isles was in line with the views expressed, as a fair number of the 'do not add' responses were arguments based on the fact to some it is contentions - this is to me a POV position and as a result I am minded to tag the article {{ POV}} for failing to mention it. Codf1977 ( talk) 14:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
POV}}
tag, however, would potentially draw in new faces - which could be beneficial.
TFOWR
14:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Have had a look around and all logos seems to be showing fine now. Crazy-dancing ( talk) 12:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
If you are going to leave me a terse warning about incivility on my talk page then I expect you to also do the same regarding the editor who is constantly harassing me on my talk page - you only have to read his latest offerings for further evidence of this. I really don't appreciate the way in which you have conducted yourself in this matter - it's completely unacceptable from an administrator. All you have managed to do is to encourage the other editor's abuse! Afterwriting ( talk) 12:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not incredibly pleasant on the eyes since I got lazy and just threw it together, but behold what happens if you add giftig_toolbox_sidebar=true; to your js (assuming you still have my toolbox.js imported). I'll probably make it look a little (or a lot) better later on if I get time. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi TFOWR, could you block Afbile ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) please? I reported it to AIV but it hasn't been noticed yet, and the user has been repeatedly and rapidly removing speedy deletion templates from a copyvio article, and recreating it when it's deleted. Thanks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Sine you marked this edit as "bold", I thought I'd drop by and express my agreement. Debresser ( talk) 14:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Wouldnt it be easier to just use Twinkle to undo all 2000+ protections in a matter of minutes? That's how he got them protected in the first place. Or are you only unprotecting some of them and therefore having to go through it manually one by one? — Soap — 15:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Party shading/Federalist#Protection level change. — Markles 16:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
Hi, this is just to inform you that elections for Clerkship at WP:UAA have started on the talk page. You have been sent this message because you were recently active in handling submissions or discussions. Discussion is ongoing and you are encouraged to voice your opinion on the candidates.
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Fridae'sDoom ( talk) at 06:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC).
Could you take a look at Talk:Desert Valley Knights and let me know if you think these are quacky enough to warrant duck-blocking? Or should I start an SPI? It seems an individual is trying to have the page kept by creating an army of socks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Well your countdown was a little off, but only by a few hours. It appears (judging by previous speedy notifications on his talk page) that this is the fourth time they've created it, and they've also removed speedies from it and socked to try to keep it; I've given them a final warning and hopefully they'll knock it off... but I won't hold my breath. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but in WP:EASTEREGG (well, what that redirects to) it says: Keep piped links as intuitive as possible. Do not use piped links to create "easter egg links", that require the reader to follow them before understanding what's going on. Also remember there are people who print the articles...The readers will not see the hidden reference...unless they click or hover over the piped exceptions link. In a print version, there is no link to select, and the reference is lost. Instead, reference the article explicitly... "After an earlier disaster, the Bombay Explosion (1944), ...", not "After an earlier disaster..."
This seems to me (but please correct me?) that things like "a [[British Isles|group of islands]]" and "[[British Isles|an archipelago]]" are discouraged against. Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 09:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, first, I hate shoehorning names that don't really fit into blurbs to identify the picture. And I picked Kimmy over Rafa because Nadal was just up there for Wimbledon not three months ago... and the French a month before that. Feel free to change it to an All Black if you like, though. Courcelles 11:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah yes you're right, the two paragraphs are pretty much paraphases of each other. It's interesting that they have different tones:
Subtle but do you see what I mean? Jebus989 ✰ 15:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
could you help me in your admin hat? Off2riorob ( talk) 15:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
sock blocking any questions and permission User talk:Tnxman, here Off2riorob ( talk) 15:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Cool, many thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 15:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
User talk:Case edu this one...? Off2riorob ( talk) 16:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
All good, a big chocolate biscuit to you all. Thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Impressive work indeed. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the headsup. Here's the diff [12] - it looks pretty conclusive to me. As to the last part of your comment, it would have been polite for you to ask what contribution I have made to the project before suggesting to the entire community that this was my first ever edit. (no tilde on this keyboard) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.111.136 ( talk) 11:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
You do seem to have an issue with Vote (X) for Change. I think you would be better advised to stand back and let others exercise their own judgment. In the time that I've been contributing to Wikipedia I've not been aware of editors queuing up to lambast this particular contributor. The way the system works seems to be that other editors first air their views on the offending editor's talk page. If the behaviour continues, an administrator may impose a short block, which may be followed by blocks of increasing length if the situation does not improve. An indefinite block is the last stage in the procedure. Examination of Vote (X) for Change's record shows it was retired at the time the ballot it was concerned with closed and a single block was effected at that time. Nothing there supports your allegation that it alienated any member of the community other than the two troublemakers Jc3s5h and Chris Bennett it was in dispute with at the time.
Jc3s5h's reversion has to be examined in the light of the prior history. If your theory is correct, what is the explanation for the reverts performed by Jc3s5h to the edits of Siebot, QuartierLatin1968 and Doradus? As we are both in agreement that none of these is a sockpuppet there can be no objection to all their edits being restored. If we consider only the complaints of the editors who don't have a POV - pushing agenda, three striking facts emerge.
Apart from yourself, as a Japanese Atama is most likely to be non - Christian and tmorton166 describes him/herself as a scientific humanist. A non - believer would not realise that describing himself as a "Buddhist/Sikh/Pagan educated by non - Christians/atheists/robots" will inevitably cause deep offence to the Buddhist and Sikh communities.
I've been following the debate and my recollection is that there was a reference to religious project pages, not articles. Your declaration that you have no interest in religious articles sits uneasily beside the reference to Catholic Church elsewhere on this talk page, where the correspondent takes your familiarity with this article for granted. Also, at the beginning of the archive extract you say that you are a regular visitor to East - West Schism.
