User talk:Tamzin

Normal talk page rules: Unless you ask otherwise, I'll reply to you here; I reserve the right to refactor your comments within reason; blah blah blah.

Oh and here's my archive.

Formerly Francophonie&Androphilie. Now with 400% more pink and only 50% less French.

Old conversations I still need to reply to. Sorry for procrastinating everything.

Extended content

User:קיפודנחש/apiRollback.js Hi F&A. I was thinking: why would you even want the script to bold the "talk" page of the user/vandal and add the "vanarticle=" thing? this looks so last year! wouldn't it be better if we add a 2nd menu that would allow you to define what do you want to drop in the user's talkpage? i am thinking something similar to the "summary" line, except you'll be able to use multiline edit mode, and teach the script to remember for you the last 20, 40, or unlimited number of "droplets" you used in the past. i am just thinking here, but let say we let you give them names. you would create little pieces that look like so: ==[[$1]]== Dear $2, i had to $3 some edit you did in the page $1. To learn more about bla bla bla read page [[abra kadabra]] ~~~~ or, the more aggressive form: ==[[$1]]== {{subst:Get lost|$1}}~~~~ The script will replace $1 with the page name, $2 with the user's Nik, and $3 with the rollback text (so it may be "rollback 6 edits" or just "rollback"). The script then will just add this to the user talkpage without taking you out of wherever you are. if you give this little masterpiece a name, it will be available to you on future rollbacks, but you can just use it once, without giving it a name, as so not to "contaminate" the list of droplets you like to use. the details are still blurry, and if you think this is valuable we can work them out, but i wanted to hear from you first whether you think this makes sense. peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Hmm. A very good idea indeed. Here's what I think: About 90% of the time that you use rollback, you only need to drop a template message, if anything; with the other 10%, the cases are distinct enough that it's fairly rare that you can recycle messages. So, instead of having it store your latest 20-40 warnings, have it store a dropdown menu of templates, very much like Twinkle's Warn feature, except deployable from whatever page you initiate rollback from, and slightly more customizable. Proposed specs: Like with Twinkle, the following setup: Dropdown menu of warning levels - level 1, level 2, level 3, level 4, level 4im (only warning), single-issue notice, single-issue warning Dropdown menu of available templates for each level... I can throw together a roster of all of these for you, if you're interested "Comments" field - whatever you write there is added, italicized, after the template you leave Then, in addition: A "custom message" option The ability to add messages to the dropdown menus through some sort of function in your common.js - some users make their own series of warnings, and there are also some obscure warnings that certain users in specialized areas often have a need for And maybe, if you want to get really fancy, a one-click "warn for vandalism" button, that would read the hidden text included in the standard series of vandalism warnings - namely <!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 --> and/or <!-- Template:uw-cluebotwarning1 --> - and give the appropriate next level. Though you'd have to program it to only register warnings left in the last day or two, so I don't know how complicated that would be - ClueBot can do it, so it's clearly possible, but ClueBot can do anything, so I have no idea what sort of level of labor that would take. Anyways, how does all that sound? If you're interested, I'll get started on making a list of the necessary components for you assemble. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 02:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC) thing is, though what you suggest sounds at first glance simpler or easier, for me it's actually more work/more difficult, because it means we have to hard-code all those boilerplate messages into the tool. personally, i am not familiar with the specific templates used for vandalism-fighting in enwiki, and this would also make it less transportable to other wikis. if i do it the way i suggested, i.e., start with empty set, and as the user adds more responses, tool learns them so they become boilerplate for next time (without me having to put them there myself - yuppee!). admittedly, this means that every user of the tool will have to enter each of those boilerplate messages manually once, but as you say, there is not such a huge number of them. i will ask you to try it and see what you think. peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 06:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Personally, I think the vanarticle setup works better, in that case. Also, there actually are a fair number of templates... there's five levels of each of the main ones, plus a lot of important less-used ones. Twinkle does its job very very well, and, in my opinion, it's best to either directly use it, or copy something from it. Anyways, as I said, I'll gladly draw up a list of the templates you'd need... as for the workload issue, if you can give me a quick walkthrough of how to add the templates, I'd have no problem doing it myself... it'd be the same procedure for each template, right? And as other wikis go, I don't think this would hinder exportability, since you could still have the memorizing function for custom messages, in addition to any hard-coding. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 07:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC) i'll tell you what: i will add a facility to read the boilerplates from a .js page, and add a "read boilerplats" button. it will still not be the sophisticated hierarchical thing you describe - all messages are equal. once the user reads the boilerplates, they can add and remove messages (removing is done by selecting a message name, but clearing the message content). you can try the tool without the "read boilerplates" and see if the functionality makes sense (IOW, i updated the script - just do a deep refresh and you should see the new functionality). the structure of the boilerplate js page is simple (it doesn't really have to be a .js page, but js allows us to put things the parser would expand on normal page, such as signature and templates with "subst" as part of the message): { 'message name1' : 'first line\n' + 'second line\n' + 'third line', 'message name 2': 'first line\n' + 'second line\n' + 'third line' } right now, the tool does not leave a summary when dumping the message in talkpage. i think that the message name can be used as summary also. i am not sure, but maybe it will be better to add a "follow this page" checkbox, instead of using the common.js variable we use today (we can still use the common.js variable for the initial state of the checkbox). peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 07:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC) So i added a "Read messages" button, that will read the messages from a boilerplate page as described above. if you do not wish to use a JS page, you can do it by breaking the strings, such: { 'Warning Level1 - go away': '==[' + '[$1]' + ']==\n{' + '{subst:|Go away|$1} ' +}~~' + '~~', 'Warning Level1 - you are ugly': '==[' + '[$1]' + ']==\n{' + '{subst:|You are ugly|$1} ' +}~~' + '~~', 'Warning Level2 - I hate you': '==[' + '[$1]' + ']==\n{' + '{subst:|I hate you|$1} ' +}~~' + '~~', 'Warning Level2 - Wikipedia is not a zoo': '==[' + '[$1]' + ']==\n{' + '{subst:|Wikipedia is not a zoo|$1} ' +}~~' + '~~', 'Welocome 1': '==I love you==\nSorry I had to $2 your Edits in page[$1]\n{' + '{subst:|Welcome} ' +}~~' + '~~' } and so on and so forth. note that in order to avoid subsing, i broke the sigs to '~~' + '~~' and the template to '{' + '{subst:' etc. please play with it a little and let me know what you think, including changing labels and messages. also, if you'll ever write a help page to this thing, let me know and i'll create a link. note that i managed to suppress popup on the "rollback" link and added to the tooltip a hint about rightclick. :::::another question is this: maybe we should just drop the right-click left-click thing and jump the dialog box on right-click too? (oh, one more thing: i'll add 2 checkboxes for "watch article" and "watch talkpage". the 2nd will only be used if you choose to leave a message on the talkpage). peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC) So, i take it you are not interested in creating a list of fragments to be placed in reverted-editor talkpage? also, i do not see many people using this script in enwiki (actually, you seem to be the only one ATM...), so maybe it wasn't such a hot idea after all. anywho, just in case you are interested to do either of the following, i will incorporate it into the script (it has a language-dependent section, so i can do it here without having to maintain multiple version for multiple languages): if someone will create a help page, i'll link to it directly from the dialog box if someone will create a list of fragments (including, but not limited to use of templates), i will make it "more automatically" loaded when pressing the "Read messages" button (basically, preloading the prompt-box with the sanctioend page). peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Thank you -- about User:MikeFromCanmore Thank you for all your help in dealing with User:MikeFromCanmore. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 07:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC) FYI Hello, Tamzin. 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. You might have seen it already. Just letting you know. Λυδαcιτγ 02:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Ireland

