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.

Wikibreak

Just wanted you to know that I'll be gone indefinitely. Thanks for the help. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 09:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks for the heads-up. Email me if you need anything - and all the best! TFOWR 09:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Cowbells!

Made me laugh - thanks for the link! Careful With That Axe, Eugene ^Hello... 10:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries! It's the first thing I think of whenever someone says "more..." And that article has everything - Saturday Night Live, Christopher Walken, Rawk music...! TFOWR 10:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

BISE civility

As much as I appreciate the reasons behind the recent..."accusation"... by RA of somebody being a SPA, I reckon such talk should be kept to a minimum. If they aren't, it's slightly rude at best. If they are, such accusations would probably just bring more trolling and clutter to the discussion anyway. If an editor really feels this, they could probably bring it up at noticeboard-I-haven't-memorized-yet. Of course, I'm not in any way suggesting RA was doing something in bad faith and this is not a criticism on their actions at all. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree. I haven't seen RA's comment yet, I'll find it and raise it with RA as needed. Thanks. TFOWR 10:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Found it, and done. RA doesn't post at BISE that often, and I doubt they associated their comment (which would be normal for, say, an AFD) with the issues we're trying to avoid at BISE. TFOWR 11:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Fmph's comment was also offbase, and I feel slightly more derogatory. I also think it's wrong, as the page is meant to discuss all these issues, but that may be besides the point. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If you think I'm offbase, why not tell me? I certainly don't think we should be filling up the page with every usage of (Great?) Britain and Ireland and asking if it needs to be changed, especially without references to indicate that it should! Fmph (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Fmph, I was just continuing the previous conversation, didn't think of it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think the comment was that bad, but Fmph, while you're here, do avoid general, non-specific comments. In this case I'd already raised the issue of references with Lemon Monday, both at BISE and above. Specific examples can be raised at BISE for any reason, though obviously making a decent case for a change is going to be more effective. If participants don't feel an adequate case has been made for a change they can simply note that and move on: my preference (the lazy option) will be for the status quo unless a decent case is made for change. TFOWR 13:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I wasn't really pissed with Chipmunkdavis. Just passin' by here and kicked up some dust on the way. Sorry. Fmph (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, TFOWR. You have new messages at Rannpháirtí anaithnid's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

x2 --RA (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

BISE Conkers summary comment

I was surprised. But you said Far too much wikilawyering on both sides. It's discussions like this one that give BISE a bad reputation. Please clarify where there was wikilawyering. --HighKing (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Both sides, instead of stating their arguments neatly and coherently, chose to pick at others' comments. I mentioned this to you and BW at a recent SPI, but the other participants as well should be aware by now that what's needed is brief statements for or against, not endless nested threads. Comparisons with hurling, if needed at all, need to be made in the first - and only - statement. There is rarely, if ever, a need for a second statement. TFOWR 20:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

In future, can I suggest that we avoid neatly stacking editors into "sides", and then tarring each editor in each side with the same brush. I know you need to be (seen as) fair and evenhanded and balanced. And sometimes that means you can't be seen to be always coming down on just one side - even if one side is causing most/all the problems. But you can over compensate and it then becomes unfair to to dole out smacks and punishments to "both" sides in an attempt to seem impartial. --HighKing (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. However, in this case I saw both "sides" wikilawyering, both sides engaging in the multi-threaded arguments I'd been trying to discourage. When closing a discussion one side will typically "lose". I view that in the same way as protecting a page at "The Wrong Version" - it's largely inevitable. In this case both sides argued poorly, and one side appeared to be rewarded for that. That's unfortunate, but unavoidable. I'm not going to use closing statements to "punish" bad behaviour - there are sanctions for that - but I will use closing statements to point out bad behaviour. The close in this case was done based on the evidence available when the discussion was closed, and I believe my statement reflected that evidence as fairly as possible. That new evidence was brought up after the discussion was closed is a separate issue, and one that also concerns me. I need to discuss this (privately) with "counsel" and the other admins to work out how best to deal with this. Clearly the best interests of the project dictate that articles reflect, accurately, all available evidence but there does need to be a way to enforce arguments being made during discussions and not right after closing. TFOWR 12:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I responded to the conkers close at the BISE page to keep it separate. As to the "wikilawyering", perhaps I misunderstood. I wasn't considering the behavior of threaded responses to be wikilawyering, but it seems that it's precisely what you're referring to. In that case, yeah, there was tons of it, but, to my eyes, there was four main protagonists (not counting the sock) for this behaviour, and naming and shaming would be better than lumping everyone into the same boat. Briefly, as to the conkers close, it's impossible to present evidence (so that it's available at the time of close) if you're going to materially change the article and introduce new facts in your resolution. If I break out your resolutions I find that you've essentially ruled in favour of the argument that conkers is not traditionally played in Ireland and the colonies. Fine. But then you've created a new fact to discuss the areas of distribution where we can find conkers being played. Outside the scope of BISE. Unless your position is that this is an alternative reading of the existing text (fine), in which case nobody has had the opportunity to discuss it (not fine). --HighKing (talk) 13:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the wikilawyering was about more than the multithreaded discussions, though the claim/counter-claim is a large part of it. There was too much focus on opinion, and not enough on sound arguments backed by policy or precedent. You made four comments, for example - only the first had any real value (an opinion backed by several references): the rest repeated your opinion or made redundant analogies to challenge other editors' opinions. In one case you discounted the Lonely Planet guide, despite using it yourself as a ref. That is what I mean by wikilawyering. Anyway, as I've said at BISE - if you're unhappy with the close, I've already stated how to challenge it: take it to Black Kite or Cailil. TFOWR 14:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

