User talk:TFOWR/Archive 10

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 9	Archive 10	Archive 11

Minor Edit ?

Woof Woof!

(edit conflict × 3)@ Tony Curtis (RIP) Does this look 'minor' including changing his photo? [1] Perhaps a {{subst:uw-minor}} ? ps. the 'Semicolons' are on the march and the 'Ellipsi' are in revolt! ☢ - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 10:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The change of photo is what swings it for me. The rest was all good stuff, and arguably minor - no substantive content was changed. Changing photos is usually a pretty big edit, and this one's no exception. I reckon it's a better photo - more recent - but it shouldn't be marked as minor, I'd definitely agree with that. A personalised note might be better than a templated note, though - the editor was clearly editing in good faith, and apart from the faux pas with the photo the rest was all good. TFOWR 10:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

there's a hidden comment telling people not to change the photo anyway, so it should be changed back--Lerdthenerd (talk) 10:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Tfowr, I don't think you've seen their talk page! A few warnings there. ☠ 220.101 talk^\Contribs 11:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I had a look. (I was really looking to see if there was a welcome template - there wasn't, unless they deleted it). It was for that reason that I thought a friendly note might work better. Worth a try, at least...? TFOWR 11:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

OK! Someone else has broken something in the main piccy "[[File:|frameless|alt=]]" shows, and removed a whole pile of links to his films without any edit summary. (overlinked? Redlinks I think actually) <sigh> - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 11:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Redlinks, definitely. Odd - obviously we should keep redlinks if they have any value, and I'd have thought creating articles about films that Tony Curtis appeared in has value. Then again, at WP:ITNC yesterday there was a "Tony Curtis? Who he?" thing going on... dammit, kids these days. He's Spartacus. Don't they teach anything useful in schools today?! Also, I was very disappointed that no one at WP:ITNC managed to get a "some like it hot" joke wedged into their !voting rationale... TFOWR 11:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I actually tried to see if I could revert the edit where they removed all those links, couldnt! Probably put me at 3RR too. But the picture 'code' still needs some attention, can't figure out what's wrong. The editor obviously has some clue, just can't be bothered wit hsummaries or preview apparently! <shrug> {{oldid2|388059867|}} Ah a new template to play with. Isn't there one to say "Please don't remove redlinks?", after which I may leave you alone for "Admin Bizness". ;-) - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 11:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

If you like {{oldid2}}, allow me to pimp my new userscript: User:TFOWR/easyDiff2.js. It doesn't actually do oldid2s, but diff2s, which work the same. Also {{diff}}s over ranges. As an added bonus it does fullurls of Special:Log pages (more useful for me, when I refer to block logs, protection logs, etc. I realise that userscripts may be unwelcome - think of it as a way for me to avoid linking to this page yet again ;-)

I'll take a look at the b0rken image, but right now my "admin bizness" is really "editing bizness"...! TFOWR 12:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Too late Dweeby123 (talk · contribs) has mega reverted it. Removing some good edit in the process!- 220.101 talk^\Contribs 12:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Bit too WP:BOLD for my liking - and I'd have liked to have seen an edit summary that said more than just "Reverting back to X: revert", but the redlinks are back, and I saw some useful wikilinks reappear as well (and some useful wikilinks disappear... ho hum). I'll keep an eye on this, but I'm not too concerned just yet. TFOWR 12:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Bloody oath its 'bold!' I left them a "friendly note", using the new magicke template you showed me. To me seem like case of wp:MY version - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 13:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

jacknove is quacking again

jacknove is back with another sock, and is quacking loudly as JackNove(I'mBackMwhaahaa) (talk · contribs) --Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I've indef'd as a vandalism-only account. I mentioned their WP:DUCK-tastic reincarnation, too ;-) TFOWR 12:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

also block jacknove18 (talk · contribs) thats quacking aswell, thanks!:) --Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Indef'd, too! Is it the school holidays somewhere? It seems too early for UK half-terms, but I tend to only find out this stuff when the vandalism picks up of I get asked to baby-sit small relatives... TFOWR 12:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

this guy is obviously persistant, hopefully those are the last socks--Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question here, yes - blocked socks can be tagged, if the evidence is sufficient to stand up to scrutiny. I think the similarity of the usernames is pretty clear-cut. TFOWR 12:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

thanks--Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Incomplete RevDel

You may need to delete a few more revisions at User talk:Faust as the section labelled Duplicate Requests from the revisions dated from 18:18, 23 July 2010 to 13:44, 7 September 2010 still contain links to Faust's old username. Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 254° 0' 45" NET 16:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Should all be gone now. Thanks for spotting that! TFOWR 17:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Scottish- American

MIDLOTHIAN is a very large, populous suburban community just southwest of Richmond, Virginia on US Highway 360. The Midlothian zip-code includes the national award-winning planned communities of "Woodlake" and "Brandermill". Please don't accuse me of "making this up". You can verity it on "Wikipedia". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.234.217 (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of making anything up. What I actually said was: Uh, that's Scotland's Midlothian. I'm not aware of an American Midlothian (I'll have a dig) but if you know where it is, post on the talk page... The Midlothian you had linked to was Midlothian, the one in Scotland. I'm more than happy to believe there are more Midlothians, but I'm unfamiliar with US geography and need your help identifying the article you meant to link to. I'll have a dig, based on the locations you've mentioned. TFOWR 18:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Midlothian, Virginia ← that one ;-) TFOWR 18:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

There's also a Midlothian, Illinois that I've often heard of but have never visited. I would assume these various Midlothians are named for the one in Scotland. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Which they are. There's also a Midlothian, Texas, and although its name's origin is not explained, the city's importance to Texas appears to be firmly cemented. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It's kind of a strange name to export - a bit like New South Wales. I could understand Lothian, but Midlothian? My personal favourites right now are Derry and Londonderry, New Hampshire - in Northern Ireland Derry/Londonderry is a disputed name - NH neatly solved the problem by having one city split in two! TFOWR 23:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Recently I asked someone where "Old South Wales" would be. Turns out it's in Wales. Duh. Regarding Londonderry vs. Derry, I would think that the naming rights bought by those livery merchants in London would have expired by now - unless they're still delivering the donations. Maybe they should rename the city altogether, to something neutral. Maybe "Danny Boy's Town". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This guy suggested it should be called "Stroke City", because everywhere it's spelled with a "/" - then he started getting called "Gerry/Londongerry". Personally I think Stroke City is workable, but the tourist board probably wouldn't like it. Not unless it was near to "Cardiac Arrest Town". If there was another Stroke City, they could call the one in Northern Ireland "Different Stroke City", then the tourist board could market it as "Different Strokes for different folks". I do wonder who had the bright idea of sticking "London" onto the name, and why they didn't do it anywhere else. Unless there was once a place called "New" - that seems to have been prefixed quite a lot. And why was New Amsterdam called that? Did they know one day it'd be taken over by English-speakers, so they'd better get it half-English, ready for the change? The new name is better, though - if the state was the same we'd have New Amsterdam, New Amsterdam - NA, NA. Which is just silly. TFOWR 00:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there's already a Strokestown in Ireland. According to the Londonderry article, it was almost literally a "naming rights" thing. Isn't there a song that contains the phrase, "Hey down ho down derry derry down", or some such? Seems like that could figure into it. As regards the original name of New York, it would be funny if it had stayed that way, and then we would have the "New Amster-Damn Yankees". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Ursula K. cleanup

Thanks for your help on the cleanup! Cheers, The Interior (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I'm a little concerned that I'm simply pushing the problem to Lavinia and Earthsea, but the ELs were at least more relevant at those articles, and they had far fewer. You seem to have done the real hard work though - pruning the "high-hanging fruit"! TFOWR 22:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Lavinia has more exlink than article, might yank some of those too! though once you start exlink pruning, its easy to go overboard. Big Ursula K. fan too. mmm, High-hanging fruit, so juicy. have a good one, The Interior (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Questional picture

I had a doubt about this picture as to whether it is free license, the info seems to suggest its straight from the media. Could yout ake a look?(Lihaas (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)).

It's at Commons, so not really our direct concern, but there seems to have been an OTRS ticket logged for it. The source is apparently the Argentinian government, so I guess someone asked the government to license it under a Commons-friendly license? The OTRS details are available, but I don't have an OTRS login so I can't check. I've raised issues at Commons before, but only for obvious copyright violations - never for one like this. You could maybe ask at commons:Commons talk:Licensing? TFOWR 23:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't wait until he realizes the page is protected.

Probably be able to hear the screaming from here... HalfShadow 23:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this 212.227.18.7 (talk · contribs)? I'm amazed they bothered with Semitic - they must have realised that their edits weren't visible... oh well, now their edits won't even be edits! I'd need to check, but I think this is the editor I refer to as "Jayjg's fan" - their first target was Jayjg, though their edit was a little more civil than usual... TFOWR 23:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I had always thought that "Semitic" was connected to "Semi-", but according to the article it's connected with a Hebrew term, "Shem". So instead of the article being "Semiticprotected", it could be said to be "Shemprotected", which means it will keep the Stooges away. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

AzaToth

It would probably be best to e-mail him, 'cuz he never replied (both times). HeyMid (contributions) 09:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This is this? I still don't understand what I'm doing with Twinkle, so I'd still be reluctant to do the edit, and the (archived) conversation just confused me more! AzaToth doesn't seem to have edited since 16 September, so emailing may be the best option - go for it! You'll be better at explaining what needs done than I will. TFOWR 09:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as the uw-unsourced4 template was deleted per RFD, it was also (later) removed from the TW module itself. Would also like to welcome you this morning! Or your UTC timezone is currently not morning? HeyMid (contributions) 09:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's definitely morning! I tend to think and work on UTC+0, but I'm in the UK and we're really on UTC+1 at the moment.

I don't know if it helps at all (it didn't help me...) but unrelated to this I had a discussion about Huggle - Huggle seems to be a lot more configurable, and users can tell it what templates to use. I quite liked that, because I'd like to be able to use custom welcome templates, but Huggle won't easily work for me (it's a ".net" application, and I mostly use Linux, so Huggle isn't as easy for me to use as it would be for someone who uses Windows). In my case I'll just have to keep on manually using custom welcome templates, but if you use Windows it might be worth having a look at Huggle? TFOWR 09:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have the rollbacker flag, so I can't use HG — but I'm thinking about re-requesting it in a few months. HeyMid (contributions) 09:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Back to Twinkle, one thing that just occurred to me (I saw Amalthea's reply to you) was: the fastest way to get this done would probably be to raise it at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle. If AzaToth is on a wikibreak, I'd imagine someone else will be around to handle requests like yours. At the very least, someone should know how to contact AzaToth - and you'll be in the best place to get consensus for your proposed change. By the way, sorry to be so unhelpful about this - I've not been using Twinkle for all that long. Until this Summer I always manually warned and welcomed! TFOWR 16:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

???

Hello. I couldn't understand your comment as there was no discussion about using "terrorist" term but about Andranikpasha's wordings against me. --Quantum666 (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I was picking up on Andranikpasha's post to ANI, which I'd missed at the time. They seemed to be saying that if they had sources describing an organisation as "terrorist" then it was OK for an article to describe the organisation as "terrorist" - I wanted to clarify when and how that was the case. I did comment on the term "dirty Azeri propaganda", but not on terms like "double standards" - but I'm hoping that now that Andranikpasha understands WP:NPOV and WP:WTA a little better this may cease to be an issue. TFOWR 13:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Revdel

Hi TFOWR, does this look like it should be revdelled as RD3 to you? I'm also slightly concerned that User:Access Denied seems to be feeding the troll a rather delicious 5-course meal by adding the diff to their user page, which I was about to ask them about on their talk page. I think bringing undue attention to such a serious personal attack / BLP vio is a bad idea and ideally the diff should simply be revdelled. Could you take a look? Thanks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

"Open sores". That one never gets old. RD3'd, as purely disruptive. RD2 would have worked for me, too, though I suspect the target is big enough to take it on the chin. TFOWR 18:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; quick as always. I've also left Access Denied a note about feeding the trolls, though there's no actual guideline about it so I guess it's up to them. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• By the way on a completely unrelated note, if you have time at some point (not urgent), do you think you could give me some brief informal feedback on whether or not I might be ready for an RFA in the relatively near future? I've been thinking about it recently but want to know if I might stand a snowball's chance in hell before actually considering it properly. It'd be pretty useful to have the opinion of someone who's moderately familiar with my edits and who has recently passed an RFA themselves. I think I'm a pretty good candidate based on my understanding of policy and the fact that I work in several areas where the tools would be useful, but I'm wondering if my relatively short period of activity is likely to hinder me. Don't worry about it if you don't have time. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandal alert.

