Jump to content

User talk:TFOWR

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.21.103.180 (talk) at 20:28, 17 May 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Archive box collapsible

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.

Twinkle: This week, I 'ave been mostly... using Twinkle. As I've never used it before I expect to be making misteaks mistakes. Tools you may need to correct these mistakes include this tool for hitting me and this tool for insulting me.

If you're wondering why I'm advertising my complete inability to speak Polish, it's because I've edited an article on pl.wikipedia and there's a small possibility someone from there might want to discuss it with me, and that they follow the redirect at pl:User talk:This flag once was red to this talk page...

Likewise for Portuguese - I posted a machine-translated message in Portuguese.

There is, of course, a whole range of languages that I can speak with near-zero proficiency - I wouldn't want you to think that I'm especially unskilled in Polish and Portuguese. To be honest, I'm not even particularly good at speaking English: I lurch between English and Scots with all the alacrity of a Glaswegian in toon fe the nicht.


Designate

Yes, I saw you around recently and was remembering our work together, I should not be talking to the IP really as he is a block evading sock User:HarveyCarter who used to come a lot disrupting Brown and saying he was autistic, but I can't be bothered with tagging him today, good to see you. Off2riorob (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I wondered if anyone else would make the connection between a Carphone Warehouse IP and edits to Jack Wild and UK politicos! Sad to see something never change! I've adopted a new policy with socks - I'm no longer going to WP:SPI unless they're really disruptive - if they want to troll talk pages (and the main article is semi-d...) all power to them. It should give future readers a good laugh if nothing else. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 19:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is sometimes a good policy. I will archive the discussion when I can, as its excessive discussion for a talkpage and it is getting large. Off2riorob (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sure - I don't want to suggest anything contrary to WP:NOTAFORUM - it was that policy that prompted me to mark the thread as resolved - the original issue was addressed, and the IP wanted to drag out the discussion without discussing anything that would add value to the article. TFOWRThis flag once was red 19:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is going to be a very interesting time in politics for a while, We are used to the simple majority situation and to get to watch then having to work together is going to be interesting indeed. Off2riorob (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. I was talking to my (11 year old) niece on Thursday about when the results be out, what would happen, etc. It's a good first election for her to pay attention to, precisely because it's so unusual.
I understand the Tories and Labour position on FPTP (it's served them both well thus far) but I do wonder whether this will make either party more amenable to electoral reform. The last general election I voted in was in New Zealand, and both Labour and National (Tories) seemed quite happy with PR - and both Labour and National remain the dominant two parties...
Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 19:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes very good for people to understand a bit more of the process, PR will take a vote of the people to get it in. The question is do the people want it? Personally although I do like collaboration I would not like to see issues preferred by minority parties implemented because someone needs then to form a government. The winners in the PR issue will be the liberal democrats so giving it to them to get into power is a double edged sword indeed. Off2riorob (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the Lib Dems will be the only winners - I suspect the Greens etc will be quite happy too! It does make for interesting governments - in NZ Labour had to cosy up to the Greens, "the Progressives" (Old Labour), and NZ First (kind of a centrist BNP if you can imagine that...) In the next government, National (Tories) had to keep various junior parties happy as well. And the Maori Party happily hopped between the two, so it stayed in Government even though the government went from Labour to National.
Your point about "the People" is well made: PR isn't something most people (outside the Lib Dems...) care about: I think there are more pressing issues, but if we don't start thinking about it we'll be left wondering "what happened?" the next time there's a hung parliament!
Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 20:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, hes blocked and the forum discussion is archived. I reverted his Jack Wild edits, that sure is a sad story. Off2riorob (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Three cheers for the Mighty Parrot! TFOWRThis flag once was red 20:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed. I have had a fair few run ins with the carphone dynamic IP. We don't seem to have a way to stop such accounts from as you say troll talk pages and being unable to edit but such accounts are disruptive, I should have ignored him. Personally I support only accounts and no IP edits, that would go a long way to stop many of the vamdalism and socking issues but it might make it a tad quiet. Best regards TFOW, nice to see you again. Off2riorob (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right back atcha! Sadly, I agree almost 100% with your point about IP editors. Maybe flagged revisions would help - but it's not something I've looked at enough to have an opinion on yet. Part of the reason I took an (unannounced, unplanned) wiki-break was the hassle of socks using dynamic IPs...
...anyhoo - great to see you again! No doubt we'll edit-conflict with each other again soon!
TFOWRThis flag once was red 20:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rain man indeed, as you saw I though I would make a report, it is good to make one every now and again to get confirmation and bring it to peoples attention and then when you shout sock and start reverting him people remember, recently he reported me to ANI bt it only lasted about five mins and he got blocked. Off2riorob (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm trying to stay away from WP:SPI but figured I'd pile in! I've tried WP:AIV and WP:ANI in the past, and SPI does seem the preferred approach - but it's not hugely fast... the IP is already blocked, but I suspect the registered account will either survive a day or two longer, or Harvey will get bored and create a new account (or simply use a new IP address). Sockers don't ever seem to get bored - part of me has to admire their stamina, though I suspect they have special qualities that I probably wouldn't want...! TFOWRThis flag once was red 22:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
this is funny from his talkpage Off2riorob (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:-) ... though I think Harvey suffers from "understanding issues", so clicking the link may not reveal as much as we might hope... TFOWRThis flag once was red 22:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha ha..ROFL..Full agreement there, you take it easy I didn't realize you have had six months away, don't burn yourself out again. I was just looking, my last talkpage comment to you was way back in October 2nd. Off2riorob (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