In one case you discounted the Lonely Planet guide, despite using it yourself as a ref. That is what I mean by wikilawyering. That is simply untrue and extremely disingenuous of you. Lonely planet is a publisher of many different books. I referenced from a book called "British language and culture" which discusses many examples of British language and culture, and it has a section on conkers. I dismissed the "Ireland" guide because it was using an event listing to list the "Irish Conker Championships" as proof that conkers is a traditional Irish game. My comment was clear on that. --HighKing (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

HighKing, look, I'm sorry you don't agree with the one example I gave of you wikilawyering. And I'm sorry you disagree with how I closed the discussion. But I stand by my admonition that you - and all other participants - need to start making better, more coherent arguments. And I stand by my position that if you want this re-opened you're going to have to take it to Black Kite or Cailil. I'm not prepared to set a precedent for "hector TFOWR until they re-open a closed discussion". If you do want this discussion re-opened, I'd be grateful if you could move forward with it promptly - there are (tangentially) related issues which I'd like to discuss with Black Kite and Cailil, and I want to wait until you're spoken to them so I don't prejudice their decision. TFOWR 16:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR, apologies. Let's draw a line under conkers and move on. --HighKing (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries, apology accepted, similar apology extended from me! This has raised an interesting procedural issue, however, so all the pain has had some value ;-) TFOWR 17:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

A favour

I'm likely to be much less active than normal for a little while and thus not able to get to my talk page in a timely manner. Any chance you could keep an eye on it and the alternate talk page and handle any concerns over admin actions, especially the "why did you delete my blatant copyvio" threads. How you handle it I'll leave up to you. I trust you, so, as ever, I won't consider it wheel-warring if you decide to reverse my actions. I'll try to look in on ITN when I can, but my connection is dodgy so I probably won't be on as often as I'd like. Much appreciated, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, that's no problem. You've plenty of TPSs to keep me straight, so I don't think I can do too much damage! Hope the connection issues sort themselves out soon - I know from experience they're a right pain. TFOWR 07:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

BISE resolving and action taking, template question

When an editor has made the change and marked as done (which I just did with a couple of the resolved discussions) do they change the template or is it you who does that after reviewing their edits? Sorry if you've said this somewhere else already. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if I have said it elsewhere. I've been doing it, but I've no objection in principle with having other editors do it, so long as the "conclusion" parameter is accurate. Personally, I'd love to get other editors to do it ;-) I'd imagine there will be discussions, though, where the "conclusion" is lengthy and doesn't easily lend itself to a neat paraphrase, but "other editor" can always leave those ones, or ask me what the paraphrased conclusion would be. (Oh, and thanks for "done-ing [sic]" the ones you "done-ed [sic]" ;-) ) TFOWR 17:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK and WT:BISE

I haven't used User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js recently. Can you raise the issue with the editor that is using it? Lightmouse (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Will do (in fact, I think I have already - I'll need to check). Apologies for blaming this on you, I had already worked out that you weren't to blame! TFOWR 13:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Horse Cat. Vandal