Sorry to bother you, but it's the Indonesian vandal again, doing the same MO on three articles. And it seems he's using proxies now. The address he is using is 64.81.89.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 15:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked! I'm not in a somewhat better position to start doling out rangeblocks, too - stand by! TFOWR 15:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, just done a geo-locate, and I'm less certain - this IP geo-locates to Los Angeles, not Jakarta. I'll hold off on the range-blocks and see what happens. TFOWR 15:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, he seems to be using proxies now. Yesterday, he did his MO using 118.161.64.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log); and that address is based in Taiwan! Looks like I have to request protection again to the articles he hit. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 16:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Dammit, that's going to make life harder (for me at least). I don't know how to handle proxies (well, I know that we block them, obviously, I just don't know what our strategy for dealing with vandals who use them is). I'll do 3 days' semi on this IP's targets - it's a little long, but I can't see an alternative right now - and a more clueful admin can remove the protection if/when a better solution arises. TFOWR 16:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've learned that I don't know how to check for open proxies - I assumed a tool I have called proxycheck would, you know, check for open proxies, but it turns out I'm too stupid to operate it ;-) I'm punting this to smart people. TFOWR 16:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Unchecked for reports. Note to self: one month semi is OK. Worth reporting as an open proxy, but run 64.81.89.26 proxy through Google first. TFOWR 13:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the guy reused the address again (64.81.89.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) again a few hours ago. Sorry if I only reported to you now because I was out when he hit. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 20:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for longer (55 hours) - it's interesting they're reusing the same IP... maybe it's the only one they've got now? Anyway, I'm about to semi the articles they hit, for one month. I suspect protection may be the only real answer here... :-( TFOWR 20:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Just as an FYI since I don't think it warrants a checkuser at this time, but I have previously reverted some similar edits involving cast names on Digimon articles by user:Hubertyuan45 (compare [2] with [3]. Shiroi Hane (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Admin that published 2010 Commonwealth Games ITN blurb

Hi, would like to draw your attention to the ITN blurb that was published on the 2010 Commonwealth Games (and the administrator that published it). First, the blurb went differently from what was discussed at the Candidates page. This segment in particular:

... the controversies should be mentioned. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yea.. let us forget the controversies... We talked too much on it for now :) -- Tinu Cherian - 13:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Now that is contradictory. At the same time, the published blurb is gramatically unsound. I certainly am not suggesting ill-will of the publishing admin; he's a bubbly and helpful Wikipedian as I have seen from my interactions with him. I just hope to draw attention to this matter. In the meantime, the blurb on the Main Page should be copyedited a little if no other admin is doing it. Best, ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 14:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd recommend raising this with Tinucherian in the first instance. I do tend to agree that the controversy should be mentioned, but I'll defer to Tinucherian's assessment of the current consensus. TFOWR 14:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, can you do something about the blurb in the meantime? Just the grammatical issues will do. ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 14:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

What are the grammatical issues? If it were me, I'd stick "The" before "XIX", but I don't know enough about ITN blurbs to know whether that's wise or not... TFOWR 14:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a 'the' would be good. Think we can remove the stadium bit, that appears really unnecessary and is an unilateral addition by the posting admin. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 14:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The link to Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi was never raised during the discussion. The article is in a sorrowful state, and should be de-linked as it does not meet the ITN criteria as I recall. We should have 'the's in front of XIX and in front of Jawarhalal. Also, I'm not sure if it should be called the XIX Commonwealth Games, and whether it is in Delhi instead of New Delhi specifically. Sigh. ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 14:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It'd be a very short blurb without the stadium mention ;-) I'm going to defer all this to Tinu. Until they've commented I'm reluctant to trample over their blurb - I don't know what their reasoning is for omitting "the", and I don't know what their reasoning is for omitting the controversy - it may well be that they have sound reasons for it. TFOWR 14:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, and I'm inexperienced in inter-admin communications; apologies here. However, copyediting the blurb is not a disservice to the posting admin anyway, and since this has to do with grammar, it should be corrected right away? There is the possibility there are other reasons for omitting the 'the's, but I think the impetus is on us to correct that highly visible issue? ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 14:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, TFOWR. The poting admin had no consensus fo this blurb and appears to have intentionally left out the controversies, per his message quoted above, as his own POV. A case of BRD imo. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 14:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

...and thus far no one seems to have Discussed this with Tinu. Until that happens I'm going to continue repeating the same: I'm deferring to Tinu. Give me a shout if discussing this with the relevant admin doesn't work, but until then I'm the wrong person to be talking to. TFOWR 15:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I have alerted him. Can we address the linguistical problems though? The 'the's. I see no way it would impinge on the other admin's intentions. It's a surface issue that would do little to anyone's records, but would do much in maintaining grammatical soundness on Wikipedia. ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 15:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You can, but as I've already said I don't consider myself competent. Additionally, Tariqabjotu seems to have already fixed it. Again, this is something that should be rasied with the relevant admins, not me - I'm merely someone who's !voted at ITN. TFOWR 15:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops..I didn't knew that my "innocent" action would invoke such a big hue & cry. I have been following the news of CWG on the media in India for a long time. While it was true that the controversies weighed more than the Games itself during the initial times, the focus was shifted to the actual Games since over a week now. I don't feel it was my POV to drop the controversies. Honestly, it was the inclusion of the news of the Games than the controversies that had the consensus here as of now. I had no intentions of even denying the credit for the nominator though it was me who had suggested the inclusion of the news today ( Please check the history). I was watching the opening ceremony on television till now...and just came back now to give the nominator credits to AngChenrui & saw this. Please note that I had mentioned " I will remove the stadium mention once the opening ceremony is over ". The grammatical error was my mistake and I saw it was immediately corrected by another Admin very soon. I don't mind adding the controversies section , if there is consensus. Let us take the discussion back to ITN page. -- Tinu Cherian - 15:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay as I think through the matter again... remember that a principal criterion of ITN was breached in the process. Unsatisfactory articles should not be linked in the blurb; I understand Tinucherian is an admin but still, the stadium mention was never raised. This is unwarranted I have to say. Admins have special tools, but should never use them to gain an advantage in executing their personal (undiscussed) idea. This is the ITN and the Main Page we are talking about. Hope you understand my concerns. Regards, ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 15:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I am discussing this one-on-one with Tinucherian here, so I think the discussion on this section ends here. Best, ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 09:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

A sock

Just so you know, here's another sock report. --HighKing (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, I saw MBM's SPI swing past my watchlist. Oh joy - just when BISE seemed to be reaching a level of calm... TFOWR 20:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I saw this on my watchlist and though I'd get the banhammer out. Of all the things to edit war over... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, HJ. I think you should be safe with MidnightBlueMan, but with some socks you'd now be officially labelled an agent of Irish military intelligence. I think this is just a game to these socks - they know they're going to be reverted, and they know the only way to get their edits to "stick" is to do it right, though WT:BISE. I suppose it's just like common vandalism, a "fun" game to play of a Sunday night, before the telly gets good. TFOWR 20:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been called worse. Surprise, surprise by sockpuppets! I think I was once accused of working for the CIA or it might have been the US State Department. You do good work at BISE. I don't envy you, it's almost as bad as the Israel-Palestine dispute. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom of Great Britain

Hello there, and thanks for taking the time to write me a message. I'm a bit of a history buff, I confess, and that was why I felt that 'United Kingdom of Great Britain' was appropriate if it was felt that 'Great Britain' was insufficient. You are correct that the English Act of Union does indeed refer to a 'united Kingdom of Great Britain', was a small 'u' - however the Scottish Act of Union, as well as the original Treaty of Union, which the two Acts were seeking to ratify, both refer to a 'United Kingdomn of Great Britain'.

Kindest regards, 86.156.2.149 (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem (and welcome to Wikipedia!) The Kingdom of Great Britain article has more information, either in the article itself or on the talkpage (or the talkpage archives). I don't have a problem either way, my real concern was the ambiguity of "Great Britain" - most readers today will know of the island, but not necessarily of the state. One solution would be to "pipe" the title to an article - [[Kindgom of Great Britain|Great Britain]] - but that's something I'm not keen on, for various reasons (long and tedious reasons!) I think your latest solution is probably fine. TFOWR 21:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

sock attacking liberalism article

hello, a sock master called Hypocritepedia5 (talk · contribs) with socks Hypocritepedia4 (talk · contribs) and Hypocritepedia3 (talk · contribs) is back as an IP and is attacking the liberalism article at this moment, I think me and Snowded have it under control do we just ban them for general vandalism--Lerdthenerd (talk) 07:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I've protected Liberalism and Classical liberalism, though looking at them there was only one IP sock - I may have jumped the gun a wee bit. Both articles semi'd for a week, I'm inclined to leave that in place, and I'll keep an eye on the IP. TFOWR 08:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Meh, I blocked the IP as well. I'm definitely concerned about the article protection now, but I'll hold off lifting it in case there are more socks. Incidentally, AnomieBOT (talk) would like to remind you to subst warnings ;-) TFOWR 08:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

oops my bad, I'll subst them from now on--Lerdthenerd (talk) 08:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Jack nove again!

Jack nove is back on the Kerry katona article quacking again XD--Lerdthenerd (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh, gotta be faster than that! I saw your revert on Kerry Katona and was already on it ;-) Blocked indef as an obvious sock. TFOWR 10:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

lol he also referred to me as gay on my user page, how nice XD! --Lerdthenerd (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Shocking lack of creativity and imagination. Tsk! Vandals these days, they're just not the same as the high-class vandals we had back in the day. Very disappointing. TFOWR 10:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion

Some blatant block evasion for you: Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Abuse of Administrative Powers (IP 98.82.186.96). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

And a legal threat to top it off, which I just reverted. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion part 2

BigMattyO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and BigMatty93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Need any more? O Fenian (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh! I've just reverted BigMatty93 (talk). I'll take a closer look. TFOWR 23:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You did not need to look too hard obviously. O Fenian (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Amazingly, they both seemed very WP:DUCKish. I'd never have thought it, but it turned out they were the same person. Obvious sock is obviously blocked. I hesitate to mention the deductive skills I brought to bear, and I suspect you may have spotted the clues already, but no - I didn't have to look too far ;-) TFOWR 00:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

hi!

I appreciate your comments and suggestions, the topic was interesting to me, but I do not know much about Mexican films. Anyway I'll keep it in mind:) thank you ALauBeltran (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries! Though... not knowing anything about a subject shouldn't necessarily be a problem - I know nothing about African films! There are other "stub" categories as well, Sonia (or me) could help you find one that does interest you. Good luck, anyway! TFOWR 00:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Something that might bear watching

Hi TW, I saw something kind of odd on the RC page just a little while ago and I'm not entirely sure what to do about it. Which is why I'm dumping it on you.  :-D. CSCarlosXXVIII created an account on September 27th but didn't do anything with it until October 3rd. Since then he has been making title changes and doing page moves left and right. I call them "title changes" because that's what they are. The articles are about various members of the royal families of England. And Carlos keeps modifying the Royal's name/title to something more formal. Example: [4], [5]. Having spent some time in that section I'm pretty sure that's not right. And I also find it odd that he's being so bold about moving pages around. In short, I think its a sock but don't know what to do about it. Help?--*Kat* (talk) 05:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Aye, the ones I saw (and I looked at and reverted a few others...) were odd. There are plenty that are well outside my comfort zone - current British monarchs I can bluff my way with, 17th century Scottish aristocrats not so much - and mainland European royalty not at all. I'll dig out a relevant WikiProject and seek advice. TFOWR 09:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Raised at WP:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. TFOWR 15:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I thank you for your valueable suggestions. Can i ask you help whenever i need it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamil1988 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to, but I'd still recommend asking the WIkiProjects for help - they'll understand the subject far better than I do. I can give general advice about editing, but I wouldn't know where to begin in terms of copy-editing - which parts of the article are most important, for example. TFOWR 15:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Unacceptable edit summary

When you get the chance, could you see about removing this edit summary from the record. Thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Quick as ever. Kudos. RashersTierney (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Bwilkins blocked the editor responsible, so I've them to review my rev-del. It seemed blatantly disruptive (RD3) to me, but I generally need some sanity-checking with rev-del... TFOWR 18:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't personally have deleted that. I wouldn't say it's so egregiously offensive that the community shouldn't be able to see it, especially if it's being used as justification for a block (which is, of course, publicly logged). Just my 2 pence worth, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point, I didn't know about the block when I rev-del'd, but I do now. I'll un-rev-del it. TFOWR 18:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Accepted, to demonstrate reason for block, but for no other reason. RashersTierney (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking back over the user's talkpage, I'm seeing four years' worth of problems, and this isn't the first time they've demonstrated having issues with racism. Their block log isn't stellar, but to be fair it's clean since 2006. It'll be interesting to see how they behave in a week. TFOWR 18:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The apparent alacrity in using IPs to circumvent this block is also interesting. RashersTierney (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I've only seen the one IP (Favonian blocked it for a week) - are there more? Might be easier to just semi Antiziganism. I've worked with Favonian on sock-evasion before - I think it's time for a chat with Bwilkins and Favonian about Centrum. Is it just me, or does "Centrum" make anyone else think of vitamin pills? TFOWR 18:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

There does appear to be at least one other IP, but its use prior to block does not appear to have been to avoid scrutiny. RashersTierney (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The quality of ethnic slurs in edit summaries is woefully low, going by the example above. O Fenian (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

If they've never had one, serve them a Digwuren notice. If they have, act accordingly and topic ban. Either way, their actions are unacceptable and fall right down Digwuren's alley. Courcelles 19:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Acting on my own suggestion, if they ever had a Digwuren notice, it wasn't logged, so it isn't enforceable. Left and logged a formal warning. Courcelles 19:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Aha, a new toy: "Digwuren notice". Thanks, Courcelles. The editor seems to be using IPs to sock (and accuse Bwilkins of being Karl Marx, I think...) so I'm not sure if the notice will work, but it can't hurt. TFOWR 20:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm closer to Richard Marx than Karl Marx :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, well... I've taken more notice of the ArbCom discretionary sanctions lately. There aren't a lot of times that fall into their scope, but when they're needed, they do give you the power to do what is needed. And they only really apply in those areas that are most screwed up of all. (Shot you an e-mail, while I'm here.) Courcelles 20:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

In my case it'd have to be Groucho Marx! TFOWR 20:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Richard: "I will be right here waiting for you"

Karl: "We will all be right here, equally waiting for you"

Groucho: "I'll be right here waiting to make fun of you"

(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Jérôme Kerviel

--BorgQueen (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Problem

Someone has created a duplicate Hong Song Dam page with called Hong song dam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IPodguy360 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Do you know much about Hong Song Dam? Any information you could add to the article would be very useful. He seems like a very interesting artist. TFOWR 18:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:You've got mail

Hi! What is the purpose of the sig parameter? Currently the result using {{YGM|sig=yes}} is the addition of an &mdash; (—) with four tildes. If it is meant to be for signing the template, all four tildes need to be wrapped inside the includeonly tag. HeyMid (contributions) 13:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Why, to sign of course! It only works when the template is subst-ed, however. I thought I'd mentioned that in the documentation, but maybe not. When I get time I'll see if I can work out a way to ignore the param when the template isn't subst-ed. TFOWR 13:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Aye, it's mentioned in the documentation. Not very explicit, but there's an example. Feel free to make it clearer ;-) TFOWR 13:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Example signed YGM