Hi. Just wanted to tell you that User:Ariana310 has also summarized his points at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ahmed_shahi. Tajik (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for letting me know. I'll keep an eye on the discussion, and nudge administrators to take a closer look. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 22:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi

Protection is a good thing. If you get any more disruption from unconfirmed accounts we can protect your user pages. Off2riorob (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - it's something I've been thinking about. I'd be happy to avoid protection unless their nonsense here is disrupting other editors unduly (e.g. if I'm about, I'm happy to either revert or just mock them, but if I'm not I appreciate other people will have to clean up the mess so short-term protection may be a better option). I could care less what some anon IP thinks of my sexuality (I'm not Jason Donovan ;-) )and I figure it's better for them to mess up my talk page or user page than an article.
One thing I noticed today was that articles I'd linked to on my user page suddenly became vandal targets - that's something I'm going to look at fixing over the next few days...
Cheers, and thanks for keeping an eye on me pages!
TFOWRThis flag once was red 23:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and Harvey-I'm-not-a-sock-JackWildFan seems to have been blocked - for being a sock. I'm flabbergasted! Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 23:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no its clearly not me..As I said, protection is a good thing, my talkpage is protected until July and that is a good thing, my user page is indefinitely protected, it stops disruption and harassment. You will enjoy it. Off2riorob (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holywood56

I can tie it to Opal, because it is almost certainly Special:Contributions/89.240.131.49. Anything you can show me to tie it tighter to Nimbley6? There has to be more than one Wikipedia editor using Opal.—Kww(talk) 23:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUCK, mostly, I'm afraid - editing patterns (same articles - Scotland, pop music (especially Scottish bands), Scotland == Scotland but England == UK, spelling and grammar). I'm about to bow out for the night, but I'll have a dig through Holywood56's contribs in the morning for more detail.
Incidentally, it was more as an FYI - I decided not to go to WP:SPI and see how Holywood56's edits panned out - they had been editing for a while (since January), and I've only just got back from a 6 month wiki-break - I figured they may well have become a half-decent editor in the intervening time (obviously they haven't ;-)
Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 23:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead after review. A large heap of G5 deletions as a result.—Kww(talk) 00:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that conclusion, FWIW. Amalthea 01:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Viral

