User talk:Gimmetrow

2006-08-14 2006-10-18 2007-01-28 2007-03-14 2007-05-05 2007-06-11 2007-07-18 2007-08-20 2007-11-27 2007-12-31 2008-02-01 2008-03-01 2008-05-01 2008-06-15 2008-08-31 2008-10-22 2008-12-01 2008-12-31 2009-02-28 2009-05-31 2009-09-01 2009-12-31

Binary tree

Hi Gimmetrow. You reverted my change on "Binary Tree". Could you suggest a specific set of changes that I should make to split the article? Should I rename "Binary tree" to "Binary tree (data structure)" and then make edits? Should I leave a page "Binary tree" with definitions? Should I make "Binary Tree" a disambiguation page (and how do I do that?)? I'm an expert in the field, I just don't know how things are done on Wikipedia. (Or not done, since I put up my list of 20 error a few months ago and no one had seemed to notice.) Mdnahas (Mike) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdnahas (talk • contribs) 22:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Gsmodi undid your edit. I was actually waiting for your response. I was suggesting that if you wanted to split that article in two, you should copy each section in its entirety to one or the other new article (or both, if it belongs in both). Then prune and edit. That way, all the original content remains in the history of the two other articles, and it's easier for people (like me) who follow the page to check what has been changed. I agree there are structural issues with the binary tree page in its current form. It's a hodgepodge of related but different perspectives and definitions. I'm willing to help here. Gimmetrow 22:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible task for Gimmebot

See Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article#A_bot_for_talk_page_updates.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Tejana

Re: this

I don't speak Spanish, but I believe "Tejana" to be the feminine form of "Tejano". Since Selena was female, I would assume she was a "Tejana Pop Singer", not a "Tejano Pop Singer". Jwesley₇₈ 16:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The Selena article doesn't use the term "Tejana", and two of the refs in that article have "Tejano Star Selena" and "Tejano singer's enduring" in their titles. It refers to the music genre, not so much the singer, so I don't think it would change. Gimmetrow 19:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Kevin references

Not that I had a problem with the edit, but I'm not sure why. Could you explain here? BOVINEBOY2008 :) 19:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

There aren't many refs, so the font doesn't need to be small, and arguably shouldn't be for accessibility reasons unless necessary. I also think an argument could be made that the spirit of WP:ENGVAR could be applied to arbitrary style choices; if so, it would imply that existing style choices shouldn't be changed without a good reason. Gimmetrow 19:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! BOVINEBOY2008 :) 19:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Good catch

Good catch on this. Actually part of a much bigger vandalism problem where the IP has inserted Vanessa Bell-Gentles in dozens of articles... amusingly using "Anaclair" as part of her character name in all of them. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Stjørdal

Thank you for semiprotecting Stjørdal. But i would urge you to prolong the protection. The hoax has been going on for almost a year. --Orland (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't protect it longer because there are long periods when the article isn't edited at all, and the article has never been proteced before. The week of protection should stop the current problem. If it comes up again, I would be willing to protect for 1 or 3 months. Gimmetrow 17:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have put it on my watchlist. That should suffice. Rettetast (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Bot timing

Hi Gimmetrow. I'm only about halfway through with my FAC run (archivals so far), and I don't think I'll have time to do any promotions today. Would it be too much trouble for you to run the bot again tomorrow? If that will be a problem, then I can just put the FACClosed template on the pages when I promote tomorrow. Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gimmetrow, I've come here to ask the same thing about FLC. I've already noted which FLCs are ready for promotion, but quite a few of these have minor issues that need to be sorted first, so I'm delaying closures till tomorrow. Thanks for your understanding, and I'll work around your schedule if need be. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

FAC pr/ar

Hey, Gimme, long time no talk. See here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Almost done <whew> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Done! I think Karanacs is going to hold off now til Thursday. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Gimme; I had to do something about the backlog, I appreciate you botifying right away. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Gimme, I'm only halfway through ... unsure if I'll be done by 0 UTC, but I'm working ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Done! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

GimmeBot mistake?

Not sure what happened here. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer reviews and Article History template

Hi Gimmetrow, since you know a lot about the article history template I wanted to ask if you thought it would be OK for a bot (perhaps Gimmebot?) to add peer reviews to the article history. PeerReviewBot currently archives peer reviews, but does this by just modifying {{peer review}} to {{oldpeerreview}}. CBM (Carl), who runs PeerReviewBot, is busy and not able to modify it to do this. Before making a bot request, I thought we'd ask you and have also asked SandyGeorgia. FYI, TonyTheTiger originally raised this issue, which I am in favor of. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

PS If this is too much, I just wanted this to be a heads up before making a bot request. Thanks for all you do here, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I used to merge old peer review templates into AH, so I have the scripts to do it, but I stopped for (among other reasons) lack of available time. Gimmetrow 12:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and I understand about being busy. Just to be sure, if someone else could make or adapt a bot to do this, you could provide them with the scripts? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Holy guacamole

What happened to the articlehistory error cat? It's gone bonkers ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Both Dabomb and I posted hours ago to the guy who made the changes that seem to have prompted this. From his contribs I would guess it will be at least several more hours before he's online. Maralia (talk) 06:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

FA tools

Gimme, are you able to implement this? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It should be {{urlencode:{{{1|{{SUBPAGENAME}}}}} }}, anchor encode is simply URL encode with the % replace with "." and use SUBPAGENAME without the extra E. — Dispenser 18:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Since the url is used within a link, spaces in the page name need to be converted to underscores. In this case, '+' doesn't seem to work. Gimmetrow 20:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

localurl seems to handle both urlencoding and converting spaces to underscores. Its output is /wiki/Title_with_underscores so the dashboard link should be [http://wikidashboard.parc.com{{localurl:{{{1|{{SUBPAGENAME}}}}} }} dashboard]. By the way, thanks for keeping the Heraldry portal updated! Dr pda (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Would work for all except if you're on the secure server. But they're doing a full proxy of the site, so we could also use /w/index.php?title=. — Dispenser 21:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, except you're still left with the problem of spaces in the title. However according to mw:Help:Magic words you can now specify a parameter to {{PAGENAMEE}} and its variants, which means you can use this to do the urlencoding and replacing of spaces by underscores. I believe [http://wikidashboard.parc.com/wiki/{{PAGENAMEE:{{{1|{{SUBPAGENAME}}}}} }} dashboard] should work on both the secure and normal server. Dr pda (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well you would use urlencode:, but I like your method better and it works in all the cases I've tested. — Dispenser 01:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Your behavior warrants a complaint

I have explained in detail in Rachael Ray that the sources are not reliable. In over a month, you made no answer to my last statement on the discussion page.[1] You have again replaced the information that is not substantiated by reliable sources, giving as reasons

"You've provided no new arguments since the last time; stop removing this"[2] and "undid removal of sourced content" [3].

You don't seem to understand the difference between a reference, and a reliable reference.

I'm certainly considering bringing this up as an unjustified edit war on your part. Do you want to answer on the discussion page, or before administrators? Piano non troppo (talk) 11:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Bring up what you will. The notice from the dictionary is notable, and your removal of notable, referenced material is inappropriate. You have been reverted by other editors in the past. And yes, you have provided no new arguments. Gimmetrow 11:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The dictionary is notable, of course. That some single representative from the dictionary bestows an award for uncertain reasons is not proof of anything, except perhaps a desire for publicity.