{{subst:YGM|sig=yes}}

You have new messages

Hello, TFOWR. Check your email – you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template. — TFOWR 13:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

TFOWR, wouldn't it be better if using "sig=~~~~"? I mean that there shouldn't really be any reason to subst this template, just because a user wants to sign the template. HeyMid (contributions) 14:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Possibly. To be honest, I only did it that way because it was how another template does it - {{Uw-block}} - and I just "stole" the code from uw-block without thinking too hard about it ("if it works, it works!") However... I've just suggested to another editor that they use the same code for a different template ({{BID}}) so I should probably think about it a bit harder... with YGM it would nice if it didn't have to be subst'd - the instructions for removing the template are incorrect if the template has been subst'd... TFOWR 14:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I know the code for doing what I'm thinking about – it's easy. The question is whether you have anything against me doing this? I will update the documentation too. HeyMid (contributions) 14:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Me? It's not my template, it's ours! I don't have anything against you doing it, but remember it's widely used. I would recommend you do it in the sandbox - Template:You've got mail/sandbox - and make sure it all works before moving the modified code to the actual template. TFOWR 14:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the change you've made, however - previously "sig=yes" would get the template to sign (within the template). It looks like now we need to use sig=~~~~, which seems a little off - it'd be easier just to sign manually, surely? Take a look at the sandbox testcases (Template:You've got mail/testcases) to see what I mean. TFOWR 15:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, apparently the MediaWiki software doesn't support automatic signing (through parameter) inside a template without substing. I don't know, do you still want to use "sig=yes"? Also, anything written after "sig=" will be shown, so if you write "sig=yes", the result will be "— yes". HeyMid (contributions) 15:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No, "sig=yes" works (I reverted back one more, to the version before your changes). Try it again now, or look at the testcases page. Incidentally, and I can not emphasise this strongly enough, it really is a good idea to do stuff like this in the template's sandbox - it means you can check stuff works before affecting everyone who uses the template. TFOWR 15:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "sig=yes" does work, but only when substing. Technically it doesn't work otherwise; if you're using a parameter to translate to ~~~~, it has to be substed. But I also find it irritating of having to subst it just because of this (which is why the unblock accepted template is also substed). HeyMid (contributions) 15:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

...whereas when you posted above "sig=yes" resulted in "yes" appearing instead of the signature (as you noted - anything written after "sig=" will be shown, so if you write "sig=yes", the result will be "— yes"). I fixed that. I know this only works when subst'ing - that's how it was before all this started, and how it should have been when you rolled-back your changes - you should have reverted to the last good version, not the version where "sig=yes" resulted in "yes". Heymid - have you learned from this? Specifically, have you learned that you need to make changes in sandboxes, not on "live" templates? Have a read of the "First Stab" discussion below - in it another editor is using sandboxes to develop a new version of a template that's also currently in use - a template with far fewer users than YGM. You "dodged a bullet" here - not that many people use YGM - but you do need to learn from this. Specifically: pay attention to what people are telling you. I recommended you used the sandbox to do this, and you either ignored me or didn't read what I'd said. TFOWR 15:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've learned that from now on I'll only carry out experiments at its sandbox page. HeyMid (contributions) 16:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

My main concern was that you were the author of this template. But, as you pointed out above, this is a wiki. We users don't own anything (except the pictures we upload taken by ourselves). We can edit anything we we want, and, if someone doesn't like it, it can easily be reverted with just a few clicks. HeyMid (contributions) 15:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly! Even when the template was in my own userspace, I still made sure people knew they could edit it - a few editors did edit it before it went into template space. I don't feel I "own" anything in my userspace, except for my own comments. TFOWR 15:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Update: I have added both ways now. You can now use whichever method you prefer! :) HeyMid (contributions) 17:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

  That's excellent! And good work in the sandbox and with the testcases. I tend to work with templates in my own sandbox (as Codf1977 was doing in that discussion I mentioned earlier) but every template has its own sandbox and testcase page, which makes it easy to show your changes to other editors. TFOWR 17:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

BISE template drops

DuncanHill seems to be making a lot of it, but wouldn't a simple step be to say the person who initiates the discussion has to drop the template, or else it doesn't make it to the BISE page and no change is allowed by a BISE participant? Seeing as it's really one main editor who comes up with 90% of them? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

He has a valid point, though. I think your idea has merit - it's something I'd considered before. Editors want to raise issues, the very least they can do it let other editors know... I'll have a ponder, but I think this may be the only way to get this done, because I sure don't want to be some kind of glorified clerk who posts the template each time a new issue gets raised! TFOWR 14:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I would agree - "no notification on article talk page = no change". Codf1977 (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I assumed that an initial discussion would take place, and only if a decision to open up to the structured For/Against debate, would we template an article Talk page. I consider this pretty reasonable as a reference or material fact may emerge fairly quickly to make the debate and templating unnecessary. Once the structured debate has been opened, then the template should get dropped. Not sure if the original editor need be the one to drop it either. The suggestion by Cod1977 is a good one - but slightly flawed because some articles incorrectly pipelink British Isles for example - that type of correction shouldn't require a BISE template. Otherwise the suggestion has merit. --HighKing (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I see no harm in alerting editors of the article in question about the discussion at it's outset, doing so just keeps it simple. Codf1977 (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about it, it does make it simple and that's probably a good thing. I'd hold back on bad pipelinks though [[British Isles | United Kingdom]] - can't see the need for template on those. Oh, and thanks for putting the template on the article! --HighKing (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see your point, HighKing, but I tend to agree with Codf1977 - it keeps it simple. Worst case scenario is we alert article editors to a debate that's over as soon as it's begun, but the alternative is to have it slip through the cracks and not alert them at all. TFOWR 15:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. We should make sure that this is posted so that everyone knows what the process/procedure is (assuming I wasn't living in my own little vacuum). Would it be possible to have a notice at the top of the BISE page perhaps, to inform people what the process is? I've not done templates before but if nobody else feels inclined, I can give it a stab. --HighKing (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

We could have an edit notice? That way it jumps out at everyone editing the page, so it's probably hardre to miss than a template. That said, my experience with both is that editors miss them... TFOWR 15:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want, I will work on a wiki-project template version of the {{BID}} (or a all in one that can be used in both places). Codf1977 (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

That would be awesome! The easier we make the process, the more likely it is that people will actually follow it - and templates make life easy (speaking as someone who's just dumped a load of {{BID}}s on to several talk pages...) TFOWR 16:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. It will need a clear statement of editor's responsibilities on the BISE page to post it, which I am sure we will all get used to once it becomes clear we will get exactly nowhere unless it is posted! :) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Can we also have something that pings the talk pages of all regular BISE participants, eg, "Heh! Someone is fiddling with the British Isles again!". Only kidding. I think. Actually, on second thoughts.... Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh! I'd offer to write a short script, but after all the talk of puds and pies I think I have more pressing concerns ;-) TFOWR 19:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

There is Category:British Isles Discussion that lists all the pages taged with the {{BID}} template. Codf1977 (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

So... this box shows the scary stuff...

OMG there are 0 BI issues to deal with :-(
Category British Isles Discussion not found

Copy-and-paste the following to your talkpages, userpages, or wherever, and start each day with a nasty shock ;-)

{{collapse top|OMG there are {{PAGESINCAT:British Isles Discussion}} BI issues to deal with :-(}}

<categorytree mode=pages>British Isles Discussion</categorytree>

{{collapse bottom}}

TFOWR 20:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Have updated {{BID}} to take an optional variable "article" which then assumes it is posted on the wiki project page. Codf1977 (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Instructions updated. (And thanks!) TFOWR 19:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Codf1977 (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I love that scary stuff collapse template. Absolutely brilliant! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Codf1977 did the hidden cat stuff - made the box easy. TFOWR 20:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

When you marked a page as "resolved" you might want to remove the [[category:British Isles Discussion]] from the talk page notice. Codf1977 (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh! Great minds! I'm looking at Talk:Robert Scot just now. TFOWR 21:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Another option might be a {{British Isles Resolved}} template to replace the one that records proposal, outcome, discussion archive location ? Codf1977 (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I like that idea. Right now the old template is still in place, pointing to a discussion that doesn't exist (it's been archived). The "BIR" template could point to the archived discussion, and mention what was decided. TFOWR 21:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - will work on that tomorrow. Codf1977 (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

First Stab

First stab - have a look at User:Codf1977/BIR and User Talk:Codf1977/BIR. My plan is to adjust the way BID works so that rather than add to the talk page the {{tmbox}} it adds after the section brake another template (say {{BID2}} that takes the same inputs as BIR - so all the closing admin has to do is change one lketter of the template name, the archive page name and the conclusion for example :

Adding : < {{Subst:British Isles Discuss|section=The Moon|action=insert}} ~~~~" <

would add to the Talk page :
== British Isles ==
<!--Note to closing admin : When the discussion has concluded, change the template name below to BIR, and add the conculsion and archive page in the places indicated. Thanks -->
{{BID2|action=insert|section=The Moon|conclusion=<!--add conclusion here-->|archive=<!--add conclusion here-->}} ~~~~

{{BIR2}} would give the message box and deal with the Hidden Cat.

That should make the process simple.

What would be good is a img of the British Isles to use in the message box if any one has one.

Codf1977 (talk) 10:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

That looks superb. I like the approach you suggest - it's like unblock templates. Anything that's familiar is good - I'm hoping that if BISE continues at some point new admins may get involved, so making stuff familiar to other things they already use will be valuable. TFOWR 10:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Glad you like, it was my plan to make it look familiar with the other ones. Codf1977 (talk) 12:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Snag - template {{BIR}} already exists - perhaps {{British Isles Concluded}} and {{BIC}} ? Codf1977 (talk) 12:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess "BIC" will have to do - though I do quite like it (when issues are concluded I'll "flick a BIC" ;-)

...and I do find myself, for the first time ever, preferring "Myanmar" to "Burma"! TFOWR 12:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes - can you do the honourers at Template:British Isles Resolved & Template:British Isles Resolved/doc Codf1977 (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done Both G7'd. TFOWR 12:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - thinking about it {{British Isles Concluded}} is probably better - there are times when the discussion may close without it actually being resolved. Anyway I think that the template is ready - can you have a check on the documentation and see if it is understandable ?.

Still to do - update {{BID}} with the new code to post the format above - want to do a little more testing. Codf1977 (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Have tested it at Talk:Aesculus - can you have a look at the source for the section. If you are happy, I will amend the live version. Codf1977 (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Doco looks OK to me, but I guess it won't be until I use it in anger that any wrinkles will appear. It looks dead straightforward - to close it I just add a conclusion, and it automagically displays different text? I'm guessing that I can't subst it, though - is that right? (Or, if I do use subst I'll need to re-do it when I conclude). TFOWR 12:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Nearly - Change the template name (from BID2 to BIC - does not matter if you leave the 2 as BIC2 is a redirect to BIC) add the conclusion along with archive page !

There is no need to use subst:, the only reason to use it for {{BID}} is so that it put in the section heading and now the admin close comment as actual text. Codf1977 (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Got it (I think)! Use BID as normal, then when wrapping up change "BID" to "BID2" and add a conclusion. Simples! I was over-thinking it. TFOWR 12:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

oh - close - when you use BID, it creates a section and adds the text which uses BID2 to display the "discussion is going on" box, then when done you change BID2 to BIC (or BIC2 - does not matter). If you look at Talk:Aesculus you will see the output of BID - where it uses BID2 12:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, think I've got it now (with the usual disclaimer about needing to use it in anger etc etc!) Too many templates - making me confused! I assume BID2 will become BID once it's complete, so my template-overload will be solved...! TFOWR 13:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No ... Sorry, yes it is template overload - consider it in a similar way to the way {{Prod}} and {{Proposed deletion/dated}} work, the person who adds the template to the talk page only ever uses {{Subst:BID|.......}} the BID template then appends text to the talk page which includes a reference to {{BID2}} but no editor should ever have cause to directly add {{BID2}} themselves (that fact is noted in the documentation). Codf1977 (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think I've got it (mark 3!) I'll use it in anger, and see it in action! I'll try and wrap up that conker one (the one that I can't spell without checking) soon, and give it a whirl. TFOWR 13:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Before you do - I will update the talk page first so you can. Codf1977 (talk) 13:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done Go for it. Codf1977 (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoa! Will do, but it'll take a while. I'll need to engage my brain for this one! TFOWR 13:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to me updating the {tlx:BID}} template with the updates then - including the auto sign function. Codf1977 (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. I've still not looked at closing anything, but I'll try to give it a go later. TFOWR 14:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

 DoneUpdated along with the talk pages where it was used. Codf1977 (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool, ta! I saw your edits swing past my watchlist - had me worried for a minute that someone was adding/removing BI ;-) TFOWR 15:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Defamation

A user has requested on WP:EAR that defamatory material added about him be revdelled: [6]. I've removed the details from WP:EAR so as to avoid bringing any additional attention to it, but I believe it meets RD2 and RD3. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, definitely. It is gone. TFOWR 10:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I've also e-mailed User:Alison in case it requires oversight; not sure that it does, but best to be on the safe side, I think. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know - but better safe than sorry. I don't know if you knew already, or checked the article, but it involved someone I'd heard of (a major figure in the "Extreme Programming" community) - and you already know how serious the "claim" was. TFOWR 10:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I saw an article for someone of the same name, but the nationality was different, so I'm not sure if it was actually about him or not. It's certainly about a user here though, which is enough. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

"Personal steak"

What, you think I _won't_ block for horrible puns? What's your beef with this, anyway?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Not scared of your threats or WP:NLT - you think I won't suet? I'm really steamed. What sauce! TFOWR 13:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Now we're getting to the meat of the matter. Silly sausages! Syrthiss (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete the edits

Hi TFOWR

That sounds good! I can still log on to my first account, from which I switched, is this normal? (I made the switch a few months ago)

Thank you! Ironpole —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironpole (talk • contribs) 18:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I think so - I changed username from This flag once was red (talk) to TFOWR (talk), and the old account remained. What I'll do, if you want, is block the old account (I'll make sure it's clear in the block log why, so people don't think it's due to misbehaviour). I'll also delete some of the old account's edits, as they also make the link between your old and new accounts. TFOWR 18:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Ghtrgwefwetjnrgrfea

Mind taking a look at this for me? Nolelover 16:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. And sorry about this. I hadn't seen the previous versions, and, the good-faith editor that I am, thought he was making a legitimate edit. Nolelover 16:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Dammit, I had a great reply explaining why I wasn't going to block them just yet, but they ploughed on regardless and I've blocked them. Short block - an "attention getting block" (which I don't like, but I can't think of any other way to get them to stop, slow down, and talk to other editors).