Can you nab this dude for me? NLinpublic (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably not! I'm not sure what I'm looking at, or why? Regardless, WP:AIV is your best bet - unless I'm familiar with an editor (usually a serial sock-puppeteer) you'll get a far quicker and better-informed response from the relevant board - AIV in this case. TFOWR 15:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I had something else going on and didn't have time to type out a longer message. I filed a report at AIV, and the "Megafauna Man" was blocked. It just got annoying to sit there and warn him four times, then revert every edit he made AQAP. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 18:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Another question

Can someone be blocked for removing speedy templates multiple times? Saimoom created an article and I tagged it as spam shortly afterwards. He has since removed the template four times, and I have no idea where to go with it. What's the proper place? Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 18:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Article creators shouldn't remove speedy tags once, let along four times. Warn them - I think there's probably a standard template for removing speedy tags though I can't say for sure - and if they persist take it to ANI. In this case I'll have a word with them... TFOWR 18:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

...or, seeing as they'd been warned multiple times, up to and even beyond a final warning, I blocked them for edit warring. TFOWR 18:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 19:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) {{uw-speedy1}} {{uw-speedy2}} {{uw-speedy3}} {{uw-speedy4}} WP:AIV. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I note that Nolelover and other editors appear to have used these warning templates though. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    • They are on Twinkle. Should I go to AIV or ANI though? Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 20:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

      AIV. So long as they've been given a final warning you should be fine. TFOWR 20:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I really ought to check my tools more often - I see them all now in Twinkle... Oops! TFOWR 20:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

WonHwaDo

Why You deleted post about Korean Martial Art WonHwaDo? --78.60.73.85 (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It was proposed for deletion back on 15 June, and no one objected within seven days. If you want, I can restore the article, however I'd strongly recommend you work on the article - it has very few sources, and would quite likely be sent for a deletion discussion if it wasn't improved. TFOWR 20:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Troll

Westconnector (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Charles Karel Bouley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User Westconnector‎ is vandalizing the Charles Karel Bouley page. Would you please make them go away? Could be a sockpuppet, again! or just another troll. I bow to your judgement ;-) Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking into it. TFOWR 22:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Left a message. I'm not seeing anything too troubling at this point, but I'm absolutely unfamiliar with Bouley. The "homosexual activist" claim seemed incorrect, but not unduly troubling. I couldn't see anything to back up the claim that Bouley's partner had AIDS, and I feel a claim like that really should be backed by by a decent reference. The article used as a source (for the cardiac arrest claim) made no mention of it, which tends to suggest the claim isn't true. I'll keep an eye on things... TFOWR 22:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Andrew was HIV positive, he did not have aids, it was the subject of the malpractice suit. Karel is the opposite of the "Gay activist" he is not accepted generally by the gay community. Karel has said many times he is NOT a gay activist.We have already fought this battle several times on WIKI. Also this could be a sockpuppet of SRQ. If you want more history, I have a ton of it. Take care. xoxo DocOfSoc (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

GREAT message :-D DocOfSoc (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

RFC

WP:BRD allows me to make more than one edit to the article per day, even when it is subject to a 1RR limitation - discussion here - yes, no, maybe? There is no actual action required or requested just a comment for future reference. Off2riorob (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:BRD is only an essay. a 1RR restriction on an article only applies to reverts - you can edit the article normally (but be careful - an edit that reverses a previous edit - in whole or in part - counts as a revert). Disclaimer: I've not yet looked at discussion. Will do in a second. TFOWR 22:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, read the discussion. BRD isn't an exception to 1RR - am "R" between a "B" and a "D" would still be an "R" - you can't evade 1RR simply by discussing your second revert. I don't know what edits are behind the conversation, so I can't comment in detail, but reversing any part of another editor's edit can count as a revert: A "revert" in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. It can involve as little as one word. I'd be reluctant to argue that at ANI or ANEW without having more detail, however. TFOWR 22:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I happened to see this discussion. 1RR is a fairly new restriction, though up till now it is mostly imposed by Arbcom, so they should be the authorities who interpret it. Please note that the simple form of BRD does *not* break 1RR. Neither the person who makes the BOLD edit nor the person who REVERTs the bold edit has exceeded the one-revert limit. So a person who winds up reverting twice, but then appealing to BRD for his defense, has a tough case to make. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, my thinking was with the second revert - you couldn't justify that one by saying you'd been bold, and were discussing. That said, I like your comment about ArbCom - I'm more that happy to punt policy interpretation! The eye-opener for me, reading WP:3RR carefully for the first time, was exactly what constituted a revert: I'd assumed it meant "undo", "rollback", etc. Yet another thing to add to the list of things I thought I understood but probably don't ;-) TFOWR 18:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) - Thanks for commenting Ed, this is the way I would also interpret the edit restriction. BRD is not an exception to the edit restriction. If a user has made a revert on an article and another user adds a cited addition that the other user objects to for undue weight or some other such non emergency removal, the user should not remove it and claim BRD, they should open a discussion about the addition on the talkpage and attract additional comments and input. I don't think simple one revert issues would be worth referring to Arbcom, seems simple enough to me. I was on a one revert for six weeks and took it at its simplest meaning .. one revert per article per day, no exceptions except clear BLP violations and I never even reverted them , I reported them and got other users to remove them. Off2riorob (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, WP:BRD is only an essay, WP:Edit warring however is policy. 1RR only applies to edit warring, not to "reverts" in general. WP:Edit warring#What edit warring is explicitly excludes BRD from edit warring.