My percentage of reverts stands at .9%, yours is 4.9%. I.e., five times lower than your own. Piano non troppo (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Template help

Gimme, are you able to help me sort this? Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Venezuela articles by quality statistics does not show the two FAs, El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda and Military career of Hugo Chávez. I suspect it's a problem in {{WP_Venezuela}}, and it could be affecting more articles than the two FAs, the only ones I happened to notice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

{{WP Venezuela}} isn't set up for project ratings. It looks like ratings come from {{WikiProject South America}}, eg {{WikiProject South America|class=FA|Venezuela=yes|Venezuela-importance=mid}}. See Talk:Gran Colombia, for instance. 16:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Kristin Adams

I'm really sorry to revert the article. I wished to fix Reflist template to small size fonts in reference links of the article. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 02:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Updating articlehistory and FAC nom templates

Gimmetrow,

It seems that for the past few days the bot has been a bit delayed in removing {{fac}} from failed noms and updating articlehistory. Anyway, just so you know, at this article I added a peer review request after the FAC was archived but before the bot has done its thing, and I'm not sure if that extra template will cause the bot any problems. If there is anything I should do to keep from making a bot error, feel free to let me know. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, it looks like the bot just did it without a hitch. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Olivia Munn DOB

I see you reverted my edits to Munn's article and I would just like to raise a few points. First, if you're going to revert something, it would be helpful not to revert all the edits made (i.e., it made little sense to revert my wikifying a few terms in the lead). Second, there seems to be a double-standard in your view of source reliability. You reject IMDb as unreliable (which I agree with), yet allow it to be used for other biographical info, then you reject Askmen.com as unreliable, but allow it too to be used for other info. I'm trying to assume good faith here in your effort to comply with WP:RS and WP:V, but again, it does look like you're editing with a double-standard leading you to simply reject what anyone offers. That said, sourcing a DOB is tough, and many well-sourced articles - from Brad Pitt to Barack Obama - don't source it, so if a non-IMDb or non-blatantly-unreliable source is offered, it should be seen as a plus for the article IMO. So is Askmen.com truly reliable? It's been brought up before and the responding admin here made a simple and effective case for keeping the site for sourcing DOBs, and since then, other cases of Askmen's reliability defaulted in favor of what that admin decided.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 15:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I intentionally removed the links to ordinary words "American" "actress" and "model". Most articles don't link common terms and WP:Linking says to "avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia". The seeming "double standard" for the birthdate is due to contrary and conflicting sources, like [4], which appears to be a genuine page (it's linked from the page accepted as official in the article here), but which cannot be fully trusted either. Other info doesn't appear to be subject to conflicting sources, so it's not really "contentious". Finally, most articles try to avoid putting the ref definitions in the infobox or lead, if the ref is used elsewhere. Gimmetrow 17:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Askmen versus Twitter. That's problematic. It seems though that Munn does a fair bit of Q-and-A on her official site. If she answered the question of her DOB there, I suppose that could work for WP:V purposes.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 00:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• To bring this up again... I see you've changed the DOB and added a hidden text link to a court record search engine. Unfortunately, Munn's name returned no results when I tried verifying your change and I'm somewhat skeptical about using such a site for sourcing info. Can you provide a more specific link or a screencap of what you found?  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 01:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • See talk page of article. Gimmetrow 13:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Tonalone

You should check the rest of his contribs. Looks like book burning campaing legitimized by the ban of Haiduc. I have deleted a number of Haiduc's contribs myself on sourcing and POV concerns, but Tonalone's actions seem to be of WP:IDONTLIKEIT variety. Another example [5]. Pcap ping 12:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Genres

If I was feeling more boldy, I do believe I'd start an RfC about doing away with genres in infoboxes entirely. Only way to solve the problem. Unfortunately, I do believe I'd be skinned alive by the more vociferous pro-genre editors that are running around, and I just don't care to deal with it. :P — Huntster (t @ c) 04:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If you check the history of the infobox, you might find that the genre field was originally added with little or no discussion. It was removed for a while, but there was an outcry, and ultimately no "consensus" to remove it, so in wiki bureaucracy, the lack of consensus defaulted to keep. People love to fill a perceived void. Gimmetrow 04:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I know. Unfortunate. I mean, it's almost impossible these days to properly define a genre. "Pop country", "Piano rock"? Bizarre stuff. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Protecting Hades

Thank you for protecting Hades: you've given the grown-ups a six-month respite.--Wetman (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Micronation

Sorry, I was looking at the wrong source and you are correct that it is a US gov source. But the source does not appear to support the claim about the "founder", etc. See my edit summary. But maybe I made a mistake again, or am missing something where it is sourced elsewhere. It looks like an alert that this bank is not recognized by the US, but has a US mailing address.

Other sources: Asia Times, CBS News, ISOC. Probably more. Gimmetrow 01:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ice hockey at the Olympic Games

In response to the comment in your edit summary here, I added the breaking spaces in the table to make it narrower and thus easier to read (especially on smaller screens). There is code in the table to make the columns only 20px wide, but the sortability icons counteract that. So, adding the br forces the icons down into the next row and makes the entire table quite a bit narrower. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Disney Producer

The error in his title is probably another glaring indicator that the person using the account is not, and does not represent, who he claims to be. —C.Fred (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Disable own talk page?

Hi~! Per this comment, could you please disable the IP's ability (72.159.154.119 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS)) to edit his/her talk page as we can do better without such silly behaviour. Cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 19:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

For me, one non-insulting comment doesn't seem worth protecting the page over. Gimmetrow 13:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Selena? Only child?

Per Selena Gomez, when I click on the source (tried twice already), I receive: "The article you requested could not be loaded. Either the content has been removed or the request is invalid.". ★Dasani★ 05:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're saying that all content backed up by URLs should be removed whenever the URL dies, then consider the consequences of such a practice. Articles would regularly have valid info removed simply because a particular link happened to be dead at that time. (I have had dead links come back to life, though I have no idea if that will happen here.) Such removals would bias articles to info currently available on the web, and if that's what you're going to do, then every article might as well be replaced by a link to a google search. Ironically, such removals would actually discourage content being sourced to URLs, because any particular URL may go dead, even though the info may be found in some other source.

In this case, the url is for convenience - the article exists independent of any specific url, and was probably even in a print source at one point. The ref has enough bibliographical information that you could still even find the article online. It supports the sentence in question. Gimmetrow 19:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

Has GimmeBot started maintaining Category:Good articles without an oldid again? That would be quite a relief. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Not maintaining it. 03:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Please provide Justification

Hi, you have removed my edit from Asif Ali Zardari. Can you please provide some sound justification for this? i.e., why did you completely remove the edit when you could have edited out/in anything to your liking? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eskeptik (talk • contribs) 15:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP, particularly WP:GRAPEVINE - negative content, referenced only to a wiki. Gimmetrow 16:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see below references:

1. LAHORE: Drug case against Asif Zardari adjourned, Dawn, 22 Jun 2003 2. LAHORE: Smuggling case taken up against Zardari, Dawn, 21 Sep 2003

Dawn is the biggest daily English newspaper of Pakistan. In Pakistan it is considered the most authentic source of News. However, since you regard this as unauthentic, kindly either remove all of the other references from the article which point to Dawn as source or refrain from editing articles from Pakistan, as you do not have relevant background and knowledge in the area. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eskeptik (talk • contribs) 12:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

[6] The content in question was referenced to http://www.wikimir.com, a wiki. Gimmetrow 12:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Kindly, next time clearly CLARIFY the reason for removing an edit. So you claim that you removed the entire edit only because it was referenced to a wiki. So this means, if a true and authentic account is given on any wikipedia article, you will remove it only because it is referenced to a wiki/un-authentic source, rather than asking for more citations or SEARCHING for YOURSELF on the INTERNET to verify/un-verify a piece of information/knowledge. If this is the case then please let me know so that I can provide you some other articles where you can PROUDLY carrying out your REMOVING of EDITS.

PS. FYI, the reference was http://www.wikimir.com/asif-ali-zardari Asif Ali Zardari Biography on WikiMir - source of original citation What this means is that the original source has been cited on the page listed in reference and a reader can locate the source if intended. This is done when the original source cannot be found by someone for any reason.

I will again repeat, since you have no knowledge and information regarding Pakistan, kindly refrain from editing Pakistani articles. As, this information related to Zardari is a common knowledge throughout Pakistan, which you PROUDLY claimed as remove-worthy.

