User talk:TFOWR

enThis user is a native speaker of the English language.

sco-1This brouker can contreibute wi a laich level o Scots.

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

If you are unable to post here follow this link to post at my unprotected talkpage.

I will do my best to speak clearly and avoid "bad language" unless you let me know that you are happy for me to do otherwise.

Unless you request otherwise, if you post here, I'll reply here (I'd suggest you watchlist this page to make sure you see my reply). If I post on your talkpage, I'll watchlist your talkpage to look for replies there.

“ Admins, if you see that I've made a mistake, please fix it. I will not consider it wheel-warring if you reverse my admin actions as long as you leave me a civil note telling me what you've done and why and as long as you're open to discussion with me should I disagree. ” — Moonriddengirl et al

Click here to leave a new message.

Sockpuppetry allegation against Doradus

Thanks for the headsup. Here's the diff [1] - it looks pretty conclusive to me. As to the last part of your comment, it would have been polite for you to ask what contribution I have made to the project before suggesting to the entire community that this was my first ever edit. (no tilde on this keyboard) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.111.136 (talk) 11:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• That edit was made by Jc3s5h (talk), not Elockid (talk).
• The edit reverted several editors, including QuartierLatin1968 (talk) and SieBot (talk), in addition to Doradus - the blatantly obvious target, however, was 92.24.104.161 - a blatant sock puppet of Vote (X) for change (as I'm sure you're perfectly well aware, being another sock puppet of Vote (X) for change). I don't believe that anyone, including yourself, was in anyway confused by this, and I'm equally sure that if Doradus took issue with Elockid's revert they could take it up with Elockid themselves.
• Vote (X) for Change is indefinitely blocked: your "contributions" are not appreciated. I felt I was being polite by stating that your current IP had made few edits: in future I'll simply block you as a sock puppet - how's that?
• While you're here - your previous crap about me editing religious articles was, well, crap. I have no interest in religious articles, I'm agnostic, bordering on atheist. Your selective interpretation of my talkpage post was also crap. I invite anyone interested to review the original thread, and judge for themselves whether Vote (X) for Change is capable of honesty.

TFOWR 11:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You do seem to have an issue with Vote (X) for Change. I think you would be better advised to stand back and let others exercise their own judgment. In the time that I've been contributing to Wikipedia I've not been aware of editors queuing up to lambast this particular contributor. The way the system works seems to be that other editors first air their views on the offending editor's talk page. If the behaviour continues, an administrator may impose a short block, which may be followed by blocks of increasing length if the situation does not improve. An indefinite block is the last stage in the procedure. Examination of Vote (X) for Change's record shows it was retired at the time the ballot it was concerned with closed and a single block was effected at that time. Nothing there supports your allegation that it alienated any member of the community other than the two troublemakers Jc3s5h and Chris Bennett it was in dispute with at the time.

Jc3s5h's reversion has to be examined in the light of the prior history. If your theory is correct, what is the explanation for the reverts performed by Jc3s5h to the edits of Siebot, QuartierLatin1968 and Doradus? As we are both in agreement that none of these is a sockpuppet there can be no objection to all their edits being restored. If we consider only the complaints of the editors who don't have a POV - pushing agenda, three striking facts emerge.

(1) They are directed to personality, rather than content

(2) Vote (X) for Change displays a markedly Christian agenda

(3) All the complainants are either self - admitted or apparent non - believers.

Apart from yourself, as a Japanese Atama is most likely to be non - Christian and tmorton166 describes him/herself as a scientific humanist. A non - believer would not realise that describing himself as a "Buddhist/Sikh/Pagan educated by non - Christians/atheists/robots" will inevitably cause deep offence to the Buddhist and Sikh communities.

I've been following the debate and my recollection is that there was a reference to religious project pages, not articles. Your declaration that you have no interest in religious articles sits uneasily beside the reference to Catholic Church elsewhere on this talk page, where the correspondent takes your familiarity with this article for granted. Also, at the beginning of the archive extract you say that you are a regular visitor to East - West Schism.

