This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I've been blocked myself, back in the day, and I do appreciate how frustrating it can be. No excuse for what was said to and about you, however, but then I have no excuse for some of the things I said when I'd been blocked...
I hope the enforced suspension of interaction between the two camps leads to cooler heads. I can't see any real barrier to including both viewpoints.
apparent POV pushing by User:Julius Sahara and User:Galloping Moses
Hi, I need your help please.
1. User:Galloping moses appears to be stalking my posts and generally challenging everything I do without making any constructive changes himself.
2. User:Julius Sahara is making what appears to be good faith edits (renaming the title) - but he seems to be quite agressive and rigid about it and not providing any references. He is deleting valid entries in the process - such that it appears like he's pushing a particular POV...
I've not looked closely at the history of the article, nor at the contributions of the editors concerned. Personally, I am concerned that there have been two page moves recently. I believe the first move was ill-advised, but understandable perhaps in the context of acting boldly, disagreeing, and discussing. I'd like to see this issue discussed and a consensus formed based on policy, cooperation and consensus; and, to that end, I've added a "requested page move" tag to the article's talk page, with the comment that I'm neutral as to the respective merits of both names. I'd encourage you to voice your opinion at the talk page (indeed, all parties should voice their opinions).
I notice (I haven't read the comment, however) that you've posted on at least one of the editors' talk pages. I'd recommend continuing discussion - at their talk page and (even better) at the article's talk page. Decisions reached by consensus tend to last far longer than decisions reached unilaterally ;-)
One venue for sorting out problems like this is at WP:AN3 (policy at WP:3RR). WP:AN3 will deal with editors who revert more than three times in 24 hours (this is regarded as disruptive). You should however be aware that the 3-edits-in-24-hours is "a bright line" - if an editor goes over the line they will most likely be blocked, however an editor who has not crossed the line may still be blocked for edit-warring. This isn't intended as a warning to you; merely as a suggestion for all editors, in regards both to behaviour and remedy. One warning I would give - to all editors - is that using WP:AN3 as a tool in an edit-war tends to result in both sides being sanctioned, or, at best, monitored closely!
I'll continue to keep an eye on the article, however I would strongly recommend that the best people to sort out the problems there are the editors who are actively involved - you all (presumably!) know far more about the topic than me!
Hi, TFOWR. I'm hoping you can help me out a little here. At the Rangers talk page there is a disagreement over whether a source should be included. An editor believes the text from the source gives undue weight and has been removing the said text. I believe this is nonsense and that the story, under the heading sectarianism, is perfectly fine. The editor in question insists on neutral admis views which I think is fine, though he is still reverting the text, even after I have told him to leave it till the neutral voices have been heard. I'm not asking you to defend my position, it wouldn't be right. If you wish to make a comment that would be fine, though I would like to know how we can bring in neutral admins to have a look at it. I have even said that if consensus goes against me I would be fine with that. Any help would be appreciated. Cheers. Jack forbes (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Incidentally, neutral anyone would, I think, be OK. In general I try and keep admins out of it unless things get really heated. I'm not sure what the answer is to the "how to get neutral admins" question - posting an WP:ANI works most of the time, but mostly because by the time things reach the "post at ANI" point things are so bad that admins really do need to step in and separate people! If you know any admins well enough to chat to, you could try asking them - or, better yet, ask them to ask another admin. Anyway, hopefully this is all moot, and the WP:DR options work. Good luck! TFOWRpropaganda18:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I try to steer clear of ANI if I can. These things can turn from molehills into mountains over there. I actually did ask an admin I know but he seems to have gone AWOL for a while. Thanks again for that. I'll try to return the favour some day. :) Jack forbes (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update (though it does seem a shame to lump the recent rant in the earlier, thoughtful discussion!) I take your point that you're the ideal person to close it, but it's a shame that we need to anticipate others accusations of bad faith. Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda19:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, I do remember thinking "oh no!" after I'd posted early on, fortunately it was not long after encountering this gem and I remembered that I'm only interested in battling WP:POV when it's easy ;-) TFOWRpropaganda19:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you're watching the drama unfold over there. Oddly, I know about the topic but am suddenly (without warning) copyediting an article that was submitted to FAC this morning and don't have time for those editors. Are you the only one who is commenting, or is anyone else involved? Just wondering, because I do see what could be construed as POV pushing, but need time to look at the text and sources before commenting. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scott has given up, I've taken the time to do a brief but detailed exposé of his falsification of Anderson's work and a bogus citation from an African history encyclopaedia, as well as explain his entry point for his pro-MauMau editing. Permission to edit the article! Can I sort the article out now? Sh33pl0re (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need my permission to edit the article. All I can do is offer advice. My advice is this: language like "his falsification", "bogus citation", "his pro-MauMau editing" is unacceptable. You appear to regard Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND instead of collaborative project. If you continue in this vein it is highly likely that your editing career will be cut short.
The Truth is usually a bad thing. If you are determined to push The Truth it is likely that you have your own point of view (after all, we all have biases - the challenge is to understand this and to be open to others' views so that we can counter our own biases). The Truth takes two forms: "X" (and the edit-warriors who insist on the truthiness of X), and opposition to "X" (and the edit-warriors who insist on the complete lack of truthiness of X). There should be no place for either manifestation here.
Wikipedia really isn't the place to argue that Britain's history in Kenya was glorious. Nor is it the place to argue that the uprising was a legitimate war of national liberation. We shouldn't be arguing anything. We should be discussing what sources to use to present a balanced, neutral viewpoint. What I saw here was one editor trying to impose their viewpoint - and you regarding it as a battle against that editor's viewpoint. This took the form of a battle - an edit war. This resulted in the article being move-protected. Both these things are signs that we have failed. You've failed, I've failed, we've all failed. Fortunately our failure isn't permanent - other editors will come along and do a better job than we did. But it's a failure, nonetheless. I hope we both manage to avoid failing in the future.
I'm not sure either of these editors should be editing the article until they provide sources to verify their changes. At the least, one or more persons should look over their shoulders for a time. I've had a look at the article history and it appears this particular edit war began around the 12th of May. I'll be happy to check sources once they are provided. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And Sheeplore was bloody lucky - I know a number of admins who would have blocked immediately for the 'Holocaust denier' crack. If he says anything like that again, it should be a definite block. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, totally. On the whole I'm fairly liberal when it comes to civility, but there are somewords which just should not be used when talking about other editors. "Holocaust denier" is one comparison that we can really do without.
Oh joy! I'll try and check sources too, though it's something I'm maybe too involved with (in as much as I live in one of the countries involved in the uprising/emergency/war/police-action/whatever). You're better at source-checking than me - what do I need to look out for? Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda13:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First they need to provide sources. I'll read the stuff and post questions to the talkpage. I'm seeing a lot of emotive language, and I'd like to see how the sources verify the claims in the article. You do what you normally do: keep things even. Waiting for a bit of a cool down period, then I'll go in and clean up the MoS problems and remove the tags. Btw - agree with Elen. Sheeplore is pushing too far and too hard. Needs a close watch.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, I hear you. I am certainly not pro-colonialism! I was the person (before I had my account) who added in the quotes regarding our atrocities in Kenya during the Mau Mau rebellion. There is no way you can take Scott seriously. It is a fair accusation that he made 'bogus citations' - I documented this myself, please do verify this for yourself by reading the discussion page. His sources are not serious and are extremely biased e.g. former Mau Mau members' memoirs etc. I am all for Wikipedia containing a goldmine of info on all the different viewpoints so people can make up their own mind, but Scott's editing introduced near-unheard of terminology (KLFA, anyone?) and other non-standard characterisations that I got a little peeved. Also Elen of the Roads: I did NOT call him a Holocaust denier, stop twisting what I said. I said he was as UNIBASED AS a Holocaust denier editing the Auschwitz article; that is transparently not the same thing as accusing of Holocaust denial. Sh33pl0re (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I said above "Holocaust denier" is one comparison that we can really do without and I'll repeat it here = using "holocaust denier" as a comparison isn't acceptable (obviously you didn't literally call him a holocaust denier).
In scenarios like this it's difficult, I'll acknowledge, but no less essential that we all assume good faith. We do it when warning vandals (we warn them with "I'm sorry, but what you did might just be seen as vandalism... hope you don't mind but I reverted it"-type messages, even though it's blatantly obvious most of the time that someone who replaces an entire article with the one word "poop" really isn't here for anything other than vandalism... ;-) but we do it - or should do it - at all times.