Hi. I just noticed that at User:Francophonie&Androphilie/countries, your Ireland flag links to Austria - thought you might like to know. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

And where should it link? I strongly support Austria's claim to sovereignty over Ireland.</sarcasm>

Yeah, I think I used the link to Austria's flag to reformat all of the links; must've forgotten to switch that one. As I've said before, if anyone can find a userbox saying I appreciate bold edits to my userpage, they should feel free to put it up. Thanks, though! Or, as they say in Ireland, danke schön. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 12:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Gays DO make good posts!

Got a problem with me being gay? Well, suck it up, because as observed here, since many vandals write "SO-AND-SO IS A FAG!!!" but very few write "I AM A FAG!!!", it's clear that all homosexuals are good editors.

 

I could not agree more! Allow me to say L'égalité pour tous! Je suis gai et fier! A Wiggin13 (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'm actually in the middle of writing you something at your talk page, for yet another coincidence, O "sockpuppet" mine. Nice to meet you! — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 07:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It is very nice to meet you to! Il est bon de rencontrer quelqu'un qui sait français aussi! A Wiggin13 (talk) 07:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

• From the editor: Wikipedia, our Colosseum

• In the media: Is the Wikimedia movement too 'cash rich'?

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation fundraiser a success; Czech parliament releases photographs to chapter

• Technology report: Looking back on a year of incremental changes

• Discussion report: Image policy and guidelines; resysopping policy

• Interview: Interview with Brion Vibber, the WMF's first employee

• Featured content: Whoa Nelly! Featured content in review

• WikiProject report: New Year, New York

• Recent research: Wikipedia and Sandy Hook; SOPA blackout reexamined

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Have a yummy brownie on me! A Wiggin13 (talk) 08:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Dissuading SineBot

After spotting your comments at ANI, I thought you like might to know that {{bots|deny=SineBot}}is the magic template for telling SineBot to sod off. Just stick it at the top of your talkpage, and the bot will never bother you again. Happy New Year! Yunshui 雲‍水 13:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Merci

Thanks for your message on my talk page about User talk:Lubnarizvi#Inappropriate use of warning template, constituting personal attack, WP:ANI#User Hell in a Bucket has been very disruptive from day 1. I have replied on my talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

A pie for you!

You like your sweets so have some pie! I guarantee my pie is better than the hotel brownies! A Wiggin13 (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Apology

I notice that Craddock1 has apologized to everyone BUT me. What? Am I unworthy of an apology or something? :P Anyhow just wanted to throw that out there. A Wiggin13 (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Notice

Re your message: I see that everything has pretty much been settled now. Thank you for the notice. I think your 2₵ to Craddock1 was very well thought out. I hope that they follow your suggestions. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I have doubts about whether you are who you say you are. But no-one else does. Mandatory WP:BILBY sanctions apply in this case

	A "yet again tough luck for me not believing you are who you say you are" Bilby for you!
	A Bilby for you! Shirt58 (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