Long term protection of Gregorian calendar will only exacerbate religious differences. One of the five pillars of Wikipedia, WP:NPOV, was raised partly to ensure that no one major religion got any more coverage than any other. Had there been a worldwide outcry, such as the one which led to the cancellation of Florida's "Burn a Qu'ran" demonstration scheduled for today, it might have been justified, but negative feedback (apart from Jc3s5h) was zero. We don't know (because he won't say) whether he is pushing what he conceives to be the Catholic viewpoint. You can easily find out, since the Pope is visiting Scotland on Thursday, by going to Edinburgh before then, handing the Church's representative a copy of the disputed diff, and asking to be informed of any comments which His Holiness may have on the subject. 81.147.186.91 (talk) 10:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Vote (X) for Change does seem to have an issue with sock-puppetry. I think Vote (X) for Change would be better advised to stand back and let non-blocked editors exercise their own judgement. In the time I've been contributing to Wikipedia I've seen many sock puppeters come and go; Vote (X) for Change is just another in a long line of ex-editors who don't understand why their "contributions" are not appreciated. Vote (X) for Change is indefinitely blocked - that didn't occur because Vote (X) for Change was doling out choclates and roses.

I don't believe I've contributed to religious project pages either. I've contributed to dispute resolution, as I'm required to do as an admin. This includes protecting pages as required, and it is through protecting one religious article due to a dispute (unrelated to calendars) between two editors. This was an article, and my participation was on the talkpage and solely in terms of dispute resolution.

I assume you're joking about me going to Embra. Not going to happen. Either me going, or the Catholic Church taking your complaint any more seriously than I do.

So, let's recap: your complaint against Elockid was crap. The diff shows it was another admin entirely. You posted this complaint to ANI at least twice, and no one took it remotely seriously (indeed, as anything other than crap). You attempted to portray me as involved in editing religious articles and/or project pages - again, this was crap. You misrepresented a talkpage post - again, this was crap. You objected to me labelling your crap as "crap", while continuing to spout crap. I really do think you'd be better advised to stand back and let more detached editors exercise their own judgement - yours is clearly questionable. TFOWR 11:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You appear to me to be someone who gets worked up about trivial issues (A "Type A" personality, in the jargon). Surely you can get your point across without swearing every other sentence. Whether you edited an article or its talk page is just a matter of detail. What interests me most about your post is where you say

Vote (X) for Change is just another in a long line of ex - editors who don't understand why their "contributions" are not appreciated.

There is a list of ex - editors - the Banned List - and I don't see Vote (X) for Change's name on that.

Then you say

Vote (X) for Change is indefinitely blocked - that didn't occur because Vote (X) for Change was doling out choclates and roses.

I don't follow the reasoning here - if editors don't dole out "chocolates and roses" they don't get blocked either.

The link to Elockid is that (s)he protected the talk page of a protected article, which is outside Wikipedia guidelines.

So far as the Pope's visit is concerned (he's coming to Glasgey as well, by the way) I can't imagine that the Catholic Church would have the slightest interest in anything which is said about it on Wikipedia.

On misrepresenting what is said on talk pages, were your schoolteachers really robots or just decent human beings who people like you just like to make fun of because of their profession? 81.147.186.91 (talk) 13:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You've got me banged to rights! I am indeed subject to the psychological failings you identify - I'm so crushed!

I'm not sure why you'd look at the list of banned editors: I've never said that you're anything other than indefinitely blocked, surely? Guilty conscience, maybe? Can't help there...

I'm sorry you can't follow my reasoning re: choccies and roses, I can't really help there either.

If you believe Elockid failed to follow protection policy then you are really in the minority. It's standard practice to protect pages when they're subjected to frequent attacks by sock puppets.

I too can't imagine that the Catholic Church has any interest in your witterings - that was, after all, what I said previously: I assume you're joking about me going to Embra. Not going to happen. Either me going, or the Catholic Church taking your complaint any more seriously than I do.

I'm sorry, too, that you didn't understand the talkpage comment that you didn't understand. I can't really help there, either.

In summary: you clearly have lots of issues, none of which are going to be solved by your continued presence here, either on Wikipedia or, more specifically, my talkpage. TFOWR 13:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Have I made a complaint to the Catholic Church? No.

Do I understand what you're on about? No.

Does anybody else understand what you're on about? No.

Goodnight. 81.147.186.91 (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise you were an administratrix. I take it all back. I'm in vandal - fighting mode at the moment - affects my composure. 81.147.186.91 (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Quran-burning rename

   IMO, speaking admin to admin, that you made a called-for move at (and back to) 2010 Qur'an-burning controversy, but would better have noted in your comment on the talk paage that

_ the proposer of the rename was the one whose move was at best the last straw in eliciting the protection,

_ the proposal elicited no support, & 6 quick objections (IMO, each clearly indicating, at least implicitly, pref for the immediately prior title), and

_ protection was a unilateral act of an admin, and does not constitute an implicit request that other admins refrain from changing the title during protection.