I have asked the arbitration committee for clarification on the issue here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: DIGWUREN -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding a BISE template

Sorry to be dense TFOWR and thanks for your helpful explanation and for adding the discussion bands under Kurt Jackson. To fulfill my duties I need to add the BISE template to the Talk:Kurt Jackson now - what exactly do I put on it please? Thanks for your help and apols - still a bit unused to some of the technical issues around here! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, this is going to sound bad because I don't actually know the answer! There are a couple of templates: {{BID}} and {{BID2}}, and I'm not sure which one to use. Leave it for now, and I'll check with Codf1977. I think it's BID2... but I'll check. TFOWR 09:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No {{BID2}} is never used by the editor - the editor {{subst:BID}} and when the page is saved with that in {{BID2}} is automatically correctly inserted. Codf1977 (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

OK - in an odd way, it's comforting to know that an admin can be as clueless about processes as me. :) I think that was a compliment. (?) In the meantime, rudderless, the ship plows onwards.... Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, it's actually pretty simple when you get the hang of it. Done now. Simple code is

{{Subst:British Isles Discuss|section=Kurt Jackson|action=insert}}

- use either "insert" or "delete". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know which BID it was! And oh yes, thanks for the heads-up on the delete vote - hadn't seen that. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Aha, but BID (which you used) or BID2? ;-) Actually, I'm past caring right now. I'll wait and see how the MfD plays out—while resisting the urge to !vote "delete, let the community deal with it instead of pushing it into a WikiProject's workgroup and forgetting about it." TFOWR 17:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Well the rudderless ship has just been accosted and ticketed for this. For future information, do we need to template for Fauna issues? I'm assuming their is not much discussion in that situation? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about this and reading through the contributions so far, the delete seems to be at least partly motivated by a desire to wake up the battles. Isn't this whole delete vote a contravention of existing ANI rulings about using BISE instead of battling at ANI, which will be the inevitable alternative? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Your input is requested

I have started an RfC on inappropriate userboxes, i.e. those that don't follow the introductory paragraph at WP:UBX:

"A userbox (commonly abbreviated as UBX) is a small colored box ... designed to appear only on a Wikipedian's user page as a communicative notice about the user, in order to directly (or even indirectly) help Wikipedians collaborate more effectively on articles."

How does a userbox about a user's own preferences in regards to what topics on Wikipedia they hate and what type of sexually explicit material they like and actively view help Wikipedians collaborate with one another? Which is the question I am raising.

This introductory paragraph over at WP:UBX contradicts WP:NOTCENSORED so I'd like you to weigh in at WT:UBX, it'll only take 5 minutes of your time. I've sent this message because the topic has not had much community input

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Fridae'sDoom (talk) at 20:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC).

