User talk:TFOWR

enThis user is a native speaker of the English language.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click here to leave a new message.

Page corrupted

There is someone I don't know distorts Camilia Shehata Zakher's page, can I restore my info back? By the way, there are 'citation needed' and 'not in citation given' stuff. Apparently, this person has deleted and corrupted my links! How can I restore it back?

You can see the difference between your last version and the current version if you click here. The most recent editor has removed a sentence (I would imagine because it makes a very serious claim about a living person, but doesn't have a reference to support the claim: Wikipedia has very strict rules about protecting living individuals). The {{not in citation given}} tag indicates that the reference provided doesn't support the claim made - I'd recommend double-checking the references tagged like this. {{citation needed}} simply mean that there is no reference provided to support the claim - it's an indication to editors that we need to find a reference. You could discuss this further with the editor responsible - I can't recall working with them in the past, but I have seen them around and believe that they're very approachable. TFOWR 21:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

In fact, as usual, the page has been deleted. I had the links but someone corrupt them. Anyway, Wikipedia wouldn't add any importance to my article since this is a hot topic in all Egyptian newspapers nowadays. Thanks anyway! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capolinho (talk • contribs) 19:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

conflicted

Hi, sorry it seems we edit conflicted at the Cameron article, I took it back another edit as that percentage has been at the previous figure for a fair time and there was no explanation. Off2riorob (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I hadn't realised, to be honest. Aye, I saw the percentage change this morning, but didn't know enough either way to challenge it. I think you're right, though - IP change to long-standing value? Nah. TFOWR 19:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I had a bigger look and checked the figures, looks like the IP was correct and I put that one back. Off2riorob (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it normal for an Admin to block himself for edit warring? Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

First time I've seen it! (I mean, I've seen the oops, the "I wondered if I could block myself and - help! - I can! I did! Now I'm blocked! Help!" incidents, but this is a blatant "I was edit warring, which is unacceptable, so I've blocked myself. If I do it again I'll increase the block duration. Naughty naughty naughty!") I'm disappointed that they didn't post a block notice on their talk page - how will they know how to request an unblock?

Slightly more seriously, was there any edit warring? This is their first block, so a 24 hours block seems more than reasonable, but I'd be concerned if there was past history: hypothetically, if I got reported at AN3 I could block myself for 24 hours for edit warring, to forestall a block from someone else. In my case, I've got a prior block for edit warring, so any future block should really be for, say, 48 hours. That's not the case here (Evil saltine has no prior history) but it's an interesting point. TFOWR 21:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing Evil saltine noticed that Evil saltine was edit warring here, and decided to take a firm stance on Evil saltine's edit warring by blocking Evil saltine. TFOWR 21:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

ec..He he he... I investigated and it was in relation to this and although there was no report the other user was blocked by Hersfold for 24hrs and evilsaltine blocked himself three minutes later...so it seems like a very fair thing evilsaltine did.. and also a bit amusing.. I am thinking of a barnstar that would be relevant, any ideas? I wonder if he would consider it wheel warring if another admin unblocked him and it would be really amusing to see what happens if he requested unblocking, hehehhe.... Hersfold has commented that there was some IRC discussion , strange that admins can block themselves for things they think they have done, I think its not a correct way to go, anyways its a silly story, and with that I will catch you around, regards.Off2riorob (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh, that's very cool! I saw this barnstar earlier - about an hour ago - but can't find it now. It was a UFO beaming up a barnstar, then morphing into the barnstar. Probably better for UFO stuff, though. Best I can suggest right now is {{The Surreal Barnstar}} or {{The Barnstar of Good Humor}} - and I'm sure I suggested these two last time we had a barnstar conversation... but damn, Evil saltine is being surreal, and does have a good sense of humour.

I didn't consider unblocking, but I did consider a formal warning for failing to provide a 3RR warning prior to the block and failing to provide unblock details. I think a barnstar would be better, though... TFOWR 21:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Check this out, RFA things were very different in 2003 Off2riorob (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh, my nom was longer that the whole RfA! Add in two co-noms and my question/answers, and I reckon you've got the entire set of RfAs. I reckon in a few years' time new admins will be looking down their nose at me because "only" 100 or so editors !voted in my RfA ;-) TFOWR 21:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• This was the UFO barnstar image I was thinking of - eventually found it at WP:VPT. Probably not the best solution for Evil saltine, now that we know they've not been abducted... TFOWR 16:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs CVO Skool Pretoria Vladan Lukić Frederick Forchheimer Instituto de Banca y Comercio Latin American Muslims Xi Kang Holomorphic vector bundle Alberto Undiano Mallenco Shaw College Turks and Caicos Islands Zvonko Milojević Aleksandar Kristić Extreme Ghost Stories Vista Murrieta High School Bratz Girlz Really Rock Polypectomy Bullard Havens Technical High School Gea Happel Amigos Zoersel Department of Agriculture of Puerto Rico