In case if you do not know, wikipedia has a no-follow scheme, so the websites referenced do not gain anything from links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eskeptik (talk • contribs) 15:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I pointed you to WP:GRAPEVINE, which says: "Remove any contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies on self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability." This was contentious material cited to a source which does not comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you want to add material based on proper, reliable sources, and make sure the material accurately reflects those sources, please do so. Gimmetrow 17:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for again re-clarifying by re-peating the same argument. I guess, it all comes down to the meaning of ""contentious"". I will reproduce it from wikitionary. Marked by heated arguments or controversy Given to struggling with others out of jealousy or discord

Now, the edit which I wrote did not, i repeat DID NOT include any controversial information. In fact, it included information which is widely known throughout Pakistan. In such a case, your argument holds no grounds. Unless you think that this information of "ZARDARI being a drugs SMUGGLER" is controversial, then please explicitly say so, so that I stop this discussion, and hold you as the most informative person on Pakistan's politics than entire Pakistani nation. Regards.Eskeptik (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Drug smuggling is a crime. Saying someone is a criminal is, to most people, controversial, and so needs reliable sources. Gimmetrow 01:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Unlike I wrote earlier, you do not seem to know anything about Pakistan and yet you involve yourself with editing numerous articles from Pakistan. Anyways, Zardari is a drugs dealer, as charged. It was by NRO that his chargesheet was wiped clean. This does not mean that the entire criminal history has to be wiped out of history as well or suddenly becomes "controversial" as described by you. I would again kindly request you to refrain from editing articles from Pakistan, as you seem to have no knowledge in this area. Or, you can gain some knowledge by reading news from Pakistan and books/articles on its history and news archives. Regards. Eskeptik (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You are required by Wikipedia policy to provide reliable sources for controversial claims, and to accurately reflect those sources. Your "sources" now are news reports of a trial in progress. So, what was the result of that trial? Did it convict? Should any of this be titled "Professional Career"? You need to read WP:NPOV immediately. Gimmetrow 10:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The news reports are not of trial in progress. The trial ended in 2007 because of NRO. As I directed you earlier, you need to read about National Reconciliation Ordinance. As a result of NRO, an amnesty was provided to zardari and thus he was not given sentence for his drugs smuggling. However, one of his associates whose name was not on NRO went on with the trial and was jailed. YOU REALLY NEED TO READ ABOUT PAKISTAN. I find it quite strange that "some people" from USA really want to make sure specific information about some Pakistani people never make it onto wikipeida, specially the ones who were brought into power after the NRO deal brokered by USA, which granted amnesty to Pakistan's biggest criminals and drug lords.

I will repeat that YOU REALLY NEED TO READ A LOT ABOUT PAKISTAN, or otherwise refrain from editing articles from this country (or may be you really know a lot about Pakistan and that is why you are trying your best to keep some information off wikipedia - in this case your motives are clear). Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eskeptik (talk • contribs) 12:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You need to stop telling me what to do, and stop insinuating what I know or don't know or what my motives may be. It is my view that the way your edit was phrased does not comply with Wikipedia policy, nor does the way your edit is currently phrased. Gimmetrow 15:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with my current edit and how does it "not comply" with wikipedia policy. Please enlighten me.Eskeptik (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

[7] It insinuates. It is also unsourced. Gimmetrow 16:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

FAC protected

Gimme, Collectonian has a department store full of socks after him, so Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Fox and the Hound (novel)/archive1 is protected; I don't know if that means you have to unprotect before botification? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

See User_talk:Dabomb87#Storm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Soliciting opinions

Greetings, Gimmetrow. It has occurred to me that you have done some work on {{ArticleHistory}}, so you might want to have a look at the discussion here (if it's too long for you, I think the last post summarises the whole satisfactorily). I am not sure whether there is sufficient consensus for any action to be taken (or, in case that there isn't, whether I should advertise the discussion to a wider audience, as it has kind of stalled), but you might wish to comment there regardless. Waltham, The Duke of 05:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're not interested, I can just paste an {{editprotected}} and see what happens. The problem is that specific instructions are usually required, and I am not sure I can provide them. Waltham, The Duke of 21:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Botifying FAR

That was very timely, thanks. If you could get your bot to recognize {{FARClosed}} and remove it while archiving, that would be great. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Administrative action

It is entirely inappropriate for you to use or threaten "administrative decision" in reference to an editing dispute in which you are taking part. It is not appropriate for you to declare deadlines, or set standards, as if you were entitled to engage in a dispute, and then begin issuing orders to another participant in the dispute. If you wish to complain about my actions, you are obliged to do so by asking for comment or in the incidents page, for an uninvolved administrator's opinion. Any use of admin tools connected with an editing dispute you are engaged in is entirely improper. I ask you to immediately retract your threat. [8]. Tb (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No. I was uninvolved in this dispute and decided the tags were disruptive. Gimmetrow 21:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

What is "this dispute" other than exactly your view that the tags shouldn't be there? How is this anything other than a content dispute? How is it that you came to even be aware of it? Tb (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Fact-bombing with 58 [cn] tags is disruptive, and no article should be left in a perpetual state of having 58 [cn] tags, or 38 for that matter. Gimmetrow 22:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

So I'm not really interested in debating whether what some anonymous editor did nine months ago was or was not disruptive. I dislike bulk changes that don't look at details wherever they occur. I've now looked at the ones on Dominican Order, and found that many were of uncontroversial facts, some were duplicative, and many were legitimate tags asking for citations for some rather overwrought claims. I agree completely that articles should not be left in a perpetual state of having dozens of [cn] tags. There are in fact only three things which should be done: remove unnecessary tags (which can only be determined by examining them individually), adding references (which again, requires individual examination), or removing unsourced material from the article. I am distressed that you were not willing to do any of those constructive ways of removing the tags, and opted for the bulk unthinking "drop them all" method. Right now, I've removed the ones that I thought were unnecessary, added references where I had them at hand and could verify information, and explained why the remainder I left--individually--were in my opinion not unnecessary tags. If you have no individual comments to make about any of those, and no interest yourself in finding sources, then two options remain: leave the tags in the hope that other editors may contribute adequate references, or delete the unsourced material from the article. Since the tags have been there for nine months without other editors dealing with it, I am inclined to think that it is unlikely anyone will come in and add sources. There are thus two options here; which do you think is best? Tb (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is your reinstalling of the tags. You could have simply not done that, and then started discussing the article. So, if you were to look through the history, you would find that the text in the "history" section is a somewhat edited version from the "1913" Catholic Encyclopedia. That is in public domain so a similar or identical text is not a copyright violation. The text of the CE article is linked at the bottom of the wiki article. I wouldn't be surprised if the history text was added to the Wiki years ago, before inline citations were routine, when it was common to simply list sources at the bottom of the page. Anyway, if you search for certain peculiar phrasings, like "genuine renaissance", you will tend to find them in that article. A 100-year old document from a specific point of view is going to need some editing - and that's an understatement - but it doesn't merit fact bombing as if the source were nowhere to be found. Gimmetrow 01:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems you are assuming things were from the Catholic Encyclopedia which, for all I could determine, most certainly were not. Once again, I don't care at all about what happened nine months ago. What I object to is all mass edits without concern for the details. That someone made a mass-edit nine months ago does not make it OK for you to do the same. I was simply concerned to maintain the status quo, as it existed for nine months, rather than have you decree as imperiously as you did that your admin bits apparently trump all others in all content disputes. Shame on you. You got your way, but I don't expect you to see that you did so quite improperly. Tb (talk) 04:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Need bot processing

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Texas A&M Aggies head football coaches/archive1 needs to be botified (diff); seems that whitespace in the link prevented GimmeBot from reading it. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Sat pr/ar

Hi, Gimme; I probably won't make 0 UTC tonight, but I will promote later Sat night or early Sunday. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note...

...that IPs should typically be blocked for up to a year, but not longer unless they are open proxies. I have changed some blocks that appeared in Wikipedia:Database reports/Unusually long IP blocks. Thanks, –xeno^talk 15:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:Blocking IP addresses#Block lengths: "In extreme cases, consider long-term blocks over a period of months or years instead." 19:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, someone pointed that out to me and it appears I've never noticed that bit. There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Blocking IP addresses#IP block length if you wish to participate.. –xeno^talk 13:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Sat pr

Hey, Gimme, done archiving, have only five articles to check for promoting, won't make 0 UTC, but should be done in a few hours. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Blake Lively

Hello, great work on the page. Thank you, I was just about to look for places to mention what a disaster it was looking like. Cheers. Chimpionspeak (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

James Oglethorpe move-protection: reason?

Hello. I asked on NawlinWiki's talk page why this page is move-protected and that I don't see a reason for it to be, since I do not see any evidence of page-move vandalism or moving disputes. Would you like to clarify why you move-protected it? If you decide to remove it, then please let me know. Thanks! Schfifty3 04:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Can't recall. Did you want to move the article? Gimmetrow 10:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Not move it, but I don't see a reason to limit it to admins because it has no move vandalism history and because it doesn't appear to be enormously high profile. See this post on my talk page for a better explanation.

