User talk:Timbouctou

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Croatian Wikipedia[edit]


My commiserations regarding your recent hr wiki block - or not, because it's not like you're losing anything... :-)

Anyway, I've just achieved what perhaps no other Wikipedian has achieved: I got blocked for using a {{citation needed}} template (?!). See Wikipedija and its talk, you might find it interesting...

Now there is a boneheaded move - I certainly wouldn't like to explain to the WMF how adding a cn template is a "disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point"[1], and maybe - just maybe - someone will have to do exactly that... GregorB (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

My condolences. Or not :-) In addition to being a vehicle for promoting hate speech and assorted stuff lifted verbatim from fringe right-wing online columns, CW is a colossal waste of time. The project is FUBAR and does more harm than good in its current form. The only result of my experience over there is that the target of my resentment has shifted from the semi-literate paranoid imbeciles running CW to WMF itself, as it genuinely does not seem to care about using its donated funds to host a runaway project that is actually an inversion of all of its values. If you need support fighting your block I am willing to help, but I am increasingly getting fed up with all that crap. I rarely used CW as a reader myself, and the media coverage it received last year - along with the blatant propaganda speak used throughout CW - makes me think not many Croatians ever will. So why bother? They probably did you a favor. (Btw have you noticed that their recent changes page lists changes to user talk pages as well? So that when you inevitably get harassed for not toeing the desired party line, you immediately have an entire pack of admins descending on your talk page. Which, btw, they won't let you delete, and, once blocked, even modify. In essence they treat recent changes page as a policing tool for monitoring who does what and where, and I even received a warning once for making too many incremental edits because it interfered with their ability to monitor user activity. Which is pretty hilarious considering how abandoned the place seems to be.) Timbouctou (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
You make some very good points. I've also recently came to a conclusion that the best way is letting the place self-destruct: trying to fix it actually has the opposite effect.
Also, the WMF has been a big disappointment to me, because it's really as blatant as it gets. They might still make a move in the end, but chances are it'll probably be either something half-assed, or something easily defeated by a sock-storm.
I have no intention whatsoever of fighting my block. It's a waste of time. And, it just so happens it is also pretty hard to do: one can't edit while logged in (obviously), can't edit while logged out (IP is blocked too), and can't send an email to the blocking administrator using the "Email this user option" (funny thing - either a bug, or is deliberately disabled).
Also, that's a good observation regarding the patrolled changes: on the face of it, it's an anti-vandalism measure, but in reality is a matter of total control. Once they "get your number", your edits get scrutinized to death or wantonly reverted just for the fun of it, and it is impossible to reason with those people. They are not too smart either - my block seems to prove it - and in the end that's going to be their undoing. GregorB (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) There is an anecdote which ends with a question “What are you doing out of jail?” --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


Can you please explain the reason of your recent edit in Gazi Hüsrev Pasha ? Thanks Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, regarding this edit - Category:Bosniak people is a container category, i.e. it is meant to be populated only by subcategories, not articles. Timbouctou (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Straw Poll[edit]

There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.

The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! Timbouctou (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Timbouctou, you wrote, "I think the pros of having the belief parameter in the template vastly outweighs the cons of constant vandalism that it attracts...". That seems to contradict the rest of your statement. Did you mean "I think the pros of having the belief parameter in the template are vastly outweighed by the cons of constant vandalism that it attracts"? Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 00:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I meant, I apologise for the confusing statement, English is not my first language and I was pretty tired when I was adding the comment. Thanks for pointing this out, I've corrected my comment on the discussion page. Timbouctou (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


Just wanted to say: good call on the Nacional article.[2] It has been a mess for years now. Hopefully - now it has been relaunched - more sources will appear, giving us a chance for a decent article. GregorB (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas[edit]

Merry Christmas to you Timbou and all the best in the new year! GregorB (talk) 19:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: Admin attention is needed[edit]

Sorry, I was away for a while. Thanks for handling the RSK list issue (again). With regard to the .yu basketball league list, is the latest version still contentious? I see there are notability references now, and no further reverts or discussion on Talk. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year![edit]

Fuochi d'artificio.gif

Dear Timbouctou,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Magnum Crimen[edit]

Thanks for chipping in! I feel the article is going in the right direction regarding balance, but still: once it is stable, would you volunteer to give the final assessment of the WP:BCLASS #2 criterion ("The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies."), in which I originally failed it? GregorB (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, the topic is certainly interesting. I haven't heard of the book or Novak before, and I assume it attracts a lot of bullshit merchants, which is a shame since it deserves a proper treatment. The book's content tackles a lot of topics and some effort should be made to explain them concisely and coherently, including the criticism and praise it received. There are too many inline citations referring to the primary source, and too few secondary sources which could shed some light as to why is the book positive or negative. And we would also need some biographical details on the author himself. Let me know if help is needed to whip it into shape. Timbouctou (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'm not exactly an expert on the topic either, but sometimes not being familiar with it is a bonus.
I agree with your remarks. I'm probably going to tweak a few things in the article myself so let's see what happens... GregorB (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Air stuff :)[edit]

Sorry for this, I left a proposal at the talk-page. I understand your point, it is just that in that case, a new article should be created, and that one should be left as it originally was (about the content you removed). I hope you had nice holidays Timbouctou! FkpCascais (talk) 04:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: Magnum Crimen, again[edit]

Thanks for the reminder. Also, I suggest you use the {{interrupted}} template in the future, particularly when dealing with controversial discussions, because it makes it clear that replying to a specific point inline was intentional and made in good faith. (The context and the actions of the other party in this case preclude a different interpretation, but still, it's better to be safe than sorry.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Milos zankov (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)