Long term protection of Gregorian calendar will only exacerbate religious differences. One of the five pillars of Wikipedia, WP:NPOV, was raised partly to ensure that no one major religion got any more coverage than any other. Had there been a worldwide outcry, such as the one which led to the cancellation of Florida's "Burn a Qu'ran" demonstration scheduled for today, it might have been justified, but negative feedback (apart from Jc3s5h) was zero. We don't know (because he won't say) whether he is pushing what he conceives to be the Catholic viewpoint. You can easily find out, since the Pope is visiting Scotland on Thursday, by going to Edinburgh before then, handing the Church's representative a copy of the disputed diff, and asking to be informed of any comments which His Holiness may have on the subject. 81.147.186.91 ( talk) 10:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
You appear to me to be someone who gets worked up about trivial issues (A "Type A" personality, in the jargon). Surely you can get your point across without swearing every other sentence. Whether you edited an article or its talk page is just a matter of detail. What interests me most about your post is where you say
There is a list of ex - editors - the Banned List - and I don't see Vote (X) for Change's name on that.
Then you say
I don't follow the reasoning here - if editors don't dole out "chocolates and roses" they don't get blocked either.
The link to Elockid is that (s)he protected the talk page of a protected article, which is outside Wikipedia guidelines.
So far as the Pope's visit is concerned (he's coming to Glasgey as well, by the way) I can't imagine that the Catholic Church would have the slightest interest in anything which is said about it on Wikipedia.
On misrepresenting what is said on talk pages, were your schoolteachers really robots or just decent human beings who people like you just like to make fun of because of their profession? 81.147.186.91 ( talk) 13:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Have I made a complaint to the Catholic Church? No.
Do I understand what you're on about? No.
Does anybody else understand what you're on about? No.
Goodnight. 81.147.186.91 ( talk) 20:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Can we interrupt the party for a moment? Earlier in this thread you suggested that my checking whether Vote (X) for Change was banned was evidence of guilt feelings. Not a bit of it. It actually relates to your 5th July response to Crohnie who asked you
If the edit is made by a banned sock puppet do we still revert them and then revert the edit to what is proper per policies?
Your reply:
If general, for an indef blocked sock puppeteer, no. For a sock puppeteer that's subject to a community ban, yes.
Why then are you hassling a good - faith contributor who is not community banned? 81.147.186.91 ( talk) 09:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Could you possibly take a look at my two requests at WP:RFPP please? The dynamic IP vandal is quite persistent. Thank you. O Fenian ( talk) 09:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I too need to borrow your mop- this should only take a few seconds. one, and two. Thanks in advance :) sonia♫ 11:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I was rather amused by your block log entry when you deleted Aquastranza. You are not actually required to be so frank, if you don't want to. JamesBWatson ( talk) 12:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
db-hoax}}
, the author removed it, then the CSD editor applied {{
db-author}}
. I'd missed that the author blanked the page when removing the db-hoax tag. So, it's true, I am an idiot! I'm happy to be frank, hopefully it inspires other editors to own up to and fix any mistakes they make - leading by (bad) example...!
TFOWR
12:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Our Indonesian misinformation vandal had returned today and yesterday, this time using addresses 114.57.114.110 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (today) and 202.70.54.48 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (yesterday). Same MO, same kinds of articles (i.e. anime, Power Rangers, Televisa, and Little League related articles). - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 13:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
IMO, speaking admin to admin, that you made a called-for move at (and back to) 2010 Qur'an-burning controversy, but would better have noted in your comment on the talk paage that
I also think using "Meh." in the talk summary (BTW, i needed Wikt to distinguish it from the expression of disgust, "
Feh."?) in declaring the move, may be at best too informal, too seemingly casual, for an action requiring admin priv. (Oh, shit: i'm about say that as an edit to your protected talk page!)
On the other hand, good call on all the direct results!
--
Jerzy•
t 00:05 & 00:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
log entry:
Your comment of my HelpDesk contributions was sooooooooooooooooo much appreciated!!!! :):) Thanks a ton!!! Really!!! Wishes and regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 19:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
administrator}}
to your userpage - just my way of saying "congratulations" ;-)
TFOWR
19:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)I thought I was resolving the issue by providing the answer, and changing the article text accordingly. Is there still an issue to be resolved? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 11:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I am doing my level best with Afterwriting. When he failed to follow BRD on Anglicanism I stopped at 2RR and fact tagged, now he has edit warred over that tag and went on to a series of accusations on my talk page and else where (bullying, hypocrisy etc. etc.) Two other editors are now engaged in a series discussion on the issues. I really don't want to go to a formal 3RR report, but its getting very weary maintaining civility in my response. I saw you also had a run in with the same editor. If you think I have done something wrong then please point it out, advise appreciated. -- Snowded TALK 16:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Surreal Barnstar | |
for your steadfast dignity and courtesy, even under Kafkaesque circumstances. UgoGuy!!! DocOfSoc ( talk) 05:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC) |
Thank you very much - I'm not sure what I've done to deserve this, but much of what I've done recently seems to be in the realm of the surreal.
Incidentally, I've got to come clean about my gender - I'm male! Not that I mind, I don't advertise the fact and my username is very unrevealing, but seeing as we're friends I thought I should be honest :-) TFOWR 21:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
If things get any hotter in this thread, a blanket is definitely going to be needed... GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
sofixit}}
? I guess we walked into that one! GW, you got an account at simple? I'll take a look at
simple:SMTP later, if I get a round "tuit".