As an example, long ago I learned about "The English Civil War" and "Scottish Covenanters". Those were the terms used when I studied history at school and college. Since then, historians have started using different terms - Wars of the Three Kingdoms for example. Terms change as studies increase and improve. "Mau Mau uprising" sounds fine to me - it's the term I grew up with, and I'm surprised that there's any debate about it. But, remembering my surprise the first time I encountered "Wars of the Three Kingdoms" I'm assuming it's a real term. Which brings us neatly to Truthkeeper88's point: sourcing. If Scott is forcing through a non-neutral point of view, the sources will sooner or later reveal it. I appreciate you were studying Scott's sources carefully - that's fine, hell, that's better than fine, that's excellent - but you also needed to discuss, politely, the issues you had with the sources Scott was presenting.
My advice to date has been pretty harsh; hopefully this is less harsh: there are a whole range of ways to deal with partisan editing. Take a look at dispute resolution; it covers ways to get topic-experts and non-experts to look at issues. These are better ways than annoying someone like me so much that they post at WP:ANI... ;-)
Anyway - happy editing! And next time you encounter an apparently partisan editor - bring in other people through WP:DR to help. If you appear to be acting at all times in good faith, you'll have won the moral high-ground already, and other editors will be much more sympathetic.
Here's a single example of an edit summary that I find unacceptable. Also the mass reverts makes it impossible to figure out what happened on this page, because all of Scott's sources have been wiped away. Finally, in my view, tag bombing does nothing to resolve a situation. Thanks to TFOWR for hosting the discussion here - shall we move to the talk page? I'm still trying to sort out the edits; Scott's sources have been reverted, so I will leave him a message asking to see them. Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to the discussion continuing here, but the article talk page would be better, since this talk page isn't obviously connected, and the article's editors won't necessarily know to come here. TFOWRpropaganda16:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greets again! I'm overhauling the Mau Mau article, and making some room for Scott to expound on his view. Let me know what you think of my revisions; any suggestions welcome. Will be completed over the next few days. He's going to have to accept that the terminology he prefers just isn't standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sh33pl0re (talk • contribs) 17:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lahore - Thank You
I meant to remove the The Eternal City claim; not re-insert it. And now, when i look that page's history, i don't really understand what i was trying to do. Thanks again. Arjuncodename02413:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith shown by a good editor and me, but ultimately: WP:RBI
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, thank you for answering my question in the Help Desk about what to do with the article about the Australian "Godspell" article. I put it up for deletion. It took me an hour to figure out how to do it, but I think I got it right. If you don't mind, I wanted to ask you another question. I see all of the other articles that are being put up for deletion. Who votes on those? Do you have to be here for a certain time before you can vote on things like that? Thank you, again. The Pebble Dare (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all - anyone can !vote. Notice I said "!vote" - it's based on people's arguments rather than the number of people who say "delete" or "keep". It's a consensus rather than a majority vote.
All you need to do is write something like this at the AfD page:
* '''Support''': as nominator. Obviously, I believe this should be deleted because ... ~~~~
(the four "~" ("~~~~") will be automatically replaced with a "signature" for you).
Take a look at the policies and guidelines people mention - they'll help you understand people's reasons for supporting or disagreeing with you. I suspect you may find that very few people !vote in this discussion, or that the few who do agree with you - this is quite normal. Many "articles for discussion" are quite straightforward. If people do disagree with you, remember it's nothing personal - it's based purely on a consideration of Wikipedia's policies (remember to click on the links!) and their interpretation of those policies.
I won't be !voting - I'm involved, through my conversation with you, and I don't think it would be right to voice an opinion when people may not realise that I've already been considering and discussing my view.
Hi again. I am glad that I checked back, because I had another question and I didn't realize that you answered me. Thank you for this explanation, though I am confused about "!vote" -- I never saw that before. I won't take it personally if people don't "!vote" for me, LOL. One more question: does anybody proofread these articles before they are published? I found "Tower of Babble" and I thought, Huh? Thanks again! The Pebble Dare (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proof-reading may take place before an article is published, but it'll only be one editor - the article creator - who'll proof-read it. It's usually not until an article is "live" that other editors will see it and correct mistakes. I have seen some shocking articles here! (Though I'd like to think that were less shocking after I'd edited them...)
In a sense, proof-reading and copy-editing here is a dynamic process. The goal for every article is to bring it up to this level of quality, but even that isn't an end to the process. For example, some time ago I worked with several other editors to bring this article up to "featured" status. Once that was achieved work continued, however - editors continued to spot errors, facts changed (the article's subject was British Prime Minister at the time we were working on it; since then a new Prime Minister has come into office), etc. In fact, I added a new section just now - it wasn't new information, simply information that wasn't previously in the article.
Also, coming back to your Tower of Babbel example - this is actually entirely deliberate! The article itself is Tower of Babel, but because some people may mis-spell it when searching, someone has created Tower of Babbel as a redirect to the correct article.
Hi again. I am confused because no one is !voting on that discussion I started to get rid of the Australian "Godspell" article. Did I do something wrong? Or is there some way to call attention to the discussion? Thank you for your help. The Pebble Dare (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it looks to me that you've done everything correctly so far!
A few things have happened "behind the scenes" that you possibly aren't aware of: one editor added the deletion discussion ("your AfD") to the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. I've also added your AfD to the list of music-related deletion discussion.
Adding your AfD to these lists should generate some interest from editors who follow Australia and Music deletion discussions. No guarantees, however!
Seven days after you started the discussion an admin (normally) will decide whether to close the discussion or continue it for several more days. This decision will be based on whether sufficient editors have commented. If very few - or no - editors comment, the discussion will be closed as "No consensus" (i.e. "no consensus to delete the article"), and the article will be kept (for now: there's nothing to stop someone - including you - creating a second AfD for the article in the future).
I'll take a look, although I am not Jehochman. I'll also say that it is perfectly acceptable for you to go and offer your opinion in the AfD, even though you had been talking about it with the nominator beforehand. This is not the same as canvassing- there is no requirement not to be involved. It is quite common for two or three editors to discuss whether an article warrants deletion, for one of them to list it and then for the other two to !vote, by adding the opinion they have already expressed to the AfD.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The problem as I see it is that the other editor is in Russia, based on the location of the IP that first started the whole issue. I think he has adequate English skills, but I'm not convinced he understands the subtleties of the whole thing. I posted a long explanation of why his edits were wrong and the problems with them and he stopped responding and didn't edit. Then the next day, he forges on with his edits and when I posted again on Talk:Cher, he posted the same arguments he had the night before and all I could do was repeat what I'd said the night before. He didn't apparently get the basic idea that Warner Bros. UK is not the same as Warner Bros. US, for example. I don't think he really does understand the concept of consensus, that 3RR is a bright line rule and I have a bit of a doubt that he really "gets" it. When someone else reverted him too, he just kept right on. That's why I posted the "you DO understand" 3 reverts and you've done 6 sort of post to him, hoping it would gel. Since he reverted you too, I am sure he doesn't get it. I predict he'll be back and he'll do the same things again. In any case, thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. "Consensus" seems to be an idea that many editors don't really "get", even native English speakers; "3RR" is usually much easier to explain, so I suspect you're right about understanding the subtleties. It's also entirely possible the editor has experience at ?.wiki (e.g. ru.wiki) where their policies may be markedly different to ours. I'll keep Cher watchlisted, anyway... TFOWRpropaganda11:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good day TFOW. Bit windy here but the sun is shining. Jayen can be our guidance as he is experianced with such work, I am a happy peon and together it should be a tidy little project. Off2riorob (talk) 11:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cold Blood
I appreciate your opinion, but disagree. However, the matter is moot as U-MOS and I have settled our differences. Take care. (Deej30 (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Sorry for the delay in responding. Just got online and forgot to change my online thing to offline (I do that sometimes). I took a look at your work on Talk:Thallium/GA1 and it looks great. Gives the user what needs to be done, allows them time to work on it (if you put it "On Hold" on the GAN page) and is easy to read. Another example of a recent GA review is Talk:Kent, Ohio/GA1. This user did it in a sightly different style and gave feedback on what needs done. Really, either way works. All and all, a great job :) Keep up the good work :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! That's the approach I remember from FA stuff I've worked on! I'll shameless rip off their approach: I couldn't find the tags, but managed to work out how to do {{tick}}s ;-) Anyway, thanks for the sanity-check! TFOWRpropaganda10:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't get back to you until just now (weekend duties). Not a problem :) I think your version worked just as good at the other, but either works :) Hope you have a good rest of your weekend. If you have anymore questions, please feel free to ask. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You supported the ratings of the series 5 as they are now on the series 5 page. But please take the correct BARB measurements. You only list the BBC 1 audition and forget the BBC 3 and BBC HD viewers, so the audience is not comparable to the prior series. 79.228.55.210 (talk) 11:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do u mean it's usually not an acceptable source. I see a whole bunch of youtube links. Y did ya'll remove mine when it confirms and verified the source. Should i just post the sentence without the youtube link.