Cleanup E 11 road (United Arab Emirates) Spain Dog Merge Party conference Hispano-Celtic language Pre-Celtic Add Sources Cloe (From Bratz) Vuvuzela Granular Linux Wikify Paul Costelloe Hinduism in Ireland Chennai Public School Expand Heat kernel Delta High School (Clarksburg, California) Gilbert Carter High School

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 04:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Snitching?

I'm not sure I'm happy with this contribution, especially the "... except provide a victory for some who would like to see all of those opposed to the removal of the British Isles on wikipedia taken out of the dispute." Its not a battle and suggesting - without evidence - that one side has specific motives, is not very nice. Fmph (talk) 05:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that BW made the comment with the best of intentions, but I also agree that it could have been phrased better, with much less WP:BATTLE rhetoric. I've warned BW to be more careful in future. TFOWR 11:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we all try to contribute with the best of intentions. Sometimes we say the wrong things. Its very easy to do. Fmph (talk) 12:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

While you're here... you mentioned transclusion at WT:BISE. Is that something you've much experience with? Obviously, I can transclude templates etc, but I've never worked transclusion magic across different pages. Is this something you could set up, or write a quick how-to for? It'd neatly settle the local/WT:BISE discussion debate. TFOWR 13:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry. No experience of it other than a recent tentative foray into WP:AFD. As I said, thats how they do it there. I'm pretty sure tha\t I understand the technical difference between substitution and transclusion. But not how it works on MediaWiki. I'd ask Rannpháirtí anaithnid (talk · contribs). He knows quite a bit about that sort of stuff. Fmph (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries - I've 'fessed up to my own technical ignorance so I can't really complain about you not knowing ;-) I think I mentioned it in passing to RA at WT:BISE, but I'll check and ping as needed. Thanks anyway. TFOWR 19:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry allegation against Doradus

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

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

TFOWR 11:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then you say

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

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

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

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

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

T:ROI

Hi, I hope you don't take this comment to be personal. It's not intended personally. --RA (talk) 11:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't, but I did think it was a little defensive. Closing a discussion with a fairly clear consensus isn't rocket science and I don't think you need to be too concerned that I'm going to go all rogue and ignore an explicit consensus in favour of my subconscious biases ;-) That said, I'm more than happy to defer to someone else to close. TFOWR 11:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not a question of how you "would" close it but whether you "should" close it. You are a participant in this issue. I don't think it is appropriate for you to take on other roles in relation to it, which, if you started closing discussions on this topic outside of BISE (as well as inside of BISE), it may seem as if you were doing.

In any case, it is a talk page discussion: does it need to be "closed"? --RA (talk) 11:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not honestly convinced I am a participant: I've followed the discussion at T:ROI and at WT:BISE, but that's in no way the same thing as participating. Anyway, I was asked to close by Scolaire, asked not to close by you, so I'm happy to defer to someone everyone can agree is a non-participant. TFOWR 12:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the more I consider your suggestion the more flawed I think it is. If this discussion had been held in its entirety at WT:BISE there'd be an expectation that I'd close it. You're arguing (at WT:BISE) that the discussion shouldn't be held at WT:BISE, but at T:ROI, and you're arguing (here) that I shouldn't close it because of my involvement at WT:BISE. I'm open to the idea of holding WT:BISE discussions outside WT:BISE, but I can't accept that that somehow disqualifies me from closing discussions. TFOWR 12:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently im the only one who wants it included on the article and ive no problem with you closing rather than needing to get another admin to do it so there should be no problem with this closure. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think in terms of result we're all on the same page; RA's concern is procedural - should I close things at T:ROI if I also close things at WT:BISE? I don't see any reason not to, but it's possible I'm missing something subtle in RA's argument. TFOWR 12:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Whuh - I think maybe I've encouraged you to put beans up your nose. --RA (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:LAZY ME (red-linked, but should exist...!) I'm happy to avoid nasal-stuffing, but I am still curious to button you down here as I'm not seeing what you're seeing. TFOWR 13:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ducksockblock?