Brown-do you think we should get it fully protected? Off2riorob (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the wrong person to ask - I tend to view protection as an absolute last resort. Right now it doesn't look too bad - there's a bit of too-ing and fro-ing, but it's all good. I've personally reverted TreasuryTag (an editor I have utmost respect for), albeit I did add a ref in response to TTag's edit summary.
Right now I'm not too happy with the suggestion that he has resigned - someone's added a term finish of 2010, which I understand the reasoning behind, but my preference would be to leave it blank until, you know, his term actually has finished!
...naturally, my view on protection may change! I'll ping you once I change my mind ;-)
Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 16:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is ok as it goes, I also don't think we should add term end until it actually has. Off2riorob (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.wordmagazine.co.uk/content/gordon-brown-resigns-skys-adam-boulton-loses-it-with-alistair-campbell totally amusing. Off2riorob (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey! I rarely see Sky, that was a real eye-opener! I suspect Labour (and bruisers like Campbell, in particular) have had much longer to come to terms with the result - the Tories are only just beginning to realise they didn't do as well as they'd expected... TFOWRThis flag once was red 23:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He totally lost it didn't he. I agree the Tories had only one good option and that ws a majority and now the situation is sinking in. (its exciting and amusing to watch them all scheming) Good morning. The alt text was removed without explanation in an edit by pointer, I just replaced what I could find. I think we added it for the GAR. Some people don't like it but I think for removal at least a discussin is in order. Off2riorob (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I thought I remembered doing some alt text in the past - it was with you, on Gordon Brown. Damn, I feel silly now! Never mind, keep up the good work! TFOWRThis flag once was red 13:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy helping me?

I seem to be getting into trouble since you've returned, so I'll blame it all on you. Joking aside - I'm about to get in an edit war I don't want. Am trying to explain to an editor that material copied verbatim requires quotation marks, and that material cited to a source must be in the source. Fancy having a look over my shoulder? The article is Quicksilver and the issue is (somewhat) explained on the close paraphrasing and source verification threads of the talkpage. Won't be worried if you don't want to get into it. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loved the Baroque Cycle! Looking into it now. TFOWRThis flag once was red 19:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good, glad you know it - I hoped you would. One of my favorites too! Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments yesterday. Since you know the author and the books don't be shy about making suggestions on the talk-page. The article has been to FAC once, and the main editor asked for help. I read Quicksilver about five years ago, and need to refresh my memory before I can tackle the plot section, but it seems to me that the themes section needs tweaking. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, and way ahead of you! I added the 4 articles (3 novels plus cycle) to my watchlist yesterday! (I'm on a mission to seriously reduce my watchlist - yesterday I was savage and went from 2200+ to just over 1800 articles, so you'll appreciate that these 4 articles getting added was a major event for me!) TFOWRThis flag once was red 14:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very savage about my watchlist - keep it as lean as possible. Thanks for adding four more to yours; that's 3 more from the series than I have watched!! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well

I tried Wikipedia:Third opinion. Joe Chill (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I hope it works out. I notice you're discussing it at the Anime and Manga wikiproject - that's an excellent way to get additional input, and it looks like at least one other editor thinks you're reasonable and that discussion is the way forward. Let me know how you get on, and good luck! TFOWRThis flag once was red 23:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A thought...

Ever considered requesting adminship? Feel free to tell me to bugger off if you're not interested ;). Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! There are now candidates at WP:RFA! No need to get desperate ;-)
Seriously, yes, I've considered it in the past and concluded that I wasn't ready. Since then I've taken an extended wiki-break, from which I've only recently returned, so my view right now is that I'm still not ready. Not ruling it out for the future, but not ruling it in, either!
...but thanks for suggesting I'd be suitable! I'm flattered!
Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 13:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12 hours later and both candidates seem to have disappeared. I ain't changing my minds, though, not no how, not no way! TFOWRThis flag once was red 00:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being reported