P.S. I was having a dream where you replied to this comment and said that a Harry Potter page linked to this page, thus move-protecting this article from Grawp vandalism. :-) Schfifty3 13:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello? Did you decide whether or not to remove the move-protection? This is a request, remember. Schfifty3 20:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If you're not interested in moving the article, what does it matter? Gimmetrow 22:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

GimmeBot

The bot was just resurrected, I noticed: thank you! It is as always very useful and without it WP:GA rapidly deteriorates. Ucucha 02:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. It's not until you do the work yourself that you realize how useful this bot is. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"World" certifications

99% of the time these come from the United World Chart, which is one of the founding members of WP:BADCHARTS. As for Jonhmayer-fã in general, I've come to the conclusion that he is a well-intentioned Brazilian editor that is floundering a bit in English Wikipedia. Decodet left one message in Portuguese for me, and if you start to get the feeling that you just aren't being understood, I've found Decodet to be useful in dealing with this kind of problem.—Kww(talk) 16:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Hi. Thanks for reverting my edit in this article! I mean it. I didn't know (and I have just discovered) that there was no consensus on the format of references (Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation templates and tools, Template:Reflist#Font size). I will now refrain from such edits. Cheers, --Edcolins (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Melody Reflist

Ok, I understand you reverting my edits based on the typography issue, but why do you also insist on using <references /> instead of {{reflist}}, especially when {{reflist}} was already being used? Sorafune +1 19:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It was only being used because you changed it [9]. Per the spirit of WP:RETAIN, keep the style of the first major contributor unless there are strong reasons for changing it. 00:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hadn't noticed that, but still irrelevant to your point because WP:RETAIN has absolutely nothing to do with things like ref templates. The section talks about using different formatting and variations of English, such as December 5 vs. 5 December, color vs. colour, and Coldplay are vs. Coldplay is. With that being said, I believe that the reflist template provides a level of consistency throughout Wikipedia. As far as in can tell, every single featured article and good article uses {{reflist}} over <references />, no matter what it used at first, and no matter how large or small the references section is. In fact, {{reflist}} actually is <references />, but with more formatting and options. Sorafune +1 00:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It has more to do with arbitrary style decisions than the guidelines you invoked to remove a styled stage name had to do with that. When an article already has a decided style on some point, maybe just leave it alone when someone objects. Gimmetrow 00:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the stage name? When did we start talking about that again? Sorafune +1 00:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Very well. Per lack, of response you have accepted that WP:RETAIN requires that in arbitrary style choices, you are not to change the established style of the article. Thank you. Gimmetrow 00:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You cannot claim that I haven't made a response when my response is just a few lines above this. Again, WP:RETAIN only applies to variations of English. Sorafune +1 00:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

By changing topic you abdicated discussion. Therefore this issue is resolved. WP:RETAIN exists to prevent endless changes from one arbitrary style to another back and forth. It is worded specifically for language varieties, but the spirit of WP:RETAIN applies to all arbitrary style decisions. Very very few arbitrary style decisions have enough general approval to form a "level of consistency", and, indeed, your argument specifically about reflist is explicitly rejected. Template:Reflist#Font_size: "Note that there is no consensus that a small font size should always be used for references". I am, however, open to discussing your inappropriate removal of content from articles. Gimmetrow 01:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Where are you getting these crazy laws of discussion? I did not abdicate the discussion. You started talking about the "stage name" and I wanted to know why in the world you were trying to change the subject. You still cannot use WP:RETAIN as an argument because it does not apply. As far as I can tell, every single featured and good article uses reflist, and I can easily assume that a good amount of them used <references /> before. But if it all depends on what is best for the article, then tell me, why do you think it would be better to use <references /> for Melody (Japanese singer)? ... I'm not open to discussing that because there was absolutely nothing I removed. Sorafune +1 01:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Font size: 100% is more accessible to people with vision issues, and should therefore be the default unless balanced by other factors like a lot of notes (typical of FAs). So, you're saying that at no point did you remove "melody." from the article? Gimmetrow 01:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking about "melody." because I thought we were over that, and this discussion isn't about that. So... if we need to make articles accessible for people with vision issues, why are almost all articles, including all featured and good articles, using {{reflist}}? Since most of them have many references, they should be the ones using <references />, right? Sorafune +1 01:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"...balanced by other factors". But that is just the background reason. The issue in my first response above is to avoid flipflopping arbitrary style decisions. Gimmetrow 11:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's put that to the test. Sorafune +1 17:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Just remove it

Thanks, I had just googled it and found nothing but you beat me to it. Off2riorob (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Stop Vandalizing Jinnah's Article

I have seen you repeatedly distorting facts on Muhammed Ali Jinnah's article, and re-editing his referenced Shia Islam to Sunni Islam or by putting idiotic sentences like, "may be he converted to this of that".....are you insane? Or you simply can't resist facts regarding Shia Personalities? Or do you have a personal grudge against Shias? Stop editing biased references in regard of Jinnah being a Sunni. Or i might contact the admin for you repeatedly vandalizing. Paki90 (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Due to your continual removal of sourced content and due to repeated vandalism, I have notified WP:ANI#User:Gimmetrow Paki90 (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Dates on Jinnah's article

Could you explain why you consider the month/day format for the dates to be "established" when the day/month format is used throughout all other South Asian articles and nearly all articles not from the Americas? Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

MOS:DATE#Retaining_the_existing_format. Could you explain [10]? What needs to be revised each year? Gimmetrow 19:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure to be honest. For some odd reason I thought we would need to change his age every year as if he was still alive. Sorry, that was a mind lapse. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work on Rasputin's Penis

I don't know why people keep vandalizing such a scholarly article, but thank you for keeping it free of vandalism. 68.244.84.52 (talk) 08:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Alternate?

User:Gimmetoo claims to be an "alternate" of you. If that's indeed another user name you edit under, could you please confirm it, for example by redirecting his user page to yours? Huon (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

GA v FA starring

Now that GAs have been given their own green star, can the bot be updated to check for and remove the GA symbol when adding the FA symbol on newly promoted FAs that were previously GA. At the moment, this is happening, creating a green-and-yellow hybrid star. Thanks! – iridescent 11:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Michelle Thomas

Since you had placed a semi-protection on the wiki in February, I thought you might like to weigh in on something over at Michelle Thomas. I have found original sources from the New York Times, People magazine, Jet magazine, Entertainment weekly, and a website with an "In Remembrance" that has comments from Ms. Thomas' mother. All of these state that she was 30 years of age when she passed away, not 29. The point of contention within the article is whether or not she was born in 1968 or 1969. It would seem to me that original materials from Jet, People, EW, and the NYT all satisfy reliable source but another editor does not seem to agree and is citing re-typed/reproduced text sources. The debate is over these reproduced texts that claim she was 29, not 30. It should also be noted that re-typed copies of her Associated Press obituary are readily available (albeit in the same sort of second had method) stating that her age at the time of her death was 30. It's my belief that the original source materials from the NYT, People, Jet, and EW should be given more weight. Thoughts? Erikeltic ^(Talk) 15:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Former GA now a redirect

Gimme, I don't know how to fix AH to reflect an old GA that is now a redirect? [11] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

FAC June 25

Gimme, I'm not going to be able to get to FAC until much later tonight, after 0 UTC. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Arf. I'm so tired, I thought it was Saturday :) I've got a couple pending to check on tomorrow-- only realized it wasn't Saturday because you hadn't archive WP:GO! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Gimmebot

Was gimmebot ever meant to add Article History template to the page after every peer review, good article review, etc? Because if not, it seems like a useful thing to be done. take for example Bronx High School of Science it has had both a peer review and good article review. --Iankap99 (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Bot processing needed

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008/archive2 (diff) Dabomb87 (talk) 03:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Another one, here (weird to have two missing the space in one month!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Also this one. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Bannerissue2.png missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Bannerissue2.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Bot question

Hi Gimmetrow, I hope I can bother you with a question, as you're the only bot operator with whom I can even begin to pretend to be vaguely familiar. What would be the appropriate forum to bring up concerns about a bot's actions when the owner has indicated a need for discussion before implementing any change? Эlcobbola _talk 16:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Halle Berry

Huh? I don't much care about all the 'Retrieved' vs 'Accessed', but you also undid some useful additions of cite templates, too. I'm going to go re-do those by hand. The existing style is not fixed. Jack Merridew 05:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Gimmetoo

So, is User:Gimmetoo really you? Seems to be claiming so, on teh user page. Jack Merridew 18:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I blocked them indef for now. If it is actually you, feel free to unblock. NW (Talk) 23:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

FAC

Gimme, Karanacs is on a short break for personal matters, and I've got some upcoming travel, so I probably won't be able to stick to a Tuesday, Saturday schedule over the next ten days-- I'll likely have to pr/ar in small batches, as I'm able.