See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - just because editors make mistakes is no reason for us to repeat those mistakes. Indeed, we should fix them as we encounter them.
Regarding YouTube "links" - yes, I dare say there are links to YouTube. YouTube is not, however, acceptable for citing claims - it is not a reliable source (it consists of user-generated content, like wikis).
I'd suggest you repost the sentence - with a decent source.
Well isn't a blog such as thatgrapejuice.net a decent source.
22:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)22:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtwmjb12 (talk • contribs)
Have a Cookie
AlexanderJBateman has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!.
I shall keep this as an instruction to others, if I am helping someone else. By the way, you are not a lying Nazi nor do you have a diseased mind. However, I am somewhat of an idiot, but learning and not a complete fool. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Giggling loudly/manically away in my hydraulically balanced computer chair. Regarding my failings there are so many claims that it is indisputable. Off2riorob (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Mr., I take strong offense to your signature and I'm suing and...
My signature now incorporates unparliamentary language. If another editor were to take offence I'd naturally change it WELL CHANGE IT RIGHT THIS VERY MINUTE YOU ARROGANT BLEEPING PIECE OF BLEEPITY BLEEP BLEEP BLEEP!
Wait, it's not April Fools Day? I'm just kidding with you. Your comments over at User:Suomi Finland 2009/Wikipedia Improvement Conference 2010 on drama were well said. If you are an American (from the United States), then Happy Memorial Day! PCHS-NJROTC(Messages)16:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'm actually a Kiwi, but I live in the UK and we're celebrating the Spring Bank Holiday today (no, I have no idea what it is either. "Memorial Day" - now that I can understand. But "Spring"? Spring sprung ages ago!) TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased16:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My ex used to go to Stonehenge during the 80s and 90s, but me... a druid? No! I did have an interesting time during the 90s, not a million miles from druids or Stonehenge, but I was always more into the - uh - political side of things. The side that usually ended with a police officer explaining what "breach of the peace" meant, rather than a bearded fellow greeting the dawn... TFOWRis this too long?21:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TFOWR, I'm hoping to get your input on the discussion page of the floatilla clash regarding the use of videos. The link is here [[1]] Your thoughts are appreciated.Zuchinni one (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, I am sorry to keep bothering you, but I wanted to know if you could look at what I wrote here: User:The Pebble Dare/Sandbox. Please let me know if this is good enough to publish, or if it needs fixing. I am waiting to get a photo to illustrate the infobox. Thank you.! The Pebble Dare20:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bothering me? Not at all! I reckon it's good enough to publish: it's obviously a stub, but that's fine (and you've tagged it as such). It's got good references, which is more than many stubs, sadly!
I'm no music buff, though. If you wanted more "expert" feedback, you could ask someone at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs. I'd be inclined simply to move it into article space, but it's up to you. (I'm basing that on my view of your article: it's very good!)
Thank you. I am waiting for my sister to email a photo that I can use in the article. When I get that, I will make it official. And I never heard of WikiProject Songs. I will look that up now. I appreciate your help. The Pebble Dare21:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding a recent edit revert for the article Oman
{{Div col|2}} works on Mozilla Firefox, which is a major browser. Whether or not it is functional on Internet Explorer is not enough justification to revert the edit, particularly when the edit improves the article in some browsers and doesn't affect the appearance of other browsers. Better to leave the edit that improves the article in place. Mozilla firefox is a "major" browser. The edit doesn't affect the appearance of the article in Internet
Explorer, and improves it in Firefox. Why dumb the article down per Microsoft's browser?
Wikipedia should be improved, not continually reverted per Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser. Microsoft doesn't own the Internet. This sets a poor precedent of Wikipedia edits being changed per the limitations of a corporation's software.
Improvements to articles are more important than removing an edit that doesn't affect presentation in Internet Explorer.
Because our own views about Microsoft's dominance of the internet are utterly, utterly irrelevant?
Because the change did affect Internet Explorer?
Because your change wasn't an improvement?
I've replied in detail on your talk page, prior to receiving this missive. It's great you're now discussing this - could I direct you to Talk:Oman so that other editors can participate?
I'm not in the least bit upset about you singling me out, and I'm actually glad that you said what you did. It's good to remember that even when you think there is not good faith, you should approach things delicately. To be honest I should probably take a bit of a break from the page. I've been trying to keep out bias all night and my brain might be frazzling a bit :) Zuchinni one (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There has indeed, with the emergence of two good sources literally calling Rory a companion being used to source him across the project. The first is this from denofgeek, and the second is a quote from BBC book The TARDIS Handbook, which apparently reads as follows: "[The Doctor] makes a quick detour to pick up Rory from his stag-do, then takes his two companions on a proper romantic date..." It looks like there's a general agreement to include him as a companion now. U-Mos (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are several criteria for a good caption. A good caption
1. clearly identifies the subject of the picture, without detailing the obvious.
2. is succinct.
3. establishes the picture's relevance to the article.
4. provides context for the picture.
5. draws the reader into the article.
Different people read articles different ways. Some people start at the top and read each word until the end. Others read the first paragraph and scan through for other interesting information, looking especially at pictures and captions.
Examples of articles centered image captions
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Examples of articles centered image captions that I did not center:
Mount McKinley - First and second image captions are centered
There is no consensus to leave everything identically in Wikipeida articles, which discourages innovation and improvement. Having to obtain consensus for minor edits that clearly improve article quality isn't in the guidelines or Manual of Style.
There's nothing like someone copy and pasting copious amounts of guidelines and essays on your talk page to make the night a stellar success. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my preference for a truly stellar night would have been an accusation of "wikilawyering" or a lecture about consensus...! I am impressed that I haven't been informed about WP:BRD... I guess that would have been one link too far...! TFOWRpropaganda09:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The edit summary instructions are: (Briefly describe the changes you have made), not to go into significant detail. I received a message from you that I should act contrary to this policy and go into significant detail in the edit summaries. This is not Wikipedia policy, because it isn't functional and the edit summary fields are limited in the amount of characters that can be typed in the edit summary.
Edits that improve articles are functional and improve Wikipedia as a whole.
Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Per Wikipedia guidelines, if one can find an improvement, then Be Bold, and make the improvement.
Wikipedia is not a democracy
Wikipedia is not designed to be constantly reverted because of browser compatibilities or incompatibilities.
Talk pages for articles are about articles, not about codes for editing. Go to the village pump to discuss these matters.
Ad hominen arguments are logical fallacies; stating "you did" or "you didn't", or "you should" or "you shouldn't" doesn't limit functionality or rationale of constructive edits.
It may be functional for you to check for browser updates for whatever computer you are using. If you're running older browser versions, then the more recent codes may not display pages in Wikipedia as intended.
Consider changing the screen parameters for your computer, it may then show the changes.
Nobody owns Wikipedia articles.
Good faith edits are good faith edits, any improvement is better than no improvement. Better to innovate, rather than devolve.
etc.
It's not necessary to inform me about what you may be having a difficult time with. You spoke about having a difficult time accepting constructive edits, but that doesn't affect the quality of the edits. This isn't a chat room, it's an online encyclopedia.
My intentions are pure, to increase human knowledge.
I don't recall telling you to or not to go into significant detail in an WP:Edit summary; I do recall saying that edit summaries by themselves are not sufficient, and that you should discuss your changes either on your own talk page, on other editors' talk pages, or - better still - on the article talk page.
By all means be WP:BOLD. However, that doesn't mean ignoring other editors when they (a) revert you, and (b) attempt to discuss the issue with you.