How cute. But "I don't believe you, but I'll assume good faith" is contradictory; until you can legitimately assume good faith, I'd prefer that you do not comment here. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 13:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like we agree to disagree. Out. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It is typically not a good idea to accuse users of anything without proof. Especially on something as touchy as "Your not real" Andrew Wiggin (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It's fine, Andrew. I can handle myself, though I don't disagree with your points about accusations. Shirt58's not saying anything new - see /Archive/Archive_3#Block and WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive776#Francophonie&Androphilie blocked and then unblocked with an apology by Coren. It's worth noting, though, that anyone who accuses me of not being who I say I am isn't simply accusing me of pretending to be a random teenage boy, but, rather, of extensively researching a real-world person and assuming his identity - in essence, accusing me of being some sort of stalker, pedophile, or seriously disturbed individual. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Shirt, I should note that you're welcome to respond to this thread for the time being; you seem like a nice guy, and if there's any way we could clear this up, I'd like to. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Bro. I was just trying to cover your behind. Friends do that from time to time you know :) Andrew Wiggin (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

F&A, as you note, you can handle this as you wish, but if you want the opinion of a friendly talk page stalker, I don't see any good coming out of this section on your talk page (the section header alone is awful). If I were you, I'd remove the entire section, including my oh-so-wise comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Bbb (really, thanks!), but I think I'll invoke that right to deal with this as I like. I've got nothing to hide, and I think people can make what they'd like of this section. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 03:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013 - reply

I was a bit rude. I think he was ruder. My apologies for losing my cool, but just because someone's trolling, that isn't an excuse for tearing into them and calling them names - you both validate their trolling, and lower the level of discourse. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 06:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments but are you seriously implying that I am in the wrong when I am defending myself against a troll who has undoubtedly attacked other users before (see his reference to AssociateAffiliate whom he definitely has attacked and surely the others too)? I am not going to retract my comments. I ask again that you protect my user page and talk page. If you are not going to do that, then I suggest you block my account and I will go away and find something better to do. This site is begining to look like something out of a New Labour fantasy: welcome to trolls, bona fide editors can look after themselves. Absolutely ridiculous. Nothing personal as I realise you are following site guidelines and doing your job. --Old Lanky (talk) 12:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Your user page will not be protected unless it is being vandalized. Your user talk page will not be protected unless you are being harassed in such a way that it's impractical to block the users responsible. I don't think you can really blame the admins for not doing either of these things, regardless, when you haven't provided any evidence for your claims. So how about you stop ranting about how poorly our system is managed, and accept that there are two very good reasons you're not getting what you want. Furthermore, you are required to retract your legal threat, and if you're unable to provide evidence to meet our blocking policy, I have no idea how you could provide evidence that would stand up in court or not get you laughed out of the police station. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 12:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Read the "Back Again" topic on my talk page and note that this began on my user page, but I moved it. How about you stop pontificating and use your eyes to do some research instead of expecting everything on a plate and spelled out to you in words one syllable. I am being harrassed on my talk page by a troll who is accusing me of running dual accounts and hurling insults at me in the process. It is the same troll who has attacked AssociateAffiliate. That is obvious from his comments and from the fact that AssociateAffiliate's page has been protected because of harrassment. And, no, I will not retract my statements because I am defending myself and standing up for all genuine editors. You are doing the troll's work for him. --Old Lanky (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Fuck this shit. You took it to AN (not AN/I, where you should've taken it, for the record), you provide the evidence. That said, I've looked at the comments in question now, and you seem far more incivil than the IP. He's not trolling, which means I can only hope you don't actually take this to the police, as you may very well get arrested for submitting a false report. I was mighty patient not asking you to be blocked immediately, and it appears you wish to throw away whatever goodwill I was willing to extend you. Enjoy your forthcoming block. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 13:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC) It would seem you're lucky to escape a block yourself. --Old Lanky (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

LGBT stereotypes

Hi F&A. Thanks for copy editing LGBT stereotypes for the GOCE backlog drive; I think you did a good job. You must not have noticed this, but I had listed the article I was working on for the drive. I'm not upset. I hadn't done any work on it, and you're likely more qualified to work on such an article anyway. If you had asked me, I would've gladly relinquished my claim to you, but again, I'm not upset. You haven't offended any boundaries of etiquette or practice because we haven't established any. But you can probably see how this sort of situation could lead to some conflict. I invite you to discuss the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators#"Claiming" articles in a drive (I don't know if that space is supposed to be used only by GOCE coordinators, but I haven't seen anything to make me think that). And again, just because I can't emphasize this enough, "the issue" is the general idea of editors trying to work on the same page, not this specific instance. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ooops! Sorry about that, and thanks for letting it slide. I've replied there. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 06:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Evidence

Per the admin at WP:AN/I, here is the evidence you wanted: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft/Archive.

I've got six more IPs which are all undeniably this person as, to his credit, he leaves no doubt as to who he is and you will even find his real name in the archive. I'm going to revert to IP myself now to avoid people like that. I used IP previously to edit and no prblem. --Old Lanky (talk) 09:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for not looking deep enough into what was being said against you; in the future, though, please don't feed the trolls, and please remember that if you're seeking administrative intervention, the onus is on you to explain why you feel what you request is justified. Also, it would really put my mind at rest if you could just state for the record that you will not be pursuing any legal action against Richard Daft or anyone else on Wikipedia. Thanks, and sorry for being short with you. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 12:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You've nothing to worry about. It won't go any further. More trouble than it's worth. I think you must be absolutely right about the edit you've removed and mentioned at AN/I. It can only be the same person. Best wishes. --Old Lanky (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Thanks for fixing my mistake on WhatamIdoing's talk page...I forgot to put the colons in lol. Have a nice day! ツ Jenova20 (email) 11:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Haha no problem. Thanks! — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 11:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

• Op-ed: Meta, where innovative ideas die

• WikiProject report: Where Are They Now? Episode IV: A New Year

• News and notes: 2012—the big year

• Featured content: Featured content in review

• Technology report: Looking ahead to 2013

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Sandbox shenanigans and wider abuse