TFOWR
09:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Sonia: now that you mention it, I'm very tempted. I'll be sure to fix up any more blatantly false / silly descriptions I see on simple.wiki in passing, but I think editing it too much will make my brain hurt. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. Ronk01 talk 21:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
TFOWR, could you delete this page but preserve the talk (just copy and paste it back in). I created it in main space without thinking. Thanks, --— RA ( talk) 19:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I was a bit short with the IP but xhe gave us a right runaround last month with the same content ;) Was in the middle of a aggravating issue on Talk:Libertarianism (trying to break up too quite radically opposed groups... fun) -- Errant [tmorton166] ( chat!) 19:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that. If that ip/range carries on doing this twice daily without a source, I'll request semi again. It's a weird history - I originally went there to join in a discussion asking a tag bomber to stop. Then it settled down for ages, and I went back to comment on an IP's message about these reversions, because he was being a dick about it. I've ended up agreeing with what he was doing, but not his methods, so after going there to "bollock" him for incivility I'm now doing his reverts for him, because the information is sourced. Not every change from the ip/range is necessarily bad, but they always manage to squeeze in the alteration to the sourced Cancellation section - and usually to different, seemingly random, figures each time. Just to add to all that fun, the IP I bollocked got an account, and got a block on a different article for edit warring (confused yet?) All a bit bizarre... Begoon• talk 21:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
The Indonesian misinformation vandal did his dirty work again on the same kinds of articles (i.e. Televisa, Little League, Power Rangers, and Digimon, not mention a few others). This time, he used the address 118.137.143.127 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This address is now outside the coverage of the now blocked 118.137.0.0/17 range. So can the 118.137.0.0/16 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) range be blocked as well because of this? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 06:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Here are the reports I made to WP:AN/I back in December 2007 to show how far back he persistantly does his vandalism:
He seemed to stop using addresses at the 61.5.*.* and 61.94.*.* ranges after the resulting blocks, but as we all are aware, he's still doing it as later reports to WP:AN/I by other users about him would show (I can list links those reports later if you want). I hope the reports I list here help. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 09:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi TFOWR, I was wondering if you could block the IP addresses, 192.168.2.6 and 58.168.107.123 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) since my brother is threatening to create spam accounts, see User talk:Airplaneman for more info. Regards, — Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 08:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the userpage revert :) I guess it's time for me to remove the atheist userbox as that's the second time it's been picked up and I suppose it can be considered divisive. Anyway thanks! Jebus989 ✰ 19:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Would you mind keeping an eye on Humaliwalay ( talk · contribs) and AllahLovesYou ( talk · contribs) they appear to be having a bit of a religion war.
Ta
Codf1977 ( talk) 08:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Looks like he did not hear any of that, do you wish to step in again or should I go to WP:AN/I ? Codf1977 ( talk) 08:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I saw you on Igloo chatting with the IP and saw you mention something about automation. If you have a list of pages that you know you want to completely unprotect, you can just use Twinkle. For example, if he has a list of pages where mine was the first log action, you can just set Twinkle to unprotect them all. It's much, much quicker! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
The article Artemisia vulgaris still contains TR's additions, which should have been reverted as no consensus was reached, and the article is still unresolved. Is it OK if I revert to the previous version? -- HighKing ( talk) 15:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
You are allowing Snowded to take the piss at the thread on Ireland. It's a valid suggestion I've made and is a different issue from the previous debate. Maybe it could be extended to include Great Britain. LevenBoy ( talk) 20:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
A joint discussion over the lead of both article (Ireland & Great Britain) would be preferable. I only wish this proposal wasn't so soon after the previous discussion at Ireland. GoodDay ( talk) 21:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi TFOWR, an IP just left a comment on Anthony Bradbury's talk page ( diff), identifying himself as User:Zsfgseg, who is marked as being a banned user. I reverted it as WP:DENY since he's banned, and I don't think Anthony is online right now, so if you wouldn't mind breaking out the patent-pending sockbuster? Thanks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi TFOWR, I've just looked at the recent changes page and its full of your twinkle edits unblocking a mass of artictles! Crikey what did you do to make that happen?-- Lerdthenerd ( talk) 09:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I am going to be posting this on multiple editor talk pages to get some discussion going. We have yet another section on the talk page requesting Ray William Johnson be added to the List of YouTube personalities. Something has to be done because people request he be added and don't give any references for the most part but someone tried to give references, but I checked them and they were not good ones. We don't need a new section everytime someone wants him added. We have umpteen sections requesting him be added. Again, something has to be done! Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 14:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
, yet only has three edits. I wonder if there's an attempt to bombard the page with requests until a kindly-but-naive editor fails to spot the lack of a reliable source?An 'indefinite ban' for something as innocent as writing "HighKing's nuts" in a summary over his opportunistic insistence that the Irish never used the term "conkers" for chestnuts (when their government does)?
That was a little bit of overkill, wasn't it? Others seem to think so.
So, can you please "define terms" specifically --- or are you just going to retain the right to fuck me over for any minor typo, alliteration, light pun or little happiness that you happen not to like, or do not understand, for the rest of time?
Why not send the HighKing off to do his own homework before he makes false suggestions requiring other to do his homework for him? Why not account for them all and put some limitations on how often he makes such time and energy consuming errors for others to deal with?
Again, as happy as I am to play scapegoat for you, all the punishment seems to be a little asymmetric.
Thank you -- Triton Rocker ( talk) 04:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
If you are a just decision maker would you step into the ongoing matter of taunting and threatening me of getting blocked again by Codf1977 here [16] and then removed my requests here [17] then again here [18]. I recently edited few Lebanon related articles in which an unintentional wrong edit was made for which I admitted and left message at more than 3 places including one here [19]. What are your views on this?? - Humaliwalay ( talk) 07:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Well thanks for the consideration, I am not scared of getting blocked if I commit an unpardonable mistake which I did not do even I still say my earlier block was also unjustified hence in protest I did not apply for review. But why is Codf1977 not willing to listen others, if the user scribbles in others talk-page either warning or requesting then why not paying heed to others' requests, deletion of posts is not an issue, but is it OK if done without issue being closed?? Advising of getting block again is only applicable if I do something wrong, refer my edits post block and tell me if that qualifies me to get blocked??? You should pay attention to this fact as well. - Humaliwalay ( talk) 08:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, your reply made me laugh, well no issues whatsoever..No grudges from my side for anyone. Thanks and good luck . - Humaliwalay ( talk) 08:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, TFOWR. Would you like to comment here? Bishonen | talk 16:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC).