Wikipedia is not a democracy: it operates by consensus. This inevitably means engaging with and discussing with other editors.
I have no idea whether the MediaWiki software can or can't cope with multiple reverts - I suspect it can, however I also know that I wouldn't revert repeatedly. I prefer to discuss contentious changes and wait until there is a consensus. This guideline is one I try to follow; I find it helps avoid precisely this kind of discussion, and allows me to focus on sensible issues.
Your change affected an article; I believe the article's talk page is precisely the place where discussion should begin: you are, of course, welcome to suggest other venues if you believe this issue affects multiple articles.
Regarding logical fallacies etc: this might apply if your edit (post my revert) was constructive. Since you had been advised as to the problems other editors encountered with your edit I believe your post-revert revert was not constructive.
Checking for browser updates is a complete red-herring. I checked with a wide variety of browsers (IE, Firefox, Chrome), a wide range of versions (IE6,7,8), and a wide(ish) variety of operating systems (Windows, Linux, Linux+Wine (for IE on Linux)).
I agree no one owns Wikipedia articles. Forcing through your edits - i.e. after other editors have advised you of the problem you've created - certainly seems to fall into WP:OWNership issues.
It's not necessary to inform me about what you may be having a difficult time with. I'm having a difficult time with this talk page; having to explain to another editor why making changes that break articles for many readers really does not count as "having a difficult time" (testing browser incompatibilities is an interesting, if unnecessary, diversion when dealing with Israel/Palestine issues...)
If your intentions are pure, start taking on board the comments other editors have been making to you. This is a collaborative project: you do need to collaborate, not repeatedly force through edits because you believe they don't affect other readers and editors. They do.
I replaced the column code on Oman with version compatible with Internet Explorer and Opera browsers, per this discussion, and my previous one on User talkpage re Sahara. Just an ancillary note: blanking the message on the User talkpage (almost immediately) regarding my similar edit to Sahara is fine, and obviously permissible, but it did leave me needing to go back and do a null edit in order to leave a clue to subsequent editors as to why I had done it. It's nice to consider the needs of those who edit after one, in my opinion. Begoon (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm always conscious that my talk page could be viewed by anyone, for any reason. I try to keep it correct and intact for my own benefit and that of others. I think archiving is infinitely preferable to blanking. - I personally archive after 30 days, but any reasonable amount of time is fine - so long as I can be certain the post on "my" talkpage is no longer immediately useful to anyone (and with the proviso that it's there in the archive linked from my talkpage if they do). My only exception is templates from bots that were for my attention only - they can stay consigned to page history. It's all about considering what another user might want to refer to. And, as you say, not everyone will, or even knows how to, look through a page history. :-) Begoon (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here was me thinking I was making a sensible suggestion and nobody agreed. :( Seriously though, I think these kind of breaking stories should be written and discussed away from the Main space, at least for a while till the sources become a little more reliable. I can imagine a reader popping in to read the article and believing everything written, when perhaps 5 minutes down the line another source trumps the previous one. Anyway, that's just my humble opinion, for what it counts. Cheers! Jack forbes (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree! It's been a damn nightmare these past two days, like herding cats. There's one thread where I've posted the same link twice, second time in bold, and I've still had to explain why later in the thread...
Actually, one thing that someone mentioned during the article name debate (thankfully now moved to its own sub-page...) was that the media takes its cue from us, so whatever we call it ends up being what the media call it, so we call it what the media call it... my head hurts. So aye, sometimes - like this time - I think there should be a pause to reflect before we "go live".
Darn! Nobody lives there! They just pass by the village with their tumbleweed. I guess it's the only venue for the question though. Ah well. Jack forbes (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've never had a follower before, so I don't know how it works. The other village thingymajig looks more populated. Shall I cut and paste both our posts over there? Jack forbes (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hiding all the skeletons in my closet... Nope, you're crazy ;-) I've been through several archiving schemes (manual/no archiving, ClueBot, and now MiszaBot). As a result I has archives in odd places: I copied the contents to the right(ish) place, then requested speedies for the old, wrong places. All part posts should now be at User talk:TFOWR/Archive 1, 2 and 3. Hopefully...! (I had thought that this issue was fixed a week or so back - I then found even more stray archives...) TFOWRidle vapourings12:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I didn't already know he wasn't an admin, I'd have thought he was. I can't speak for him, but I have to assume that he has refrained from running due to some inherent, nagging pride and dignity that he can't seem to shake. :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, an Admin is just another knight errant given a herring to cut down a forest. With lots of non-Admins complaining about how he (or she) wields that herring. So TFOWR, care to join the few, the self-deluded, the Admins? We can always use another guy with a level head who believes that Wikipedia is a worthwhile cause. -- llywrch (talk) 04:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, everyone, for your kind words. Aye, my recent wikibreak is the main reason I wouldn't want to go through an RfA right now. I'd like to settle back in to editing, and I'd like to re-focus slightly on more editing and less dramah ;-) I won't rule out the possibility of an RfA in the (near?) future; however, I'd be interested to hear how you think I'd benefit from the tools. I can think of one situation - rapid blocking of obvious socks - but I'm not sure that that's sufficient reason for the community to give me a herring With a nod to llywrch ;-) For that matter, I'd be interested - I'm always interested - in criticism and advice with respect to adminship. For example, what have I done recently that you'd have done differently? Cheers! TFOWRpropaganda10:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, if I did go through an RfA I'd almost certainly want to say up-front that I'd be open to WP:RECALL - I'd be particularly interested in whether you all think this is a good, bad, or spectacularly stupid idea. A lot of the admins I respect are not recall-able, and I can see recall being abused, and the process being disruptive, so I can see the flip-side. TFOWRpropaganda11:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't get the gist of what you're talking about, but in snooping around the site I have been able to figure out what an "admin" is. Sure, run for it. The Pebble Dare (talk) 11:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of my last posts to you before you took off. You were ready then, and ready now, but not a bad idea to wait a fews weeks/months beyond the hiatus. I like that you're open to WP:RECALL or something similar. Good idea. If you want editing work and would be interested, Quicksilver is waiting for somebody to work on it. You know the material, most of the sources are in place, but it needs trimming in places, and expanding in others. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I was using "lack of content creation" as my excuse back then - thanks for reminding me, that's a handy excuse ;-) Seriously, though - thanks for your support. I haven't noticed the Baroque Cycle pop up on my watchlist, so I'd sort of forgotten all about it - I'll take a look later, and thanks for the suggestion! TFOWRpropaganda14:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just on recall, I think it's a great idea in principle and in my first RfA, I said I'd be open to it. It didn't come up in my 2nd and now I'm on "the other side" I feel I should be able to make potentially controversial decisions without worrying about whether someone will hold me to recall- as you saw with Ahmed shahi, "admin abuse" is too often synonymous with a difference in perspective. I think you'd be an asset as an admin, though- it's nice to see an ANI regular with a little common sense and AIV, RPP and the Main Page are all in desperate need of more admins. I think you should run- this gives me hope that RfA might be starting to judge candidates on sensibility and not some random arbitrary criteria. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! One "excuse" I have is that I don't really need the tools - but that's a cop-out, and your mention of AIV, RPP in particular highlights this - both are areas I frequent. Main page (and ITN, OTD, etc) are areas where I'd like to gain more experience as an editor - but I dare say there are numerous areas where I wouldn't wield the tools until I gained experience.
Interesting perspective on recall: I think I need to think harder about it, and work out how I could be open to recall without laying myself open to the wilder accusations that sometimes fly about... TFOWRpropaganda16:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The thing most people don't realise (especially the people who submit an RfA with their 12th ever edit!) is that there's more to adminship than than just pressing buttons and it's very easy to cry admin abuse without realising that the admin may well know more than you do. ITN is pretty easy- there are even admin instructions (courtesy of yours truly, long before I got the mop)- I don't know much about OTD and TFA/TFP are dealt with by "higher ups" and DYK is easy, but has a good bunch of admins (and an admin bot) working on it. WP:ERRORS always needs more admins and it's almost always pretty simple- typos, links etc- but obviously everything's fully protected. If you manage to find a good balance on recall, do let me know. I still think you should put yourself forward- I'll be happy to nominate or co-nom... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't need one - any time I need a page to be protected, I simply post here and then the page gets magically protected!
OK, OK, it's reached the point where you all aren't happy unless there are at least two threads on this talk page discussing mops. Point taken! I need to obtain my own cleaning utensils.