Can I throw in: Cotten134 — 75.76.249.231 — 75.133.73.162 — 75.139.106.179 — 2600:1003:B017:17DC:9C:5EE3:997D:E0A5 and maybe 72.74.89.82 — 70.192.196.106 and possibly others in the last month? — 212.139.109.105 (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like someone beat you to the punch. Though if any of the IPs that haven't been blocked keep it up, feel free to file a new report - if you create an account, you can enable Popups, which allows you to see who's blocked just by mousing over their username; or, better yet, you can run the mark-blocked script, which puts strikethroughs through blocked accounts' names. Anyways, though, if he's jumping around that much, he probably has a dynamic IP, but, as I said, if you see more disruption from any of those accounts, report it. Thanks! — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 11:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

NPOV policy note

A comment by you in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2012_Delhi_gang_rape_case#Victim.27s_name mentioned me. NPOV impartial tone calls for avoiding personal comments. David F (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Uh, NPOV is a policy about article content, not about talk page discussions... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I didn't mention you, David; I specifically addressed you. Yes, in a content dispute it's preferable to address the community at large (since talking to only one person can often turn nasty), but sometimes, if you find yourself at an impasse with a specific editor, it's simplest to put it out in the open. You might want to see WP:NPA#WHATIS, which gives a cursory outline of the types of things it's inappropriate to say to other contributors. But I must say, I'm a bit disappointed to see that your response to my comment that "you keep on coming up with new arguments, and ignoring parts of mine" was to accuse me of violating a wholly inapplicable policy, and not responding to anything I said; this sort of behavior borders on WikiLawyering, and it really doesn't help resolve anything in a dispute. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 10:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for adding Lew's *ridiculous* signature. 199.46.199.230 (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Haha no problem. Not gonna lie, probably my proudest moment as a Wikipedia contributor. (Context for talk page stalkers: [1] [2]) — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

re Bloomex

Per this edit [3] I suggest you review WP:RS before accepting pending changes that have previously been rejected by another reviewer. Press releases for promotional material do not meet the sourcing standards required. I suggest you self-revert. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Having "The Grump" in your username isn't an excuse for being snippy. I had no clue that another user had previously rejected the changes; accidental reviewer wheelwars are a dime a dozen. That said, yes, I noticed that the sources appeared to be press releases, but I didn't really see much of a benefit in reverting good-faith contributions to an article in need of serious improvement, when the primary sources weren't being cited to say anything particularly controversial, or doing anything else to violate the WP:ABOUTSELF conditions. If you want to revert me, that's your prerogative , but I hardly see anything controversial about the changes I accepted, definitely not to a degree to warrant condescending to me like this. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that you are unaware of the long-enduring attempts by promoters of Bloomex to turn the article into an advertisement, using sock-puppetry, misrepresentation of sources, and more or less every other method in the book - not that this is particularly unusual for the online florist industry, which seems to be surprisingly cut-throat in its attitudes. Anyway, your interpretation of WP:ABOUTSELF seems to be contrary to both mine, and to that of User:William Avery who previously rejected the material. I shall in consequence revert it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Understood. It's funny, I was just saying at ANI that admins should really be encouraged to give very specific explanations when PC-protecting. I would've looked into this much more thoroughly if the protection log summary had said "persistent and versatile attempts at self-promotion" instead of "persistent vandalism" (or, if there really was by-the-book vandalism as well, recognition of both of these). Sorry for the confusion; moving forward now, though, what would you think of a proposal that admins can't use pre-formatted summaries when PC-protecting for anything other than unambiguous vandalism? — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Your signature

Just an FYI, your sig is a little distracting for tablet users. You might want to consider shortenig it or lowering the font size. Thx.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Try Firefox on Android...EVERYTHING is irritating on Wikipedia...It resizes some text 5-times bigger than other text for no obvious reason but to make the entire page unbearable to read. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Calling all Talk Page Stalkers! A straw poll.

The other day I was showing off some cool things I'd done to my uncle, who's something of a programming genius. I was showing him templates and parser functions and stuff that I use in my userspace, and he happened to ask about my username. I'm pretty sure he knew I was gay, and if he didn't, he doesn't care, but, to be honest, the more I accomplish with this username, the less sure of it I am. I mean, I like the sound of it, and I have no negative reactions to it when I see myself writing it, but the thing is, as I've said before, when I created this account I had no idea that I'd become a serious Wikipedian. So now I'm wondering if I should change names to something a bit more... mature. I don't want it to be a complete departure from my current username, so I was thinking something like "PinkAmpersand". I could sign as