Hi TFOWR, can you take a look at User:Engr.Makhdoom and User:Engr.Iqbal?  Looks like a duck to me Thanks. PS: for a bit of info, the former kept repeatedly recreating inappropriate articles and was indeffed at AIV for it; the latter has started creating the same articles. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

QUACK! Blocked as an obvious sock. I've left a bit of advice, but suspect it may fall on deaf ears... TFOWR 14:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, hopefully they'll take the advice. One of the articles recreated has a little more context this time, so it's possible it's a legitimate subject, it was just written so poorly before that no context could be identified for it. It's currently a very difficult read as it is: Makhdoom (clan) Ancestry of Gondal. It may need to be prodded, since I can't find much to support it on google. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, the other Jat clans I looked at vary quite a lot from very poor to OK-ish. Musing here, but I'm surprised a Pakistani topic would be so poor: I'd have thought there would be plenty of British, say, editors with extensive knowledge of these topics who could improve these articles. Then again, I regularly look at this Kiwi article and I'm horrified how poor it is... (I've tired to make inroads from time to time, but it's a losing battle... TFOWR 14:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm having a look at some of these now; I'm probably going to stubify or prod a few of them. By the way, I just found another duck in the history of Gondal (clan): User:Engr Makhdoom Iqbal. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that one may pre-date the others. I should know this, but don't (I'll look it up, but any TPS answers gratefully received, as always...) - I presume I can't block this one for block evasion, since it was created prior to the first block, but I don't feel comfortable leaving a sock lying around. Best way to proceed? Block, with an "Other reason" reason, pointing at the first account to be blocked? Then again, it's entirely possible I'm just having a mental block - it feels like a while since I last did ducky/socky things... TFOWR 15:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't say for sure, but whether it predates it or not, I think it can still be blocked for block evasion, since the editor is blocked, not the username, and the editor's clearly using that username as well. Maybe not though, if that older username hasn't been used since the block. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked it (citing block evasion), but its contribs end before the first block. I figure blocking is the best bet, though - you're right that it's the user who's blocked, and I'm damn certain the same user is behind all accounts. TFOWR 15:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

BISE traffic

I wonder if anybody would object to having each discussion collapsed with the note of 'opened' or 'closed' in the collapse bar? GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I really hope not - that page is getting unmanageable, and Scolaire made a good point about transcluding 92k of Talk:Republic of Ireland discussion... suggest it and see, but you've got my support unless there's a compelling reason I've not thought of. TFOWR 19:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Another idea: would automatic copying of an ongoing discussion at an article also be possible? (Kinda like they do for Afds). This would sooth the concerns of RA & Scolaire. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That's something I've been talking to Fmph about (#Snitching?, above). I'm sure it would be possible, and it would sidestep RA's concerns about where discussions take place. Fmph reckons RA is the person to ask, so I've pinged RA, but realistically any technical bod with AfD experience should be able to do it. TFOWR 19:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

'Tis great, there's always a solution. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Forgive my outdenting corrections. They're necessary to keep discussions from going into 50+ lines with 2 word sentences. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries - and good idea. I'm not hugely protective of my comments, so long as the original meaning is maintained. Indent, outdent, it's all the same to me ;-) TFOWR 16:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

pending

User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Announcement_about_Pending_Changes - Hopefully that means I can continue to request it, since the trial was allegedly over I have had to request higher levels of protection when pending would have done the job. Off2riorob (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I really want to disagree with Jimbo sometime - I've even supported in RfAs on the basis that the candidate had the balls to disagree with Jimbo. But I've already commented - and my comment was to agree with Jimbo ;-)

I had a feeling that you weren't keen on PC - I guess I was wrong? FWIW, your "higher levels of protection when pending would have done the job" is my reason for supporting it. I appreciate that some people are concerned - legitimately - that pending changes is going to get used everywhere (like it is at de.wiki, apparently) but that's something we can solve through policy. We have policy saying when semi gets used and when full gets used - I see no reason why we can't have same for PC1 and PC2 etc.

My obvious political starting point is freedom - IPs get to edit, no one gets blocked, no pages get protected - and then work from there. So I prefer PC1 to semi, I prefer semi to full, etc. I get the feeling that a lot of the folk opposed to pending changes are starting from the same point, just reaching different conclusions.