Why be everyone a–talkin' all strangely today? | ||
---|---|---|
☠ Because we ☠ ☠ ARRRRRR! ☠ | ||
![]() |
With a yo-ho-ho, I be wishin' yer a right rollickin' ☠ Happy International Talk Like a Pirate Day ☠ To be a joinin' the fun and frolicks, yer can be addin' { {User:Chzz/pirate}} to the top o' yer talkpage / userpage for today, fer a fine fancy decoration. Emptied after midnight it'll be, so don't be dallyin' now! Hoist yer mainsail t'wards the I-R-Sea, either a'helpin' new sailors or on me own poopdesk, and let's parrty like it's 1699! Cap'nChzz ► 00:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC) | |
*
How To Be Speakin' Pirate-Like * Official website * Auto-translate to pirate speak |
![]() | |
Disclaimer: It's very rare for me to send messages like this; it might seem frivolous or hypocritical, as I often complain about myspacing of the project. However, as a pastafarian, this is my equivalent of a Christmas greeting. I seriously believe we need to have fun sometimes. If you object, I apologize; let me know, and I won't bother you again. |
That would explain Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 September 18#Yarr. Uncle G ( talk) 02:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Matey, thou art forgetting the Code of the gallant rogue to look upon all men, jack tar or landlubber, fairly and without evil in his heart. With but one look a man who truly is from the sea should discover no fondness for what is told in an old salt's yarn. There be no cause for a qualm of conscience to come athwart yon raw pup's stomach, and Davy hath no grip upon un, aye but he be summoning Charlie Noble and warned about the wind of ball, all for enquiries pursuant to the distribution of justice. The Quartermaster hath his hand stayed upon his cutlass, and with the first light of morn some cruel wretch will be marooned for violations of Ship's Articles. Swing at thy anchor until sunrise, take the wind that it will. Uncle G ( talk) 10:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Everything should be clear, now. Uncle G ( talk) 02:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey, as an uninvolved admin, could you please review WP:ANI#Proposed Solution and decide if a community consensus has been reached and enforcement of the proposal can take place? Thanks, Strange Passerby ( talk • c • status) 12:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi TFOWR, any chance you could tell me if I did the right thing here? Maybe my judgement is clouded because I'm involved, but I just looked back at ANI and was rather... angry to discover that the one response to what I felt was a perfectly valid thread was an attack made against me by the user in question, which had been there for two hours and no one had even said anything to the user... I'm going to go take a break to maintain my WP:COOL; please let me know if it's me who has erred, if you get chance to look. Thanks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
TFOWR, I am interested in having a third party come in and help hash something out. [ [21]] is a request for someone to review a situation they commented on with a reply that is not in accordance with policy and is highly rude and insulting. I understand reverting or even asking not to post to a page but when you are asked for clarification in a polite manner an appropriate response is not gibberish. I realize that this is not a huge deal as far as attacks go but how in the world is that meant to help stop disruption or foster a more civil environment? I would have attempted furthur discussion myself but I believe you see how useful that was. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 19:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Please see here for another breach of Triton Rockers topic ban. I do not care if it was agreed or not to add the term, Triton Rocker should not be doing it. Bjmullan ( talk) 20:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
| ||||
![]() |
Archive 8 |
Archive 9
![]() |
Sorry to keep pushing this, but it has been over three weeks now since this issue was raised. Codf1977 ( talk) 16:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Good call closing that talk thread at AN. Thanks! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 14:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry on that part...At first look the article had a scent of vandalism, but when I searched google on the same subject, I found the article to be fair. I also welcomed the user on behalf of Wikipedia. The over tagging was an act of defence from my side...excuse me for that... :) arun talk 15:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I thought I'd delisted the article from WP:GAN - I really thought I had, but it seems not, after all. I don't want to put out a call to editors to help with the lead on the discussion page for obvious reasons, but need some help with the lead. Are you interested? I've contacted Candorwien who seems to be semi-active - anyone else? That's what happens when you delete a bunch of stuff ... Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 13:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This user helped promote IB Diploma Programme to good article status. |
I found another one: you know what I mean. This one is really obvious, and I can't believe I missed it. Shall I put the diffs here or send you an e-mail? Honestly, I'd rather put it here, because it should be seen on-wiki. Let me know - still writing it out... Cheers :> Doc9871 ( talk) 09:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay: here we go. Again, the stalking of DocOfSoc and editing articles SRQ (& co.) edited makes this pretty ducky. User:NeoNeuroGeek, after making a few "grammar changes" and undos, reverts DocOfSoc here [3] without comment, then adds in the 1980's" (this comes into play later). Some more undos (including to Asperger's, which SRQ volunteered [4] she suffers from): then stops editing on July 28. The very next edit a month later is again to revert DocOfSoc [5], rapidly start "changing grammar" at the article, even using a Republican(!) blog as a reference when reverting DocOfSoc's revert [6]. Then, an unsigned(!) tirade against DocOfSoc concerning Judaism(!) on the talk page [7]. Leaves a "SRQ special" custom warning to a user here [8]. Then goes to Prosody (linguistics) for some grammar work: an article edited by another SRQ sock [9] followed by the IP sock attack there. Now NNG is back at Prodosy (linguistics). On NNG's user page, they say they work in speech pathology: note that RDMH also showed an interest in speech pathology [10] (and in stalking DocOfSoc)...
ILuvAMrRadio comes along to Christine Craft (which both SRQ and NNG have edited) and basically re-inserts what NNG had put in a revert of DocOfSoc: "in the 1980's" [11]. No edit overlaps at all, (most importantly) NNG and ILAMR, who were editing at the same time.
I think I covered it - sorry about the long read. What do you think? Cheers :> Doc9871 ( talk) 10:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
The former was blocked in April 2010 & the latter was created in March 2010. I hope my suspicions are proven wrong. GoodDay ( talk) 15:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Loved the post and a very good point. I hope some take heed. BUT, you are way too hard on yourself. You were never a dick! LOL You handled it all very well, and I found a quite wonderful friend. TY Namaste... DocOfSoc ( talk) P.S. Just read your post again. Conceptually, it is not in you, to even come close to being as mean as AtlalntaBravz was. You were not hurtful. We just disagreed, end of story. You came back with your fairy wand and made it all better :-D
Hi,
Looks like there is a degree of consensus for at least a trial of the Template, I have not had time to work on a version that can sit at the top of a talk page (i.e. with added options for resolved and links to archived discussions), I do intend to do that (if it looks like there is consensus for continued use) as it is the correct place for it to stay long term so that id does not get archived of into artical talk page archives.
So with that in mind, I am thinking of creating a template in template name space and pasting the source over so that I can continue to work and develop mine without in any way impacting any trial - with this in mind can you recommend a name eg Template:BIDiscus (of the top of my head) - I would also like to have the template add a category to the Talk Page (for tracking purposes as the template is subst) would plan to use Category:BIDiscus (or the mirror of any better name) and would use {{ hiddencat}} on the Category page.
I would also plan to add the correct {{ Documentation}} section to the Template.
Any Comments ?