— PinkAmpers&^{Formerly F&A}_{Je vous invite à me parler}

or something like that. It's sort of a showing, not telling version of my current username - the pinkness hints at the gay part, and the fancy French stuff hints at the French part. I have no problem with hitting people over the head with who I am, but I worry that around here that may sometimes come across as disingenuousness. So, anyways, whadday'all think? — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 04:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Blah, I like your current username. If you're going to change it, I see User:Francophonie is indef blocked, with only 5 edits, so a WP:USURP could most likely take place if you wanted that. Then you could change the coloring of your signature however you wish. :) I may be missing something, but I really don't get the idea behind PinkAmpersand (where'd the official name of the & come in?!). I do think keeping the Je vous invite à mi parler is good, because it does provide a link to your old name for anyone wondering. However, the "Formerly F&A" may be unnecessary, as I don't know anyone else with that link to the talkpage they use. I have to get up (really) early tomorrow, so I'll add some to this then. gwickwire^talk_edits 05:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't overthink it, if I were you. Personally I quite like F&A as a username; however if it has the potential to cause issues for you in real life (e.g. if you get asked by a relative who is bothered by your sexuality) then PinkAmpersand is as good a replacement as anything. Your proposed new signature is a bit unwieldy to my mind (and at 248 characters, pushes the upper limit of the length restrictions) - definitely lose the <big>ness, too! Incidentally, as long as your sig links to your userpage and/or talkpage, there's no reason you can't sign as PA whilst still being officially named as F&A (it's even technically possible to get your userpages to display as PinkAmpersand's without filing a name change, though I strongly suspect (haven't checked) that we've got a rule prohibiting that...). Yunshui 雲‍水 08:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and my sympathies for the broken goggles; my kids do that to mine all the time, even the fancy Memoflex ones. I know what it's like to see the world through new lenses (or in my case, a myopic fog...) Yunshui 雲‍水 08:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The only relatives who could be worried would also tease me for spending so much time online... and since I've got The Advocate and an LGBT comedy blog in my top pages whenever I open a new tab, I'll probably just switch to my "professional" account on my laptop the next time they come around. Anyways, umm, hmm, if I drop the "Formerly F&A", I think that would take place of most of the signature problems (the <big>s are just to counteract a <small>ness that it seems the "PinkAmpers&" part inherits from the talkpage span). And, sure, I mean, I guess I could just change the sig, but I've never been a huge fan of when people have completely separate sigs and usernames, and it still wouldn't solve the "someone looking over my shoulder" problem (which gets even more serious if you consider the fact that almost all of my friends speak French). As I said, it's more of an image thing. "F&A" sounds cool, and my name looks really sleek when I sign it in black and pink, but... it sounds more like the type of username you find in some perpetual drama board troll than the type you find in a respectable contributor (which is, at the very least, what I try to be).

Oh, and I got the lenses back, at least, but not the frame yet - the store has a loaner that it seems they just keep around to give me every other month when I break my preferred pair. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 13:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and Gwickwire: — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} See the pink ampersand? 13:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

You use F&A as redirects to your account; if you created that account you could usurp it pretty easily (since you own it), if F&A is indef blocked/banned it'd be just as easy. I think F&A just sounds nice, plus it's short, and nobody (other than us of course) would know that it stood for Francophonie et Androphilie, which is what I assume you're trying to avoid :) gwickwire^talk_edits 22:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Your current name is fine with me. If YOU want to change it, you may want to think about using "Pink" in both letter AND color, - seems a bit duplicate, and not very French ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I would tell you to do whatever you want and don't listen to us or anyone else. Your username is yours, make it whatever you want it to be. 174.227.194.247 (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Your current username is silly, but keeping the same username has practical advantages for forgetful people like me, because we can remember who the hell you are. Username changes burn valuable brain bandwidth. Sometimes a lot, sometimes a little, but always some. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Pink Ampersand is nice. As others above me have said, only you can really make a decision like this, but we can give advice. From my perspective, I am actually surprised no one's complained about the ampersand in the name; I remember a user a few years back who had a name with an ampersand in it, and people complained that it was breaking templates and URL's. But I guess that must have been due to bugs that are fixed now. Even assuming that's a not a problem, I'd like Pink Ampersand . It's shorter, therefore you wouldn't have to use an indirect link in your sig, and you came up with it yourself so you must identify with it. yeah pink is a bit of a stereotype but then that's not necessarily bad. —Soap— 20:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Haha guess who fixed them? But, yeah, thanks, as long as people agree the name sounds nice, I think I'll go for it soon-ish (before it's too confusing for people, re Demiurge's point). — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it is a clever username, because "Pink Ampersand" is literally your "signature". HueSatLum 21:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

RE: the closed ANI thread

I don't know of an easy way to make a dummy revdel without deleting another part of the page. Regardless, though, I don't think it's necessary; the ANI conversation should be link enough, I'd imagine (it's right below her block discussion, which would obviously be brought up in any future discussions about her. To be honest, I think that the less attention we give this, the better; this looks like a troll to me, and we're just feeding her. I think the usual way of requesting a revdel (discreetly contacting an admin) would've been a better way to handle this than an ANI thread. No criticism towards Rivertorch intended, of course; ANI is the natural reaction for things like this. I'm just surprised it wasn't immediately deflected with the "revdeled; in the future please quietly contact an admin for revdel requests" I've seen in the past. (I edit-conflicted with NE Ent's close, so I'm copying the response here. I've since put a link to the revdel on Hinata's talk page, which should be sufficient.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Sock of AndresHerutJuram

Hi,

You have just endorsed the edit of the sockpuppet that generated the discussion to protect the article on the 1948 Arab-Israeli War that way... We are 3 usual users to agree on this and he was already reverted two times with comments stating he is a sock... :-( SPI is pending...

Pluto2012 (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I've unaccepted it for the time being. I will reply shortly. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 19:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

My apologies. As you'll see in my reviewing summary (timestamp 19:22), I was hesitant to accept. At first I thought I'd just wait for another reviewer to look at it, and when no one had after almost an hour, I bit the bullet and started weighing the choices. He referenced the talk page, which I checked, and saw that indeed no one had responded to his most recent post. Stupidly, the one thing I forgot to do was check the history to see if there'd been previous attempts to insert it. For that I apologize. I was, for obvious reasons, very reluctant to exercise my reviewing authority over an already-autoconfirmed user, for, as much as I supported KoH's decision to go to level-2 Pending Changes, I could find myself in serious trouble if I were to do anything that could be construed as abusing that decision, and the higher-than-usual power reviewers have gained as a result of it. Still, that just makes it even dumber of me to have not checked the history, and I'll obviously be even more cautious next time. If any CheckUser or clerk watching this page has a few spare minutes, it would be nice if someone could settle that SPI sooner rather than later. (I think the 9 January report might've been overlooked due to the two subsequent ones.) — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 19:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, bonjour ;-)

No worry F&A. L'erreur est humaine.