No worries about your revert - though I'm not sure I'd have described your revert as "vandalism" ;-) TFOWR 16:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That username hardly implies an intent to contribute constructively... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm also wondering whether I've encountered this editor before - their edits seem familiar. Not necessarily the articles, but the obsession with infoboxes, eye- and hair-colour, and star-signs... HJ, is it worth bumping up the block duration? TFOWR 16:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ha, I have five rollback/revert/undo buttons. It's a wonder I don't get them mixed up more... Lemme guess your reason - you also prefer brunettes? ;D The world needs to know about us, I guess. Nolelover 16:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Any colour but blonde, though blonde is OK, too - I guess I'm just not very discriminating ;-) TFOWR 16:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I like redheads myself. I'd keep an eye on them, but probably not worth increasing the block for now. One of those times I'd love to have CU access for 10 minutes. The edits seem very familiar, but if they're a sock, I couldn't place the master. WP:ROPE, I suppose. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Another two accounts showed up, so I indef blocked all three:

• Ghtrgwefwetjnrgrfea (talk · contribs)
• Rfhrtgfrvteynh5ygrewf (talk · contribs)
• Dfrgegrthrfweqdeqwe (talk · contribs)

Did you ever figure out whose socks these were? They don't look familiar to me. Perhaps an SPI report with a CU would be a good idea? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I never remembered. It does seem very familiar though. I'll hit up SPI later, if you don't beat me to it. TFOWR 18:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I defer to you. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh! Now I'll have to wrack my brains to sound vaguely clue-ful! TFOWR 18:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ask a few of the admins who hang around SPI. It might jog someone's memory. Btw, I love the rollback all script! Anyway, subtlety isn't exactly their strong point, so they're pretty easy to spot. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

WT:SPI asked. This is bothering me now. It's not just the har- and eye-colour - it's the zodiac stuff. That's definitely familiar. Not sure why, and not convinced it's recent, either. TFOWR 19:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Efgsdrthdty/Archive. Doesn't answer the "why is this so familiar?" question, but does at least answer the "should I feel bad about RBI?" question. (Answer: no. And, oddly enough, I don't). TFOWR 19:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Latest status

What is the latest status regarding the new additions of the term British Isles or new articles relating to it? I am sorry but I have been on "holiday". --LevenBoy (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean? You can see how things have been progressing at WT:BISE (maybe check the archive pages for some recently closed-out issues). The only big change is that there are now more detailed instructions for raising issues. Hopefully they should be self-explanatory; if not, feel free to ask away. (Incidentally, the "holiday" was only for five days - I presume that since the block expired on 29 September you've literally been on holiday... Regardless, welcome back and please do try and stay out of trouble!) TFOWR 07:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you possibly look at this?

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Maiden City. The edits by 84.93.174.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) since it was filed make it quite obvious, so you might just want to bypass the sockpuppet report.. O Fenian (talk) 09:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh, beat you to it - I've just blocked. I'd seen the SPI report, but it was the canvassing that triggered the WP:DUCK-o-meter. The other two IPs in the report - one is pretty stale, and the other I can't see an obvious link to TMC (and is likely stale now - TMC seems fairly dynamic in terms of IP addresses). Incidentally, I'd recommend WP:RFPP is this continues. I'm also not seeing a blatant WP:BLPNAME issue, but RFPP may disagree with me here. I'm going to be off-line from about 12:00 UTC today until tomorrow, so duck-blocks etc will need to be handled by other admins. TFOWR 09:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of "When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories", particularly as the people concerned do not have articles. There are also the "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event" and "it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context" parts. I do not see how identifying several non-notable people adds to the article. But it might be best to defer to someone else anyway. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm familiar with the policy - it's just that it's a little vague: "caution should be", "it is often preferable", etc. TFOWR 10:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It does seem a little vague for a policy, they are normally much more black and white. That seems to be written more like a guideline. O Fenian (talk) 10:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection now then please?. O Fenian (talk) 10:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done. IP is blocked as well, but we both know it'll just re-spawn... TFOWR 10:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you also deal with 81.174.198.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and my talk page please? Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I've semi'd your talk page, and blocked the latest IP. It will re-spawn... TFOWR 10:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Of that I have little doubt. O Fenian (talk) 10:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

lol danm your fast TFOWR, you banned them soon after i reverted and warned them for being rude to O fenian, good work!--Lerdthenerd (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Indonesian vandal again...

The Indonesian misinformation vandal has done it again less than 10 hours ago. Different "proxy" (the address he used is based in the States), same MO of vandalizing Digimon, anime, and Little League pages. The address he used this time was 12.50.249.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I only reported this to you now because I was out during his attacks. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 09:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've blocked the IP, and semi-protected the articles attacked - semi-protection seems appropriate because the vandal will find a new IP address sooner rather than later... :-( TFOWR 10:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs Conker (series) Jetix (Italy) Jetix (Germany) Conker's Pocket Tales Breakfast at Tiffany's (novella) The Thanksgiving Visitor Laura Summer R. Martin Klein Issues and Answers Carn Chris Seavor Peggy O'Neal Planet of Exile Jetix Animation Concepts XEQ-TV Joseph Pilato Miwa Matsumoto Don't Cry, It's Only Thunder Tom Fahn

Cleanup Digimon Xros Wars Disney XD (Germany) E 11 road (United Arab Emirates) Merge The Adventures of Pinocchio (TV series) Chaos Generals Mammothmon Add Sources Digimon Tamers Dan Lorge British National Party Wikify Uchuu Keiji Shaider Novinite.com (Sofia News Agency) Little League World Series Baseball 2008 Expand Fuego en la sangre Sailor Moon (character) Digimon Rumble Arena 2

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) 19:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Frostea Melt

FrosteaTheSnowman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I wonder if you'd mind taking a look at this guy's "contributions", especially during the last hour or two, and let us know what you think. The guy's demeanor has a familiar ring to it, and I'm not sure if his apparent incompetence is for real or is just part of a game. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This comment,[7] in particular, makes it look like he's trying to tell us that he's a sock. He only created his user page yesterday [unless it was previously deleted, which I have no way to know], yet he claims he's used the term before and that admin's had no problem with it. I should point out that he has apparently also edited under 76.216.25.3, at least recently. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• It's not ringing any bells with me yet. The userpage hadn't previously existed (prior to yesterday). I'm pretty certain you're right about 76.216 - the pre-Frostea edits seem to be to Tapioca Express. I'll keep an eye on things. TFOWR 10:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• This wouldn't be the first time that someone has conflated having an account with being an administrator. There's more on this at User talk:Ron Ritzman (q.v.). Uncle G (talk) 13:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello

I'm not a "troll". I'm just trying to contribute to the article by proving a point. A very factual point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattyStar93 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

England doesn't issue passports. Neither does Scotland. Nor Wales. Northern Ireland is not unique in its failure to issue passports. "Northern Irish" is a demonym for Northern Irish residents. "Irish" is an ambiguous demonym covering citizens of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Irish residents. Apologies for speculating that your edits were bordering on trolling but this seems so blindingly obvious that it's difficult to avoid the possibility that your persistence is, well, due to trolling. TFOWR 23:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Forgetting something? In particular this argument and this argument, in addition to the MattyStar93/BigMatty93 names. O Fenian (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh c'mon! That was five days ago. How can I be expected to remember stuff from that long ago? ;-) Obvious (eventually...) sock is obviously blocked (eventually...) TFOWR 00:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

E-mail

Hello, TFOWR. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

I'm not entirely sure you've read my reply yet, so I'm notifying you now. HeyMid (contributions) 11:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I've not, I was away for most of yesterday and am only starting to catch up now. I'll ready it shortly. TFOWR 11:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Page-move request

As an administrator, could you try to move Talk:Fastra II/GA2 to Talk:FASTRA II/GA2? I can't, because it is nine consecutive capital letters (including the space). HeyMid (contributions) 12:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Blimey - €6000 for a super-computer? Why am I still wasting time with a PC? ;-) TFOWR 12:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? HeyMid (contributions) 13:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I mean I'd really like a super-computer ;-) My PC is pretty fast - I use it for work and it has to be a pretty decent PC, but I'd love a super-computer! It's been a dream of mine since I first saw this film and then read about computers like this one. TFOWR 13:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

...which (I forgot) also should include Talk:Fastra II/GA1... HeyMid (contributions) 13:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done: Talk:FASTRA II/GA1. TFOWR 13:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, when moving a page (as a non-administrator), do you know whether it is possible to also move the sub-pages, like when a bureaucrat renames a user? HeyMid (contributions) 13:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. Give me a second and I'll sign in as TFOWR's left sock (talk) and check... TFOWR 13:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The help page suggests that I should see a checkbox saying "Move all subpages, if applicable" - but I'm not seeing it. The subpages are listed, however. I guess non-admins may need to move the subpages manually. TFOWR's left sock 13:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. Final question: As an administrator, do all sub-pages move at the same time? HeyMid (contributions) 13:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I assume so - there may be a few milliseconds' difference, but provided the "parent page" (Talk:FASTRA II in this case) is moved, and the checkbox is "checked", then it should all happen at the same time. TFOWR 13:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Bombardment of Cárdenas

Hello, I've seen in the history page of the article that you have removed the speedy deletion template. The main editor, User:$1LENCE D00600D had, in fact, requested deletion after we have found that the event which is subject of the article actually never happened. You can check it on my talk page. Thank you. ElBufon (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - I missed $1LENCE D00600D's request. I'm still not happy speedy-deleting it, but I'll reinstate the proposed deletion - as I was the only editor to contest the deletion, and I'm happy to un-contest it, I think that should be OK. A proposed deletion will give other editors time to find references, though I have to admit it does look like this is 1898 propaganda ;-) TFOWR 14:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

BISE Polls

I don't think these polls serve much purpose, some seem designed to reach a blindingly obvious point (Are the channel islands part of the UK or Ireland?) or already proved inconclusive. Probably best to close them before they suck up all the editors time, which they seem to be doing. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree. I need to catch up with BISE and work out what the reference to GoodDay is about, but aye - isn't this blindingly obvious? I've learned many things about the British Isles in the past few months, but the fact that the Isle of Man and Channel Islands are not part of the UK or Ireland is not one of them - I learned that at school! TFOWR 11:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I think LB may have misunderstood me. I was speaking of the island Great Britain & Ireland, not the countries United Kingdom & Republic of Ireland. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Quite possibly - the only comment I could see that you'd made that might justify LB's comment was one involving the islands. I think LB made a quick succession of posts to BISE, and would maybe have benefited from a more methodical approach. TFOWR 15:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to protest your early closing of the "Are the Isle of Man & Channel Islands a part of the United Kingdom or Republic of Ireland?" poll and request you to allow it to run its course. I could just re-open it again myself but I am showing you some respect in the hope you show some respect back.

There are three important questions to ask in which we need to know where everyone stands and then to resolve the contradictions.

I do not think I need to spell out the importance of the first two. --LevenBoy (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Protest away. The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are not part of the United Kingdom, nor are they part of the Republic of Ireland. There seemed to be unanimous agreement of those two blindingly obvious facts prior to the close (no one had voted against), but regardless of that - issues like that won't be settled by a bunch of Wikipedia editors. They were long ago settled by constitutional lawyers. I fail to see any point in the poll, and I'm trying my best. TFOWR 14:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Instructions

I thought that they were good, but now that I actually had to follow them I have an issue with the posting on every wikiproject. I tried to stick with the spirit of the instructions, and posted a template at the UK and UK geography wikiprojects, but didn't post at UK Politics or Countries wikiproject, as I thought it was probably rather unrelated to both their aims (or tangentially related in the politics project at best). I didn't post at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team, although I suppose that's assumed? Maybe the instructions should be post at all relevant wikiprojects listed on the talkpage? I'll raise this on the BISE page too. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh, interesting point. I think you posted at the correct WikiProjects - I can't see any point in letting Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team know about what must be, for them, a really trivial matter. I'll take a look, but I suspect the instructions will need to be clarified - maybe something like "check all listed WikiProjects in case they discuss BI, notify all relevant WikiProjects (if in doubt about relevance, notify them or note at BISE that they haven't been notified)"? TFOWR 14:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I added a note to the discussion where I listed the wikiprojects notified. Maybe that combined with the clarification you just proposed is the way to proceed? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

BISE page is getting a bit long, if you want I can try and summarize the points and conclusions all the discussions relating to process reached, specifically all the discussions under This page and The new structure of debate, and use the summaries to create a set or rules/guidelines that have been reached. These discussions could then be archived. "Stop! Are you starting a new discussion?" I'd recommend moving under the This page section too, although it shouldn't be archived yet.