Codf1977 (
talk)
11:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
YGM}}
in my userspace, and after it was moved to template-space a sysop renamed it to {{
You've got mail}}
(keeping "YGM" as a redirect) on the basis that more explicit names are better (something I'd agree with). So... could I suggest "British Isles" instead of "BI"? Beyond that, all sounds good - we'll use the template space template, you'll develop the userspace template (another option would be to create a template-space sandbox under the template, like template documentation, e.g. {{
British Isles Discuss}}
, {{
British Isles Discuss/doc}}
and {{
British Isles Discuss/sandbox}}
? (I'd also suggest {{
BID}}
as a redirect to the template-proper, on the basis that I'm lazy and like short-cuts...)
TFOWR
11:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. Thanks for helping me out with
Nick Robinson. I hadn't done a Good Article review before, so I was finding it all a bit fiddly. I'll get the hang of it in time
Regards, --
bodnotbod (
talk)
15:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot all about the talk page, but yes, please also delete User talk:Crusio/Autobio. Thanks! -- Crusio ( talk) 15:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
There is someone I don't know distorts Camilia Shehata Zakher's page, can I restore my info back? By the way, there are 'citation needed' and 'not in citation given' stuff. Apparently, this person has deleted and corrupted my links! How can I restore it back?
{{
not in citation given}}
tag indicates that the reference provided doesn't support the claim made - I'd recommend double-checking the references tagged like this. {{
citation needed}}
simply mean that there is no reference provided to support the claim - it's an indication to editors that we need to find a reference. You could discuss this further with
the editor responsible - I can't recall working with them in the past, but I have seen them around and believe that they're very approachable.
TFOWR
21:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)In fact, as usual, the page has been deleted. I had the links but someone corrupt them. Anyway, Wikipedia wouldn't add any importance to my article since this is a hot topic in all Egyptian newspapers nowadays. Thanks anyway! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capolinho ( talk • contribs) 19:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, sorry it seems we edit conflicted at the Cameron article, I took it back another edit as that percentage has been at the previous figure for a fair time and there was no explanation. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Is it normal for an Admin to block himself for edit warring? Off2riorob ( talk) 21:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
The Surreal Barnstar}}
or {{
The Barnstar of Good Humor}}
- and I'm sure I suggested these two last time we had a barnstar conversation... but damn, Evil saltine is being surreal, and does have a good sense of humour.SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom ( talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 04:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm happy with this contribution, especially the "... except provide a victory for some who would like to see all of those opposed to the removal of the British Isles on wikipedia taken out of the dispute." Its not a battle and suggesting - without evidence - that one side has specific motives, is not very nice. Fmph ( talk) 05:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I hope you don't take this comment to be personal. It's not intended personally. --RA ( talk) 11:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi TFOWR, can you take a look at
User:Engr.Makhdoom and
User:Engr.Iqbal?
Looks like a duck to me Thanks. PS: for a bit of info, the former kept repeatedly recreating inappropriate articles and was indeffed at AIV for it; the latter has started creating the same articles.
GiftigerWunsch
[TALK]
14:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if anybody would object to having each discussion collapsed with the note of 'opened' or 'closed' in the collapse bar? GoodDay ( talk) 19:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Forgive my outdenting corrections. They're necessary to keep discussions from going into 50+ lines with 2 word sentences. GoodDay ( talk) 15:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Announcement_about_Pending_Changes - Hopefully that means I can continue to request it, since the trial was allegedly over I have had to request higher levels of protection when pending would have done the job. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Are you experienced enough to help me with this, I altered my archive format in this edit closer to your format but the bot is not coming around, any ideas as to the issue? Off2riorob ( talk) 21:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
You ensured the COI tag was maintained on this article, but where's the COI at the moment? It seems to have been stripped of any COI/fluff/advertising to me. Bigger digger ( talk) 21:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
COI}}
is intended to serve as a warning that "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" and that the article may require clean up. It's possible that the latter case may not apply (though I think the infobox could probably do with a good check, I've done that. It's a bit complicated becaue there are so many pages involved but should be OK. You can see it here. (Though, still favour simply taking discussions to the talk pages.) --RA ( talk) 00:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, User:174.125.215.61 marked his article as a GA himself without even sending it for review. I undid it, but was wondering if there was anything else I should do. Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 02:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Where as your closing of the debate on the Talk page about British Isles was in line with the views expressed, as a fair number of the 'do not add' responses were arguments based on the fact to some it is contentions - this is to me a POV position and as a result I am minded to tag the article {{ POV}} for failing to mention it. Codf1977 ( talk) 14:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
POV}}
tag, however, would potentially draw in new faces - which could be beneficial.
TFOWR
14:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Have had a look around and all logos seems to be showing fine now. Crazy-dancing ( talk) 12:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
If you are going to leave me a terse warning about incivility on my talk page then I expect you to also do the same regarding the editor who is constantly harassing me on my talk page - you only have to read his latest offerings for further evidence of this. I really don't appreciate the way in which you have conducted yourself in this matter - it's completely unacceptable from an administrator. All you have managed to do is to encourage the other editor's abuse! Afterwriting ( talk) 12:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not incredibly pleasant on the eyes since I got lazy and just threw it together, but behold what happens if you add giftig_toolbox_sidebar=true; to your js (assuming you still have my toolbox.js imported). I'll probably make it look a little (or a lot) better later on if I get time. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi TFOWR, could you block Afbile ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) please? I reported it to AIV but it hasn't been noticed yet, and the user has been repeatedly and rapidly removing speedy deletion templates from a copyvio article, and recreating it when it's deleted. Thanks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Sine you marked this edit as "bold", I thought I'd drop by and express my agreement. Debresser ( talk) 14:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Wouldnt it be easier to just use Twinkle to undo all 2000+ protections in a matter of minutes? That's how he got them protected in the first place. Or are you only unprotecting some of them and therefore having to go through it manually one by one? — Soap — 15:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Party shading/Federalist#Protection level change. — Markles 16:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
Hi, this is just to inform you that elections for Clerkship at WP:UAA have started on the talk page. You have been sent this message because you were recently active in handling submissions or discussions. Discussion is ongoing and you are encouraged to voice your opinion on the candidates.
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Fridae'sDoom ( talk) at 06:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC).