Even me, I am not sure because that sock is particularly clever and I have some doubts because that could be a another editor... But a sock anyway because I doubt very much an new editor less than 1 week old could have found the talk page and the mediation page...

And thank you for your follow up of the article :-) Pluto2012 (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Just so you know, unless I'm missing anything in violation of ARBPIA or consensus in that edit, if he isn't blocked as a sock I'll have to reinstate the changes; the only reason I'm allowed to leave them unaccepted in the first place is that the article was protected specifically because of sockpuppetry. Obviously, this does not have any bearing on your prerogative to revert the changes, though you are, of course, still subject to 1RR. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 20:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

Technically, I can revert him but I would not revert somebody whose edit was "endorsed". I think it would be against the spirit.

Anyway : he is blocked.

Pluto2012 (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Glad that's taken care of. I see Elockid reverted him, too. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 20:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

On letting people make mistakes

Deal. Though I find your wikilawyering to avoid owning up to what you did downright cowardly. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 19:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Per your comment, I'm not sure why you think reopening that thread would be "dangerous" for me. And if someone has actually made allegations that violate WP:CHILDPROTECT, that person should be blocked, not abetted by having their comments hidden. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC) I was merely pointing out that after numerous arbitrators had warned you to not accuse editors of pedophilia onwiki, you re-opened a discussion that had been closed because of allegations of pedophilia (fine, of promoting child pornography, but it falls under the same category). If you feel that that was throwing out the baby with the bathwater, fair enough, but I think it was irresponsible to re-open it without first dealing with the allegations. I don't see how it's abbetting someone making personal attacks to leave a prominent red box on the page with a note about how the remarks were completely inappropriate. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 22:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC) I don't think AndyTheGrump intended his statements to be read as an accusation of "pedophilia". If you think that, you should contact ArbCom, not hide the comments. If I had made any on-wiki allegations that any user was advocating pedophilia, I am sure I would have been blocked, not warned. There was no need to invoke my name or misrepresent the as-yet unfinished discussion I was having with the Arbs. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Mattbuck is a big boy; the ball is in his court to respond to Andy's remarks as he sees fit. You accused another editor of being a pedophile (I'm looking at the blog post right now, for Christ's sake) and referenced it repeatedly onwiki. There is absolutely no question about that. I quote: Four weeks ago I wrote on this blog that an active Wikipedia editor (<redacted>) was a self-declared pro-pedophilia advocate and made the case that they were still advocating pedophilia, although somewhat more subtly than with their past account. [...] After a couple of days with no reaction, I posted a link to the blog post on one of the most widely watched pages on Wikipedia – Jimmy Wales’ talk page. You attached yourself to those comments the moment you reopened that thread without dealing with them. You're the one who said that it was Jimbo's decision to make, so it's worth noting that Jimbo hatted that whole part of the thread, and didn't appear to bat an eye at my decision to hat, or the reasons I cited. I think you're kidding yourself if you're saying that Andy's remarks couldn't be easily construed as accusations of pedophilia (or related illegal conduct), and that you weren't warned for doing the exact same thing. If you really can't accept either of those things, it would appear that we're at an impasse, and I'd suggest you drop the matter. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 18:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC) I'm not saying that AndyTheGrump's remarks couldn't be construed that way - I'm saying I do not believe it was his intention to make such an accusation. If Mattbuck is a big boy, let him put on his big boy pants and deal with it himself instead of needlessly inserting yourself into the situation. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If I had made any on-wiki allegations that any user was advocating pedophilia, I am sure I would have been blocked, not warned. Note the "on-wiki" part, it's important. Also take note of the result of that blog post, it's more important (both what was done and what wasn't done). Jimbo can do what he likes on his own talk page. He didn't invoke my name - you did. He didn't unnecessarily insert a negative reference to a situation which really isn't related - you did. I'm sure you have your reasons, but maybe it would be best of you just ignored me. Let's pretend that we have reached an impasse and then we can stop talking to each other. Deal? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:AN#PC2 for Mangoeater targets

I didn't follow; have you read any of the oppose rationales from the September RfC? Which ones strike you as philosophical? This is a complicated issue with a long history, so I'll try to keep it simple: you can see from this history page that almost everyone who's asking for the reviewer userright gets it, because PC1 reviewers are expected to deal just with vandalism and clear BLP violations. Is that the best pool of people to be making difficult calls on socking? And what happens when 4 articles under PC2 becomes 400 (which is the position most of the supporters seem to be taking, that there are "no problems") ... isn't it obvious that people who have no intention of using the tool in a helpful way will start applying to be reviewers, just so that they don't have to wait for others to approve their edits? I see a potential problem with having people with little editing history, who have signed up to use a tool for the wrong reasons, acting in an "official" capacity to allow or deny edits by experienced users. - Dank (push to talk) 12:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

My point about the philosophical objections was that a good amount of the responses I'm seeing have a lot more to do with the general case than with the two specific articles this is about - I even had to amend the CENT listing to clarify that this isn't a general debate on PC2. That said, I think you've made a lot of well-reasoned arguments, and NE Ent's response was very insightful as well. I think the answer to your concerns is that we should make the reviewing guidelines very clear on the fact that there's an incredibly high bar for rejecting non-autoconfirmed users' submissions. I'll elaborate:

The current reviewing guidelines are painfully, painfully vague. They point out all these technicalities about reverting vs. undoing, and they seem to imply that there's circumstances under which you should accept, and then promptly revert - and get this, the word "reject" doesn't appear once on the page. So reviewers who use the tool frequently have sorta had to make it up as we go. Since the "reject" option specifically says you have to use a summary if you're rejecting for anything other than obvious vandalism, we've started to use it to fix all sorts of things; I don't really think that's a problem. The most high-profile P.C.-protected article is probably 2012 Delhi gang rape case, which I became involved with as a reviewer, and have since worked on content-wise as well. There you'll often find reviewers rejecting with summaries that fall far outside the bounds of what we're allowed to reject for; no one seems to have a problem with this, and I don't either, since the alternative would be to just use undo instead (or rollback if you have a custom-summary script), which seems sort of pointless. In other words, the unwritten rule has become that as long as a reviewer is clear that they're rejecting on editorial grounds, not for violations of the four policies we're there to enforce, which button they press should not be an issue.

However, with PC2 I'd support actually saying that the rejection button cannot be used on already (auto)confirmed users, simply because it would seem sorta disrespectful for me, with my 5,600 edits, to "reject the last text change" from some veteran contributor with 20 FAs who for whatever reason isn't a reviewer. So the rule would be that if you want to disagree on editorial grounds, you have to do it the old-fashioned way, and if you reject, it's because the editor you're rejecting has either violated one of those four core policies, or because they're an obvious sockpuppet. In other words, require extreme prudence from any reviewers exercising their authority on a PC2-protected article. I'd also suport giving admins the option to PC2-protect articles with the rider that they may only be reviewed by editors already familiar with them... to avoid insane backlogs, we could even make a page for crash courses in what to look for sockpuppet-wise (sorta like an LTA entry, but for a specific article). Alternatively, we could just make it a rule that editors should only review PC2-protected articles if they're confident they know what they're doing.

All of this could take the form of either revised conditions for the Mangoeater protections, clauses in the eventual RFC on this, or, something I'm leaning toward, clauses in an RFC on a temporary approval of limited applications - which is what the AN thread has already sort of become, only without any of these sorts of conditions I'm bringing up here, since I wasn't talking about the general case when I first started the thread. Also, I think that if we were to do all these things, this would mitigate any downsides of what I see as the largely positive trend of admins holding a fairly low standard for reviewership; as long as we're not worried about inexperienced reviewers fucking things up really badly, the more the better, I say, since, of course, this would in itself reduce the seriousness of PC2. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 19:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that. What do you see as the advantages of PC2 over prohibiting edits (for just a few articles) for accounts with less than, say, 100 edits? - Dank (push to talk) 19:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The short answer is yes, if you were to open an RFC on that, I'd probably support it; that said, it's worth noting that such a form of protection would technically be more restrictive than PC2. I think with strict policies for reviewing PC2-protected articles, PC2 would infringe on people's right to edit less than would a new medium level of protection, since, while reviewers are surely fallible (just look around this page for mistakes I've made reviewing), they can never make editing as difficult as a simple mathematical formula. The response NE Ent made to this line of reasoning was that PC2 is somewhat deceptive, since users subject to review think they're editing as normal. I disagree: The "submit changes" button sometimes still surprises me, I know that I always noticed the lock icons on protected pages when I was only reading Wikipedia, and there's something about that blue editnotice that jumps out at me every time; additionally, after you save a change to a PC-protected article when not autoconfirmed, you're given a notice saying something like "Thanks. Your changes will go live shortly after being reviewed. For more information, see such-and-such."

Additionally, as proven by things like this, such a protection policy would be in theory more gameable than PC2. (Although combining it with, say, a 2-4 weeks time requirement might solve most of that problem). — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

That's my point exactly. If we have a trail of 100 completely unhelpful edits before they make their first edit to a protected page, we'll have the evidence we need to block them, so the page won't need other forms of protection. Edit filters are already good at catching unhelpful edits. (We could get some edit filters that don't currently check userspace to start checking, if people keep using userspace to run up edit counts.) For the smarter socks who figure out that completely unhelpful edits won't get them anywhere, it's likely that they will nevertheless show editing patterns in their first 100 edits that will help checkusers do their job.

On the other points, there were various responses which you may find helpful at the RfC and at WT:PC2012. Thanks for taking the time to think through this. - Dank (push to talk) 22:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in, but my issue with the 100 edit idea is it is technically impossible in the current release of MediaWiki, and wouldn't be phased in for at least about a month after consensus is to push for it to be added. Right now, PC2 is all we have. If we need to, we can give out the "autochecked" usergroup (containing the autoreview userright) to persons we trust. That way, their edits will be automatically reviewed to PC1 and PC2 pages. gwickwire^talk_edits 22:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk page stalkers welcome, Gwickwire! I agree with you that "autochecked" sounds very promising; but, as you know, I'm still not clear on a few aspects of it. Would Dank or any other admin with this page watchlisted mind granting "confirmed" status to my alt account? I think that might be responsible for the quasi-bug I was having in the PC sandboxes. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

If you need any clarification on autoreview or autochecked, I can most likely provide it, I spent a while reading up on the rights entailed and the technical aspects of those rights. gwickwire^talk_edits 22:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, first I just wanna figure out why I wasn't automatically accepted in either sandbox, hence the confirmation request. I can go to PERM for the alt account if I really have to, but I should think I have enough admins watching this page that someone will notice. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

• Investigative report: Ship ahoy! New travel site finally afloat

• News and notes: Launch of annual picture competition, new grant scheme

• WikiProject report: Reach for the Stars: WikiProject Astronomy

• Discussion report: Flag Manual of Style; accessibility and equality

• Special report: Loss of an Internet genius

• Featured content: Featured articles: Quality of reviews, quality of writing in 2012

• Arbitration report: First arbitration case in almost six months

• Technology report: Intermittent outages planned, first Wikidata client deployment

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

AndersW's signature

...doesn't appear to link to your userpage or user talk page. That's a bit odd for a user with significant experience, so perhaps you've made some mistake with the html tags? — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 19:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It appears you're right. I am a very vanilla user who does not code HTML for this purpose, but relies consistently on the wiki markup signature tag ~~~~. Please let me know if you have a better technique that's also quick and easy. Cheers.