In addition you can probably archive Acceptable Geograpical Ranges to Use "British Isles", and Are the Isle of Man & Channel Islands a part of the United Kingdom or Republic of Ireland? already without a second though, resolved and finished. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hold off for now - I normally archive stuff at some point over the weekend. I'll try and get it done tomorrow. The Isle of Man "poll" I wouldn't want to do today, anyway, as I've only just closed it - silly though it was ;-) TFOWR 17:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe the "stale" discussions should be closed. For instance, there's a bunch of Flora issues that need closing, the James Kay discussion, Augustus John, Conkers probably, Student probable, Branimir Jelic ... I'd say most on the page can be resolved. --HighKing (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Some of those (Student, Branimir Jelic) are very recent, surely? I'd agree with the flora ones, though the article talkpages have only just (6 October) been notified - I'll archive them next weekend if there's no movement. James Kay I was going to ask a non-involved admin, but I still can't think of anyone suitable (the ones I know well enough to ask all seem to be either Commonwealth citizens or die-hard Anarcho-syndicalists who want the British Isles to sink beneath a tide of black flags... may be easier just to close the damn thing) Conkers I was planning on closing later today. TFOWR 15:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Favour again

Another favour -

I moved a page to Irish title rather than Irish nobility by accident. Unfortunately, I can't fix this because a bot fixed a double-redirect in the mean time. Could you move Irish title to Irish nobility?

Be warned, there is a disagreement over the title (it was a in a series of reverts that I accidentally put it at Irish title.) However, neither of us want the page at Irish title, so it's not a quite a The Wrong Version issue. None the less, you may wish to look at the history and the talk page before deciding whether you want to do this or not. --RA (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. It's been moved again. --RA (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Aye, I've commented there - both of you need to stop and discuss. TFOWR 21:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

That said, I do appreciate your candour about the move-warring. Just try and discuss more, and move less ;-) TFOWR 21:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Was trying to! :-) I'd revert, try to post why to the talk and then get an edit conflict from another page move. Thanks for your input. --RA (talk) 23:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Big stick needed please

Lurulu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Altan tours. It is not the first time he has tried to create it at a new title either, see his talk page. O Fenian (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

On it. I've just deleted (and salted) Altan concert tours, I assumed the previous attempts would also have been salted. TFOWR 21:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Altan tours also deleted and salted. I'll check Altan Concert Tours - I saw at least one of these had been salted, I think, so I'm assuming it's this one... best be safe, though. TFOWR 22:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

All safe - salted before I got there ;-) TFOWR 22:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x 2 Altan Tours is salted, as are Altan Concert Tours, List of Altan live tours and Altan Live. List of Altan Live is not, I have not checked any variants with capitals, I am just going by the notices on his talk page. O Fenian (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The attacks are continuing though, even if new pages are not yet. O Fenian (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on their contribs. I'm seeing a lot to be worried about, to be honest - a previous block, multiple warnings, edit warring, repeated recreation, personal attacks. TFOWR 22:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

He is ticking plenty of boxes yes. O Fenian (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Searchlight

Hi. I reverted your edit to this article. The reference you cited showed that Searchlight is also associated with the Conservative Party. Highlighting solely the links to the Communist Part seemed to give undue weight to the Communist Party, at the expense of the other parties and organisations associated with Searchlight. TFOWR 22:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

That is ok, but due to Searchlights contentious associations with the communist-party including members of Searchlight being life-long communists and their support for the activities of AFA (which are the people on the "other" side of the EDF), I would argue that it would be more balanced to make some kind of notary reference to this for the Searchlight comment, or atleast change the first sentence to "claim" from "said". Comment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.251.201.191 (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talkpage. TFOWR 23:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Guy Sebastian

Hi TFOWR

I was wondering if I could trouble you to check the Guy Sebastian article - seems to me that an edit war is hsppening. The regular editors are using discussion to talk about the trivia item that keeps getting removed and then put back by editors who are not discussing this in the talk page. The consensus amongst the three editors on the talk page is that this content is trivia and should not be in the article and therefore should be removed permanently.

Your help on this would be much appreciated - thanks TFOWR

--Diane (talk) 00:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Diane (long time no see!) I've posted at the talk page. I won't take a position on whether it should or shouldn't be included - you'll all need to work that out between yourselves. However, it does look like it's one (new) editor re-adding this? I've welcomed them, and directed them to the talk page. (I did the same for the most recent IP editor, too). I suspect the new editors simply didn't know about the talk page discussion. I'll keep an eye on the article, and steer new editors to the talk page as needed. I'll also protect the article if worse-comes-to-worse, though I'm hopeful it won't come to that. TFOWR 08:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Sanity check

Quick sanity check; am I overreacting, or is the comment "no comment on giftigerwunch, but I have always found you a reasonable editor..." [sic] a pretty deliberate attempt to be offensive? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure! Partly because I'm on my first cup of coffee, partly because - well, I suspect I need more coffee. I'll get back to you...! TFOWR 08:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I should know better than to ask before you're sufficiently caffeinated ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it mid-way through cup number two, it does strike me as a bizarre comment. If AfDs are simply head counts, why bother citing policies? I'd expect better from someone with that level of experience. The whole review - and the AfD before it - is weird, though. Tangentially, there's a current RfA where the candidate it getting pilloried for saying they'd avoid XfD - hell, I avoid it. This review is the reason why. TFOWR 09:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I don't mind contributing to AfDs, though occasionally there are controversial ones where consensus isn't clear and policy can swing the article either way, and then editors tend to dig in their heels and unsheath their claws. (And worse, sometimes they do so while making a WP:IDON'TLIKEIT or WP:YOURMUMLIKEDIT argument). This was one of those cases. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

What surprised me in this one was Jclemens' !vote: I couldn't make head nor tail of their rationale. They cited WP:NOTNEWS, but I couldn't see the bit they meant. I always assume Jclemens' knowledge of policy is outstanding, but this time it seemed a little off. Most of the other keep !votes were the usual ragbag of POV !votes and IP socks, as far as I could see (apologies if I'm lumping a good-faith Jclemens-type !voter in with the POVs and socks...) Anyway, it was a weird one. Brewcrewers' comment - I don't know. I still want to AGF, but it seemed a little too much like they were trying to win over another !vote and knew they wouldn't sway you. TFOWR 17:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually I'd seen Jclemens around before and had mentally added him to my list of "good editors", so I was also a little confused with his reasoning in the DRV and a couple of similar venues recently. Looking at his argument, it's probable that he has a conflict of interest and is having trouble maintaining objectivity. In any case I'm sure he realises that criticising an established policy in DRV isn't going to influence the close. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

After resolved?

Hi, after something gets resolved at BISE (say the Steak and Kidney Pudding article), what's the next steps? In the past, an editor would make the change and mention BISE in the edit summary, but what about the template on the talk page or project page? --HighKing (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Once any necessary change has been made (and the discussion marked as {{done}}) I'll archive the discussion and update the talkpage template to point to the archived discussion. I'm slightly disappointed I've not been able to do this yet, Codf1977 has updated the template to make this possible but I've not had a chance to try it out - the discussions I archived earlier were either "meta" discussions, or pre-date the new template. Incidentally, I should probably update the shiny new instructions to explain this... TFOWR 14:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, shall I update the aforementioned article, and then you get to play? --HighKing (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Go for it! Codf1977 and I will both be very happy (assuming the template works as advertised!) TFOWR 14:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It was not resolved and it is not resolved.

It was not resolved and it is not resolved. You are forbidding and I think you are wrong to do so. I have taken it to ANI.

I am perfectly willing to talk this through and explain to you why it is important if you are willing to do so. --LevenBoy (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you've had ample opportunity to explain it by now, both at WT:BISE and above. If you forgot something at BISE or above, by all means mention it now. Otherwise I feel ANI would probably be a better bet. TFOWR 16:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation problems

It seems Paul Henry is in a spot of bother over his pronunciation of certain names.. O Fenian (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh, he's an idiot! I was always a TV3 viewer anyway, mostly because of fine programmes like Outrageous Fortune and bro'Town, but I saw him on breakfast TV from time to time. Opinionated idiot. He had some bloody stupid things to say about our Governor General recently as well, I think. I don't understand how casual racism still exists - particularly in broadcasting. TFOWR 18:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't think I'm !voting for it at WP:ITNC, though - even I recognise it's non-important as far as ITN goes ;-) TFOWR 18:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see that it's not just American radio jocks who go too far and get canned. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

We have an article with the gory details, but aye, it happens in New Zealand, too. I still can't get over how he can say stuff like I am astonished and dismayed that my comments have created a diplomatic incident - he called an Indian government minister "Dick Shit"! What did he think was going to happen? "Hello, New Zealand? This is India. We just wanted to say how amusing we though Henry's comment was! 'Dick Shit'! How drole! Sheila is still laughing..." TFOWR 18:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It's astonishing and dismaying that these characters think they can just say anything they feel like and not be held accountable for it. His comments you've quoted just above fall into the class of "non-apology apology". P.S. Where is Old Zealand? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Old Zealand ← here! This guy was the first European to reach New Zealand; his crew mostly came from old Zeeland. It's also called Aotearoa, but that's a fairly modern name - I suspect the people who now call it "Aotearoa" used to call it "ours". ;-) TFOWR 18:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Aha, I should have known it was connected with the Netherlanders somehow - Zuider Zee and that sort of thing. This actually crossed my mind earlier today when I saw something about the "nation" called "Sealand", and wondering if they had to move or expand or something, whether they might call it "New Sealand". Regarding that Henry guy, what these jocks seem to have in common is the assumption that the only ones listening are ones who will understand that they're "just kidding". They talk on the air as if they were hanging around their neighborhood pub or something. Something similar happened to Don Imus a few years back when he made some incredibly stupid on-air comments about a woman's basketball team. "Aotearoa", eh? I wonder how that Henry character would pronounce that? And ol' Abe Tasman, who I assume Tasmania is named for (nothin' gets by me)? I expect he never anticipated Taz. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't so much his laughing at her name that got me (I mean, that's understandable in a way, less that he guffawed loud and long), but the "it's so appropriate, because she's Indian, so she'd be dick-in-shit wouldn't she?" part was just blatantly stupid. Oh, and talkback at my page btw. sonia♫ 00:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

So if he got the pronunciation wrong and left it at that, that's one thing. But the fact he didn't stop there (seemingly unaware of where he was, i.e. on the radio and not in a pub) is what really got him in trouble. Similarly, as I recall, the Imus controversy was actually triggered by someone on-air with him who commented on how tough the women's team looked, and Imus want on to characterize these college women as "nappy-headed ho's" (again seeming to forget that he was on the air).[8] If a guy on the radio forgets where he is that way, it's time for a lengthy vacation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Tasmania was originally known as Van Diemen's Land. It was given this name by Dutch explorer Abel Tasman, after Antony Van Diemen, the High Magistrate, or Governor-General of Batavia (Netherlands East Indies). Van Diemen's Land remained the name of the island until 1 January 1856, when Queen Victoria approved a petition to rename the island Tasmania, in honour of its discoverer. Off2riorob (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

"Van Diemen's Land" is a term that turns up in some Irish songs which mention British convicts being sent their. If the animal had been called a "Diemen's Devil", assuming it's pronounced like "demon", that could work. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• 
  Old Sealand.

• Thanks, Uncle G! Don't think your fix went unnoticed! <galley>, eh? I'm struggling with the galley-slaves - some are up to the task, others not so much... TFOWR 14:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I misspelled it "galley"? Well, that's right much pathetic. Must have been thinking about some upcoming meetings. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
    • My biggest concern is that the tags didn't match - always close your <galley> tags! Otherwise we're sunk! TFOWR 15:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

<galley> File:Sealandafterfire2.JPG|Old Sealand. File:Deepwater Horizon.jpg|One possible option for
New Sealand. </galley>

Doesn't work. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Weird - looks fine to me. Maybe it's your browser? I see two oil rigs balancing on top of a trireme, with about 20 galley-slaves rowing frantically. The <galley> tag is fairly new, it was introduced with HTML 4 BC... TFOWR 15:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a really old machine. Its browser operates on kerosene. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I feel your pain. I upgraded from this only last year. TFOWR 15:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, that looks kinda like mine, if you add more rust to it. :( They tried to run wikipedia on those old galley ships, but it wouldn't work, because wikipedia doesn't allow OR's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

My browser is so old, if I try to connect to YouTube, it redirects me to NoYouDontTube. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Request

Could you delete User:Truthkeeper88/Ezra Pound Sandbox for me? ... and don't ask whether I'm sure, b/c I am. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthkeeper88 (talk • contribs)

It is gone. If you change your mind, it can be restored. (Don't know what happened with your signature - the images in the previous section seemed to "Hide" your post, so I think it didn't get signed until I removed the images...) TFOWR 13:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I probably forgot to sign - had to take a phone call. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you like this - can you take down User:Truthkeeper88/IB Sandbox as well? Today is cleaning day for me ... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No bother at all. It's gone. (I had a feeling I'd already deleted this one - I guess not?) TFOWR 14:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

OF

Hi, on the OF website and DVDs they use the term "series" not "season", thats why I changet them. TBSfan1223 (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, weird - TV3 used "season". I wasn't sure - I grew up with NZ English but I'm surrounded by British English these days. I'd still say stick to "season", per WP:RETAIN, however. TFOWR 16:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

We are editing almost simultaneously, but not quite. I looked at Hong Song-dam, saw the bibliography entry with the Google book entry, and decided to replace it. After doing so, I looked at the edit history and see you had already replaced the publisher. I'm not quite sure why I didn't get an edit conflict, but want you to know my edit wasn't intended to suggest your updated cite was bad.