That Brown has quit, according to sources . looks like he will be off to see the queen soon. Off2riorob (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got BBC News 24 on in the background, and I caught a wee bit about "luggage" being seen at the back of No. 10. I still maintain - as do you, I'm sure - that until the Queen invites Cameron (or Clegg - might happen, I s'pose...) to be PM there should be no change. TFOWRThis flag once was red 16:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Report is from the standard http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23832558-david-cameron-its-decision-time-for-lib-dems.do , Yes your right it needs to wait until the actual moment. Off2riorob (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(set to resign) tonight. It is going to happen, expect Brown to make an announcement around 6 00. Off2riorob (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind that, expect the next hour to be a nightmare for you and me ;-) TFOWRThis flag once was red 16:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck, I have to go off line in twenty minutes and will not be back till 21 00. Off2riorob (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damn you, you coward! Seriously, enjoy the (well earned) rest! TFOWRThis flag once was red 16:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not rest, study! brain exhausting thinking. I would must prefer to stay online. Off2riorob (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry mate - I was trying to undo someone who had jumped the gun, but accidentally undid a different version instead. I should have been more careful. --Dizzy hiss (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! I've been dealing with this all day and I'm getting a little short - time for a break, methinks ;-) Thanks for your note! TFOWRThis flag once was red 19:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're probably out of date. The 7 pm Channel 4 News showed live coverage upto 8 pm. Gordon Brown gave an resignation speech outside No 10 about 7:15 pm and drove to Buckingham Palace - again live from helicopter coverage - and was seen arriving at the Labour Party HQ just before 8 pm. In his Downing Street speech he said that he resigned immediately as Leader of the Labour Party and was resigning as PM. We don't appear to have been told whether the Queen accepted has resignation, but Channel 4 stated that we don't currently have a PM. Pyrotec (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I spotted your reversion on Scotland where an editor removed Gordon Bown as leader, that change was I think valid at that time. Channel 4 seem to think that the Liberals won't be having their meeting until 9 pm and they can't accept a Lib-Con pact unless they agree at the meeting, but Dave Cammeron could become PM before that provided if he goes to Buckingham Palace (we agree on that point, i.e. be aint PM until the Queen asks him to be). Pyrotec (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on David_Cameron. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Melonite 19:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brown

No you haven't but thanks for reasoning. Pointer1 (talk) 23:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once does not equal "several". Reversion does not equal explanation! Pointer1 (talk) 23:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving: apropos of this thread. TFOWRThis flag once was red 00:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Cheers! — e. ripley\talk 17:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! For future reference, I respond well to more forceful reminders, too ;-) TFOWRThis flag once was red 17:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In hindsight I'm less than impressed by my comments. I've made a more detailed comment at Matt57's talk page. Thanks for nudging me; I'd prefer not to think about where that thread would have ended up if you hadn't poked me when you did! Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 23:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was a very decent thing to do. Thanks for that. — e. ripley\talk 03:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt

Strange description? "Head and shoulders of a smiling man in a suit and striped tie with dark, greying hair and rounded face with square jaw" ... they don't like that alt text do they, hehe. Off2riorob (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to be getting a lot of attention of late, I guess because the article itself is getting a lot of traffic... I wonder if there's anything we could do to help editors realise the purpose before they remove/change it? At a very simple level we could put in HTML comments - but I wonder if there's a better solution that could work everywhere alt text is used?
I'm spread thin at the moment - apart from bad jokes at ANI etc I'm mostly focussing on learning everything I can about Kabul, Kabul Province and their respective populations (see here for why, and pity me!) but I'd be up for dropping by WP:ALT's talk page and seeing if other alty-people have encountered this, and how they dealt with it.
Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 15:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While you were gone the use of alt text cropped up again. Am not sure what the outcome was, but some felt it's not necessary, and it may have been decided to drop the requirement for FA articles. I'll dig around the FAC talkpage archives to find the thread, but the discussion then moved elsewhere and I lost track. I wouldn't worry too much about it at the moment. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK - thanks for the update. (Off topic, but I meant to mention it yesterday and didn't (busy with Kabul): your comment in the "Ban Bugs from ANI" thread - specifically "chilling effect". Best comment there, wish I'd thought of that phrase!) TFOWRThis flag once was red 16:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a legal term used in the US to indicate that freedom of speech is being impeded. I learned it from a friend and thought it to be very descriptive. Here's a loong thread about alt text. Honestly, I stopped reading after a while and can't remember whether a decision was made. Shortly after this discussion Eubulides seems to have left, or have taken a wikibreak. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You missed one