So... what do I do next? Obviously, it involves this page, but do I create it and then let kind editors fill in the nomination gaps? Help!
One editor has already offered to provide a nomination; if the offer still stands I would be very grateful. For that matter, any other co-nominations will be gratefully received!
I've got a pretty good idea about what I want to say re: WP:RECALL, but I still need to look into how I advertise willingness and advise what the process is. Again, any help gratefully received!
Also - once the RfA process starts in earnest how acceptable is this thread? Is it potentially canvassing?
In the first instance RFPP and AIV. They're both areas I already meddle try and help with:
RFPP: by offering lesser alternatives to what's requested - I'd prefer that articles remain as unprotected as possible, and that editors remain as unblocked as possible. I can't see that changing were I to get the mop.
AIV: currently reporting vandals, obviously, but AIV is pretty straightforward:
Is it really vandalism?
Has the editor been warned?
Is vandalism ongoing (no punishment blocks, etc)?
I don't see there being any change with what I do at ANI, except that if I got the mop I'd stop appending "not an admin" to my posts, obviously!
I don't currently do much usefully at the Main Page or its related areas (ITN, OTD) beyond pimping a policy I like and a project I really should get involved with. This is an area where I believe I could do more, subject to the "baby steps" comment below.
Longer term, I've already spent too much time looking at sock puppetry, and I'd like to get involved with SPI (in an administrative capacity; no plans right now to become a CU etc)
Baby steps: I've always edited where I fancy. This takes me into areas where other editors often know a great deal more. Because of this, I think I've always been fairly cautious in my editing, and haven't tried to bite off too much at one go. I'd expect this to remain true if I got the mop: I'd be cautious in areas where I had little experience, and more exciting in areas where I had experience.
Related to this, I have a huge amount of respect for administrators who are prepared to make hard decisions. Blocking other administrators falls into this category (I don't believe admins are any different to any other editors - admins aren't "rulers", they're simply editors with additional responsibilities (and the tools to assist with those responsibilities). That said, while I would hope that I reach the point where I'd be happy taking tough decisions, I don't expect my first administrative action to be blocking this admin (Harassing me on my own talk page? I'll teach the blighter! Incidentally, I have a list...!)
So... back to the question. Potentially all areas, but not all areas immediately.
Sound fine, ..(imo) don't waffle though, be presise. I think my advice to you would be to go for it and see what the community thinks about it. It certainly won't be a snow close as you have support, and if you don't get the pass rate you will have feedback and you can work on those areas for a few months and reapply. Off2riorob (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, if I don't succeed I'll simply use it as ammunition when you folk try and harass me in the future ;-)
Sorry, I seem to have strayed from the purpose of this conversation. I'll get it back on track now. I think you would make a great Admin as I've never seen you lose the rag, and from what I've seen you are very good at calming stormy seas. Jack forbes (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Come on TFOWR! Run for admin already! Or at least let me bluelink your RfA:
HJ Mitchell would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact HJ Mitchell to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TFOWR. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
I've just realised - if I click "refresh" the end of the RfA gets delayed! I could keep this up forever, thwarting you all with my evil "the RfA will never end" plan! TFOWRidle vapourings23:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stop it, you've got my belly laughing. I am going to think of a question to trip you up...haha. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress?...I could write an essay on this one. 23:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I can see your response to this one: "Yes, a cabal of Wikipedia editors want me to be an Admin, which is causing me a lot of stress. The way I dealt with this was to let them nominate me. Since I value my sanity, please vote against my nomination." -- llywrch (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ Llywrch, no it's not! The more the merrier. I've not starting answering questions yet (I've had a pause to thing about WP:NOTNOW, and feel that while this RfA may well be premature, Off2riorob is right - there's always next time, and the experience will do me good). TFOWRidle vapourings10:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To the lurkers waiting for TFOWR's RfA to be opened: Some of us have decided to start a competition while we wait -- let's see how many co-nominators we can accumulate before TFOWR decides to accept the nomination. Maybe we can even set a new record. (Er, does anyone know what the old record is?) -- llywrch (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed. I left my 2-year-old daughter alone for a few minutes to make the necessary edits & the RfA is now live. Now to get back to her before she decides to learn to sew by practicing on the family room carpet. Have fun, everyone. -- llywrch (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You made a very good point about quoting sources and using the 'activist' term. Would it be alright if I left it up to you and Sean.Hoyland (I asked for his comments too) to decide if this RFC would be a good thing? I already requested comment once and I'm not sure it would be right for me to do so again since I don't want to be the only one directing the discussion. Zuchinni one (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Advice
Hi TFOWR,
I'm just curious to your opinion if I am handling this correctly. There seems to be another edit war going on I've tried to stay out of it and keep things in the discussion section. I've also been discussing the issue with this user User_talk:ValenShephard and now that it has gotten a bit ridiculous I've warned him that he is edit warring.
However I have not reported him and I don't want to if it can be handled another way.
Since I hope to edit more articles in the future I imagine this will come up again. Any thoughts on how I'm handling things, if I've made any mistakes, or ways I could improve?
I've had a quick look: I've avoided looking at what it is you're both disagreeing about, however, so I'll just stick to general comments:
I was going to suggest that where possible you keep disputes as visible as possible, on the article's talk page instead of here. However, I believe the issue has come up on the article's talk page? I'd recommend keeping it there, as it means other editors can easily follow the discussion and comment.
Whatever you do, do not be tempted to revert. I know that that sounds odd, but in my experience consensus on the talk page is far, far more effective than reverting. Lots of editors, even ones who apparently disagree, will happily revert an edit if there's clearly a consensus for the edit being reverted. In the long term, the article will tend to reflect the consensus generated on the talk page. (And any editors who are only at the article because they've been directed here by pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli groups will only be here in the short term, hopefully...) You're probably already aware that the article is subject to "1RR" sanctions, meaning that any editor who reverts the same edit more than once can (and, if I'm honest, probably will be) blocked. The admin who performed the recent move (from "...clash" to "Gaza flotilla raid") seems to be keeping a close eye on the article, and has blocked at least one editor for breaching the 1RR rule. I know of at least one other admin who is familiar with the sanctions, and has been monitoring the article.
I appreciate that you don't want to report another editor. In general I'd personally prefer that issues were dealt with "locally", at the article's talk page, or between the two editors or groups of editors who are in disagreement. However, don't discount dispute resolution - dispute resolution can occur between two editors (or groups of editors) when both sides agree to dispute resolution. In this case, however, assuming the editor in question has been edit warring, then there it may be the case that they're breached 1RR. If they have, then that should be brought to the attention of the admins responsible for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. I'd suggest that you make absolutely sure that 1RR has been breached before proceeding! Reporting an editor for breaking these sanctions should not be taken lightly (it may reflect poorly on you if you're incorrect)! If you do decide to go ahead, I'd suggest in the first instance you ask the advice of one of the admins who have recently been involved: Tariqabjotu, HJ Mitchell, Georgewilliamherbert and PhilKnight have all applied sanctions in this area recently (from the end of this list). Ask for advice, don't ask for sanctions - they'll be better placed (they're non-involved, apart from procedural acts like moving the article with consensus, etc) to decide whether sanctions are appropriate.
Apologies for the lengthy answer, and apologies, too, for not directly addressing the issue. I'm trying to disengage from a number of areas right now so that I can concentrate on another issue. I will return, though!
Fair use rationale for File:Norsefire-flag-comic.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Norsefire-flag-comic.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — ξxplicit19:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, TFOWR. I've seen your comments re: test-vandal warnings at your RfA. I share your philosophy in the main as I've noticed that many, maybe even most, IPs are deterrred by the first warning given. If the disruption can be stopped by merely reverting and ignoring, then mission accomplished. No need to go immediately medieval on someone that's simply bored or killing time waiting on their cup-o'-noodles to warm up. See ya 'round Tiderolls14:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I'm sure there exists an essay that communicates the principle more succinctly, I'm just too lazy to look :)[reply]
Brahma Kumaris
Hi TFOWR,
I am trying to have a discussion with the Brahma Kumaris editor, BK Simon B who has been attempting to control all of his cult's topics on the Wikipedia.
Could you please butt out for a moment?
It really has nothing to do with you.
And, no, it is not just a simple matter of vandalism or whatever.