   I also think using "Meh." in the talk summary (BTW, i needed Wikt to distinguish it from the expression of disgust, "Feh."?) in declaring the move, may be at best too informal, too seemingly casual, for an action requiring admin priv. (Oh, shit: i'm about say that as an edit to your protected talk page!)
   On the other hand, good call on all the direct results!
--Jerzy•t 00:05 & 00:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I must admit, I didn't feel too comfortable moving it, but I couldn't see who had protected it in the logs, and as you note the proposer moved it immediately after proposing. That said, that's all the more reason for a more considered comment than "meh"... so apologies for that. I was hoping to be light-hearted and not too bitey with respect to the proposer, but re-reading it I'm not convinced I even achieved that - c'est la vie. I try not to do admin actions late in the day for that very reason... Anyway, thanks for your note. If it was you who protected it, apologies for wheel-warring/treading on toes - not something I tend to do, but the "proposed" title was so clearly unnecessary, and the support clearly wasn't there. TFOWR 00:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be me! I added the move prot, but which page's log it's in beats the hell out of me! It's been moved more times than most articles ever are in their entire lives! I'll dig it out of my log. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

log entry:

• (del/undel) 22:39, 10 September 2010 HJ Mitchell (talk | contribs | block) changed protection level of 2010 United States Qur'an-burning controversy [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 04:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (indefinite) ‎ (Highly visible page: please make up your minds on the talk page) (hist | change)

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry HJ - I've just apologised to you on the talkpage, too (Jerzy, I interpreted your advice as "leave a more considered comment explaining my actions", so I left a proper comment). OK, I can see all the gory details at the redirect's logs, that explains my earlier inability to see... and puts my mind at rest slightly. But HJ - I never thought that my first wheel-war would be with you ;-) I'm going to stop now, before I do further damage...! TFOWR 00:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's wheel warring. At least you didn't delete it, anyway, much as it needs to be, but I couldn't post my opinion of the whole thing without violating BLP! You only moved it to a consensual title. I put the move prot on to stop people moving it back and forth based on "I proposed it, nobody objected in 30 seconds, so there must be a consensus", which is annoying, and, as you can see, it makes one hell of a mess of the logs! ;) Anyway, no apology necessary (even if it was a reversal, I believe a wheel war requires a reversal of a reversal). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Spoil sport! There was me thinking I was being controversial ;-) Useful learning (or remembering...) experinece for me - I had got into a good habit of doing certain types of things at certain times, and serious admin bizness was something I did earlier in the day... this is why. Various things - real-life and WT:BISE - have distracted me from my routine, and I'm paying the price. Time to get back into my routine... TFOWR 00:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Something ugly I just threw together

It's not incredibly pleasant on the eyes since I got lazy and just threw it together, but behold what happens if you add giftig_toolbox_sidebar=true; to your js (assuming you still have my toolbox.js imported). I'll probably make it look a little (or a lot) better later on if I get time. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I actually commented it out, because I still had issues with some tabs (generally the ones that I hadn't used that much, being bogged down in WT:BISE and not doing my fair share of admin-y stuff as a result...) but I've just un-commented it. I'm using Chrome, and I get a very thin bar (with no content) under the "langauges" box on the left-hand side (Monobook, Chrome, etc). I'm guessing that's not what I'm supposed to see ;-) Incidentally, I keep meaning to take a closer look at toolbox.js - I'm sure I should be able to work out why I have issues with it that the rest of you don't (I also have issues with easyblock.js, which no one else seems to have... so experience with toolbox.js would help me resolve my easyblocking issues...) TFOWR 14:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, multi-browser compatibility (and in wikipedia, multi-skin compatibility as well); the bane of the lazy developer... ;) I'll come up with some fixes and additions at some point, but right now it's mainly for my convenience anyway. Let you know if you find out why chrome has issues with it and I'll see if I can improve its compatibility with other browsers / skins. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries, and will do. I've kept toolbox.js in my monobook for now, it'll "encourage" me to avoid admin-y stuff, which is good because I've got a ton of off-wiki stuff to do yesterday..., so testing will be quick if needed. TFOWR 14:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean about the thin bar under languages; try it on a page where that div box hasn't been added to the content. The issue is that two boxes on the page have the same id (which technically should never be allowed in HTML), so it's adding the content to one (the one I put on your talk page) but not the other (in the sidebar). It's not a chrome issue after all. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually that previous thread has been archived now so it shouldn't cause problems on your talk page here anymore. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Unnoticed on AIV, needs fairly fast attention