Could you take a look at Talk:Desert Valley Knights and let me know if you think these are quacky enough to warrant duck-blocking? Or should I start an SPI? It seems an individual is trying to have the page kept by creating an army of socks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Well your countdown was a little off, but only by a few hours. It appears (judging by previous speedy notifications on his talk page) that this is the fourth time they've created it, and they've also removed speedies from it and socked to try to keep it; I've given them a final warning and hopefully they'll knock it off... but I won't hold my breath. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but in WP:EASTEREGG (well, what that redirects to) it says: Keep piped links as intuitive as possible. Do not use piped links to create "easter egg links", that require the reader to follow them before understanding what's going on. Also remember there are people who print the articles...The readers will not see the hidden reference...unless they click or hover over the piped exceptions link. In a print version, there is no link to select, and the reference is lost. Instead, reference the article explicitly... "After an earlier disaster, the Bombay Explosion (1944), ...", not "After an earlier disaster..."
This seems to me (but please correct me?) that things like "a [[British Isles|group of islands]]" and "[[British Isles|an archipelago]]" are discouraged against. Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 09:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, first, I hate shoehorning names that don't really fit into blurbs to identify the picture. And I picked Kimmy over Rafa because Nadal was just up there for Wimbledon not three months ago... and the French a month before that. Feel free to change it to an All Black if you like, though. Courcelles 11:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah yes you're right, the two paragraphs are pretty much paraphases of each other. It's interesting that they have different tones:
Subtle but do you see what I mean? Jebus989 ✰ 15:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
could you help me in your admin hat? Off2riorob ( talk) 15:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
sock blocking any questions and permission User talk:Tnxman, here Off2riorob ( talk) 15:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Cool, many thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 15:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
User talk:Case edu this one...? Off2riorob ( talk) 16:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
All good, a big chocolate biscuit to you all. Thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Impressive work indeed. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the headsup. Here's the diff [12] - it looks pretty conclusive to me. As to the last part of your comment, it would have been polite for you to ask what contribution I have made to the project before suggesting to the entire community that this was my first ever edit. (no tilde on this keyboard) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.111.136 ( talk) 11:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
You do seem to have an issue with Vote (X) for Change. I think you would be better advised to stand back and let others exercise their own judgment. In the time that I've been contributing to Wikipedia I've not been aware of editors queuing up to lambast this particular contributor. The way the system works seems to be that other editors first air their views on the offending editor's talk page. If the behaviour continues, an administrator may impose a short block, which may be followed by blocks of increasing length if the situation does not improve. An indefinite block is the last stage in the procedure. Examination of Vote (X) for Change's record shows it was retired at the time the ballot it was concerned with closed and a single block was effected at that time. Nothing there supports your allegation that it alienated any member of the community other than the two troublemakers Jc3s5h and Chris Bennett it was in dispute with at the time.
Jc3s5h's reversion has to be examined in the light of the prior history. If your theory is correct, what is the explanation for the reverts performed by Jc3s5h to the edits of Siebot, QuartierLatin1968 and Doradus? As we are both in agreement that none of these is a sockpuppet there can be no objection to all their edits being restored. If we consider only the complaints of the editors who don't have a POV - pushing agenda, three striking facts emerge.
Apart from yourself, as a Japanese Atama is most likely to be non - Christian and tmorton166 describes him/herself as a scientific humanist. A non - believer would not realise that describing himself as a "Buddhist/Sikh/Pagan educated by non - Christians/atheists/robots" will inevitably cause deep offence to the Buddhist and Sikh communities.
I've been following the debate and my recollection is that there was a reference to religious project pages, not articles. Your declaration that you have no interest in religious articles sits uneasily beside the reference to Catholic Church elsewhere on this talk page, where the correspondent takes your familiarity with this article for granted. Also, at the beginning of the archive extract you say that you are a regular visitor to East - West Schism.
Long term protection of Gregorian calendar will only exacerbate religious differences. One of the five pillars of Wikipedia, WP:NPOV, was raised partly to ensure that no one major religion got any more coverage than any other. Had there been a worldwide outcry, such as the one which led to the cancellation of Florida's "Burn a Qu'ran" demonstration scheduled for today, it might have been justified, but negative feedback (apart from Jc3s5h) was zero. We don't know (because he won't say) whether he is pushing what he conceives to be the Catholic viewpoint. You can easily find out, since the Pope is visiting Scotland on Thursday, by going to Edinburgh before then, handing the Church's representative a copy of the disputed diff, and asking to be informed of any comments which His Holiness may have on the subject. 81.147.186.91 ( talk) 10:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
You appear to me to be someone who gets worked up about trivial issues (A "Type A" personality, in the jargon). Surely you can get your point across without swearing every other sentence. Whether you edited an article or its talk page is just a matter of detail. What interests me most about your post is where you say
There is a list of ex - editors - the Banned List - and I don't see Vote (X) for Change's name on that.
Then you say
I don't follow the reasoning here - if editors don't dole out "chocolates and roses" they don't get blocked either.
The link to Elockid is that (s)he protected the talk page of a protected article, which is outside Wikipedia guidelines.
So far as the Pope's visit is concerned (he's coming to Glasgey as well, by the way) I can't imagine that the Catholic Church would have the slightest interest in anything which is said about it on Wikipedia.
On misrepresenting what is said on talk pages, were your schoolteachers really robots or just decent human beings who people like you just like to make fun of because of their profession? 81.147.186.91 ( talk) 13:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Have I made a complaint to the Catholic Church? No.
Do I understand what you're on about? No.
Does anybody else understand what you're on about? No.
Goodnight. 81.147.186.91 ( talk) 20:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Can we interrupt the party for a moment? Earlier in this thread you suggested that my checking whether Vote (X) for Change was banned was evidence of guilt feelings. Not a bit of it. It actually relates to your 5th July response to Crohnie who asked you
If the edit is made by a banned sock puppet do we still revert them and then revert the edit to what is proper per policies?
Your reply:
If general, for an indef blocked sock puppeteer, no. For a sock puppeteer that's subject to a community ban, yes.
Why then are you hassling a good - faith contributor who is not community banned? 81.147.186.91 ( talk) 09:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Could you possibly take a look at my two requests at WP:RFPP please? The dynamic IP vandal is quite persistent. Thank you. O Fenian ( talk) 09:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I too need to borrow your mop- this should only take a few seconds. one, and two. Thanks in advance :) sonia♫ 11:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I was rather amused by your block log entry when you deleted Aquastranza. You are not actually required to be so frank, if you don't want to. JamesBWatson ( talk) 12:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
db-hoax}}
, the author removed it, then the CSD editor applied {{
db-author}}
. I'd missed that the author blanked the page when removing the db-hoax tag. So, it's true, I am an idiot! I'm happy to be frank, hopefully it inspires other editors to own up to and fix any mistakes they make - leading by (bad) example...!
