*Wiki cake for the birthday boy! :D [[Special:Contributions/Gfoley4|—]]<u>[[User:Gfoley4|<span style="color:darkseagreen;font-family:Tahoma;"><big>G</big>FOLEY</span>]] [[User talk:Gfoley4|''<span style="color:goldenrod;font-family:Tahoma"><big>F</big>OUR</span>'']]</u>— 22:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC) [[File:Wiknic167 ST 07.JPG|right|thumb|150px|Yummy!]]
*Wiki cake for the birthday boy! :D [[Special:Contributions/Gfoley4|—]]<u>[[User:Gfoley4|<span style="color:darkseagreen;font-family:Tahoma;"><big>G</big>FOLEY</span>]] [[User talk:Gfoley4|''<span style="color:goldenrod;font-family:Tahoma"><big>F</big>OUR</span>'']]</u>— 22:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC) [[File:Wiknic167 ST 07.JPG|right|thumb|150px|Yummy!]]
::Happy Wiki-Birthday![[File:Wiknic167 ST 07.JPG|right|thumb|150px|Looks So Yummy! (<small> But is it [[edible|food]]?<small> ]]--[[User:Knowitall659|Tepigisthe498th]] ([[User talk:Knowitall659|talk to me!]]) 22:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
::Happy Wiki-Birthday![[File:Wiknic167 ST 07.JPG|right|thumb|150px|Looks So Yummy! (<small> But is it [[edible]]?<small>) ]]--[[User:Knowitall659|Tepigisthe498th]] ([[User talk:Knowitall659|talk to me!]]) 22:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Revision as of 22:51, 28 March 2011
This page is currently protected due to vandalism. If you cannot edit this page but wish to leave me a message, you may post on this page instead.
Hello and welcome to my talk page! If you have a question, ask me. If I know the answer, I'll tell you; if I don't, I'll find out (or one of my talk-page stalkers might know!), then we'll both have learnt something!
Admins: If one of my admin actions is clearly a mistake or is actively harming the encyclopaedia, please reverse it. Don't wait for me if I'm not around or the case is obvious.
A list of archives of this talk page is here. Those in Roman numerals come first chronologically
This talk page is archived regularly by a bot so I can focus on the freshest discussions. If your thread was archived but you had more to say, feel free to rescue it from the archive.
Rollback
With regard to this edit, I do not understand your action in changing my user rights based on the statement "edit warring with rollback". An admin had added headers and {{section stub|date=March 2011}} to the article, which had been removed with the edit summary "just doesn't make any sense", which I felt was nonsensical. Perhaps this was a mistaken use of rollback, but it was in good faith and not "edit warring", as none of these actions had been done by anyone before. Another editor then reverted me, and if I had used rollback again to reverse that then it clearly would have been edit warring, so it was clear I should use "undo" instead, including an explanation (diff). I think you may wish to reconsider? Moonraker2 (talk) 03:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just listen to yourself: "An admin had added headers ..." Are you really suggesting that anyone disagreeing with an admin's edits should be rolled back? MalleusFatuorum03:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to this, no, not at all, but it seemed to add credibility to the original edit. The main issue in my mind was that the edit was unconstructive, borderline vandalism, and the explanation nonsensical. I am sorry if I got it wrong. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I won't comment on the edit that you were reverting, because that's for you gents to sort out on the talk page, however, it certainly wasn't vandalism (any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia', unless you want to imply that we let vandalism-only accounts rack up 101,000 edits. If you paid enough attention to notice that the guy Malleus reverted was an admin, you must have noticed that there was an edit war going on. If you want to dive in and revert until someone protects the page, that's your prerogative, but you'll do it without using extra buttons that are designed to revert vandalism. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I have been aware of PBS as an admin for most of my time at Wikipedia. The edit I was reverting is surely the issue here, and I wasn't aware of an edit war over it. I also wasn't aware of Malleus Fatuorum having a particular number of edits, and I don't know how I should have been. I don't believe rollback is intended only for use with vandalism-only accounts. Anyway, I can only say I'm sorry if I got it wrong, but it was an honest mistake. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But you're still getting it wrong. Rollback isn't a weapon to be wielded against "vandalism-only accounts", it's to be used against vandalism. Whether the vandal is an IP or an administrator is irrelevant. MalleusFatuorum03:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus, I'm not sure the above is addressed to me, but if it is then it's a misunderstanding and I agree with you.
