[[File:Canadian5 bill.jpg|left]] Here is 5 dollars, because it wasnt me. Cheers, [[User:Friendly Cookie|Friendly Cookie]] ([[User talk:Friendly Cookie|talk]]) 12:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
==Useful==
==Useful==
Revision as of 12:22, 12 June 2010
This is TFOWR's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.
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.
Apparently I'm an administrator. Per Moonriddengirlet al, "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." I'd add that non-admins also have access to several ... methods ... of fixing my mistakes. I'm subject to WP:RECALL, details to follow.
I'm just curious to your opinion if I am handling this correctly. There seems to be another edit war going on I've tried to stay out of it and keep things in the discussion section. I've also been discussing the issue with this user User_talk:ValenShephard and now that it has gotten a bit ridiculous I've warned him that he is edit warring.
However I have not reported him and I don't want to if it can be handled another way.
Since I hope to edit more articles in the future I imagine this will come up again. Any thoughts on how I'm handling things, if I've made any mistakes, or ways I could improve?
I've had a quick look: I've avoided looking at what it is you're both disagreeing about, however, so I'll just stick to general comments:
I was going to suggest that where possible you keep disputes as visible as possible, on the article's talk page instead of here. However, I believe the issue has come up on the article's talk page? I'd recommend keeping it there, as it means other editors can easily follow the discussion and comment.
Whatever you do, do not be tempted to revert. I know that that sounds odd, but in my experience consensus on the talk page is far, far more effective than reverting. Lots of editors, even ones who apparently disagree, will happily revert an edit if there's clearly a consensus for the edit being reverted. In the long term, the article will tend to reflect the consensus generated on the talk page. (And any editors who are only at the article because they've been directed here by pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli groups will only be here in the short term, hopefully...) You're probably already aware that the article is subject to "1RR" sanctions, meaning that any editor who reverts the same edit more than once can (and, if I'm honest, probably will be) blocked. The admin who performed the recent move (from "...clash" to "Gaza flotilla raid") seems to be keeping a close eye on the article, and has blocked at least one editor for breaching the 1RR rule. I know of at least one other admin who is familiar with the sanctions, and has been monitoring the article.
I appreciate that you don't want to report another editor. In general I'd personally prefer that issues were dealt with "locally", at the article's talk page, or between the two editors or groups of editors who are in disagreement. However, don't discount dispute resolution - dispute resolution can occur between two editors (or groups of editors) when both sides agree to dispute resolution. In this case, however, assuming the editor in question has been edit warring, then there it may be the case that they're breached 1RR. If they have, then that should be brought to the attention of the admins responsible for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. I'd suggest that you make absolutely sure that 1RR has been breached before proceeding! Reporting an editor for breaking these sanctions should not be taken lightly (it may reflect poorly on you if you're incorrect)! If you do decide to go ahead, I'd suggest in the first instance you ask the advice of one of the admins who have recently been involved: Tariqabjotu, HJ Mitchell, Georgewilliamherbert and PhilKnight have all applied sanctions in this area recently (from the end of this list). Ask for advice, don't ask for sanctions - they'll be better placed (they're non-involved, apart from procedural acts like moving the article with consensus, etc) to decide whether sanctions are appropriate.
Apologies for the lengthy answer, and apologies, too, for not directly addressing the issue. I'm trying to disengage from a number of areas right now so that I can concentrate on another issue. I will return, though!
Fair use rationale for File:Norsefire-flag-comic.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Norsefire-flag-comic.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — ξxplicit19:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, TFOWR. I've seen your comments re: test-vandal warnings at your RfA. I share your philosophy in the main as I've noticed that many, maybe even most, IPs are deterrred by the first warning given. If the disruption can be stopped by merely reverting and ignoring, then mission accomplished. No need to go immediately medieval on someone that's simply bored or killing time waiting on their cup-o'-noodles to warm up. See ya 'round Tiderolls14:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I'm sure there exists an essay that communicates the principle more succinctly, I'm just too lazy to look :)[reply]
Brahma Kumaris
Hi TFOWR,
I am trying to have a discussion with the Brahma Kumaris editor, BK Simon B who has been attempting to control all of his cult's topics on the Wikipedia.
Could you please butt out for a moment?
It really has nothing to do with you.
And, no, it is not just a simple matter of vandalism or whatever.
I have know this guy for years. It is a personal matter.