Hi TFOWR, could you block Afbile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) please? I reported it to AIV but it hasn't been noticed yet, and the user has been repeatedly and rapidly removing speedy deletion templates from a copyvio article, and recreating it when it's deleted. Thanks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, PeterSymonds blocked the user. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I was on my way to speedy the article (blatant copyvio, but of the annoying kind where I know fine well that the editor creating the article is probably also the individual behind the blog...) when I saw that Peter had got there first. Apologies for the delay: I was on it when you first posted but had to field a RL event... TFOWR 11:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I can hardly complain that your response time was minutes rather than seconds ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, did you try plugging the text into Google translate or similar? Google, at least, fails quite spectacularly, which surprised me - it normally does a half-decent job, and Tagalog (? Google says "Filipino") isn't that unusual. TFOWR 12:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about it, but first I dumped it into google itself and found a word-for-word copy (and then realised it was in a link in the article anyway). I didn't think it was of much interest what it said since it was a copyvio, and while sometimes I'll just stubify and reword problematic articles, trying to rewrite a copyrighted foreign article isn't my idea of fun. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, translating it wasn't required - it was obviously a copyvio. I suspect the editor got their *.wikis muddled up, and didn't intend to create the article at en.wiki, and didn't understand what was going on. Based on Google's failing, I also suspect that the editor's Filipino is probably fairly poor as well... TFOWR 12:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree

Sine you marked this edit as "bold", I thought I'd drop by and express my agreement. Debresser (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and apologies - I should have let you know I'd done it (or was planning to do it). For what it's worth, I've previously protected high-vis templates without thinking; it was only the recent thread on ANI, and the apparent consensus, that prompted the change. TFOWR 14:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle?

Wouldnt it be easier to just use Twinkle to undo all 2000+ protections in a matter of minutes? That's how he got them protected in the first place. Or are you only unprotecting some of them and therefore having to go through it manually one by one? —Soap— 15:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The latter ;-) Some were already protected (I guess they shouldn't be on the db report...) and I'm checking first so as not to unprotect templates protected before the batch. But yes, Twinkle would be much easier - I'm finding this very tedious ;-) TFOWR 15:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well if we could find the ones that were already protected through the different entries in my protection log ("changed protection settings" as opposed to "protected"), then we can mass-unprotect and then restore the previous settings to those that had them. It would save you about 2,700 log entries. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, I like that idea. How would mass-unprotect work? We feed a list into "something" and it does then in a one-er? TFOWR 15:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Mass unprotection is as easy as mass protection and if it's not, I'll set it to change everything to just move protection. The trouble is separating the changes of settings from the protections, but once that's done, it's pretty simple. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Party shading/Federalist#Protection level change

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Party shading/Federalist#Protection level change. —Markles 16:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Clerk elections

Hi, this is just to inform you that elections for Clerkship at WP:UAA have started on the talk page. You have been sent this message because you were recently active in handling submissions or discussions. Discussion is ongoing and you are encouraged to voice your opinion on the candidates.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Fridae'sDoom (talk) at 06:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC).

Sock army

Could you take a look at Talk:Desert Valley Knights and let me know if you think these are quacky enough to warrant duck-blocking? Or should I start an SPI? It seems an individual is trying to have the page kept by creating an army of socks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh, page is gone, they fail. I suspect you're right, and I think a case could be made for illegitimate socking. I'm not convinced it'd be worth it - at this stage - however. Though I have a sneaking suspicion that the deleted page is going to be recreated in 5... 4... 3... TFOWR 09:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I left a couple of modified {{firstarticle}} welcome templates that included a link to WP:SOCK for good measure :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, that's cool - how did you modify it? I'm assuming you dumped firstarticle into a sandbox and tweaked it? I can't see any magic parameter for {{firstarticle|sock=probably}}... TFOWR 09:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Simply subst'd first article on the first usertalk. Then edited it and changed "created" to "edited", and added the sock link. Then copy and pasted the whole thing to the second usertalk. Et voila! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