I have know this guy for years. It is a personal matter.
Hi TROWR, Thanks for reporting the above sock of Lucy. I certainly have no interest in his "personal matter" routine. Bksimonb (talk) 05:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thank you. I'd appreciate that. I sense that he baiting me and having neutral third parties respond instead of me may help take the wind out of his sails. You may need a flame-proof suit though :-) Bksimonb (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, sorry I'd assumed that you'd been granted rollback! (It's overrated, by the way: "undo" works just as well, except you also get the chance to leave a comment) The point about the "1RR" sanctions still stands, though I'd expect we're all familiar with that by now... Apologies for the noise! TFOWRidle vapourings13:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Helen Thomas
The reason I closed the discussion off was because it had absolutely nothing to do with improving the article. It just seemed to be you pontificating about your opinion of the subject. Which, while fascinating, was a distraction and an inappropriate use of the article's talk page.
Cheers, TFOWRidle vapourings 16:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Why did you wait until after she quit to do that? I have the feeling if she did not quit today you would have not done what you did.--Panzertank (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what the WP guidelines are on using newspaper editorials as sources? There's one sentence on it in WP:NEWSBLOG and one in WP:RS, but that's all I can find.
I'm asking in regards to Talk:Gaza flotilla raid#SS Exodus in See Also. Some editors argue that, because newspaper editorial boards and op-ed writers of several POV's have compared the flotilla to the SS Exodus, the 1947 event deserves a link in the See also section. I think that making such a connection isn't WP's job. —Rafi23:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this case I'm not sure it matters, as "see also" sections can contain "subjects only peripherally related to the one in question" (WP:MOS#See also section [used Rafi's link, below]). I'm not convinced there's a good case for keeping SS Exodus out of the section, to be honest.
I'm not a big fan of blogs, but there seems to be a consensus that where there's editorial control over the blog then it's reliable. In this case I gather the issue is over whether we can make the link between the SS Exodus and the Gaza flotilla raid, and I'd suggest that if newspaper editorials are making the link it's not unreasonable to consider having SS Exodus in the "see also" section.
--OJB2010(OBR) (talk) 11:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC) - We recently had our block taken down, I seemed to think that members of our school had 'stopped' vandalising Wikipedia. Obviously not. Block is now up till this time in 2011. It has been very annoying as I didn't really want to create an account, but now I have to. The block was down two days before it got put up again. Such a shame...[reply]
re On vandalism warnings, and why I didn't do it...
Completely understand. On reflection, a vandalism warning would have been too harsh. It does disappoint me though to see somewhat experienced editors making edits that so obviously suffer from POV issues. Frankly, it's difficult to AGF when an editor has a history of this kind of activity. Scanning over the editor's talk page, it doesn't look like he responded in a constructive way to previous POV warnings/queries. I have little tolerance for this kind of editor, which is perhaps why I suggested an overly harsh response at first. NickCT (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, see what happens when you go offline for the evening... Fortunately other editors remained vigilant! From my point of view, the vital statistic now is the "Time left" - someone somewhere (WT:RFA?) described RfAs as a "week of hell" - I can't argue with that: it's been a great experience, but I'll be glad when it's over... TFOWRidle vapourings10:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TFOWR I tried to address most of your comments, you have a good eye for the problems in the article. I will be out of town for a few days. --Stone (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you were an admin right now,would you have blocked me for the "improper Humor" edit? And how is your signature keep changing, I think I have seen like 3 different ones recently. Cheers, 173.193.3.55 (talk) 12:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I notived you have been active on this article and was hoping you could way in on discussion if you have time. Thanks, --Brendumb (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seeking feedback on a possible future RfA bid (Richwales)
Hi. Congratulations on getting the mop.
I recently decided to prepare for a possible RfA bid of my own. I've written up a draft set of answers to the standard questions, and if you would be willing to review them here, I'd be grateful for any feedback you could offer.
I anticipate that an RfA bid could be controversial in my case — partly because I have "only" about 3,500 edits in my 5+ years on Wikipedia, but also because of a messy edit dispute I was involved in earlier this year (explained in my extra question #4) — so I'd like to prepare as well as possible. Thanks. Richwales (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I had a quick look yesterday, I'll try and take a longer look later today.
Initial advice is to be upfront as possible about everything that you consider bad, but it sounds like you're planning to do that anyway. Everyone should realise that we're all human, we all make mistakes (and I personally expect to continue making mistakes!) - the important thing, and the thing I'd look for in an RfA, is whether a candidate can review their actions and develop their skills.
Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the {{copyedit}} tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. mono00:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of! It's my belief that this is proper football, but I am quite impressed that New Zealand is in it (though that's because Australia is no longer in Oceania - you may have missed that in the news, but Australia got lifted out of the ocean and plonked down in Asia!) So... New Zealand, obviously, until they fail to get beyond the group stage. After that it'll probably depend on the pub I'm in when I watch the match (e.g. either England or !England, depending on the pub...) TFOWR13:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting about the geography, I did miss that, I know the aborigines did arrive on boats from Indonesia way. The Black_War was the slow genocidic extinction of the Tasmanian Aborigines a genetically independent group...so.... New Zealand are 78th in the world rankings and the are 32 teams there so it will likely be like a guest appearance for the All Whites. Korea DPR (I think that is north Korea) have also managed to get to the game and they are 105th in the world ranking. It is just cool to be involved, I will watch at home as I dislike watching football in bars, reminds me of the new year countdown experience. The ITV have the online rights to tonights England match and it is live online free http://www.itv.com/itvplayer/video/?Filter=150776. The transatlantic showdown.. England v USA will be an exciting game.. Rooney, Rooney. Off2riorob (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you at least give Physchim62 an official notification of the ARBPIA discretionary sanctions and log it in the appropriate place? I think collapsing that thread diminishes the chances of an uninvoled admin taking action, and I'm not going to waste my time on the admin boards because of this, but when he crosses the line again, which I'm pretty sure he will, he at least won't be able to claim he wasn't officially notified. Thanks, No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, as I've been editing this article for well over a week - I am "involved". I felt that collapsing the thread would discourage further WP:NOTAFORUM chat, however I do take your point about uninvolved admin visibility and I'll move your comment up (out of the collapsed box), however you should feel free to simply remove the {{hat}}/{{hab}} altogether. As regards the discretionary sanctions, I'm afraid you will need to raise that with an uninvolved admin. TFOWR15:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Slight" change: I added a comment requesting uninvolved admin input. Your comment addressed an individual editor, and I felt it best to leave it in the collapsed box. TFOWR15:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would still encourage you to raise concerns - general concerns at the article's talk page, concerns about editors either with them (or me, if you'd like a second opinion first). There's always WP:DR and WP:ANI, too, particularly where you feel sanctions may have been broken.
There are several admins on the talk page, and several more monitoring, but after a while we do "become too involved". For my part, I'm a new admin, and started at Talk:Gaza flotilla raid as a non-admin, so there's no way I could reasonably start protecting the page or handing out blocks - best I can do is chat to people!
Like I said, I understand your reluctance. I think you've been doing a great job mediating and keeping the discussion going. I'm not going to waste my time on the admin boards, but I do think it would be good if the issue is visible so other admins who are more into enforcement could do something if they are so inclined. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. I've got your talk page watchlisted. Not much to add right now; the two posts to the IP's talk page pretty much cover my concerns. I'd be interested to see if the IP replies... I'm hopeful, but not overly so... TFOWRidle vapourings17:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aha - the old "Why should I fix my code when Microsoft won't fix their browser ?" argument... I can sympathise - I'm a programmer/web designer, and I spend far too much time fiddling with tweaks to make what I do cross-browser compatible, and, yes, IE is the biggest pain, and it is broken in many ways (although improving now). The big picture the IP is missing is that you don't have the luxury of ignoring IE. When I see the stats on my web server that still over 65% of visitors use IE, then what I do damn well better work in it. The alternative is that 65% of my clients (and their users) will see a broken webpage - and I've found upsetting the majority of my users to be a less than stellar business plan. We can moan about what we need to do to cater for IE, but do it we must... - Begoon (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, very true. I've not used Windows in anger for several years, but when I did much of it revolved around accommodating Internet Explorer, so I do sympathise with the IP's position, and would love it if the real world caught up with our preferences. Until then, however, I have to respectfully disagree with them. Alienating two-thirds of our readers is simply not on. TFOWRidle vapourings11:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw that - I'd be pleased if a good result came out of it - in my experience the best solutions are nearly always reached through discussion. I've often found better and easier ways to do things right just by taking the time to talk about it. It's really quite surprising how many things one can learn to do better just by keeping an open mind. The problem with just ploughing on in one's own little box is that, although you may feel you've done the best you can - often you may be working harder than you need to, missing something, or just plain doing it wrong. For instance, when User:Virgolette asked me for advice on his vector.css recently, it turned out his code was actually better than mine in most ways - so I stole his! I did manage to fix a couple of things for him, though - so everyone won. Without the discussion we'd probably both still be frustrated with the job "half right".