At the help desk, I posted about the Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books minutes before you posted, but perhaps you didn't see my post. You talked about a greasemonkey script - I wonder if you could check out the Citation tool and see if it does meet your needs. I love Google Books as well, and have been adding to the history of Simsbury, Connecticut recently with a heavy emphasis on Google books. The cite tool helps enormously.--SPhilbrickT 15:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries about replacing the Hong Song-dam cite - I had a nosey and felt yours was better (more precise date and publisher). I did see your post about the cite tool - in fact I've stolen it already ;-) TFOWR 15:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Pissarides

Hi TFOWR. Once, we updated the article, we should only find the exact date of birth. In the German article it's 20 February, but not cited, while in the referenced CV there is no date of birth. Could you please help with finding the exact date? Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll give it my best shot! TFOWR 15:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No date, but I've found a ref for 1948 - in.reuters.com. TFOWR 15:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The cached version of his CV gives 20 February 1948 - google cache. I'm hesitant to use it, though, as I don't know how long it'll stay cached. Everything else I've found uses the German Wikipedia entry. It might be best just to say "1948"? TFOWR 15:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I've got this (Prof Christopher Pissarides at debretts.com).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

That's ideal! TFOWR 15:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm inserting it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Nudge ....

Do you have some work to do @ Talk:Arts and Crafts Movement ? Codf1977 (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Could have sworn I'd done that - I meant to let you know, I tested the new, improved formula yesterday - worked perfectly. Obviously I can't actually remember what I tested it with, however... TFOWR 15:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Steak and kidney pudding ;-) Hmmm, tasty! TFOWR 15:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done here. Thanks for the nudge ;-) TFOWR 16:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

List of Cambodian singers

Why did you believe Jeff G. anyway? Don't you read my comments? I'm trying to develop the article, not to destroy it. The article must be like List of Mexican singers or List of Afghan singers.--125.25.15.166 (talk) 16:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget to let me know when you're talking to other admins. I would like to read too.

Yes. 125.25 is a dynamic IP of Thailand. (I'm not Thai, I'm American, but currently living in Thailand)

Many users has misunderstanded me with other users from Thailand.--125.25.15.166 (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Because I saw this, checked the article's previous deletion discussion, and became very concerned at your actions. For what it's worth, I have asked another admin to check what I've done - Amalthea (talk), who I believe has previously been involved with the article (and with you). TFOWR 16:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what nationality you are - US citizens don't get a free pass to remove content, create bizarre redirects, or otherwise mess around. TFOWR 16:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to say US citizens can vandalize Wikipedia pages. But if you have some questions about native Thais, I will tell you first, I DON'T KNOW. I'm not Thai. Only FYI, not this one.--125.25.15.166 (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any questions about native Thais, and don't understand why you think I might do. TFOWR 16:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I saw some users asking for local language words. I'm telling you I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAI and I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT NATIVE THAIS.--125.25.15.166 (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You can see in this. Boing! said Zebedee said:

Hi. Just to let you know that User:125.25.34.128 is one of a small number of dynamic IP editors based in Bangkok who have been causing all sorts of trouble for a good while, by continuing to blatantly act in defiance of Wikipedia policies - unsourced additions, adding clear nonsense to articles, blatant vandalism, using Talk pages for chat, making "fun" edits to User talk pages, taking part in page move vandalism (with the help of one registered editor who is now banned),

The using Talk pages for chat really driving me crazy. I haven't use the talk page for chat. I saw another user did.--125.25.15.166 (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, nothing you've said so far makes me think that I made the wrong decision... TFOWR 16:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You've made the right decision. Now it's time for you to relax. I'm talking to Jeff G. and the problem will be finished very soon. Please finish this problem before I go back to the USA.--125.25.15.166 (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have no idea what you're playing at, but I do know it has to begin to resemble sense. I'm going to keep the article protected: you can propose changes on the article's talk page, get consensus, then use the {{edit semi-protected}} template to request agreed upon changes. TFOWR 16:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi TFOWR, Thanks for stepping in and protecting this article - I've added some comments at User talk:Jeff G.#List of Cambodian singers. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I've got the article watchlisted now, if the 125.25 nonsense continues in a week, I'll re-protect it. TFOWR 16:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

What if I edit in good way adding reliable sources?--125.25.15.166 (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Propose your changes on the talk page. TFOWR 17:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Bypassing the normal inability to create pages, I have created a draft at List of Cambodian singers/draft for this user to work on, without muddying the production page or the talk pages.   — Jeff G.  ツ 17:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

"Many users has misunderstanded me with other users from Thailand" is because you refuse to create an account to increase understanding of you.   — Jeff G.  ツ 17:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I've done drafting--125.25.15.166 (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Great! Now propose you changes on the article's talkpage, and when there's a consensus for your proposed changes they can be copied over to the main article. TFOWR 17:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

"Civility Parole"

Just out of curiosity: did this[9] expire or something? I know you're a big boy and can take care of yourself, but his most recent accusation of you causing "disruption" ("massive" this time)[10] over the poll closing brings the grand total of accusing you of this to eight (8) times(!) since 10 October beginning with this edit[11], not to mention twice explicitly of you "blocking consensus" and "acting beyond your authority", of "forbidding", of "unilaterally deciding"... it all seems pretty much a very blatant and repeated violation of his civility parole under assumptions of bad faith. I'm personally sick of watching him beat this poor horse's mangled carcass and casting aspersions everywhere. Maybe it's time the CP is actually enforced by an uninvolved admin... jus' sayin'.  :> Doc9871 (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I am indeed big enough and ugly enough to handle it ;-) The overarching issue - LevenBoy's Isle of Man/Channel Island poll - is currently at WP:AN, and I'm happy to wait and see how that plays out. I beginning to think that this may all stem from a confusion between "Britain and Ireland" and "Britain" and "Ireland" (the former being an alternative term for the British Isles, and the latter being two islands), in which case this is all a misunderstanding and I'd be happy to forget about it. If not, and there's further disruption, then I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. TFOWR 16:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool! Hopefully you won't cause such massive disruption in the future, because he cannot seem to let go[12] of accusing you of not assuming good faith. Very tiresome... Doc9871 (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:ROPE ;-) TFOWR 17:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that borders on "unilateral disruption by one editor"... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletion of Bombardment of Cárdenas

Hi, you declined a G7 speedy tag I placed on Bombardment of Cárdenas with the rationale "I'm not seeing any evidence that the original author either blanked the page or tagged it." This edit by the article creator added the prod to the article. To me, that is an explicit request for deletion, which is why I tagged it for G7 in the first place. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I know, see #Deletion of Bombardment of Cárdenas, above. I still feel that a prod would be better, as it will give other editors a chance to find sources. Another editor has now contested the prod, so WP:AFD is probably the best bet. TFOWR 17:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC) And yet another editor has rolled-back the contested prod... TFOWR 19:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It's also being discussed (in passing) at WP:ANI. TFOWR 17:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Indonesia vandal again...

Yesterday, the Indonesia misinformation vandal silently did it again. He used another "proxy": 12.50.249.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). He vandalized two articles that day, but I might inspect the programs he tried to add to the said two articles as he may have vandalized them too. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 13:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected both articles for a month. Let me know if you find any other "targets". I've not blocked the IP, but if there's evidence that they're continuing to use that IP I will block it. TFOWR 13:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I've investigated that he tried to add Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy! into the Televisa and TV Azteca lists and it's pretty obvious the guy ain't Mexican. Wheel of Fortune has a Mexican version, but not on the two channels I mentioned and it's impossible Jeopardy would have a version there as well. The articles for the two shows are untouched, but it seems this guy is sure pretty desperate. Just stating my opinions since action has been done somewhat. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 13:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose as we lock down more and more articles the desperation will worsen. It'll be interesting to see what happens when the first batch of one-month semi ends... I suspect I'll need to re-protect. Hopefully sooner or later the message will sink in and "our friend" will go off and find another "game" :-) TFOWR 14:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, he's doing it again. The address now: a New York based address 155.212.21.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

IP blocked, pages protected. For what it's worth, the attacks do seem to be slowing down - I suspect the change from Indonesian IPs to international proxies have caused our friend problems. TFOWR 14:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Feedback

Hiya,

I know you help out on the helpdesk (great stuff), and wondered if, perhaps, you can also help some users on WP:FEED? It is quite similar; mostly newly-created articles looking for some basic info on how to improve the article. If you have a quick look over recent feedback given, you'll get the idea; anyway - it was just a thought; if you ever can help out there, please do, because it quite often gets backlogged. Cheers!  Chzz  ►  05:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

...just had a quick look, it's not somewhere I've been before. It looks like new-page patrol, but with more interaction? Aye, I'll give it a whirl! I'll wait until my caffeine levels have reached a sensible point... TFOWR 09:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and now that my coffee-levels have approached normal levels - where did my 10/10/10 post get to, eh? Eh?! I waited in all day, so I could retort with this Scottish news story ("Birthday boy Clark Walker can't wait to be ten on 10/10/10"). Very shoddy, Chzz, very shoddy! I expect better news delivery come 11/11/11 ;-) TFOWR 12:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

BISE

Just seen your instructions for new sections at BISE but haven't yet added templates to the articles. Will do so later unless anyone beats me to it. BTW, a couple of other points; Sanctions on civility imposed on Triton and LevenBoy, so what tone of writing can I use that they can't? Also I see I was blocked. It doesn't matter now, but the reasons given were outrageous. I was merely expressing an opinion. I wasn't being uncivil. There seems to be a group of admins who have nothing better to do than search out block targets. Shame on them (and I don't include you). LemonMonday Talk 16:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA apply to all editors, but it's safe to say that extra scrutiny will be applied to LevenBoy (and Triton Rocker when their block ends). Additionally, there are guidelines like WP:TPG which editors are expected to follow, but which LevenBoy and Triton Rocker must follow.

Regarding your block, you'd need to take it up with the blocking admin, or raise it at WP:ANI - though the latter option obviously will draw additional scrutiny.

Incidentally, the two issues you've raised at WT:BISE, I've left a note about references - it'll be far easier to make the case for your proposed changes if you can demonstrate that there's a valid case for British Isles. TFOWR 16:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think all statements I've referred to are currently unreferenced anyway, but we can interpret the usage is various ways without a reference in some cases. Reference hunting is a debilitating sport and honestly, it's not needed. LemonMonday Talk 17:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's up to you but I'd have thought it's easier to change from the status quote if you make a good case to do so. TFOWR 17:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Polls

It is here. You state, "A snow close, with everyone agreeing with the bleeding obvious. TFOWR 17:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)" The bottomline is, everyone did not get to agree. You agreed for them. You shut the poll after a few hours. Looking at the first poll, we have no idea what they might say until they do, and a few surprised arose in that. Individuals appreciated having the poll. My reading of WP:SNOW is "If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process." In this case, the complete opposite was more likely to be true. There would/should/could have been an easy unanimous agreement. A clear consensus. But we dont know now until we run it. I am logging off for today at this point. If you would like to re-establish good faith, just allow the polls to run without disruption wherever on the BISE pages you feel they they belong but get fair attention. Thank you. --LevenBoy (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikibreak

Just wanted you to know that I'll be gone indefinitely. Thanks for the help. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 09:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks for the heads-up. Email me if you need anything - and all the best! TFOWR 09:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Cowbells!

Made me laugh - thanks for the link! Careful With That Axe, Eugene ^Hello... 10:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries! It's the first thing I think of whenever someone says "more..." And that article has everything - Saturday Night Live, Christopher Walken, Rawk music...! TFOWR 10:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

BISE civility

As much as I appreciate the reasons behind the recent..."accusation"... by RA of somebody being a SPA, I reckon such talk should be kept to a minimum. If they aren't, it's slightly rude at best. If they are, such accusations would probably just bring more trolling and clutter to the discussion anyway. If an editor really feels this, they could probably bring it up at noticeboard-I-haven't-memorized-yet. Of course, I'm not in any way suggesting RA was doing something in bad faith and this is not a criticism on their actions at all. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree. I haven't seen RA's comment yet, I'll find it and raise it with RA as needed. Thanks. TFOWR 10:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Found it, and done. RA doesn't post at BISE that often, and I doubt they associated their comment (which would be normal for, say, an AFD) with the issues we're trying to avoid at BISE. TFOWR 11:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Fmph's comment was also offbase, and I feel slightly more derogatory. I also think it's wrong, as the page is meant to discuss all these issues, but that may be besides the point. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If you think I'm offbase, why not tell me? I certainly don't think we should be filling up the page with every usage of (Great?) Britain and Ireland and asking if it needs to be changed, especially without references to indicate that it should! Fmph (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Fmph, I was just continuing the previous conversation, didn't think of it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think the comment was that bad, but Fmph, while you're here, do avoid general, non-specific comments. In this case I'd already raised the issue of references with Lemon Monday, both at BISE and above. Specific examples can be raised at BISE for any reason, though obviously making a decent case for a change is going to be more effective. If participants don't feel an adequate case has been made for a change they can simply note that and move on: my preference (the lazy option) will be for the status quo unless a decent case is made for change. TFOWR 13:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I wasn't really pissed with Chipmunkdavis. Just passin' by here and kicked up some dust on the way. Sorry. Fmph (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

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

x2 --RA (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

BISE Conkers summary comment

I was surprised. But you said Far too much wikilawyering on both sides. It's discussions like this one that give BISE a bad reputation. Please clarify where there was wikilawyering. --HighKing (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Both sides, instead of stating their arguments neatly and coherently, chose to pick at others' comments. I mentioned this to you and BW at a recent SPI, but the other participants as well should be aware by now that what's needed is brief statements for or against, not endless nested threads. Comparisons with hurling, if needed at all, need to be made in the first - and only - statement. There is rarely, if ever, a need for a second statement. TFOWR 20:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