 Thanks. I suspect you're probably right, it may be a waste of time to take it to SPI over a failed attempt to prevent an A7 using accounts which now effectively have a zero contribution total. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well your countdown was a little off, but only by a few hours. It appears (judging by previous speedy notifications on his talk page) that this is the fourth time they've created it, and they've also removed speedies from it and socked to try to keep it; I've given them a final warning and hopefully they'll knock it off... but I won't hold my breath. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted, and editor warned (again - you'd already warned them, obviously). I haven't salted the article - I suspect if I did that they'd find a creative new title and avoid detection. It has reached my salt-threshold, however... TFOWR 18:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that's likely. If it happens again they're likely to be blocked anyway, which is more likely to solve the problem. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, and you probably know already, but I "volunteered" you (and me, and the help desk) to field questions from the article's creator. I suspect nothing will come of it, but I live in hope. Anyway, sorry for volunteering you without warning! ;-) TFOWR 19:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh I noticed that and was considering a trout, but I'm still stockpiling most of my fish for now... GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think a trout would be a little harsh - just like ANI, where if someone raise an issue they should expect their own conduct to be reviewed, if you get me to do something you should expect me to volunteer you ;-) (I'd settle for a minnow...!) TFOWR 19:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm? It's harsh to treat a fellow editor to a nice meal? ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Pipelinking surprises

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but in WP:EASTEREGG (well, what that redirects to) it says: Keep piped links as intuitive as possible. Do not use piped links to create "easter egg links", that require the reader to follow them before understanding what's going on. Also remember there are people who print the articles...The readers will not see the hidden reference...unless they click or hover over the piped exceptions link. In a print version, there is no link to select, and the reference is lost. Instead, reference the article explicitly... "After an earlier disaster, the Bombay Explosion (1944), ...", not "After an earlier disaster..."

This seems to me (but please correct me?) that things like "a [[British Isles|group of islands]]" and "[[British Isles|an archipelago]]" are discouraged against.Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't really go into detail at the template talk page, because that example wasn't relevant in that case, but this was re: a different discussion about leads, where the explicit link to British Isles was in the geography section, and the lead simply mentioned "an archipelago". TFOWR 09:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that the above policy covers pipelinks everywhere, including the lead. I used the group of islands and an archipelago just as examples I remember being discussed off the top of my head (from I'm sure you know where), trying to get a clarification in general about the guideline. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh, Wikipedia:Piped link isn't policy. Hence my slightly liberal interpretation for leads: WP:LEAD, as a guideline, should carry more weight, and - provided the article-proper avoids surprises - I think it's appropriate for the lead to pipe in the interests of summarising the article-proper. TFOWR 09:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, I obviously have no idea what a policy or a guideline is. Alright then, thanks for clarifying. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries! Take a look at WP:LEAD if you haven't already - the box at the top gives the status (policy, guideline, etc). Broadly, policies need to be followed tightly, guidelines should be followed, essays can be followed, and anything else is fair game ;-) In the case of WP:EASTEREGG, it's none of the above - I think it's good (I'm citing it a lot, as it's the only guidance I can find for pipes) but because it's not a policy or guidelines there is wiggle-room. In this case, I think being flexible with it is good for leads, less good for articles-proper.

Pictures on MP

Well, first, I hate shoehorning names that don't really fit into blurbs to identify the picture. And I picked Kimmy over Rafa because Nadal was just up there for Wimbledon not three months ago... and the French a month before that. Feel free to change it to an All Black if you like, though. Courcelles 11:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, not at all - I think Kim was a good choice (I prefer pictures to match the top item, where possible). My comment was more about HTD's suggestion that it should be a "white" guy from the All Blacks - I don't see why colour should matter, but the logical choice (for me) wouldn't have been white anyway. Mils is Samoan, and many of the ABs are Pasifika or Māori. TFOWR 11:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

TPO vs OWNTALK

Ah yes you're right, the two paragraphs are pretty much paraphases of each other. It's interesting that they have different tones:

• "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred" - (WP:OWNTALK)
• "Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but archiving is strongly preferred" - (WP:TPO)

Subtle but do you see what I mean? Jebus989^✰ 15:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I do, that is interesting. I suspect because similar things are said in different places someone's updated one but not the other.