[1] were you aware that it was impossible to edit the English Wikipedia from Ireland? I certainly was not.. O Fenian (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, duh! This is the English Wikipedia! (I'm writing this from Glasgow, England, and I've previously contributed from Takapuna, England ;-)
I really want to WP:AGF, but it's difficult to take an editor seriously when their username and WP:POV are marching in lock-step. I reckon see how it progresses, but I foresee a ton of attention from, uh, more "equipped", less involved editors over at WP:ANI if clue isn't obtained soon...
Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 18:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When-oh-when are people going to realise that I have no national sympathies - not with New Zealand, not with Scotland, not with Ireland, England, Israel, Egypt...
Since we're dealing with "a British city in a British country" maybe we could get rid of the Irish - and the English - names? Would Welsh names be satisfactory, do you think?! Welsh is the ancient language of Great Britain (OK, maybe not that large island near Britain, but we're dealing with a great British city), before those pesky Angles and Saxons came over here... ;-) TFOWRThis flag once was red 18:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is the IP dubbed the "Welsh name vandal" I think? Perhaps a catchy nickname for BU will be in order? O Fenian (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly not much opportunity for the nickname to stick - the Derry GAA/Londonderry GAA crap was just ridiculous, so I figured a report to WP:AIV was in order. TFOWRThis flag once was red 18:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...or not - apparently I closed the tab without submitting. The editor seems to have calmed down; I'll see how they are when they return. TFOWRThis flag once was red 18:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience people like that do not change over time, the bitterness cuts deep into the bones. O Fenian (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess now we'll never know ;-) TFOWRpropaganda 18:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What a shame :( O Fenian (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mau issue

No worries - I've access to a good library system so check references when it looks like numbers are fudged (Offline references are easily misquoted). I stuck some journal refs on the talk page of the article (unlinked as my access system is in the url by default, so my links wouldnt work for anyone but me.). To support my position anyway, I found this one online, [[2]] which has the author of the disputed reference quoting at least 50,000 deaths. Not 3 million. Good work on leading the discussion - I'm a scientist, so get impatient when people push unsupported views. Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Talk:Main page

Dear Sir/Madam/Kittycat:

I have no clue.

Sincerely, --WaltCip (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Apropos of this and this) Now how will I remove pro-Star Wars bias from the Main Page????!!11! TFOWRpropaganda 21:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Green

I wasn't hinting. I don't mind the light green, but the garish green is ugly. Didn't even realize you had green, but the red is nice. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't mean a hint like that (I can't think what you might think, to be honest...!) - I saw you tweaking your user page, started looking at it, then decided to tart up my collapsy-box thingies! TFOWRpropaganda 19:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC) Now I'm off to recheck your edit summaries to see what deeply offensive things you had to say about my green ;-)[reply]
Got it! TFOWRpropaganda 19:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the one. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I didn't see it at the time and aren't offended now! And red is much better here. I tried black as well, but the "show"/"hide" buttons disappeared... TFOWRpropaganda 19:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried black too, with colored text. There should be a way to set the colors for the show/hide buttons. Decorating is fun, and playing with colors too, but I always worry that it's getting a little too serious when I start decorating my space! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
..."my space"! An apt phrase for userspace tweaking! TFOWRpropaganda 20:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User EOGUY

To whom it may concern

I'd like to apologise for that immature edit about user EOGUY, however I do have a complaint; if you are monitoring misconduct by users of wikipedia and flagging their edits; then why was user EOGUY allowed to edit the page of Abdur Razzaq (politician) and subsequently tarnish the name of an honourable individual. He edited that page and changed the contents from its factual write up to personal opinion and a lot of us have found it offensive to find out that he discredited a respected individual in that fashion.