In future, can I suggest that we avoid neatly stacking editors into "sides", and then tarring each editor in each side with the same brush. I know you need to be (seen as) fair and evenhanded and balanced. And sometimes that means you can't be seen to be always coming down on just one side - even if one side is causing most/all the problems. But you can over compensate and it then becomes unfair to to dole out smacks and punishments to "both" sides in an attempt to seem impartial. --HighKing (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. However, in this case I saw both "sides" wikilawyering, both sides engaging in the multi-threaded arguments I'd been trying to discourage. When closing a discussion one side will typically "lose". I view that in the same way as protecting a page at "The Wrong Version" - it's largely inevitable. In this case both sides argued poorly, and one side appeared to be rewarded for that. That's unfortunate, but unavoidable. I'm not going to use closing statements to "punish" bad behaviour - there are sanctions for that - but I will use closing statements to point out bad behaviour. The close in this case was done based on the evidence available when the discussion was closed, and I believe my statement reflected that evidence as fairly as possible. That new evidence was brought up after the discussion was closed is a separate issue, and one that also concerns me. I need to discuss this (privately) with "counsel" and the other admins to work out how best to deal with this. Clearly the best interests of the project dictate that articles reflect, accurately, all available evidence but there does need to be a way to enforce arguments being made during discussions and not right after closing. TFOWR 12:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I responded to the conkers close at the BISE page to keep it separate. As to the "wikilawyering", perhaps I misunderstood. I wasn't considering the behavior of threaded responses to be wikilawyering, but it seems that it's precisely what you're referring to. In that case, yeah, there was tons of it, but, to my eyes, there was four main protagonists (not counting the sock) for this behaviour, and naming and shaming would be better than lumping everyone into the same boat. Briefly, as to the conkers close, it's impossible to present evidence (so that it's available at the time of close) if you're going to materially change the article and introduce new facts in your resolution. If I break out your resolutions I find that you've essentially ruled in favour of the argument that conkers is not traditionally played in Ireland and the colonies. Fine. But then you've created a new fact to discuss the areas of distribution where we can find conkers being played. Outside the scope of BISE. Unless your position is that this is an alternative reading of the existing text (fine), in which case nobody has had the opportunity to discuss it (not fine). --HighKing (talk) 13:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the wikilawyering was about more than the multithreaded discussions, though the claim/counter-claim is a large part of it. There was too much focus on opinion, and not enough on sound arguments backed by policy or precedent. You made four comments, for example - only the first had any real value (an opinion backed by several references): the rest repeated your opinion or made redundant analogies to challenge other editors' opinions. In one case you discounted the Lonely Planet guide, despite using it yourself as a ref. That is what I mean by wikilawyering. Anyway, as I've said at BISE - if you're unhappy with the close, I've already stated how to challenge it: take it to Black Kite or Cailil. TFOWR 14:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

In one case you discounted the Lonely Planet guide, despite using it yourself as a ref. That is what I mean by wikilawyering. That is simply untrue and extremely disingenuous of you. Lonely planet is a publisher of many different books. I referenced from a book called "British language and culture" which discusses many examples of British language and culture, and it has a section on conkers. I dismissed the "Ireland" guide because it was using an event listing to list the "Irish Conker Championships" as proof that conkers is a traditional Irish game. My comment was clear on that. --HighKing (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

HighKing, look, I'm sorry you don't agree with the one example I gave of you wikilawyering. And I'm sorry you disagree with how I closed the discussion. But I stand by my admonition that you - and all other participants - need to start making better, more coherent arguments. And I stand by my position that if you want this re-opened you're going to have to take it to Black Kite or Cailil. I'm not prepared to set a precedent for "hector TFOWR until they re-open a closed discussion". If you do want this discussion re-opened, I'd be grateful if you could move forward with it promptly - there are (tangentially) related issues which I'd like to discuss with Black Kite and Cailil, and I want to wait until you're spoken to them so I don't prejudice their decision. TFOWR 16:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR, apologies. Let's draw a line under conkers and move on. --HighKing (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries, apology accepted, similar apology extended from me! This has raised an interesting procedural issue, however, so all the pain has had some value ;-) TFOWR 17:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

A favour

I'm likely to be much less active than normal for a little while and thus not able to get to my talk page in a timely manner. Any chance you could keep an eye on it and the alternate talk page and handle any concerns over admin actions, especially the "why did you delete my blatant copyvio" threads. How you handle it I'll leave up to you. I trust you, so, as ever, I won't consider it wheel-warring if you decide to reverse my actions. I'll try to look in on ITN when I can, but my connection is dodgy so I probably won't be on as often as I'd like. Much appreciated, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, that's no problem. You've plenty of TPSs to keep me straight, so I don't think I can do too much damage! Hope the connection issues sort themselves out soon - I know from experience they're a right pain. TFOWR 07:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

BISE resolving and action taking, template question

When an editor has made the change and marked as done (which I just did with a couple of the resolved discussions) do they change the template or is it you who does that after reviewing their edits? Sorry if you've said this somewhere else already. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if I have said it elsewhere. I've been doing it, but I've no objection in principle with having other editors do it, so long as the "conclusion" parameter is accurate. Personally, I'd love to get other editors to do it ;-) I'd imagine there will be discussions, though, where the "conclusion" is lengthy and doesn't easily lend itself to a neat paraphrase, but "other editor" can always leave those ones, or ask me what the paraphrased conclusion would be. (Oh, and thanks for "done-ing [sic]" the ones you "done-ed [sic]" ;-) ) TFOWR 17:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK and WT:BISE

I haven't used User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js recently. Can you raise the issue with the editor that is using it? Lightmouse (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Will do (in fact, I think I have already - I'll need to check). Apologies for blaming this on you, I had already worked out that you weren't to blame! TFOWR 13:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Horse Cat. Vandal

Can you nab this dude for me? NLinpublic (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably not! I'm not sure what I'm looking at, or why? Regardless, WP:AIV is your best bet - unless I'm familiar with an editor (usually a serial sock-puppeteer) you'll get a far quicker and better-informed response from the relevant board - AIV in this case. TFOWR 15:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I had something else going on and didn't have time to type out a longer message. I filed a report at AIV, and the "Megafauna Man" was blocked. It just got annoying to sit there and warn him four times, then revert every edit he made AQAP. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 18:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Another question

Can someone be blocked for removing speedy templates multiple times? Saimoom created an article and I tagged it as spam shortly afterwards. He has since removed the template four times, and I have no idea where to go with it. What's the proper place? Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 18:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Article creators shouldn't remove speedy tags once, let along four times. Warn them - I think there's probably a standard template for removing speedy tags though I can't say for sure - and if they persist take it to ANI. In this case I'll have a word with them... TFOWR 18:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

...or, seeing as they'd been warned multiple times, up to and even beyond a final warning, I blocked them for edit warring. TFOWR 18:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 19:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) {{uw-speedy1}} {{uw-speedy2}} {{uw-speedy3}} {{uw-speedy4}} WP:AIV. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I note that Nolelover and other editors appear to have used these warning templates though. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    • They are on Twinkle. Should I go to AIV or ANI though? Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 20:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

      AIV. So long as they've been given a final warning you should be fine. TFOWR 20:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I really ought to check my tools more often - I see them all now in Twinkle... Oops! TFOWR 20:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

WonHwaDo

Why You deleted post about Korean Martial Art WonHwaDo? --78.60.73.85 (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It was proposed for deletion back on 15 June, and no one objected within seven days. If you want, I can restore the article, however I'd strongly recommend you work on the article - it has very few sources, and would quite likely be sent for a deletion discussion if it wasn't improved. TFOWR 20:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Troll

Westconnector (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Charles Karel Bouley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User Westconnector‎ is vandalizing the Charles Karel Bouley page. Would you please make them go away? Could be a sockpuppet, again! or just another troll. I bow to your judgement ;-) Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking into it. TFOWR 22:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Left a message. I'm not seeing anything too troubling at this point, but I'm absolutely unfamiliar with Bouley. The "homosexual activist" claim seemed incorrect, but not unduly troubling. I couldn't see anything to back up the claim that Bouley's partner had AIDS, and I feel a claim like that really should be backed by by a decent reference. The article used as a source (for the cardiac arrest claim) made no mention of it, which tends to suggest the claim isn't true. I'll keep an eye on things... TFOWR 22:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Andrew was HIV positive, he did not have aids, it was the subject of the malpractice suit. Karel is the opposite of the "Gay activist" he is not accepted generally by the gay community. Karel has said many times he is NOT a gay activist.We have already fought this battle several times on WIKI. Also this could be a sockpuppet of SRQ. If you want more history, I have a ton of it. Take care. xoxo DocOfSoc (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

GREAT message :-D DocOfSoc (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Your input is requested

I have started an RfC on inappropriate userboxes, i.e. those that don't follow the introductory paragraph at WP:UBX:

"A userbox (commonly abbreviated as UBX) is a small colored box ... designed to appear only on a Wikipedian's user page as a communicative notice about the user, in order to directly (or even indirectly) help Wikipedians collaborate more effectively on articles."

How does a userbox about a user's own preferences in regards to what topics on Wikipedia they hate and what type of sexually explicit material they like and actively view help Wikipedians collaborate with one another? Which is the question I am raising.

This introductory paragraph over at WP:UBX contradicts WP:NOTCENSORED so I'd like you to weigh in at WT:UBX, it'll only take 5 minutes of your time. I've sent this message because the topic has not had much community input

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Fridae'sDoom (talk) at 20:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC).

Editprotected request is being ignored, please unprotect Benoît Mandelbrot

Your assertions on Bwilkins talk are incorrect - I've had an {{editprotected}} up on the talk for 15 mins now and no-one is bothering to do it. Unprotect the article please so I can do it myself. Exxolon (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not wheel-warring with another admin. I'd recommend a spot of patience (and, ideally, keeping conversations in one place). Hell, if I wasn't trying to respond to your posts at Bwilkins' talkpage and here, I might have had a chance to look at the article. 10-15 minutes is very little time - be patient, and remember there is no deadline. TFOWR 14:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

LevenBoy & Triton Rocker's gripes

Howdy TFOWR. I've just pleaded with LB, for him & TR (when they're unblocked) to open a RFC on why they feel mistreated. If they don't trust us, then let them face the entire Wiki community. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, though I suspect a Request for Comment would turn into another soapbox, and a lack of success there would be seen as an even bigger conspiracy. I suspect BISE may be heading in that direction, as well ;-) (Ultimately I suspect we'll end up with something like WP:ARBMAC... I sometimes feel all BISE is doing is delaying the inevitable...) TFOWR 18:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Jeepers, I wish those guys (LB & TR) would change their approach. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

RFC

WP:BRD allows me to make more than one edit to the article per day, even when it is subject to a 1RR limitation - discussion here - yes, no, maybe? There is no actual action required or requested just a comment for future reference. Off2riorob (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:BRD is only an essay. a 1RR restriction on an article only applies to reverts - you can edit the article normally (but be careful - an edit that reverses a previous edit - in whole or in part - counts as a revert). Disclaimer: I've not yet looked at discussion. Will do in a second. TFOWR 22:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, read the discussion. BRD isn't an exception to 1RR - am "R" between a "B" and a "D" would still be an "R" - you can't evade 1RR simply by discussing your second revert. I don't know what edits are behind the conversation, so I can't comment in detail, but reversing any part of another editor's edit can count as a revert: A "revert" in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. It can involve as little as one word. I'd be reluctant to argue that at ANI or ANEW without having more detail, however. TFOWR 22:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I happened to see this discussion. 1RR is a fairly new restriction, though up till now it is mostly imposed by Arbcom, so they should be the authorities who interpret it. Please note that the simple form of BRD does *not* break 1RR. Neither the person who makes the BOLD edit nor the person who REVERTs the bold edit has exceeded the one-revert limit. So a person who winds up reverting twice, but then appealing to BRD for his defense, has a tough case to make. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, my thinking was with the second revert - you couldn't justify that one by saying you'd been bold, and were discussing. That said, I like your comment about ArbCom - I'm more that happy to punt policy interpretation! The eye-opener for me, reading WP:3RR carefully for the first time, was exactly what constituted a revert: I'd assumed it meant "undo", "rollback", etc. Yet another thing to add to the list of things I thought I understood but probably don't ;-) TFOWR 18:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) - Thanks for commenting Ed, this is the way I would also interpret the edit restriction. BRD is not an exception to the edit restriction. If a user has made a revert on an article and another user adds a cited addition that the other user objects to for undue weight or some other such non emergency removal, the user should not remove it and claim BRD, they should open a discussion about the addition on the talkpage and attract additional comments and input. I don't think simple one revert issues would be worth referring to Arbcom, seems simple enough to me. I was on a one revert for six weeks and took it at its simplest meaning .. one revert per article per day, no exceptions except clear BLP violations and I never even reverted them , I reported them and got other users to remove them. Off2riorob (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, WP:BRD is only an essay, WP:Edit warring however is policy. 1RR only applies to edit warring, not to "reverts" in general. WP:Edit warring#What edit warring is explicitly excludes BRD from edit warring.