On a side note, I'm disgusted at the typical AN/I three-ring circus, and how much time people invest into just bothering each other, while no one can be bothered with real matters that affect articles. It seems that admins just like to fight with other admins, but the rest of us suckers don't matter, nor do articles, nor NPOV.

Oh, well ! And be well :)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Replacement for Wolterbot

Is it difficult for you to replace the late Wolterbot with a bot that goes through the FAs and count how many cleanup categories are also listed at the bottom to update Wikipedia:Featured articles/Cleanup listing? It doesn't seem as though this would be technically challenging YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

...Baby One More Time

Hi Gimmetrow. May I suggest unprotection of ...Baby One More Time? It appears that the edits leading up to the imposition of protection were questionable, but did not rise to WP:Vandalism (assuming good faith, it appears to me difficult to consider the edits deliberately unconstructive). Regardless, perhaps sufficient time has passed to determine whether the reasons precipitating the protection has abated? Thanks very much. --Bsherr (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Two things

An issue I haven't had time to sort at User talk:Dana boomer#FFA, and a new schedule at User talk:Karanacs#FYI. I hope you're well! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

FLC mixup

Hi Gimme, there was a minor mishap with FLC promotions today. Basically, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Family Guy episodes/archive1 needs to be botified[12]. Thanks as always, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

T:AH

Is it possible to request that Gimmebot come by and clean up a talk page with a bunch of old PRs (La Masia)?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Good Article statistics update

Hi, could you give me an idea of what would be the best way to update the Good Article statistics under the new system? Lampman (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll use the number for this month of 10,234. If there's no update to Wikipedia:Good articles/Arts at the end of the month, I guess I can use the latest update and compare it to the history of Wikipedia:Good articles/recent to see how many additions have been made in the meantime. Lampman (talk) 11:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Hey, I know your efforts are often overlooked and taken for granted—the curse of the quiet contributor. But, many of us know that our little corners of Wikipedia would be a freaking mess without you. So, thanks. Andy Walsh (talk) 05:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you think you're doing?

Please explain why you unblocked The Fat Man Who Never Came Back, when there was clearly no consensus to do so, and a wide-spread support by other admins on his talk page for him to remain blocked. Your unblock came out of nowhere, with the reasoning "Indef reduced to time served after no comment from blocking admin in 24 hours". Now I may be mistaken, but I don't believe we require blocking administrators to comment every 24 hours on their indefinite blocks for them to remain. Please undo or explain your unblocking, and next time you decide to undo a block, make sure you follow Wikipedia:WHEEL#Reversing_another_admin.27s_action. This unblock appears to me to be unreasonable, and you fail to give any real arguments as to why the user should be unblocked. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I also apologise for my snappish tone in my above comment, I'm in a hurry at the moment - I'll be available to comment again tomorrow morning. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Good move, Gimme; we can't have the kind of double standard evidenced in other cases, and he hasn't harmed anything. In fact, quite the opposite-- I know many users who won't stick around precisely because of the double standard, and this is an excellent case. There can't be one set of rules for TFM, and another for more disruptive users. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read the link that you posted. Discussion was attempted on the blocking admin's talk page, but there was no reply in > 24 hours, and the blocking admin edited over 12 hours ago. Are you saying that admins may hold a block "hostage" by simply refusing to discuss it? Gimmetrow (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

And after TFM responded adequately to NYB's questions. Nakon's talk, and I don't see consensus for a block here (I do see lots of colorful sigs, though). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

@Sandy Your comments on other user's signatures are starting to get disruptive. You can't discredit other user's opinions based on the colour of their sig. Similarly you can't judge their maturity from that either. Besides, maybe you should be dealing with your own maturity issues before criticising others. Your argument of "double standards" is rather childish: the correct reponse to somebody (e.g. an admin) getting away with abuse, is to deal with that admin. It is not to then declare a free for all, just because one editor gets away with something, doesn't mean we should allow all to do so. Also, your fooling around on TFM's talk page while he was blocked didn't strike me as particularly mature. The block which was undone was clearly for disruption by TFM on his talk page. So that ANI thread is not all that relevant, just as the block that was undone was not Nakon's block, it was Jac16888's, so your other link too, is irrelevant. @Gimmetrow Thanks for linking to that, I missed it due to your use of an alternate account. However, considering the number of unblock requests, and administrators who endorsed the block on TFM's talk page, it is inappropriate to then go and unblock without discussion. By denying the unblock requests, those admins essentially also became responsible for the block. So you should have also discussed with us. Besides, unblocking a user simply because the administrator who blocked has not responded to a message about the block for 24 hours is not enough per se justify unblocking. You also need to explain why the block itself is inappropriate. Especially since your message at Jac's talking page has already been addressed by multiple admins. Complaining about the block being held hostage is hypocritical - you are just as responsible as Jac for not discussing this - and it is now you who is holding the block/unblock "hostage", as it's very difficult to get a reversion of an admin action reverted. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

good grief, only an admin could think he's going to lecture me on two other editors' talk pages and expect me to read it. Please see WP:SIG, and I invite you to sit down and read through the ENTIRE WP:FAC page, top to bottom, with the aim of making good and important decisions, and then lecture me about sigs that don't comply with WP:SIG. Now, grab a clue stick if you can find one nearby, catch up on just how well RFC deals with admin abuse, catch up on the double standard applied to far more disruptive editors than TFM has ever thought of being, and if you want to warn me for disruption, go slap a template on my talk page and leave Gimme alone. I advise you, and all fellow members of the upper caste, to try to stay abreast of Wiki affairs as I do. Good-bye. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Brad, presumably in his capacity as Arbcom's ambassador to the human race, has posted to TFM's talk since the block was lifted, so Arbcom are obviously aware of the situation. If TFM is a Danger To The Purity Of The Wiki, they're more than capable of issuing an ex cathedra ruling and sending him off to spend more time with his family. Otherwise, I respectfully suggest that indefinitely blocking someone for "disruption to their own talk page", let alone spending time arguing about it, is one of the more pointless things you or anybody else could be doing. – iridescent 11:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Responded to you both down below, in my 15:30 message - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC).

Disruptive edits from this person have occurred repeatedly over the past several months with several accounts in a manner that is pure trolling. I see little justification for allowing him to continue editing. The reason that I did not make the link in September was because he said that he had privacy concerns about using TFM account. Now that he has returned to this account the full editing record needs to be taken into consideration. I see no indication that you did that when you unblocked his account.

And since TFM made recent disruptive edits at the Reference desk, I was surprised to see that you encouraged him to continue editing there without at least a caution to him not to edit war.