Hi TROWR, Thanks for reporting the above sock of Lucy. I certainly have no interest in his "personal matter" routine. Bksimonb (talk) 05:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thank you. I'd appreciate that. I sense that he baiting me and having neutral third parties respond instead of me may help take the wind out of his sails. You may need a flame-proof suit though :-) Bksimonb (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GAN for Thallium
Hi TFOWR I tried to address most of your comments, you have a good eye for the problems in the article. I will be out of town for a few days. --Stone (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, sorry I'd assumed that you'd been granted rollback! (It's overrated, by the way: "undo" works just as well, except you also get the chance to leave a comment) The point about the "1RR" sanctions still stands, though I'd expect we're all familiar with that by now... Apologies for the noise! TFOWRidle vapourings13:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Helen Thomas
The reason I closed the discussion off was because it had absolutely nothing to do with improving the article. It just seemed to be you pontificating about your opinion of the subject. Which, while fascinating, was a distraction and an inappropriate use of the article's talk page.
Cheers, TFOWRidle vapourings 16:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Why did you wait until after she quit to do that? I have the feeling if she did not quit today you would have not done what you did.--Panzertank (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what the WP guidelines are on using newspaper editorials as sources? There's one sentence on it in WP:NEWSBLOG and one in WP:RS, but that's all I can find.
I'm asking in regards to Talk:Gaza flotilla raid#SS Exodus in See Also. Some editors argue that, because newspaper editorial boards and op-ed writers of several POV's have compared the flotilla to the SS Exodus, the 1947 event deserves a link in the See also section. I think that making such a connection isn't WP's job. —Rafi23:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this case I'm not sure it matters, as "see also" sections can contain "subjects only peripherally related to the one in question" (WP:MOS#See also section [used Rafi's link, below]). I'm not convinced there's a good case for keeping SS Exodus out of the section, to be honest.
I'm not a big fan of blogs, but there seems to be a consensus that where there's editorial control over the blog then it's reliable. In this case I gather the issue is over whether we can make the link between the SS Exodus and the Gaza flotilla raid, and I'd suggest that if newspaper editorials are making the link it's not unreasonable to consider having SS Exodus in the "see also" section.
--OJB2010(OBR) (talk) 11:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC) - We recently had our block taken down, I seemed to think that members of our school had 'stopped' vandalising Wikipedia. Obviously not. Block is now up till this time in 2011. It has been very annoying as I didn't really want to create an account, but now I have to. The block was down two days before it got put up again. Such a shame...[reply]
re On vandalism warnings, and why I didn't do it...
Completely understand. On reflection, a vandalism warning would have been too harsh. It does disappoint me though to see somewhat experienced editors making edits that so obviously suffer from POV issues. Frankly, it's difficult to AGF when an editor has a history of this kind of activity. Scanning over the editor's talk page, it doesn't look like he responded in a constructive way to previous POV warnings/queries. I have little tolerance for this kind of editor, which is perhaps why I suggested an overly harsh response at first. NickCT (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, see what happens when you go offline for the evening... Fortunately other editors remained vigilant! From my point of view, the vital statistic now is the "Time left" - someone somewhere (WT:RFA?) described RfAs as a "week of hell" - I can't argue with that: it's been a great experience, but I'll be glad when it's over... TFOWRidle vapourings10:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. I've got your talk page watchlisted. Not much to add right now; the two posts to the IP's talk page pretty much cover my concerns. I'd be interested to see if the IP replies... I'm hopeful, but not overly so... TFOWRidle vapourings17:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aha - the old "Why should I fix my code when Microsoft won't fix their browser ?" argument... I can sympathise - I'm a programmer/web designer, and I spend far too much time fiddling with tweaks to make what I do cross-browser compatible, and, yes, IE is the biggest pain, and it is broken in many ways (although improving now). The big picture the IP is missing is that you don't have the luxury of ignoring IE. When I see the stats on my web server that still over 65% of visitors use IE, then what I do damn well better work in it. The alternative is that 65% of my clients (and their users) will see a broken webpage - and I've found upsetting the majority of my users to be a less than stellar business plan. We can moan about what we need to do to cater for IE, but do it we must... - Begoon (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, very true. I've not used Windows in anger for several years, but when I did much of it revolved around accommodating Internet Explorer, so I do sympathise with the IP's position, and would love it if the real world caught up with our preferences. Until then, however, I have to respectfully disagree with them. Alienating two-thirds of our readers is simply not on. TFOWRidle vapourings11:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you were an admin right now,would you have blocked me for the "improper Humor" edit? And how is your signature keep changing, I think I have seen like 3 different ones recently. Cheers, 173.193.3.55 (talk) 12:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...on your successful RFA. I really wanted to come up with something clever to say here, but I drew a blank (as I so often do). So I'm going to recycle (my son tells me it is important to recycle) some slightly-satirical advice that I was given two years ago (courtesy of Abd) that has served me well:
The administrators' mop and bucket
[The mop and bucket] are deep symbols of the way in which a Wikipedia administrator works. You take the bucket and place it over your head. Most prefer that it be empty at the time, to symbolize the other contents, once it is in place. But it is okay if it is all wet. Then you take the mop and swing it about. It is a violation of Wikipedia policy to have any intention to harm anyone with it, but since the bucket prevents you from seeing what you are doing, you need have no fear of accusations of bad faith. Always remember to put on the bucket before taking the mop in hand, when administrators forget to do so, and hit someone they can see, they have been de-sysopped.