HJ Mitchell, as you asked I have read the Wikipedia:Rollback feature page carefully, and I do understand that the issue (when not dealing with my own edits, edits in my own user space, or edits by a banned user or a malfunctioning bot) is simply whether an edit is vandalism (as Malleus says, by any user) and that Malleus's edit was not arguably that per Wikipedia:Vandalism, which essentially means that an edit needs to be abusive and not merely misguided. I was plainly wrong in this case. I also note the circumstances in which rollbacks should be explained on the talk page. If I have the tool in the future I shall use it with more caution and understanding, especially of Wikipedia:Vandalism. Thank you for your understanding. Moonraker2 (talk) 09:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On Puffin's talk page it says, "and the edit you are responding to came with the (HG) tag in the page history, keep in mind that this edit was made quickly while I was patrolling recent changes for vandalism." Last I checked edits using Huggle and other automated programs should be checked and shouldn't be carried out as though one were skimming a book, if you'll look further down his talk page you'll see he has ignored civil comments by stubbornly asserting he was patrolling recent changes and was getting a rough idea of each edit. In some cases he blindly reverted justified edits because content was removed and just now he accepted a promotional AfC which I promptly tagged for CSD. I'd like your thoughts on the matter. Regards, —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 10:34pm •11:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He seems to have re-emerged today from a three-week wikibreak. Perhaps cut him a little slack on the reverts, all of which seem to have been made a while ago, or try chatting with him and encouraging him to slow down. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've seen that's been done before, I know I may sound hypocritical given my own history I mean you remember my AfC debacle early last year. But the thing is this is a recurring problem with him, you'll see the problems span from October 2010 and have begun to re-emerge again. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 10:48pm •11:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any time. Persuasion is (almost) always a better approach to a problem than coercion and maybe they'll appreciate some advice. We've all been there at some point—my earliest talk archives make for an interesting read! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Despite your rangeblock yesterday, another IP (113.197.9.10 (talk·contribs) ) has continued their disruptive editing on this page. I've left a note on their talkpage inviting them to discuss their concerns, but they've continued reverting without explanation. I'm not comfortable getting involved as an admin here (I wrote the current article, and I've been involved in related disputes for months), so I'd greatly appreciate it if you had a look. -- Lear'sFool03:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He's requesting unblock, saying he understands the copyright policy. It has been some time since you blocked him. However, his block log shows some significant past blocks. Do you have any thoughts? Daniel Case (talk) 04:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
user:Shrike is also following my edits after I got him topic banned from I-P. I warned him at the first occurance here, since then he has followed me to ITN, an AfD, and to an RfA...all three coincidences, I doubt it. Passionless-Talk04:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RfA reform
Hi HJ Mitchel. Following Jimbo's recent comment about RfA being broken, a task force is growing to evaluate suggestions for reform of the process. The project development is intended to be the absolute antithesis of the kind of long drawn out consensus confusion that getting BLPPROD off the ground was. Some interesting discussions have started but the immediate effort is to get the work group together .
That's the background.
Am I being totally impatient/out of my mind, or should there be a full topic ban here? Their recent edits do not exactly inspire confidence... T. Canens (talk) 05:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How I should drop the stick? Did I attack the articles he has written? Was I edit warring, and removing sourced information? I have done nothing wrong! If you want to topic ban me, please be my guest. Passionless violated BLP, and did not even get warned, unbelievable. And, Tim, I cannot wish for anything better than an interaction ban with that user. If you are to ban us from interactions, it would be the best solution with me.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You need to stop commenting every time you see Passionless' name on your watchlist. Tim and I are quite capable of discussing Passionless without your input. You might mean well, but the acrimony between you an he means that neither of you is capable of commenting neutrally on the other. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You told me do not respond to passionless, and I did not respond his post that was directly concerning the article I wrote, and that was wrong all around. Now you're telling me to stop commenting on him? Was my comment a false accusation? If so, you should warn or block me because a false accusation is PA. Are you one side banning me from interaction with passionless why passionless is allowed to do anthing? If so, please post the ban conditions on my talk page.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm advising you (both of you) to keep as far away from each other as physics will allow. I think any reasonable person would agree that I have been more than reasonable with both of you, but I'm beginning to feel that every time I put the flames out, one of you is busy starting a fire somewhere else. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HJ, it is going to be my last response to this thread.
I posted a message to your talk page last night. If my message contained a false accusation, you should have warned me. If my message contained a valid accusation, you should have warned passionless. Instead you simply ignored it.
Then independently on me and in a different thread Tim expressed his concerns about passionless. For some unknown to me reason, in your response to Tim you connected passionless to me. How passionless claiming that a respected professor that has a BLP on wikipedia is "spouting lies" is connected to me?
If I wanted to hound or harass passionless, would I have asked for an interaction ban with that user? The only thing I want that passionless stopped hounding and harassing me.
I am afraid so far your dealing with the situation is missing any logic. With this I am dropping the matter now, but I am still not sure what should I do next time,no, not, when I see passionless on my watch list, but, when I see passionless Wikipedia:Tendentious editing,edit warring, BLP violations concerning directly the articles I wrote. Thanks for taking the time to respond me.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a matter of valid accusations. I'm sure you didn't make your above post to spite Passionless, but I do think you are making more of it than it needs to be—plenty of admins watch RS/N and my talk page and if one of them thought it was such a serious matter it needed blocks, I'm sure they would have done it.
"plenty of admins watch RS/N and my talk page and if one of them thought it was such a serious matter it needed blocks, I'm sure they would have done it." Guess what, Tim did express concerns about passionless, and you were the one, who connected his concerns to me.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You also need to realise that you can't claim your own conduct has been perfect over recent days and for every accusation one of you makes, the other has a counter-accusation, so the reason I haven't been employing sanctions of some form is because I have better things to do than work out which of you did what first and who is more culpable for that.