Although, sadly, it seems this is the preferred answer to the discussion. Your cautious pessimism was correct - I had hoped for better, but I'm used to disappointment. (although it's relatively rare for someone to stick 2 fingers in the air with quite so much panache) - it is at least confirmation of one of the comments I found in that trawl through that bizarre, almost worrying, talk page history - the edits are done in the way the editor likes, not for the benefit of any subsequent reader. Ah well - it takes all types, I guess :-) - Begoon (talk) 14:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, I saw that. I also saw that they've now started receiving (and removing, as is their right) vandalism warnings. I wonder how long it'll be before I have to recuse myself at WP:AIV...?! TFOWR14:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No - to be fair, I don't think it was vandalism - he just got involved in a little mini revert-thingy with a newish rollbacker. I don't think the guy is a vandal in any way - he just doesn't seem particularly collegial in his ways, or open to other opinions - but, as I say, it takes all types. Anyway, I'll stop drawing you into this thread now - don't want to get your new badge dirty... :-) - Begoon (talk) 16:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic! Thank you very much. I don't suppose you also have the "answer at AIV" type of template (the "no recent activity" type canned answer)? TFOWR17:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, the warnings are the main thing - I'm finding I'm warning editors a lot more now, and for more varied reasons... TFOWR17:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They're in the editnotice at AIV. Just uncollapse the box that says "AIV notation templates". RfPP's the same, but there's a script you can use to add the templates. On that note, have a rummage around in my monobook.js- you might find a few useful scripts, mostly for admin-y stuff! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Got it! I needed to see, read, and understand "AIV notation templates" - all tasks that are, apparently, beyond me ;-) Seen it now, should be OK in the future ;-) TFOWR17:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to especially recommend the 'mark blocked' script. I keep on thinking 'how did I manage without it' (of course I did, but with a lot more clicking to check block logs). Peter 17:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, none of the varied reasons are very interesting... the templates are exciting and shiny, but the vandals aren't :-( TFOWR01:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look - I had some disappointment with easy-block earlier, it sounded great but blew away my "user" and "page" tabs for some reason. "mark blocked" is great! TFOWR01:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I love "mark blocked"! It's excellent for AIV work. I'd also recommend the "protection.js", "mass rollback" (comes in handy sometimes) and "admindash" scripts- they're all in my .js. I'm sure there are hundreds more (I have quite a few enabled in my preferences- Twinkle, popups, drop down menus etc etc). Oh, and there's the AfD closing script- I love that one! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm scratching my head over the need for all of these templates for warning people. If you think the individual simply needs to be warned against doing something, leave a personal note. If the person isn't acting with good faith, give them a warning & then block them; no need to waste valuable time with the mook. And IMHO, sometimes dealing out warnings is a waste of an Admin's time -- just use a block as a clue-by-four, to let them know that no one is enjoying their misdeeds. (Would anyone actually believe that I once hoped I would never block another user? Or that years passed from when I got my mop & bucket & the first time I blocked someone? Something about troublemakers on Wikipedia definitely tarnishes one's shiny new optimism about humanity. :-( -- llywrch (talk) 06:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, for warnings I'm a big believer in personal messages (I hoped to be warning a lot more and blocking a lot less - I can't believe years passed between your RfA and your first block - I lasted less than a day :-( )
Block templates - {{block}} just looks "junior admin"y...! - so I am liking these templates...
If memory serves, I went about twently minutes from being sysopped to my first block. The warning templates do have one purpose that handwritten notes can't replace- they let various anti-vandal tools- Huggle, Igloo, Stiki, and a few others talk to each other about how much a user has been warned. (Also, how do you personalise, "Don't replace an article with the word 'penis'"? Courcelles (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Duh! Don't be a [[WP:DICK]]! ~~~~ (dammit, now it's an impersonal copy-and-paste job... I'll get back to you...!) TFOWR10:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:DUCK, as an obvious continuation account once severalIPswereblocked, and promising to, and indeed continuing to, stick with the l...u...l...z.
The block is indefinite, which means it could be lifted today if Friendly Cookie were to reassure the community that there would be no more lulz, no more vandalism, no more socking. There are unblock instructions on their talk page.
I looked up Wikipedia:Vandalism, but don't see that it covers anything that this IP you've just blocked did persistently, or indeed more than just once. What's the problem -- personal attacks? I'm not sure there were many of those, but if there were then they don't constitute vandalism either as I understand the word or as WP seems to. I think that at the least you should rethink your reason for the block, and explain it a bit more convincingly. -- Hoary (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've unblocked, with my apologies. It had been reported at WP:AIV and I assume I'd read the relevant diff as an article diff, not a talk page diff. I am concerned about the "attacks", but not unduly, and not enough to warrant a block. Thanks for raising this, I'll try and be more careful in future. TFOWR14:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks. I wasn't sure whether "coaching" someone how to write an unblock request was appropriate, but I felt as I'd crossed swords with them before (as a non-admin) I owed them something. Thanks for the reassurance! TFOWR16:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
can you have a look
Can you have a look at this Afd nomintaion - Does the ip user look fishy to you? Pls let me know your thoughts. Thanks. Also pls have a look at the article and i hope you will find time to give a vote of yours there. Arjuncodename02417:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations...
...on your successful RFA. I really wanted to come up with something clever to say here, but I drew a blank (as I so often do). So I'm going to recycle (my son tells me it is important to recycle) some slightly-satirical advice that I was given two years ago (courtesy of Abd) that has served me well:
The administrators' mop and bucket
[The mop and bucket] are deep symbols of the way in which a Wikipedia administrator works. You take the bucket and place it over your head. Most prefer that it be empty at the time, to symbolize the other contents, once it is in place. But it is okay if it is all wet. Then you take the mop and swing it about. It is a violation of Wikipedia policy to have any intention to harm anyone with it, but since the bucket prevents you from seeing what you are doing, you need have no fear of accusations of bad faith. Always remember to put on the bucket before taking the mop in hand, when administrators forget to do so, and hit someone they can see, they have been de-sysopped.
[R]emember, Wikipedia is fault-tolerant, you can make lots of mistakes with little harm if you are careful to
(1) Remember to assume good faith, so if, for example, you find it appropriate to block someone, assume -- no matter how hard it might be to do so when the editor has just replaced a featured article with obscenities -- that it was an unfortunate accident or some momentary lapse. Maybe the editor was showing someone how Wikipedia works, knowing it would be instantly reverted and therefore harmless (this actually happened to [an] admin [whose] internet access froze up, so he couldn't fix it). You still block, if needed for protection, but very politely.
(2) When you make a mistake, promptly admit it. Even if you think it wasn't a mistake, at least don't deny that it was a mistake. It just enrages people; make sure that someone telling you that you did something wrong knows, if they are paying any attention at all, that you heard their objection and you will carefully consider it.
(3) Carefully consider it. For examples of what not to do, look at the desysopping of [admins who] remained convinced, to the end, that they had done nothing wrong. And that conviction was the only real reason they were desysopped. Everyone makes mistakes, but when people can't learn from them, can't understand why so many are upset, or, worse, start to believe that there is some conspiracy against them, in the end, they lose the trust of the community.
(4) Never punish. Protect. Don't push the block button if you are angry with an editor, instead ask for help.