For my part, I prefer the "strongly prefer" version: I never delete anything on this talkpage; everything gets archived (fairly rapidly, admittedly) so anything anyone's ever said is in my archives somewhere.

Part of the reason this is on my mind is there's an IP vandal who regularly deletes warnings, and I've noticed several good-faith editors reverting the IP. I looked up WP:TPO earlier today so I could post at the IP's talkpage without sounding like an idiot. Anyway, that's by-the-by - I'm sure you're not interested in why I'm suddenly interested in WP:TPO ;-)

When I have some time I'll post at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines to see if we can get some clarity on the two variants of "preferring archiving" - it's pedantic, but I'd like to see WP:OWNTALK and WP:TPO say the same thing ;-) TFOWR 15:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Raised at WT:TPG. TFOWR 19:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

admin hat

could you help me in your admin hat? Off2riorob (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"It depends". What needs done, and where? TFOWR 15:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

sock blocking any questions and permission User talk:Tnxman, here Off2riorob (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. Banhammer armed and ready, I'm off to block me some socks... TFOWR 15:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool, many thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Azamishaqu doesn't seem to exist - they have a talkpage, but the user itself is a non-user. You'll need to double-check with Tnxman307. All the others are blocked (HJ had already got one before me). I'm off to bag-and-tag now. TFOWR 16:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Case edu this one...? Off2riorob (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's Azamishaque (note the "e"). TNXMan 16:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tnxman307. This one's now blocked as well. TFOWR 16:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

All good, a big chocolate biscuit to you all. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Case edu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Azamishaque (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and all other sock puppets now blocked and tagged. First time I used the "checkuser confirms..." tag, so I make no promises I tagged rightly... thanks for the choccie biccy ;-) TFOWR 16:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Impressive work indeed. Off2riorob (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Surreal Barnstar
		for your steadfast dignity and courtesy, even under Kafkaesque circumstances. UgoGirl!! DocOfSoc (talk) 05:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much - I'm not sure what I've done to deserve this, but much of what I've done recently seems to be in the realm of the surreal.

Incidentally, I've got to come clean about my gender - I'm male! Not that I mind, I don't advertise the fact and my username is very unrevealing, but seeing as we're friends I thought I should be honest :-) TFOWR 21:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I must admit when I heard someone refer to you as "she" I was very, very confused. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Come on TFWOR, make your mind up. if your confused or unsure we have plenty of related articles that may help. Transgender, Transvestite, Androgynous ...Off2riorob (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I was nosey-ing around someone's userpage earlier when I found this great userbox: {{User:FingersOnRoids/ProGayMarriage}}. There's also the "straight-not-narrow" one. But basically: I'm sure about many things ;-) My userpage used to show how boring I was: in terms of me being interesting I score 0.5/10 :-( I get half a point for coming from the Southern Hemisphere - I figure only half a point because I now live in the Northern Hemisphere. My score has gone down since I started editing Wikipedia :-( But basically I'm a boring straight white guy... So I guess "I'm sure, but I'm sure I don't mind" is my philosophy! TFOWR 22:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, you've never come across as female to me. Mainly because I think I first came across you discussing chicks with HJ. But just to check- this says you're male :P sonia♫ 22:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, possibly. I seem to remember comments about red-heads at Talk:Main Page... I try to be politically correct but don't always succeed...! TFOWR 22:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I take that back, actually. Searching through HJ's archives and 220.101's page evidences that I've talked with everyone but you, apparently! (like this, for example...) Sorry for misremembering :( sonia♫ 22:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I do remember a discussion here about this woman's attractiveness (I like her for her mind...), and I do have a massive crush on this woman (picture here), but the women I like are often quite understated... TFOWR 22:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Sonia meet TFOWR, TFOWR meet Sonia, there is something in the air methinks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Wrong hemispheres, mate :-( We missed our chance... TFOWR 22:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Then come back here, silly. ;) Although somehow I suspect I'm not your type. :P sonia♫ 22:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"My type" isn't limited to dead anarchists ;-) Not much hope of returning anytime soon, I'm afraid :-( Though as Winter in the Northern hemisphere draws ever nearer I do waver... TFOWR 22:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He who smelt it, dealt it. ;-) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

...Differences between men and women, The birds and the bees... GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"Even educated fleas do it"? :-) What do the fleas that drop-out of school do about procreation? Wikipedia, eh? More questions than answers... TFOWR 22:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)