TFOWR
12:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Our Indonesian misinformation vandal had returned today and yesterday, this time using addresses 114.57.114.110 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (today) and 202.70.54.48 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (yesterday). Same MO, same kinds of articles (i.e. anime, Power Rangers, Televisa, and Little League related articles). - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 13:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
IMO, speaking admin to admin, that you made a called-for move at (and back to) 2010 Qur'an-burning controversy, but would better have noted in your comment on the talk paage that
I also think using "Meh." in the talk summary (BTW, i needed Wikt to distinguish it from the expression of disgust, "
Feh."?) in declaring the move, may be at best too informal, too seemingly casual, for an action requiring admin priv. (Oh, shit: i'm about say that as an edit to your protected talk page!)
On the other hand, good call on all the direct results!
--
Jerzy•
t 00:05 & 00:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
log entry:
Your comment of my HelpDesk contributions was sooooooooooooooooo much appreciated!!!! :):) Thanks a ton!!! Really!!! Wishes and regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 19:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
administrator}}
to your userpage - just my way of saying "congratulations" ;-)
TFOWR
19:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)I thought I was resolving the issue by providing the answer, and changing the article text accordingly. Is there still an issue to be resolved? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 11:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I am doing my level best with Afterwriting. When he failed to follow BRD on Anglicanism I stopped at 2RR and fact tagged, now he has edit warred over that tag and went on to a series of accusations on my talk page and else where (bullying, hypocrisy etc. etc.) Two other editors are now engaged in a series discussion on the issues. I really don't want to go to a formal 3RR report, but its getting very weary maintaining civility in my response. I saw you also had a run in with the same editor. If you think I have done something wrong then please point it out, advise appreciated. -- Snowded TALK 16:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Surreal Barnstar | |
for your steadfast dignity and courtesy, even under Kafkaesque circumstances. UgoGuy!!! DocOfSoc ( talk) 05:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC) |
Thank you very much - I'm not sure what I've done to deserve this, but much of what I've done recently seems to be in the realm of the surreal.
Incidentally, I've got to come clean about my gender - I'm male! Not that I mind, I don't advertise the fact and my username is very unrevealing, but seeing as we're friends I thought I should be honest :-) TFOWR 21:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
If things get any hotter in this thread, a blanket is definitely going to be needed... GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
sofixit}}
? I guess we walked into that one! GW, you got an account at simple? I'll take a look at
simple:SMTP later, if I get a round "tuit".
TFOWR
09:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Sonia: now that you mention it, I'm very tempted. I'll be sure to fix up any more blatantly false / silly descriptions I see on simple.wiki in passing, but I think editing it too much will make my brain hurt. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. Ronk01 talk 21:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
TFOWR, could you delete this page but preserve the talk (just copy and paste it back in). I created it in main space without thinking. Thanks, --— RA ( talk) 19:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I was a bit short with the IP but xhe gave us a right runaround last month with the same content ;) Was in the middle of a aggravating issue on Talk:Libertarianism (trying to break up too quite radically opposed groups... fun) -- Errant [tmorton166] ( chat!) 19:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that. If that ip/range carries on doing this twice daily without a source, I'll request semi again. It's a weird history - I originally went there to join in a discussion asking a tag bomber to stop. Then it settled down for ages, and I went back to comment on an IP's message about these reversions, because he was being a dick about it. I've ended up agreeing with what he was doing, but not his methods, so after going there to "bollock" him for incivility I'm now doing his reverts for him, because the information is sourced. Not every change from the ip/range is necessarily bad, but they always manage to squeeze in the alteration to the sourced Cancellation section - and usually to different, seemingly random, figures each time. Just to add to all that fun, the IP I bollocked got an account, and got a block on a different article for edit warring (confused yet?) All a bit bizarre... Begoon• talk 21:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
The Indonesian misinformation vandal did his dirty work again on the same kinds of articles (i.e. Televisa, Little League, Power Rangers, and Digimon, not mention a few others). This time, he used the address 118.137.143.127 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This address is now outside the coverage of the now blocked 118.137.0.0/17 range. So can the 118.137.0.0/16 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) range be blocked as well because of this? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 06:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Here are the reports I made to WP:AN/I back in December 2007 to show how far back he persistantly does his vandalism:
He seemed to stop using addresses at the 61.5.*.* and 61.94.*.* ranges after the resulting blocks, but as we all are aware, he's still doing it as later reports to WP:AN/I by other users about him would show (I can list links those reports later if you want). I hope the reports I list here help. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 09:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi TFOWR, I was wondering if you could block the IP addresses, 192.168.2.6 and 58.168.107.123 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) since my brother is threatening to create spam accounts, see User talk:Airplaneman for more info. Regards, — Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 08:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the userpage revert :) I guess it's time for me to remove the atheist userbox as that's the second time it's been picked up and I suppose it can be considered divisive. Anyway thanks! Jebus989 ✰ 19:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Would you mind keeping an eye on Humaliwalay ( talk · contribs) and AllahLovesYou ( talk · contribs) they appear to be having a bit of a religion war.