Sockpuppet

There is no doubt in my mind that True Crime Reader (talk) is a sockpuppet of SRQ. Her edits at Lizzie Borden, her edit summaries are shouting " Here I am!." Her remarks are identical to those she had made at Charles Karel Bouley and the"change the name" edit are so typical of her. I am sure you will get more input on this. I am sorry to burden you with this, but when I know, I know for sure. Have missed your snappy repartee. Stay warm ;-) Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 11:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is little that is good with this edit. I'll look into it. Their understanding of WP:SURNAME doesn't match mine, either, but that's just by-the-by... TFOWR 11:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to admit, that in my interactions with and investigations of SRQ, she originally was not the problem, and was actually the one being treated wrong...what happened after that was probably a result of her original interactions. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I missed the original drama, but I have had a dig through archives since then: this ANI you raised, for example. I suspect you're probably quite right, but my concern now is the socking and sometimes poisonous behaviour by SRQ (I've received emails for example, and I suspect other editors could say the same). A fairly recent example was a threat to initiate legal action against an editor (not DocOfSoc) because they'd referred to SRQ having Asperger syndrome, a claim initially made by SRQ on their talkpage. This editor was, apparently, committing libel, and was going to have an expensive lawyer sicced on 'em. Needless to say, the deadline to remove the comment passed, and the lawyer never materialised... SRQ seems to be doing all they can to make sure that WP:OFFER is never made... TFOWR 11:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I too have received some pretty ugly e-mails from SRQ. I did see the interaction and the threat of libel for info she had put out herself. Be glad you missed the original drama, in my futile attempt to defend myself, I unintensionally stepped on a few toes, for which I have apologized. As a newcomer, I was bitten from day one and I will be the first to admit I jumped in woefuflly ignorant of the 10 billion rules and nuances of Wiki. ;-) Amazing what trivia one can learn in 3 years! Did I mention you are terrific..you are! Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Check you email please. DocOfSoc (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Already replied! Thanks! TFOWR 13:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• I've been watching this editor and have had my suspicions. One thing that concerns me is: 116 edits for TCR, yet this Wikistalk[1]. Other things concern me as well, like this[2] defensive revert which did not correct the problem with quoting the reference, yet acknowledges it in the edit summary. The extensive "reworking" of certain articles... Something strange is going on here, but I'm not 100% sure at the moment. Getting closer, though... Doc talk 18:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - There's no edit overlap, and a gap is neatly explained in this sock's activity in late July. The most recent TCR activity (reverting Crohnie left and right and bulldozing through the Lizzie Borden article) has already become a problem. I'm in the "more likely it is than isn't" camp now... Doc talk 19:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Editprotected request is being ignored, please unprotect Benoît Mandelbrot

Your assertions on Bwilkins talk are incorrect - I've had an {{editprotected}} up on the talk for 15 mins now and no-one is bothering to do it. Unprotect the article please so I can do it myself. Exxolon (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not wheel-warring with another admin. I'd recommend a spot of patience (and, ideally, keeping conversations in one place). Hell, if I wasn't trying to respond to your posts at Bwilkins' talkpage and here, I might have had a chance to look at the article. 10-15 minutes is very little time - be patient, and remember there is no deadline. TFOWR 14:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Nicknames

Shouldn't Wikipedians have nicknames? Wayne Olajuwon chat 16:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I think nicknames tend to be quite informal, so in a way Wikipedians - at least those Wikipedians that I work with - do tend to have nicknames: because I tend to be quite informal! ;-) After typing out someone's username a few times I tend to end up abbreviating it in some way. In your case I suspect I'd either call you "Wayne" or "WO" - though I suppose "Wayne" isn't really a nickname! Incidentally, my username used to be This flag once was red (talk), so I suppose you could say that "TFOWR" is my nickname! TFOWR 17:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, and I wouldn't mind you calling me WO and do you mind if I call you another nickname which is TF, The flag, or Flag?! Wayne Olajuwon chat 17:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I used to have a statement on my userpage saying I don't care what people call me. I don't have that any more, but the same applies: you can call me whatever you like! So long as it's obvious - if you and I were talking with an editor called "TFields", it might get confusing! TFOWR 17:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This is why you never see me and User:GorillaWarfare in the same place at the same time. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

LevenBoy & Triton Rocker's gripes

Howdy TFOWR. I've just pleaded with LB, for him & TR (when they're unblocked) to open a RFC on why they feel mistreated. If they don't trust us, then let them face the entire Wiki community. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, though I suspect a Request for Comment would turn into another soapbox, and a lack of success there would be seen as an even bigger conspiracy. I suspect BISE may be heading in that direction, as well ;-) (Ultimately I suspect we'll end up with something like WP:ARBMAC... I sometimes feel all BISE is doing is delaying the inevitable...) TFOWR 18:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Jeepers, I wish those guys (LB & TR) would change their approach. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)