Could you please go back to TFMs talk page, and fix this situation by acknowledging the true disruptive nature of the problem, so that TFM understands that his continued trolling will not be tolerated any longer. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Come on, people, let's not argue. Can I have, like, a trolling "allowance" where I can perform mostly (let's say 93%) innocuous edits? Zero tolerance laws have always struck me as draconian. Besides, my family is in town, and I honestly won't have ANY TIME for trolling on this site, Facebook, Yahoo! Answers, Youtube or Formspring until next Wednesday at the earliest; so that gives everyone plenty of time to think about what's to be done with TFM. If I resume my trolling on November 17th, you are all free to block me AGAIN. OK BYE.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I can be bribed: if you want my defense, you must link me to your Yahoo! Answers trolling. I need good cheer. In exchange, I'll send you some awesome Youtubes that you can use to educate your girlfriends. (Oh, and don't forget to ask your brother about "tuki, tuki"; I humbly await your response.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

As the kids say, HELL to the NO! If you guys think I'm an asshole now, if you were read some of that stuff, not even SandyGeorgia would continue to defend my antics. Oh and my brother says, what's Tuki Tuki? He doesn't know what that is.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

My condolences to your brother; you owe me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

There are certain things I wish I could un-watch. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry! That was all Youtube and Google coughed up-- and it wasn't particularly spot on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Harumph, must I do everything myself? Tuki, tuki (TOOKie, TOOKie) means hanky panky-- that was the only Youtube available, and Google coughed up nothing else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Guys, please take your myspacing elsewhere, I doubt Gimmetrow wants this on his talkpage, and I certainly don't appreciate it in a thread where I'm attempting to have a serious discussion. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Mr Pin, please take your sermonizing elsewhere: I know that if Gimme didn't want me posting here, he would say so. If you want to play with The Big Boys, you really need to start paying closer attention. And stop talking at me on Gimme's page: my fingers are in my ears, I usually open them to people who pay attention and speak to others respectfully. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, it's not really up to Gimmmetrow to permit this or not - it's simply not allowed by the community. You're unlikely to get respect from people you ignore (if I've been disrespectful to you somehow, you need to point me towards that, and i will attempt to make amends). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

@SandGeorgia 11:20 My so called lecture was about your defense of Gimmetrow’s actions, which was a response to my comment on his talk page. Gimmetrow’s talk page is the appropriate venue for a rebuttal of your defense of him. Besides, you obviously did see it.. So.
I’ve read WP:SIG before thankyou, and I don’t see it condoning the belittling of editors who have coloured sigs. I’m afraid I don’t see the relevance of WP:FAC to this, so you’ll have to be less cryptic. If the best you can do is accuse me of not being "abreast of Wiki affairs" without providing any evidence, I’m afraid I find your comments disappointing. I’m aware of how good RfC is at dealing with so called "admin abuse", and I’m aware of the double standards. You may be interested to know that some of these double standards actually end up with things being worse for admins, rather than the normal users. Besides, that’s not what my comment was about. I said to you that the way to deal with administrators getting away with abuse is not to let all editors get away with abuse. That just makes the problem worse.
@Iridescent 11:15 No, Brad was not acting in his authority as an ArbCom member, if he was doing so he needs to make that clear – we don’t simply presume that is the case. If you feel this is pointless, I’m intrigued as to why you then comment on it yourself. I feel that users such as TFM make Wikipedia a less friendly environment, and that is important to me.
It is clear from TFM’s message here that he has no intentions of stopping his trolling (asking for a trolling allowance. Seriously??). So when you do comment here Gimmetrow, I would like you to also explain why you unblocked a user who was blocked for disruption/attacks, when it is clear they plan to continue disrupting, and have stated that they will do so via socking. I should also point out that the attacks and disruption is very real: To give just a few examples, this attack/mocking of brain damaged people, this direct attack against another user, edit warring at RD over an RD-alert template, this attack against Wikipedia users this disruption is also long term, from about a year ago: this clearly inappropriate, time-wasting suggestion. You really need to explain why the block is not necessary to prevent this disruption (as mentioned TFM shows no intention of discontinuing his disruption), or you need to explain why he’s not disruptive (considering the above linked diffs etc.) If you can’t do this, falling back on ~"the blocking administrator hasn’t responded to a message" doesn’t strike me as very responsible. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No how old on a second, mister. When did I say I would continue "disrupting" via "socking." I just said that I would continue to use the Reference Desk whether my main account was blocked or not. I also said I would try to stay away from the discussion/debate sections of Wikiprdia. That doesn't sound "diruptive." Now as for those links... they were all pretty silly edits and they did not, how you say...hellllp billlld an encyclopeeeeeedia; I renounce all of my bad behavior (except for the edit warring over the RD alert--that stupid template still gets my goat).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you read that stuff, TFM? I didn't-- I have a habit of reading posts from people who pay attention: Mr. Pin isn't. If he wanted to try to be helpful, he could have fixed the mess at Jester's privilege instead of waiting for another admin to do so. Go forth and build something, Mr Pin, and stop picking on those who do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Socking to evade a block is considered disruptive in itself. It's been a couple of days since some of those edits, so forgive me for being sceptical about how serious you are about renouncing your bad behaviour. Especially considering you've made similar promises previously. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but that time i was clearly being SARCASTIC and i was also JUST KIDDING and this time i am not being very sarcastic, only a little sarcastic.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You are still seriously not paying attention: why is a different standard applied to TFM than other editors more disruptive than him? Would you please stop lecturing here, and go ask one of the arbs? This isn't your problem or ours-- you seem to be on a malinformed crusdade. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(Many edit conflicts...) I routinely see editors who I would consider more "disruptive" suffer no censure. I didn't feel the TFM block was appropriate. I find it ironic that you expect someone to defend an unblock - restoring what would be the status quo for most editors - when the blocking admin didn't provide an explanation. Gimmetrow (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Apparently I'm late to the party. I work insane hours so often I disregard talk messages till i get chance to deal with them properly, and I don't even remember reading your message on my talk page. You are incorrect in saying that I didn't provide an explanation for the block, while I didn't give one in the block message, I made it quite clear here that I reinstated the indefinite block based on this, which I can't see has been addressed since by TFM--Jac16888^Talk 16:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You guys don't seem to understand: I'm not remotely interested in discussing other disruptive users to compare and contrast. I'm not interested in discussing admin abuse and if we should deal with that instead. I'm not interested in discussing where time can be better spent then debating this. I prefer to stay on topic, and the topic here is The Fat Man who Never Came Back. So the question is, are those edits disruptive or not? That there are users who are more disruptive then him doesn't really answer the question. Those users should be dealt with separately, and ~"those people did much worse nd got away with it" isn't a valid defence... Funny, because I provided a reason for declining an unblock, as did other admins on his talk page, there were long comments left there about this. I don't endorse Jac's actions in not giving a very comprehensive blocking reason (although he did leave a short blocking message, in conjuncture with declining an unblock). But frankly, seeing as no user criticising your lack of reasoning has supported Jac's failure to properly respond (n/ec: obviously now irrelevant, per the above message from Jac), I fail to see the irony. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Fine and good, but people better informed than yourself (including arbs and former arbs) have weighed in at TFM's talk page, so I suggest you go ask them about the consistency issues-- they surely have a good explanation, and they may or may not be at liberty to spell that out, but some answer is needed. While you're there, ask them how many top content contributors have left the Project over TFM's "disruption" and which articles he has damaged. Muy agradecida! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, as I've said I'm not bothered about consistency just now - I'm more interested in taking the right action here, that is, the action which will best prevent The Fat Man from disrupting Wikipedia. that action may not be the same as the actions taken in other cases, but that doesn't matter if it's the right action. If those other cases were dealt with incorrectly, then they need to be fixed separately from this issue, okay? Users (including admins) do make mistakes, but we shouldn't then prevent the right action from being taken later, simply because it's inconsistent with those mistakes. The consistency argument really doesn't work here, I could equally say that users who disrupted less then TFM faced more serious consequences - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Kingpin, when you're in a hole, stop digging. If you were paying attention, you'd know I'm not permitted to even ask the question. Gimmetrow did the right thing; you seem to be in a minority who doesn't realize that. The Fat Man does not "disrupt the encyclopedia"; many editors would leave without him, and many editors have left because of another indeff'd true socking editor. Please stop dallying here unless you want to inform yourself of matters in which you are involving yourself. Go have lunch or something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Kingpin13 is in the UK somewhere, and IT'S NOT LUNCHTIME OVER THERE! Not EVERYONE around here is American. apologize to him. I'm off to the gym to work off some of my fat rolls.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks TFM ;). Sandy, I have to say I find being repeatedly told to bugger off by you does not really raise my mood, or add to the productivity of this discussion. I'm perfectly entitled to dispute an unblock. I'm not telling you to go away - you don't tell me to go away okay? Simply because we disagree does not mean we need to insist that the other leave. Now, I believe I have been paying attention. If I've missed something then it would be nice of you to clarify and explain to me, instead of making snarky comments. So please explain why you are incapable of going to one of those "arbs [or] former arbs" and asking: "how many top content contributors have left the Project over TFM's "disruption" and which articles he has damaged?". Are you under some kind of restriction? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, you did tell me to go away, but I'm not going to read through your TLDR to verify that. You missed it again while you were on lunchbreak; it's been rectified now. See how the WikiWorld keeps turning? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* If you refuse to actually explain what you're talking about, maybe just so you can get a laugh out of me not knowing what you're talking about, we're not going to get anywhere are we? I can go on about some obscure incident in the "turning WikiWorld" and laugh at you when you don't have a clue what I'm talking about - but I don't. I'm trying to be comprehensive, and explain the way I feel, as oppose to making snappy remarks are you (which I imagine is immensely satisfying - I wouldn't know). If that results in something which is too long for you to read, I don't see it as my problem. I've tried my best to be concise, but there are a lot of issues to discuss here. I've read everything you've written here, I wish you would extend me the same courtesy. As to me telling you to "go away", maybe you are referring to me asking you not to myspace here? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Kingpin, I have made this as plain to you as I'm able without finding myself sanctioned. You are welcome to go back and examine all of my posts at TFM's talk and try to figure it out from there. I do not refuse to actually explain; arbs have made it clear that some editors may disrupt, lob grenades from their talk pages, make all kinds of unfounded allegations, dig up old history, and the attackees are not free to respond in any way in any place, although TFM has never caused anywhere near the disruption, nor engaged in the same level of sockpuppetry as other said editors. Apparently, sticks and stones don't break our bones. At any rate, while you were on supper break, this situation was somewhat clarified, so please don't continue pressing here for answers that cannot be given. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Very well, I won't be pushing you to explain further, with the understanding that you won't be teasing me about not knowing what you're going on about (when you apparently can't actually explain what you're talking about) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Kingpin, an editor doesn't have to be "perfect" to keep editing. TFM got blocked for the ANI stuff, which seemed like a standard WP:EUI. Should have had 8-12 hours to sober up or cool down, got 48 instead. Fine, that covers the "edit-warring" over the RefDesk template - though the editor warring with TFM (Ludwig) didn't seem too bothered, and didn't seem to get any EW warning. So that leaves an 8-month old diff from your set of 5. Assuming that was not considered in some previous block, what would you really want done about it? The answer here is the TFM is not really a "disruptive" influence. TFM has a sense of humour. TFM sometimes gets carried away, meriting - and getting - short-term blocks as a result. That's how long-term users who occasionally go too far have historically been handled. And now I need to sleep. Gimmetrow (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Erm, your unblock was of Jac's block, not Nakon's. Jac's block was for personal attacks and harassment, specifically the talk page attack, not the ANI attack (although, to justify unblocking, I feel TFM needs to prove he will stop all disruption - so far he's very directly indicated he intends to continue his "trolling"). The edit warring was to show that TFM is disruptive even at the ref desk - which he seems to feel is the only place he really wants to contribute to. The 8 month diff was simply to display that this is a long term issue. I didn't want any action specifically on that diff, I wanted action appropriate for a long term self-proclaimed troll. So your only explanation of why the edit which TFM was actually blocked for (and therefore in some ways the one which it is most important you explain) was not disruptive, is ~"nobody's perfect". Last I heard that wasn't a valid excuse for bad-faith trolling (this is bad faith as TFM has clearly indicated that he (1) understands that he is disruptive (2) has every intention of continuing despite this). Please explain how short term blocks are going to deal with the issue? They clearly haven't so far, as TFM is still editing disruptively. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but not very much :-( --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Kingpin, the unblock was of Jac's block, but you brought up diffs that related to Nakon's block. TFM's behaviour, considered either in part or as a whole, does not merit an indef block in my view. If you disagree, then you are welcome to try to get consensus for a community ban. Gimmetrow (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