I have asked the arbitration committee for clarification on the issue here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: DIGWUREN -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems like the Arbitration committee disagree with the idea that BRD is an exception to editing restrictions. Off2riorob (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding a BISE template

Sorry to be dense TFOWR and thanks for your helpful explanation and for adding the discussion bands under Kurt Jackson. To fulfill my duties I need to add the BISE template to the Talk:Kurt Jackson now - what exactly do I put on it please? Thanks for your help and apols - still a bit unused to some of the technical issues around here! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, this is going to sound bad because I don't actually know the answer! There are a couple of templates: {{BID}} and {{BID2}}, and I'm not sure which one to use. Leave it for now, and I'll check with Codf1977. I think it's BID2... but I'll check. TFOWR 09:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No {{BID2}} is never used by the editor - the editor {{subst:BID}} and when the page is saved with that in {{BID2}} is automatically correctly inserted. Codf1977 (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Ta! Thinking about it, I'm fairly sure I remember you telling me precisely that. I feel slightly stupid now! TFOWR 20:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

OK - in an odd way, it's comforting to know that an admin can be as clueless about processes as me. :) I think that was a compliment. (?) In the meantime, rudderless, the ship plows onwards.... Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, it's actually pretty simple when you get the hang of it. Done now. Simple code is

{{Subst:British Isles Discuss|section=Kurt Jackson|action=insert}}

- use either "insert" or "delete". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know which BID it was! And oh yes, thanks for the heads-up on the delete vote - hadn't seen that. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Aha, but BID (which you used) or BID2? ;-) Actually, I'm past caring right now. I'll wait and see how the MfD plays out—while resisting the urge to !vote "delete, let the community deal with it instead of pushing it into a WikiProject's workgroup and forgetting about it." TFOWR 17:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Well the rudderless ship has just been accosted and ticketed for this. For future information, do we need to template for Fauna issues? I'm assuming their is not much discussion in that situation? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about this and reading through the contributions so far, the delete seems to be at least partly motivated by a desire to wake up the battles. Isn't this whole delete vote a contravention of existing ANI rulings about using BISE instead of battling at ANI, which will be the inevitable alternative? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

There is no doubt in my mind that True Crime Reader (talk) is a sockpuppet of SRQ. Her edits at Lizzie Borden, her edit summaries are shouting " Here I am!." Her remarks are identical to those she had made at Charles Karel Bouley and the"change the name" edit are so typical of her. I am sure you will get more input on this. I am sorry to burden you with this, but when I know, I know for sure. Have missed your snappy repartee. Stay warm ;-) Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 11:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is little that is good with this edit. I'll look into it. Their understanding of WP:SURNAME doesn't match mine, either, but that's just by-the-by... TFOWR 11:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to admit, that in my interactions with and investigations of SRQ, she originally was not the problem, and was actually the one being treated wrong...what happened after that was probably a result of her original interactions. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I missed the original drama, but I have had a dig through archives since then: this ANI you raised, for example. I suspect you're probably quite right, but my concern now is the socking and sometimes poisonous behaviour by SRQ (I've received emails for example, and I suspect other editors could say the same). A fairly recent example was a threat to initiate legal action against an editor (not DocOfSoc) because they'd referred to SRQ having Asperger syndrome, a claim initially made by SRQ on their talkpage. This editor was, apparently, committing libel, and was going to have an expensive lawyer sicced on 'em. Needless to say, the deadline to remove the comment passed, and the lawyer never materialised... SRQ seems to be doing all they can to make sure that WP:OFFER is never made... TFOWR 11:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I too have received some pretty ugly e-mails from SRQ. I did see the interaction and the threat of libel for info she had put out herself. Be glad you missed the original drama, in my futile attempt to defend myself, I unintensionally stepped on a few toes, for which I have apologized. As a newcomer, I was bitten from day one and I will be the first to admit I jumped in woefuflly ignorant of the 10 billion rules and nuances of Wiki. ;-) Amazing what trivia one can learn in 3 years! Did I mention you are terrific..you are! Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Check you email please. DocOfSoc (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Already replied! Thanks! TFOWR 13:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• I've been watching this editor and have had my suspicions. One thing that concerns me is: 116 edits for TCR, yet this Wikistalk[13]. Other things concern me as well, like this[14] defensive revert which did not correct the problem with quoting the reference, yet acknowledges it in the edit summary. The extensive "reworking" of certain articles... Something strange is going on here, but I'm not 100% sure at the moment. Getting closer, though... Doc talk 18:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - There's no edit overlap, and a gap is neatly explained in this sock's activity in late July. The most recent TCR activity (reverting Crohnie left and right and bulldozing through the Lizzie Borden article) has already become a problem. I'm in the "more likely it is than isn't" camp now... Doc talk 19:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I ran two through WikiChecker and the editing hours are identical, too - so they're in the same timezone is my guess. Not looked at NNG. TFOWR 20:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The insistence of changing even "he" or "she" to the surname [15] is something that SRQ socks are infamous for: Sabra2[16][17], RiverDeepMountainHigh[18][19], ILuvAMRadio[20][21], NeoNeuroGeek[22][23]. I think it's pretty "quacky" looking... Doc talk 20:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I also think TCR's reliance on the term "wording" and "rewording" suspect: often the only edit summary is a simple "reworded"[24][25]. The same was often true of SRQ[26][27][28][29][30][31]... Doc talk 21:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to recommend WP:SPI. I don't have time right now to look closely enough to do a WP:DUCK block, and an SPI will provide a record for later perusal. I'll take a look at the diffs tomorrow (Sunday) and pop round to SPI with my thoughts. TFOWR 21:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

(Groan) I was hoping it wouldn't come to that, but I'll take your recommendation. Sorry to flood your page with diffs, and I'll have the report ready as soon as I can. Cheers :> Doc talk 21:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Aye, sorry about that. Basically, it was late at night and you'd have got a faster response from the "quick" section of SPI. SRQ isn't someone I can easily apply WP:DUCK to - there are some socks I'm very familiar with, and am comfortable with duck-blocks. With others, I'd need to do a fair bit of research first. With SPI there's a good chance you'll find someone who knows the sock. Anyway, I see SarekOfVulcan has blocked them now? TFOWR 10:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

He sure did block her. Her "freak-out" on me after her unblock request was to be expected, but it didn't do her much good. "What the f*** are you talking about and who the hell are you?"[32] At least she "got" my comment, as she notes in the second unblock request. I understand about the duck-block and SRQ, and quick SPI I'll go to for the next one (and you know there will be more). My problem with SPI is that my reports tend to be "overly detailed", which turns off some editors: the SRQ SPI sat for a month before anyone did anything about it, and I've caught plenty of grief over the LB/TR report. Myself, DocOfSoc and Crohnie are all so familiar with SRQ, when we find one and all agree it's her: it has to be her. Anyway, Cheers and see you! :> Doc talk 19:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hi! You already helped my once, now i need your help again. Please, see this. User that did this last time is blocked now, but this is really too much. What else should i do to cover my personal name? If you need any info, please, talk to me. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 20:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like LessHeard vanU (talk) has handled it - rev del and a warning? One thing I would add is: it's going to be difficult for this not to happen, if you continue to edit in the same areas. It might be an idea to avoid the areas you've edited in previously, at least for a while, or other editors will make the connection. TFOWR 21:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

U.K. listed building sources

Further information: [[:User talk:Senra#listed building sources|User talk:Senra § listed building sources]], and [[:User talk:Iridescent#U.K. listed building sources|User talk:Iridescent § U.K. listed building sources]]

You or your lurkers might be able to write about an apparently historic site with a Grade II listed building on it, too. As noted, all that I have access to are accounts of some fella who didn't die there. Uncle G (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

For my stalkers, this is: Baker's Cross (AfD discussion), a settlement in Kent, England. It is part of the village of Cranbrook...

Senra (talk) has suggested Pevsner Architectural Guides, the one for NE and N Kent in particular: Pevsner, Nikolaus (1983), North East and East Kent (Pevsner Architectural Guides: Buildings of England) (2nd ed.), Yale University Press, ISBN 9780300096132. It's not available online, but if anyone lives in the area or has a copy...

The AfD looks like it's heading towards a snow-keep, but blimey! The nominator was bold... TFOWR 09:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible block evasion

92.1.94.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) seems likely to be the one from ANI what was blocked for a week yesterday. You may need to look at Talk:Easter Rising#The rising was pro-German to see that the various 92 prefixed IPs are obsessed with including mention on the "gallant allies" quote in Easter Rising and related articles, which is what yesterday's 92 prefixed IP was doing. Then there are the edits of 92.11.242.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), in the same discussion and making similar offensive edits to User talk:RepublicanJacobite/Alternate. It seems a bit long-winded to have to go to SPI for something that seems obvious to me, could you oblige? Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 11:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've blocked them both, but it seems a little redundant - next time I'll block the most recently active. WP:DUCK cases, definitely, but they're on a dynamic IP address so blocking all of them (or extending 92.10.108.38 (talk)'s block) won't achieve anything useful. For that matter, blocking the most recently actively will simply force the troll behind the IPs to "re-spawn" - semi is probably a better bet in the medium to long term. TFOWR 11:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The unfortunate problem is that their article edits are as problematic as their talk page edits (see this and Talk:Éamon de Valera#Missing information, in addition to things like this made repeatedly), and people are reluctant to semi-protect articles and talk pages at the same time. So short blocks on dynamic IPs may be the best way of dealing with his? O Fenian (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Articles can be semi-ed, and talkpages can be reverted, collapsed or ignored. In any event, I'd prefer not to spend my Sunday playing whack-a-mole - it just feeds the troll's need for gratification. TFOWR 11:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It can probably go to AIV now there's independent confirmation they are the same. And, touching wood, his re-spawning tends to happen on a new day rather than straight after being blocked. O Fenian (talk) 11:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Protect Lizzie Borden

Some one came into the Lizzie Borden article and was just being annoying by making and then reverting changes several times. I went ahead and cleaned it up. Don't you think that the article should just be locked for while? And TY for the great E-mail, made my day...night? I never know LOL. So whatcha think? N...DocOfSoc (talk) 11:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The only recent activity I'm seeing is this, which looks OK to me - they changed "Borden" to "Lizzie", mostly, which I think is fine (too many Bordens in the article - "Lizzie" is OK). It's just one editor, so I'd suggest discussing it with them. In general, if there was only one problematic editor I'd prefer to block the editor than protect the page, but in this case the editor seems OK: it all seems like content issues, rather than vandalism. TFOWR 11:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It's vandalism when you do the same thing twice. Vandalism or stupidity 184.206.71.121 (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it really isn't. Assume good faith, and, while you're here, don't do stuff like this. TFOWR 12:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

BISE

By the way, have you noticed we've got BISE backwards? The cases should be on BISE's mainpage & discussions about BISE itself, should be on its talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh hell yeah - the whole shebang could do with being revamped. Right now I'm privately hoping that the MFD will succeed, so we can pass the buck back to the community at large - they want it, they can have it. I think the idea is that as we get guidelines sorted they get pushed over to WP:BISE - could maybe delete the current contents and stick "fauna" there. I'm holding off on doing anything until the MFD is resolved - it seems pointless spending time on something that may get deleted next week. TFOWR 15:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it might be a better strategy to seize the moment and try and create a set of guidelines from the work todate. Without those any return to the community just means going through the whole two year cycle again. I suggest going back to RAs last proposal and seeing if can get consensus there. --Snowded ^TALK 15:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm embarrased to ask: What was RA's proposal? GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It was speedily reverted. I dislike even more than the task force the attempt to stop talking about it completely and assert a set of guidelines that are allegedly all encompassing and allow the removal of British Isles without the need to even open a discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I've just begged Mick to open a RFC. With all the complaining at the MFD, the MFD is beginning to look like a RFC. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

yes, Mick loves a good chat. Off2riorob (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• - RA's proposal from earlier this year -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:British_Isles - Off2riorob (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Well its guidelines, continued centralised discussion of cases or back to the good old days of multi-article edit wars. Personally I think its worth revisignt the last set of guideline proposals every few months and see if experience allows them to be refined and gain acceptance. --Snowded ^TALK 16:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I've given up even trying to read the ever-lengthening contribs from one editor at the mfd debate - what a waste of time. Snowded is right - if it goes rfc then arbcom, after huge amounts of effort and nauseatingly tedious repetition of the basically obvious rival cases, we will be, guess where, right back at specific examples, plus possibly (the one good thing - if it happens - one feels sceptical) a load of topic blocks for selected disruptives. TFOWR, are you experiencing fatigue with it all, hence your comment about wanting the "community" to go to rfc? Is it the "community"? Or just Duncan plus some of the usuals who enjoy fighting more than they do detailed analysis? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

More the latter. I had a lengthy essay response, but I've deleted it. I'd rather think carefully about what I'm saying, and post a more reasoned essay ;-) TFOWR 17:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

When I was younger I couldn't believe it when I was told I was not English and to stop adding it to forms. I was forced to add British under threat of fine and such like. I had more than one row about it with some form filling ninnies. I think English people have had the nationalism removed from them. Off2riorob (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

So "British Isles" is an English nationalist issue for you is it? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

No, not at all. I see British isles as a well known much used common usage term. On the contrary, I don't see it as relating to my nationality at all, as I said, I am English. Off2riorob (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

/* Your assistance please */

You recently deleted User talk:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/ready/Sharon Shaffer, as G8 -- based on a nonexistent page. But User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/ready/Sharon Shaffer does exist...

If the talk page contained text actually placed there by a human being, or if it contain a note about an {{afd}} closure, could you restore the page? I'll take care of excising any templates not used outside of article space.

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that - it's actually the first time I've deleted the talkpages of {{db-user}} pages without checking first... I'm off to restore it now. TFOWR 17:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Restored. No idea how I managed that - I obviously deleted a lot of pages in your userspace, and the talkpages followed on from the other pages I deleted - but clearly not in this case. Apologies about that. TFOWR 18:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Nicknames

Shouldn't Wikipedians have nicknames? Wayne Olajuwon chat 16:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I think nicknames tend to be quite informal, so in a way Wikipedians - at least those Wikipedians that I work with - do tend to have nicknames: because I tend to be quite informal! ;-) After typing out someone's username a few times I tend to end up abbreviating it in some way. In your case I suspect I'd either call you "Wayne" or "WO" - though I suppose "Wayne" isn't really a nickname! Incidentally, my username used to be This flag once was red (talk), so I suppose you could say that "TFOWR" is my nickname! TFOWR 17:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, and I wouldn't mind you calling me WO and do you mind if I call you another nickname which is TF, The flag, or Flag?! Wayne Olajuwon chat 17:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I used to have a statement on my userpage saying I don't care what people call me. I don't have that any more, but the same applies: you can call me whatever you like! So long as it's obvious - if you and I were talking with an editor called "TFields", it might get confusing! TFOWR 17:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This is why you never see me and User:GorillaWarfare in the same place at the same time. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Here are some nicknames I may think you should call these users if they don't mind:

• User:Airplaneman: Nickname:Man
• User:Ronhjones: Nickname:Ronnie
• User:NerdyScienceDude: Nickname:Dude
• User:Jeff G.: Nickname:Jeffrey
• User:GorillaWarfare: Nickname:G-Fare

Wayne Olajuwon chat 21:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)