I have edited the contents as best I could and can also back it up with documentary evidence for everything that I have written. I would also appreciate it if the same warning that was sent to me is sent to user EOGUY.

Sincerely,

Fahim Razzaq —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fahim.razzaq (talk • contribs) 20:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted! Thanks.
I'm not monitoring "misconduct by users"; I have a number of articles and userpages on my watchlist, and when I see vandalism occur I revert it and warn the editor responsible.
You can do this, too!
You can also discuss issues with users on their talk page - EoGuy's talk page, for example.
Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda 20:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, am new to wiki so ya could use the help. Thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fahim.razzaq (talk • contribs) 20:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What, me?

I have no idea what people are talking about. About all I ever do is correct misspelled words.

EoGuy (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - the user above had vandalised your user page. I reverted the vandalism, and warned them. Beyond that you'll need to discuss it the user themselves. TFOWRpropaganda 22:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beck

Glenn Beck is some rabble rouser and on his show a couple of days ago he asked his supporters to be active on the internet against this Maurice Strong person, I don't know the ins and outs but its got global warming and other conspiracy type issues, the Strong article was attacked the other day and is semi protected there is also a comment on the BLPN for eyes. Off2riorob (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, gotcha. The editor seems receptive, though, and there are so many eyes on them right now that they should be safe... Fingers crossed... TFOWRpropaganda 22:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I notice he presented the guardian which is about the Beck thing.http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/13/glenn-beck-fox-news%20http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/18/bilderberg-charlie-skelton-dispatch1 Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! That's pretty out-there. "Ex-UNEP guy speculates about a novel, 20 years later he's suddenly The New Left's number one plan for world domination." Thank you, Mr Beck, for bringing this terrible plan to my attention. Now I come to recall, I had Glenn Beck watchlisted a long time ago (thought the name was familiar). The article was a nut-magnet. TFOWRpropaganda 22:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find all that conspiracy stuff and global warming stuff a bit silly really, the ego inflating idea that us humans can control the global weather patterns of a sphere that sometimes gets hit by massive meteorites and is rotating through space at a speed of 67 000 miles an hour. http://www.solarviews.com/eng/earth.htm Off2riorob (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in - looking at the edit stats you'll see that our friend was active on that article. Stay away! No - run away! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its starting to look like a conspiracy. Off2riorob (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coren has blocked our newest friend for 31 hours but it is unclear as the exact reason. He created this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UNLiMiTED_TRUTH/Bilderberg_Group which may have had something to do with it. Off2riorob (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm outta there! Am I right in thinking ONY is now... gone? Based on my memories of Glenn Beck I'm guessing <no-outing>she or he</no-outing> was blocked there, rather than at an IB article? TFOWRpropaganda 12:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gone and IP blocked, but I don't think the IP block is indef. I can't remember which article caused the indef block, but not IB. Glenn Beck or another like that. Will check some links for you when I have time. Very busy at the moment.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't look it up on my account; I'm happy to content myself with the peace and tranquillity ;-) TFOWRpropaganda 15:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:AT