As I stated above, to justify unblocking, I feel it needs to be proved that TFM will stop all his bad-faith disruption. You completely ignoring the actually disruption which led to the block doesn't strike me as a very responsible action. Although thank you for addressing the other diffs. I obviously disagree that calling everyone at ANI a douche just requires a cool-down block (which we don't use). What it requires is action which will prevent that kind of thing happening in the future. Since TFM is currently saying he plans to continue disruption, I don't see how your actions have led to preventing his disruption. So you really need to explain how a "cool-down" block of a long term disruptive editor is stopping disruption. A the moment your response is to simply state that an indef block is not merited, without explaining why (past that it's not what we "historically" do to long term disruptive editors). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say what you just said I said, so no further reply is necessary. Your comment entangles enough issues that it would take many kbs of writing to fully disentangle them. If you want TFM blocked, the obvious route is for you to obtain consensus for that. Gimmetrow (talk) 13:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I apologise, for misqouting you. Please point me to specifically what I said you had said (when you hadn't done so). [replied to comment about consensus and multiple issues below (same time stamp)]. Cheers, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, your unblock with a trivial reason in the block log doesn't begin to address the reoccurring long-term problems from this editor. You unblocked an account who has engaged in extensive trolling and disruption without using any method to put limits on the conduct. Editing restriction, a topic ban, or a lengthy block are the measures commonly used to prevent the re-occurrence of problems if an editor is to rehabilitated and return to the Community as a productive editor. When you take actions as an admin there is the expectation that you will work with the other admins participating in the matter to find a mutually agreeable way to address Community concerns. I don't see that happening here and think that you need to reconsider your approach if you are going to wade into a situation. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

FloNight, just out of curiosity, how do you feel about admins who call everyone at ANI "wankers", and use the same when responding to IPs in edit summary? And what is your definition of "extensive disruption" in relation to other arb cases? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I support the enforcement of the WP:CIVIL policy and as an arbitrator worked to create a better working environment on the cases brought to the Arbitration Committee. In my role as an arbitrator, I voted to remove permission from admins, oversighters, and checkusers if their conduct was not conducive to promoting a collaborative community. Additionally, in 2009 I facilitated for the WMF the Community Health task force that helped develop recommendations for the WMF's board, and looked at Community issues big picture. I take these issues seriously because they do an adverse effect on the community. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

If you want TFM blocked based on past behaviour, you are welcome to try to get consensus for that. Gimmetrow (talk) 13:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

TFM's block would have prevented future disruption. You unblocked him so "you" have a responsibility to explain how your actions will address the problematic conduct. I'm not seeing you addressing the problem created by your unblock. Why should the Community go through another round of trolling by this user? FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a fascinating concept, FloNight. Does that mean you have a continued responsibility to address the problematic conduct of editors you supported while you were on the arbcom (either by voting against their ban, or voting for their unban)? Gimmetrow (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

"That's a fascinating concept" - I'm surprised you haven't heard about it before. It applies to actions taken using the admin tools, see Wikipedia:ADMIN#Accountability. However, this is separate from ArbCom, FloNight is no longer on ArbCom, so doesn't have the authority to act as a member of ArbCom. The current committee members deal with appeals, amendments, clarifications etc. Even if the case was previously dealt with when the committee members were different - as I understand it. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Um, because he's usually right, 50% of the voting Project agrees (as evidenced by the 2008 ArbCom elections) even when engaging his "trademarked disurptive behavior". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing 2 year old votes would be relevant to his recent conduct. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

He's referring to my unban and your support of it ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought it pertinent to mention here that I believe Gimmetrow's unblock was done in haste, against administrator consensus, and without ensuring that the editor in question addressed the issues for which he was initially blocked - all as shown on this talk page; and that was done after all the past formal unblock requests had been rejected by the respective administrators and there was no new unblock request from the user. I did post a message on his other talk page where I mentioned that our unblock policy specifically advises an unblocking administrator to first contact and discuss the issue with the blocking administrators. Gimmetrow gave me a hint that he did contact the other administrators; I confirmed the same too from the contributions. Unfortunately, post contacting, Gimmetrow did not complete the cycle by waiting to discuss the issue with the blocking administrators. Is one day a reasonable time to expect a reply from the blocking admin in case of indefinite blocks? In my view, I should say yes to his credit. Therefore, the argument simply remains - did Gimmetrow go against admin consensus? Yes! Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 15:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

If you want TFM blocked based on past behaviour, you are welcome to try to get consensus for that. Gimmetrow (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