Anyway, Jimbo's comment has already kicked off a shitstorm - comments about proposals with near-unanimous support. Bollocks. I !voted in at least one proposal on that very page, and I stopped after the 97th proposal, so I really can't say that that last proposal was near-unanimous - it was just that most folk had long ago given up hope of anything getting done. So I'm very glad Jimbo at least had the balls to move things forward. TFOWR 20:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

...and Jimbo's line is not to remove pending from articles. Dammit. I spent the past few days doing just that. And at least one or two pages I put back to semi... TFOWR 20:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what told you do do that? I support anything that helps protect articles from attack content. Jimbo has the pulse, he is in this case completely correct, a few vocally activist users, with huggle as an alternative should not be allowed to derail what is clear support for continuation of the tool. If I was Jimbo I would log off for a day or two, I expect the vocal opposer's will be livid, as I have seen its mostly the free-speechers, and the vandal fighters (why support a tool that takes your position away) that vocally object. The simple truth is its a simple tool that helps us protect articles, this is the foundations clear position, many people here are not interested in that position at all. If we truly allowed the vocal activists to control the wikipedia we would be closed down in six months. Off2riorob (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No one told me, I did it so to occupy the moral highground when dealing with opposers. And, slightly Machiavellian, but so if a page I'd un-PC'd suffered I'd have an example to use ;-) TFOWR 20:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I am so happy that I can still have the tool to use and request if it is needed. The other day an article was semi protected for a year just because of a singe disruptive user and pending would have been plenty to restrict him, none of the free-speechers and huggle warriors reverted any of the attack additions, occasionally they were there for more than a day and picked up by google bots and propagated across the whole internet, it is indefensible that wikipedia is responsible for that sort of libelous degradation of a living persons global image. Off2riorob (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I really don't understand the free-speech argument - we have semi now and it's non-controversial. PC1 is much better than semi. "If we can't hear the IP the IP isn't being censored." Weird. TFOWR 20:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I also do not see it at all but perhaps that is an geographical issue, users from the USA have the right to free speech or at least believe they do whereas in the UK we are used to not having some unalienable right to say anything you want. This claim is also linked to one of the original goals that anyone can add anything they want, which might have sounded idealistic in the early days but now that we have half a million bios of living people and are unable to watch them, looks extremely dated.Your point is quite correct, I have the feeling that for the project to continue the alternative if pending is not implemented is the semi protection of a half a million BLP articles as the demanded alternative. Off2riorob (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

archive bot

Are you experienced enough to help me with this, I altered my archive format in this edit closer to your format but the bot is not coming around, any ideas as to the issue? Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That's weird - you haven't changed Misza's config at all. The only issue I had with Misza was when I tried to shift the config into my talkpage header - that's not the case here. As far as I can see, the way you've done it is more or less identical to the way I've done it. But the only thing that would stop the bot is the config be broken... and as it hasn't changed that's not the case. I'll keep looking, but make no promises. Maybe try WP:VPT or the Help desk? (True story: first time I asked a question at the help desk was a month ago...) TFOWR 21:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking, its likely a minor issue. Chzz got it working B4 and I might ask him or revert my edit and go again... I love the help desk it is well responsive although archive bots are a bit of a specialist issue.Off2riorob (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Stewart Brewing

You ensured the COI tag was maintained on this article, but where's the COI at the moment? It seems to have been stripped of any COI/fluff/advertising to me. Bigger digger (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I copy-edited it, mostly for COI/spam, a few days ago, but the IP responsible has been quite active since then. {{COI}} is intended to serve as a warning that "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" and that the article may require clean up. It's possible that the latter case may not apply (though I think the infobox could probably do with a good check, and any external links too) but the former case certainly does. TFOWR 21:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

/slaps head. Sorry I hadn't seen that the IP was blocked for being a sock, I guess your explanation is acceptable ;-) Bigger digger (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries, but ... neither had I! I'll go off and dig up the gossip now ;-) My reasoning was based mostly on the editor who created the article (I forget their name, but something like "StewartB") and then the run of IP edits from a few days ago. Definitely worth keeping an eye on, though, and thanks for nudging me - it made me go off and look again at the article. The external link was OK (official site) and the infobox does seem OKish (a little too long and product-listy) but otherwise OK. I suspect there will be more IPs, though...! TFOWR 21:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah! The latest IP (the one who removed the COI tag) looks suspiciously similar to the blocked-sock IP... definitely worth keeping an eye on ;-) TFOWR 21:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Quran-burning rename

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

log entry:

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

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

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

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

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

Transcluding

I've done that. It's a bit complicated becaue there are so many pages involved but should be OK. You can see it here. (Though, still favour simply taking discussions to the talk pages.) --RA (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Question.