[R]emember, Wikipedia is fault-tolerant, you can make lots of mistakes with little harm if you are careful to
(1) Remember to assume good faith, so if, for example, you find it appropriate to block someone, assume -- no matter how hard it might be to do so when the editor has just replaced a featured article with obscenities -- that it was an unfortunate accident or some momentary lapse. Maybe the editor was showing someone how Wikipedia works, knowing it would be instantly reverted and therefore harmless (this actually happened to [an] admin [whose] internet access froze up, so he couldn't fix it). You still block, if needed for protection, but very politely.
(2) When you make a mistake, promptly admit it. Even if you think it wasn't a mistake, at least don't deny that it was a mistake. It just enrages people; make sure that someone telling you that you did something wrong knows, if they are paying any attention at all, that you heard their objection and you will carefully consider it.
(3) Carefully consider it. For examples of what not to do, look at the desysopping of [admins who] remained convinced, to the end, that they had done nothing wrong. And that conviction was the only real reason they were desysopped. Everyone makes mistakes, but when people can't learn from them, can't understand why so many are upset, or, worse, start to believe that there is some conspiracy against them, in the end, they lose the trust of the community.
(4) Never punish. Protect. Don't push the block button if you are angry with an editor, instead ask for help.
Many thanks - I also have nothing witty to say, despite having had a week to come up with something! I will return with witty quips, and thank spam, shortly! TFOWRgoing...16:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Hence the lengthy congratulatory message. I'm sure the next time will be more like "Here's your mop. Get to work!" –xenotalk16:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still slightly overawed by all this - firstly that members of the community might trust me enough to consider an RfA, and then that the community would actually trust me as an admin. I don't want to play the "ever so 'umble" card, but I am ever so humbled! Thank spam to follow (well, talkback linking to thank spam), but for now - thank you everyone, those who nominated, those who encouraged, and especially those who !voted - I appreciate all the comments, and will do my best to take the comments - good and bad - on board. TFOWR16:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad your nomination carried. Just remember that you will make mistakes, there will be messes you not only can't clean up but you don't want to get involved in, & that there will always be assholes deserving an indefinite block whom you'll find you simply need to ignore. After all, we're not doing anything important here, just creating the primary reference hundreds of millions of people use due to the education they received from credentialed experts. But feel free to ask me questions, & I'll try not to give you the wrong answer. -- llywrch (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise- though I'm far from the most experienced admin on the project, I was where you are only a few weeks ago, so the first block, first block of an established editor [first block of an admin! :S], first deletion and the much happier first rollback granting etc is all pretty fresh in my memory. Oh, and when someone accuses you of admin abuse (you get used to it, btw!) just remember WP:OWB#37. ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My first few blocks were just petty vandals. Blocking an established editor is never fun, but as you've seen, sometimes it has to be done. Blocking an amdin is always a drama magnet, but thankfully that kind of drama is rare. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wheeee!!!!!! Congrats! Keep a cool head, and don't try to bite off more than you can chew. ;-) (And by the way, I loved the Thankspam! Best subject header in quite a while!) Acps110(talk • contribs)21:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Woke up this morning and found you had acquired amazing new powers to block the latest sock. Congratulations & thank you! Bksimonb (talk) 05:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I notived you have been active on this article and was hoping you could way in on discussion if you have time. Thanks, --Brendumb (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seeking feedback on a possible future RfA bid (Richwales)
Hi. Congratulations on getting the mop.
I recently decided to prepare for a possible RfA bid of my own. I've written up a draft set of answers to the standard questions, and if you would be willing to review them here, I'd be grateful for any feedback you could offer.
I anticipate that an RfA bid could be controversial in my case — partly because I have "only" about 3,500 edits in my 5+ years on Wikipedia, but also because of a messy edit dispute I was involved in earlier this year (explained in my extra question #4) — so I'd like to prepare as well as possible. Thanks. Richwales (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Grab some glory, and a barnstar
Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the {{copyedit}} tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. mono00:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cookie!
Friendly Cookie has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
--220.101 (talk) \Contribs 16:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