This issue I've brought up with you was your unblock. Many routine blocks are made by admins approved by the community, under policies approved by the community. We don't need to build consensus for blocking each individual editor. Especially if the block is clearly appropriate under current consensus. Since you've failed to explain how this block wasn't appropriate under current consensus (in the form of policies etc.) you shouldn't have unblocked. You should have gained consensus prior to reverting this action (which it had been demonstrated was endorsed by policy - and apparently consensus, judging by the comments from other users and administrator's on the blocked user's talk page). Now your response of simply saying "go to the community" is inappropriate, and fails to address he problems with your actions. If you can't be bothered to sort through the multiple issues leading up to this user's block and write a short comment on that (see above), you shouldn't be undoing the actions of administrators who can be bothered to do that. (see my comment below) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

(More edit conflicts) I felt the indef block was inappropriate; it was excessive. It is the blocking admins job to justify the block as required by WP:ADMIN#Accountability; the blocking admin didn't reply. Do you really think the blocking admin has no burden to explain, but the unblocker must prove that a blocked editor will never again misbehave, which, as it's a future unknown, is impossible to prove? Consider that disproportion from a systems perspective - what behaviour do you think that will encourage among admins? Is that really the behaviour you desire? As for your last comment, I did "sort through" the issues, and I consider your statement that I did not to be an unsupported accusation. It is your statements that I said would take inordinate amount of writing for me to disentangle. If you are so sure there will be a consensus for a community ban of TFM, then go that route. Gimmetrow (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I've justified the need for an indef block many times over, and the blocking administrator has now responded (and given a reason or not doing so earlier). Besides, there were many other admins on the talk page you could have discussed with - I know I personally feel undermined by you. Having declined an unblock request, only to then have the block lifted without even being queried first. Your only justification for the unblock was that the blocking admin hadn't replied to your message (which has nothing to do with if the disruption from TFM will stop) and is now a non-issue since the blocking admin has replied. Well considering the user has very clearly stated their intention to continue trolling us, do you really think you've helped stop disruption with your unblock? My comments are directly related to the block: similarly if you can't deal with the follow up, you shouldn't be making these kinds of unblocks either. There is clearly already a consensus for this block - ~8 admins commented on the user talk page, most of them directly supporting the block, non of them directly supporting an unblock, and you think it's okay to wade in, unblock without discussion, and then refuse to re-block after the reason for the unblock (no communication) no longer applies, instead insisting users go through a community ban proposal? I think we both know what happens in community ban proposals and consensus building are distinctly different. If you want I'm happy to have an ArbCom case, if they accept it. Oh one other thing, don't re-factor my comments again (removing the empathise on a question when ignoring that question bugs me). Thanks, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

We're asking different questions, which suggests somewhat different philosophies. In this case, I considered that indef block for incivility on the user's talk page inappropriate in itself. But I will note that, as far as I can tell, the Wiki has not fallen apart with TFM unblocked. I don't think TFM should be de facto banned at this point without a discussion. Future behaviour may change that view, of course. Gimmetrow (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Well evidently we do have different philosophies if you think we should only block users when not doing so will make the Wiki fall apart. There has been plenty of discussion on his talk page. In addition, I don't think it should make a large amount of difference if a user is attacking others on their talk page or elsewhere (except maybe attacks in the mainspace should be treated more seriously). As to future behaviour, I've pointed out that this is ongoing. Are you aware that having been unblocked TFM went on to make this attack? Evidently in reply to trolling from Mike R (talk · contribs), but that's not excuse, especially as TFM restored the comment after it was removed. There comes a point when attacking others isn't funny, simply justifying all of TFM's actions under "humour" as some users appear to be doing, does not strike me personally as acceptable. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Also this attack made after the the unblock. Unblocking TFM doesn't seem to have discouraged personal attacks. Since you say you are willing to reconsider based on later behaviour (i.e. that after the unblock). And there are two clear attacks (calling an editor "DUM", and another a "silly man" - not on TFM's talk page, if it makes a difference for you) I would suggest you seriously consider reinstating the block. These attacks aren't amusing, and they certainly aren't a benefit to the project. In addition to these attacks, there's a lot of disruptive trolling going on, such as this and this (both after the unblock) again neither of which seem to be beneficial to the project, and are simply disruptive to serious conversations people are trying to hold, or apparently harassing Tony/Tasty monster). As mentioned, I think a block should be considered based on the behaviour since the unblock. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I just referred to this discussion from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#MickMacNee. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Username and admin bit

While trying to figure out User:Gimmetrow's unblock, I was surprised that that account hadn't edited since May. If Gimmetoo is now your main account, and if you are still using the old account to make administrative actions, then there's a disconnect. You can get the Admin bit moved to another account, or you can place a big notice or redirect on the Gimmetrow user page.   Will Beback  talk  23:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No, don't want the admin bit moved. Gimmetrow (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Will, well discussed at ANI many times (but lost among the three-ring circus there). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I see that there is a discussion about G's unblock of TFM above, and there's also a discussion at User talk:Gimmetoo#My concerns about your unblock of TFM. Are the editors on these two page aware of the other conversations? I'll go read up on the past discussions at ANI, I'm curious to see why this arrangement is necessary.   Will Beback  talk  09:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I looked at all of the ANI discussions I could found. I see a bunch of people asking why this is necessary, but no explanation from G. ANI632-multiple threads I don't see how this could involve an outing or confidentiality issue, given the circumstances. In August there was an explanation that the it wasn't possible to log inti this account. But no longer seems to be the case. So I'll repeat the question- why isn't this account linked to the Gimmetoo account? Is the intent to separate the admin account from the editing account? If so, there seems to be a muddle. Most of the problems could be solved with a prominent note on this user page.   Will Beback  talk  09:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• I second that. I for one found it totally confusing jumping between two talk pages; and I had to figure it out that Gimmetrow signs with Gimmetoo in some places and Gimmetrow in other pages. It'll be very nice of Gimmetrow/Gimmetoo if the two accounts are linked up in any way that will make a visitor to both the talk and user pages be clear that these are accounts of one and the same person. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 11:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • That sort of sig only exists on this page, and there is a reason for the setup. Gimmetrow (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

FAC scheduling

Gimme, you can keep up with us by watchlisting User:SandyGeorgia/FAC chat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

PS, huge mess in ah at Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America. I think it passes the limit, but there are other problems? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: GimmeBot adding stars to FLs

I noticed that when GimmeBot adds stars to newly-promoted featured lists, it inserts the command between the "default sort" tag and the categories, adding an extra line at the bottom of the article when viewing the article page. Is there a way that this can be prevented? (Example: Bot adds star, so I move command so that the extra line is not included when viewing article.) If I should NOT be moving the command (for a function I am not familiar with), please let me know. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

FAC stall

Gimme, hold up on botifying until I hear from Wehwalt, who wants me to reopen two of his per COI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, all done, reversed two closures as Wehwalt requested that I no longer close his FACs, and that I reopen both of them. All yours now, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Review request

On the off chance that you might come back after your hiatus since May, I'm looking for an expert to review Coat of arms of Albany, New York. It needs a technical review from someone who knows what they're talking about. It's a relatively short article, but comments at the FAC have led to the need for a more technical description (blazon, I guess) for the COA. It probably won't take you long, and it seems the members at WP:HV have little interest in reviewing. If you're interested, please leave me a note on my talk page. Thanks! upstateNYer 00:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Strange edit

Can you respond here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Citation style

Good ole Jack Merridew is suddenly opining on article I edit; if he continues, I will certify an RFC with you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

GA and FA?

Hi, I am not certain if there is a change in how GA and FA are considered, but can an article be both at the same time now? Kampung Boy (TV series) was a GA and just recently became an FA. Gimmebot did its job but it seems it left {{good article}} untouched while adding {{featured article}}. The top right corner of the page now has the bronze star overlaid on the green circle. Is this intended? Jappalang (talk) 07:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Featured pictures at WP:GO

Hi Gimmetrow. I see that your bot clears Wikipedia:Goings-on each week. I have written a script that is used to close featured picture candidates, and was hoping to add the editing of GO to my script. I have added a placeholder comment that could be used for the script. Do you know if this comment will be carried over after GO is cleared? If not, would you be able to make that happen? Regards, Public Juju ^talk 02:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Single Ladies

Can you please update the article history of Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)? Jivesh • Talk2Me 06:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Jivesh • Talk2Me 18:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)