Ta
Codf1977 ( talk) 08:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Looks like he did not hear any of that, do you wish to step in again or should I go to WP:AN/I ? Codf1977 ( talk) 08:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I saw you on Igloo chatting with the IP and saw you mention something about automation. If you have a list of pages that you know you want to completely unprotect, you can just use Twinkle. For example, if he has a list of pages where mine was the first log action, you can just set Twinkle to unprotect them all. It's much, much quicker! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
The article Artemisia vulgaris still contains TR's additions, which should have been reverted as no consensus was reached, and the article is still unresolved. Is it OK if I revert to the previous version? -- HighKing ( talk) 15:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
You are allowing Snowded to take the piss at the thread on Ireland. It's a valid suggestion I've made and is a different issue from the previous debate. Maybe it could be extended to include Great Britain. LevenBoy ( talk) 20:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
A joint discussion over the lead of both article (Ireland & Great Britain) would be preferable. I only wish this proposal wasn't so soon after the previous discussion at Ireland. GoodDay ( talk) 21:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi TFOWR, an IP just left a comment on Anthony Bradbury's talk page ( diff), identifying himself as User:Zsfgseg, who is marked as being a banned user. I reverted it as WP:DENY since he's banned, and I don't think Anthony is online right now, so if you wouldn't mind breaking out the patent-pending sockbuster? Thanks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi TFOWR, I've just looked at the recent changes page and its full of your twinkle edits unblocking a mass of artictles! Crikey what did you do to make that happen?-- Lerdthenerd ( talk) 09:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I am going to be posting this on multiple editor talk pages to get some discussion going. We have yet another section on the talk page requesting Ray William Johnson be added to the List of YouTube personalities. Something has to be done because people request he be added and don't give any references for the most part but someone tried to give references, but I checked them and they were not good ones. We don't need a new section everytime someone wants him added. We have umpteen sections requesting him be added. Again, something has to be done! Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 14:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
, yet only has three edits. I wonder if there's an attempt to bombard the page with requests until a kindly-but-naive editor fails to spot the lack of a reliable source?An 'indefinite ban' for something as innocent as writing "HighKing's nuts" in a summary over his opportunistic insistence that the Irish never used the term "conkers" for chestnuts (when their government does)?
That was a little bit of overkill, wasn't it? Others seem to think so.
So, can you please "define terms" specifically --- or are you just going to retain the right to fuck me over for any minor typo, alliteration, light pun or little happiness that you happen not to like, or do not understand, for the rest of time?
Why not send the HighKing off to do his own homework before he makes false suggestions requiring other to do his homework for him? Why not account for them all and put some limitations on how often he makes such time and energy consuming errors for others to deal with?
Again, as happy as I am to play scapegoat for you, all the punishment seems to be a little asymmetric.
Thank you -- Triton Rocker ( talk) 04:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
If you are a just decision maker would you step into the ongoing matter of taunting and threatening me of getting blocked again by Codf1977 here [16] and then removed my requests here [17] then again here [18]. I recently edited few Lebanon related articles in which an unintentional wrong edit was made for which I admitted and left message at more than 3 places including one here [19]. What are your views on this?? - Humaliwalay ( talk) 07:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Well thanks for the consideration, I am not scared of getting blocked if I commit an unpardonable mistake which I did not do even I still say my earlier block was also unjustified hence in protest I did not apply for review. But why is Codf1977 not willing to listen others, if the user scribbles in others talk-page either warning or requesting then why not paying heed to others' requests, deletion of posts is not an issue, but is it OK if done without issue being closed?? Advising of getting block again is only applicable if I do something wrong, refer my edits post block and tell me if that qualifies me to get blocked??? You should pay attention to this fact as well. - Humaliwalay ( talk) 08:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, your reply made me laugh, well no issues whatsoever..No grudges from my side for anyone. Thanks and good luck . - Humaliwalay ( talk) 08:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, TFOWR. Would you like to comment here? Bishonen | talk 16:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC).
Why be everyone a–talkin' all strangely today? | ||
---|---|---|
☠ Because we ☠ ☠ ARRRRRR! ☠ | ||
![]() |
With a yo-ho-ho, I be wishin' yer a right rollickin' ☠ Happy International Talk Like a Pirate Day ☠ To be a joinin' the fun and frolicks, yer can be addin' { {User:Chzz/pirate}} to the top o' yer talkpage / userpage for today, fer a fine fancy decoration. Emptied after midnight it'll be, so don't be dallyin' now! Hoist yer mainsail t'wards the I-R-Sea, either a'helpin' new sailors or on me own poopdesk, and let's parrty like it's 1699! Cap'nChzz ► 00:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC) | |
*
How To Be Speakin' Pirate-Like * Official website * Auto-translate to pirate speak |
![]() | |
Disclaimer: It's very rare for me to send messages like this; it might seem frivolous or hypocritical, as I often complain about myspacing of the project. However, as a pastafarian, this is my equivalent of a Christmas greeting. I seriously believe we need to have fun sometimes. If you object, I apologize; let me know, and I won't bother you again. |
That would explain Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 September 18#Yarr. Uncle G ( talk) 02:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Matey, thou art forgetting the Code of the gallant rogue to look upon all men, jack tar or landlubber, fairly and without evil in his heart. With but one look a man who truly is from the sea should discover no fondness for what is told in an old salt's yarn. There be no cause for a qualm of conscience to come athwart yon raw pup's stomach, and Davy hath no grip upon un, aye but he be summoning Charlie Noble and warned about the wind of ball, all for enquiries pursuant to the distribution of justice. The Quartermaster hath his hand stayed upon his cutlass, and with the first light of morn some cruel wretch will be marooned for violations of Ship's Articles. Swing at thy anchor until sunrise, take the wind that it will. Uncle G ( talk) 10:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Everything should be clear, now. Uncle G ( talk) 02:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey, as an uninvolved admin, could you please review WP:ANI#Proposed Solution and decide if a community consensus has been reached and enforcement of the proposal can take place? Thanks, Strange Passerby ( talk • c • status) 12:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi TFOWR, any chance you could tell me if I did the right thing here? Maybe my judgement is clouded because I'm involved, but I just looked back at ANI and was rather... angry to discover that the one response to what I felt was a perfectly valid thread was an attack made against me by the user in question, which had been there for two hours and no one had even said anything to the user... I'm going to go take a break to maintain my WP:COOL; please let me know if it's me who has erred, if you get chance to look. Thanks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
TFOWR, I am interested in having a third party come in and help hash something out. [ [21]] is a request for someone to review a situation they commented on with a reply that is not in accordance with policy and is highly rude and insulting. I understand reverting or even asking not to post to a page but when you are asked for clarification in a polite manner an appropriate response is not gibberish. I realize that this is not a huge deal as far as attacks go but how in the world is that meant to help stop disruption or foster a more civil environment? I would have attempted furthur discussion myself but I believe you see how useful that was. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 19:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Please see here for another breach of Triton Rockers topic ban. I do not care if it was agreed or not to add the term, Triton Rocker should not be doing it. Bjmullan ( talk) 20:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)