AndersW 20:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) All you should need to do is go into the preferences page and make sure the "Treat the above as Wikimarkup" checkbox in the entry for your signature is not checked. Then the tildes will automatically include links to your userpage and talk page. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep. I believe that should do it. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply

Francophonie&Androphilie, I appreciate your taking the time to write me about why you want the speedy deletion tag. That said, we are a real company and it affects us to have this deleted. Can you please remove the tag? I appreciate everything you're doing to make Wikipedia better but we do believe we're notable and we pledge to add more quality references.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NNV91 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, NNV91. Thanks for stopping removing the template. Well, what we normally tell users in this situation is that if your business is truly notable, somebody else will probably create the article for you. That goes double here: If someone disagrees with the speedy tag, they'll remove it themselves. Unfortunately, I think the article is likely to be deleted, and I agree with Dengero's choice to nominate it. This little blurb probably explains best why this is the case, and pledging to add references is generally not enough. (Yes Wikipedia is a work in progress, but there are basic standards all articles are expected to meet.) What I'd recommend is that, if the article is deleted, you ask the admin who deleted it if they'd mind transferring it to your userspace (usually done in the form of User:NNV91/Instameet), where you can work on it without having to meet the mainspace criteria. As a second safeguard against deletion, you can then submit it through the Articles for creation process, if you'd like.

For the record, though, if you really want to keep the article live, if you can find some way to assert notability, then it will no longer meet the A7 criteria. That said, it will probably just get nominated for deletion through the standard process, so I don't really advise that. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Apologies

Hi F&A, As mentioned previously, sorry for my angry tone previously and what could be seen as a personal attack on Eyesnore. Maybe one day we'll find out if you really are 16, but I'll need to trust you for now. Ah - je parle Francais? Yes, you can tell my French is pretty poor and I'll be sticking to English. Thanks. Stephen

Hi, Duff Step. I'm glad you're able to take constructive criticism. It's phrasings like "What right do you have" that don't get you very far, and, just like in the real world, inflammatory remarks can often distract from any legitimate points you may or may not actually have. Just so you know, by the way, I don't really enjoy people questioning my honesty about my age. Yes, I link to that explanation in the notice that comes up when you edit this page, but that's more to stop people from saying something dumb. As I said to another user above, "I don't know if I believe you, but I guess I have to" is a contradictory statement. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 02:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your hard work for improving Wikipedia. Eyesnore (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

On deceased Wikipedians and a proper template

I hold the view that it is appropriate for a WP:BLP article to have a proper template attached which indicates, as part of a box or otherwise, that the individual in question was in fact a Wikipedia user, with the link to their user page, with appropriate tag/template to indicate that person's passing. I'm surprised this isn't already fully done, but when pressed to think of an example off the top of my head I'm not thinking of one. Can you help? --Brad Patrick (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe there's an already-existing template for it. Going through WP:RIP, I see that there are several users listed there who were the subjects of articles; in some cases there's nothing on the talk page, in other cases there's a {{connected contributor}}. I don't think either of those is a very good solution. So, I just went ahead and made this (testcases). What do you think? (In related news, I'll start a discussion at Template talk:Connected contributor on the possibility of creating variants with less severe language.) — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I think they are cool. I hope others agree that they are appropriate. --Brad Patrick (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

GOCE mid-drive newsletter, January 2013

Guild of Copy Editors January 2013 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter We are halfway through our January backlog elimination drive. The mid-drive newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the January drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

A pie for you!

For the new name mate. It's an interesting one! ツ Jenova20 (email) 18:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting in a good way, I hope? PinkAmpersand, whose signature is still under construction (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely. I look forward to working with you again! ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 23:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Just saying...

Love the deduction that all homosexuals are good editors. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 23:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

PS: I AM A FAG!!! ;o)

Well, the credit for that conclusion goes to some long-ago editor of m:Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles, but thanks, fag! :D — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

*BIG GRIN* You're welcome. Keep at the editing :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 12:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Over There (Fringe)--related request

Could you revert Over There (Fringe) back to some safe point before this edit screwed it up? I don't have rollback rights and no one else has done it yet, but it needs to get done. Thank you! Greengreengreenred 23:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Just so you know, if you enable Twinkle in your gadgets at Special:Preferences, you can get a slightly slower version of rollback without having to apply. Additionally, rollback only works when the problem edit is by the most recent contributor; to revert edits by multiple users, you can simply click "edit" on the last good revision, and save it, or use Twinkle's "restore this revision" option. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you so much, both for the action and the information. I will remember that for the future! Greengreengreenred 23:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For choosing a shorter username. Think about all the server kitties you saved! :P

Legoktm (talk) 04:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice how things stopped glitching as soon as I changed it? Even Wikidata stopped imploding. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 04:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)