If I thought my conduct were perfect I would not have asked for an interaction ban for both of us, but my conduct as imperfect as it is cannot be compared even remotely to the conduct of the other user. I am more than ready to be taken to any board and have my conduct to be examined.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As much as you think I'm being too lenient with Passionless, I can assure you he is equally displeased with my supposed leniency towards you, so whatever I do, one of you is not going to be happy and my hair is doomed to turn grey a decade or two early. As I said above, I have been very patient, but every time I get anywhere in dousing the flames and getting you guys to stay on opposite sides of the street, one of you starts a fire somewhere else.
I really think you would benefit from spending your time taking more beautiful photographs like the one on the Main Page today (which made me smile this morning, because I love San Francisco), something for which you obviously have a real talent, and giving Passionless a wide berth. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for commenting on my image.If under "giving Passionless a wide berth" you mean keep silent when he is edit warring, removing sourced info from the articles, violates BLP and so on, so it be.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With my response to this post I have just broken my promise do not respond anymore that I gave to you in my prior post, and if you are to warn or even to block me for this, you would be right. I responded to you not because of passionless, but because of me. From my prior experiences with not responding such posts I realized that it creates me a false reputation. For example, for some unknown to me reason I have a reputation of being a single purpose pro-Israeli account. That claim was made by at least 2 admins, and dozen of users. Encyclopedia dramatica calls me "Josef Stalin of I/P conflict" , I was told that "the picture-taking, though, it does provide you with a good cover when you get in over your head", when in reality I contributed not only hundreds of high resolution images, but also more that 70 articles from which maybe 5% are related to I/P conflict, and I very rarely edit old articles related to I/P conflict. So the vast majority of my contributions has nothing to do with I/P topic at all. I am being accused in making "racist" comments. In reality I have no prejudice towards Muslims/Arabs. I wrote such articles as The Mountain of Israeli-Palestinian Friendship;Sayyida al Hurra;Liar paradox in early Islamic tradition;Arab rescue efforts during the Holocaust just to name a few. I doubt there is any other user from the other side of the conflict, who wrote a good word about Jews or Judaism. I am editing under my real name. My accusers are cowardly hiding behind their user names. I wish I would have been taken to RFC/U. To me it would have created a great opportunity to defend myself. On the other hand I probably should stop worrying about my reputation as it is said "A man's reputation is what other people think of him; his character is what he really is.". Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pyfan has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can 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.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Just wondering
You seem to be busy, but I was just wondering if I had understood your last request correctly in the thread now at the top of the page headed "Rollback". Would you please be kind enough to let me know if you wanted anything else from me? Thanks again for your help. Moonraker2 (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you read the page I directed you to, then, and that you understand why your revert wasn't appropriate? If the answer to both of those is yes, then you can have it back, but if you use it in a content dispute again, you'll be unlikely to persuade an admin to give it you back a second time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you redacted the content and summaries of a number of edits at User talk:Fukbdhwendebduyew. I did notice that the content hwhich aparently justified this rdaction is also present in the content of 3 other versions of the page. I redacted the content of these other edits; in the future, please check things like this yourself. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu18:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Mitchell, I did send such an email yesterday and received the following response: We have received the permission for the image and have made the necessary modifications to the Image page. Thank you for providing this to us, and for your contribution to Wikipedia. Yours sincerely, Verno Whitney — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snibbe (talk • contribs) 15:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the past I've been getting a lot of nonsense in real-life, now these problems have escalated to the point where I'm considering vanishing completely or getting a rename. The harassment was originally out of fun, but my "friends" have decided to make it a habitual part of their lives. I need your advice before considering an option I may regret. Regards, —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 7:18pm •08:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you know these people in real life, can you not persuade them to leave you alone? If not, then it might be worth completely abandoning that account, leaving it a few days and then starting a new one from scratch so there's no connection to the old one. If you email me from this account and then the new account, I'll sort your rights out etc. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've exhausted all avenues, is it possible to get renamed without creating redirects? They access pages in my userspace because they know my name. My sig uses a different username to redirect to my userpage, if I get renamed and the pages in my userspace were to be moved with redirect surpressed then they won't know who I am (telling them what my username was, was a mistake) and with only my sig redirecting to my new user name, they'll most likely move on and tease me about something else (I'd much rather prefer that). Thoughts? —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 8:10pm •09:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe 'crats can rename without leaving redirects, much as admins can move pages without a redirect, but anybody who reached your old userpage would see the log entry, which will connect the two usernames unless you have someone willing to RevDel 120 log entries. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That reassures me, not to worry, none of them know how to access logs... funnily enough. I'll request a rename after tomorrow rolls over... I want to see how things pan out at school. Thanks HJ, —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 8:27pm •09:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) As an uninvolved observer, I'd advise you to reconsider HJ's comments. Many years in IT/MIS have taught me that reliance on the ignorance of potential attackers is a very poor security procedure. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tofutwitch11(TALK) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 21:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
wikimedia.org with some proof that it's your website and a declaration that you release the image under one of those licenses. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