I have reverted your edit per WP:AT. The standard name of that body of water is Persian Gulf, which is what the title of the main article is. You can not change the standard name though piping or otherwise, NPOV does not apply when it comes to standard common geographical names in English. What you are doing is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines and polices on the geographical namings. Please do not repeat this in the future. Kurdo777 (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I publicised the change widely because I wasn't sure whether the change would be OK or not, despite the apparent consensus at Talk:Dubai.
On a related note, the article could do with further eyes on it - "Arabian Gulf" will almost certainly reappear with discussion.
Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda 10:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trouble with that is that all the different peoples around that body of water have a different name for it, the Persian Gulf must be defended at all cost. imo Off2riorob (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he is only one editor on that article and if your feel its correct start an RFC to check consensus. I think we take those articles one at a time, I was involved in an RFC on the talkpage of Persian Gulf. It is like the PGulf, a minefield similar to the united kingdom, imo I start to feel it is better kept out of, too much stress and little reward. Off2riorob (talk) 11:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't go with an RfC over "Persian Gulf" (because I agree with the status quo - PG is the internationally recognised term), though I did give a wee bit of thought to asking here, but in the end I figured if editors are happy to deal with the pov-warriors I can back off and happily let them fight it out amongst themselves ;-) TFOWRpropaganda 11:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On Glenn Beck and the secret Liberal/Socialist/Anarchist plan to dominate the globe

That is insightful indeed. Our new friend got himself unblocked and is looking for comments on his desired addition (essay/cut and copy)(something not well known but needs telling to the world), which is the ongoing new user experiment. Off2riorob (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that. I must admit, I was a wee bit surprised at the block - the blocking admin was someone I respect - and it looks like there may still be confusion as to why our friend was blocked: it's been suggested it was for the large removal of comments from the talk page. I'd have - I did - assume it was our friend's lack of knowledge of talk page norms. Regardless, I strongly suspect that won't be the first block... it does appear to be absolutely vital that the awful truth is revealed to us poor ignoramuses... TFOWRpropaganda 11:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the show goes on. I think the first action was taken in knee jerk reaction to the loud quacking sound. Off2riorob (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that makes a lot more sense...! Speaking of which, about the same time this fine fellow was innocently coming to terms with creating an encyclopaedia in a collaborative environment... until they suddenly became very clued-up about RfAs. The exchange about "why was I blocked?" that followed was predictable and short... TFOWRpropaganda 13:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: ANI / Lucy / Another sock

Yes, it seems there is quite a backlog on the SPI page today. Thanks for dropping by. Lucy is quite a character! Bksimonb (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed shahi

I appreciate your good will to settle the disagreements with Ahmed shahi (talk · contribs), but as long as he continues his extremely disruptive behavior as in the Pashtun people and Ghurids articles, I do not have any hope that a consensus can be reached. Most of all, because he keeps ignoring already discussed decisions and consensuses. I am really tired of reverting his nonsense, and except me, nobody else even dares to correct his POV and falsifications of academic sources. Tajik (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Por favor, a graça

A favour please.

Is this guy notable I am considering AFD, a Muslim scholar, citations appear self promotional? Off2riorob (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, which guy? ;-) TFOWRpropaganda 13:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot the main bit... Husain_Kadodia Off2riorob (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any opinion? Off2riorob (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry, I completely forgot... had a look just now, and I'm not seeing any notability. The current version has no refs, only external links. The first link was definitely OK (the article subject's website), the rest I'm not so sure about - and at least one was a forum. Notability is the big concern for me - I'm just not seeing why he's notable. It seemed a bit rude, piling another tag on top of the tags already there, so I left it, but I'm actually thinking "AfD"... TFOWRpropaganda 17:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking, I sent him to AFD to see what the community think, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Husain_Kadodia Off2riorob (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I've watchlisted the AfD, I'll drop by towards the end (maybe there's some notability that we're missing...) TFOWRpropaganda 18:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, no worries, its all a big learning curve, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Email

You have mail. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try again, then! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Worked that time! Replied! TFOWRpropaganda 11:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mind your own business

FYI

I've set up User:HJ Mitchell/Interaction ban and asked the two editors to review it and sign their agreement, on which condition I've unblocked Tajik. Any thoughts? Btw, I like the editnotice! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got their talk pages watchlisted during mediation, so I've seen it - no concerns from me. As you know, I've separated the three currently involved editors into separate pages - mainly to make my life easier! - which should help them during the interaction ban.
Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda 17:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You 86.21.103.180 (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Peace and Love[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TFOWR&oldid=362674019"