Hi, User:174.125.215.61 marked his article as a GA himself without even sending it for review. I undid it, but was wondering if there was anything else I should do. Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 02:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so - though it might be an idea to let the IP know about Wikipedia:Good articles. I suspect the IP simply doesn't know how the Good Article process works, and felt that they had created a "good article". TFOWR 08:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

...on second thoughts - The IP was only active for an hour or so, several hours ago. I doubt they'd ever see any message. The article is at AFD right now. I'm trying to avoid AFD as much as possible, but this article really does look like a case for deletion or incubation. Unreleased, very little detail about it as yet, etc. TFOWR 08:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Ireland

Where as your closing of the debate on the Talk page about British Isles was in line with the views expressed, as a fair number of the 'do not add' responses were arguments based on the fact to some it is contentions - this is to me a POV position and as a result I am minded to tag the article {{POV}} for failing to mention it.Codf1977 (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

There was one oppose that I discounted for that very reason, but the others - while they did in some cases cite contention - had other arguments as well. On balance, I felt "non consensus" was reasonable, as there were valid arguments to exclude as well as valid arguments to include. A {{POV}} tag, however, would potentially draw in new faces - which could be beneficial. TFOWR 14:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying your closer of the debate was in any way at fault, I have taged the page in the hope as you mentioned others may be draw in. I have cross posted to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard hereCodf1977 (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool, I've commented there with a link to my WT:BISE proposal, and commented that outside eyes are very, very welcome. TFOWR 16:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Please may you review this edit ? Codf1977 (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I've seen it, and the back/forth edits that preceded it, and commented on the talk page - basically WTF? All of you need to stop edit warring - it's advertised at NPOVN, let someone neutral and uninvolved make the call. TFOWR 19:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The NPOVN, sound advice. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TFOWR. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Revelation_of_personal_identity.2C_and_lot_more.
Message added 11:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, TFOWR. You have new messages at User:crazy-dancing.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Have had a look around and all logos seems to be showing fine now. Crazy-dancing (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! I'll let ANI know. Thanks for looking into this. TFOWR 12:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TFOWR. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents.
Message added 11:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Comments on my talk page

If you are going to leave me a terse warning about incivility on my talk page then I expect you to also do the same regarding the editor who is constantly harassing me on my talk page - you only have to read his latest offerings for further evidence of this. I really don't appreciate the way in which you have conducted yourself in this matter - it's completely unacceptable from an administrator. All you have managed to do is to encourage the other editor's abuse! Afterwriting (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Expect away all you want - but maybe check the past history first next time. I've already replied on your talkpage, but in summary I've blocked GPW for this kind of behaviour in the past, and I will have no hesitation in blocking either of you if you don't knock it off - i.e. disengage or find a way to get along. I sincerely doubt GPW feels encouraged by my comment - they are perfectly well aware that any repetition of the behaviour which led to their previous block will result in another block of increased duration. Complaints about my conduct can, of course, be directed to WP:ANI. TFOWR 12:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This is all completely irrelevant - and you should realise this yourself. Do you seriously expect me to check your history with him? And so what anyway? Your whole response to this matter has been completely inadequate - editors are entitled to expect better from administrators than this. Afterwriting (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You breached WP:CIVIL. I warned you. You then tried to use GPW's behaviour as some sort of justification for your behaviour. Now, if you have a complaint against my conduct I've already told you that you can take it to WP:ANI. Do you intend to do that, or would you prefer to continue arguing the toss? If it's the latter, I'm happy to let you get the last word: I'll ignore any further comments from you here or at your talkpage. TFOWR 12:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You really just don't get this at all. Why do you have such a problem recognising your obvious failures in handling this matter? And don't make false accusations that I "tried to use GPW's behaviour as some sort of justification for your behaviour". This is both false and very offensive. If you cannot do your job as an administrator consistently and responsibly - and without making gratuitous comments about things that are actually none of your business - then you should seriously reconsider being one. As I wrote before, editors are entitled to expect better than this from administrators. This is one of the worst cases of the misuse of an administrator's "authority" that I have yet come across. Afterwriting (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)