Many thanks - I also have nothing witty to say, despite having had a week to come up with something! I will return with witty quips, and thank spam, shortly! TFOWRgoing...16:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Hence the lengthy congratulatory message. I'm sure the next time will be more like "Here's your mop. Get to work!" –xenotalk16:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still slightly overawed by all this - firstly that members of the community might trust me enough to consider an RfA, and then that the community would actually trust me as an admin. I don't want to play the "ever so 'umble" card, but I am ever so humbled! Thank spam to follow (well, talkback linking to thank spam), but for now - thank you everyone, those who nominated, those who encouraged, and especially those who !voted - I appreciate all the comments, and will do my best to take the comments - good and bad - on board. TFOWR16:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad your nomination carried. Just remember that you will make mistakes, there will be messes you not only can't clean up but you don't want to get involved in, & that there will always be assholes deserving an indefinite block whom you'll find you simply need to ignore. After all, we're not doing anything important here, just creating the primary reference hundreds of millions of people use due to the education they received from credentialed experts. But feel free to ask me questions, & I'll try not to give you the wrong answer. -- llywrch (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise- though I'm far from the most experienced admin on the project, I was where you are only a few weeks ago, so the first block, first block of an established editor [first block of an admin! :S], first deletion and the much happier first rollback granting etc is all pretty fresh in my memory. Oh, and when someone accuses you of admin abuse (you get used to it, btw!) just remember WP:OWB#37. ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My first few blocks were just petty vandals. Blocking an established editor is never fun, but as you've seen, sometimes it has to be done. Blocking an amdin is always a drama magnet, but thankfully that kind of drama is rare. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wheeee!!!!!! Congrats! Keep a cool head, and don't try to bite off more than you can chew. ;-) (And by the way, I loved the Thankspam! Best subject header in quite a while!) Acps110(talk • contribs)21:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Woke up this morning and found you had acquired amazing new powers to block the latest sock. Congratulations & thank you! Bksimonb (talk) 05:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked up how I'd been involved with Sentinel R (I had incorrectly assumed it was at Mau Mau Uprising: it turns out it was at Egypt - see me archives). Sentinel R seems somewhat amenable to discussion based on my limited experience. I'd be happy to keep an eye on them if you were happy to unblock? TFOWR08:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to leave one of those signs that I've answered your last note on above topic but I have, just a minute ago. Sorry if MacDui's not the culprit but I don't understand why someone would 'speedie' (whatever that is) and 'prod' and (put up for deletion' and whatever else he has done to this article. I try not to interfere with other people's articles unless they are distinctly offensive or purposely vandalised which my article quite obviously was not. Anyway.... whatever.....!! Thanks for telling me Comhar (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! There's a lot of stuff to take in at first. Keep working on the article, and happy editing! TFOWR20:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a talkpagestalker, I have to admit that it's odd to see the green line back, but at the same time it now properly matches all groups. Personally, though I WP:DGAF, it's good to see that somehow some bizarre magic has made it look the way it should - and of course, you already know that it has nothing to do with Eng or US's final positions in the groups. (talk→BWilkins←track) 22:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You declined this report on WP:AIV as stale. While it may have been a while since the last edit, the contributions over several days suggest it's the same person, and with the rather large number of warnings given and ignored I don't think they were about to change their behaviour. What's more there seems to be a particular problem with vandalism/unsourced editing on those type of articles, which drains a huge amount of time trying to check if edits are vandalism or not as they never seem to come with sources! (If I was feeling more rougue I'd nuke the lot of them...). It's not helped that there's a considerable amount of socking happening in this area. If I had more time I'd check in the relevant WP:LTA pages, and if that IP matched one of our long term fans then I'd have blocked a lot longer, but I'll AGF on this one failing more solid evidence). I need to go now, but if you have more q's about this I'll be on later. Peter 11:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Aye, several days' worth of similar, questionable edits. I'm still not sure I'd be comfortable blocking for WP:VAND, but that's my newbie cautiousness at work: no complaints with your block. While you're away I'll peruse WP:LTA to atone for my sins ;-) TFOWR11:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wouldn't be comfortable blocking for vandalism either, which is why I blocked for disruptive editing. I've got no problem with you being cautious in this case, I still am in similar situations - it's always hard to get the fine balance between AGF and preventing further disruption right. As for LTA, well the closest I could find on a quick glance is Bambifan, but this IP doesn't match that. Did you find anything? Maybe it's a sock IP, maybe it isn't... Without anything more solid, I think the 24 hour block with the message I gave is fine, with longer blocks if they resume without any discussion. Another good example of this type of situation (on a different topic area) is 99.244.95.122 (talk·contribs) - I initially declined an AIV report, got this on my talk page, I then gave a suitable final warning on User talk:99.244.95.122, which resulted in a block when they continued. Note good use of custom messages in addition to usual templates by Materialscientist and myself :) Peter 13:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd thought maybe Bambifan - however the IP seems to be Mexico and I gather Bambifan is US-based? The topics edited also seemed a little "mature" for Bambifan (Family Guy etc) (though maybe that's a sign of maturing interests...)
My other thought was Alexcas11 - Mexican, and similar (though not overlapping) interests to the IP.
Heh, didn't realise it was you until I went to say I'd done it ;-) No worries, I have this template open most of the time, so I'm seeing WP:RFPP requests pretty quickly. I'm actually finding that I'm spending less time there than I did before... TFOWR16:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you close this AfD? It was closed by an non-admin as a SNOW close. Obviously that wasn't allowed and it was reopened, but it is a clear SNOW close. Would you mind closing it? Full disclosure: I have voted on this AfD. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're an evil, evil editor, Neutralhomer! ;-) My first AfD admin close and it's likely to be a contentious one. If I'd !voted, I strongly suspect I'd have !voted "delete", and I very nearly closed as "no consensus" (being less impressed with WP:BROADCAST's non-policy status)... However, WP:BROADCAST seems to have a long-established usage in AfDs despite being merely an essay, so I closed as keep. I'd like to see better refs, particularly for the Katrina claim (newspapers being preferable to corporate press releases, at least to my mind). Anyway - job done! TFOWR10:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not evil :S...I am Neutral...Homer :) If I knew you were a new admin and this was your first close, I would have asked someone else so you didn't get involved in a potential muck. Though I personally don't think one will be made. If one is, I will take the heat for you, but I don't see one. I will see what I can do about some refs. I have messaged WP:WPRS's best editor about this article and he will get it in working order. He rocks with references and the like. Thanks again and my apologizes for putting you in a position as a new admin. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much word of mouth. Try digging around in the .js pages of experienced admins for admin scripts. There are a few good ones at WP:SCRIPT but that's far from all-inclusive. There are a few good ones in mine. Btw, I'd like a second opinion on the recent sexing up of my userpage. I wanted to make it more colourful! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I had a nasty feeling you were going to say that! I'll start nosing around.
Like the revamped userpage - I saw the flag and the "can't be arsed fixing it so I tagged it" tag float by on my watchlist (managed to avoid a coffee/nose incident by sheer fluke of timing...!) I've been working on a revamp, too, but keep getting distracted.
I saw the tag on someone else's page as I was giving them reviewer rights and just thought "I have to have that"! I spent a good few minutes laughing at it, but it's true! You should see my edit summaries when I find a misplaced or vague tag. I stumbled acros Waterloo Road (TV series) earlier, redirecting a PRODded article to it, and removed {{cleanup-rewrite}} with a summary of "this tag may be unhelpful or vague. You can help Wikipedia by removing it!" I like the revamp- there's something to be said for a minimal userpage (Courcelles pulls it off) but I like a colourful userpage! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, it's getting the balance right between helpful/clear, and fun. And sometimes the latter is better - I've already had complaints about the all-black, mature, I-am-admin signature...! Anyway, I'm going to check out Courcelles's userpage and call it a day - thanks for the script additions! TFOWR01:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, wondered if you'd noticed ;-) When I find some time I'm going to come up with a cunning way to have my sig link to different things (you know, the way it used to... the way everyone's does...) but for now I'm just happy to see some colour in my life! TFOWR07:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um...
Hi there, why are you making assumptions? Obviously I saw that little note, so don't assume that I "failed to notice the comment." Have you not thought that maybe I don't like Bieber and wish to get his name off of Kingston's page? SoCallMeYourSugar (talk) 00:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: Yeah, I will continue to remove his name. Go ahead, continue giving me warnings and blocking me. Blocking me will not change the fact that Bieber is a snotty, girly, coconut-headed brat who doesn't deserve to make a single with Kingston; nor even be introduced to the music industry.
Uh, yeah, to be honest that was pretty much what I thought. And that's why you're being reverted and warned. I'm sorry you don't like "Bieber", but editing an encyclopaedia entry won't change reality. TFOWR00:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I should really have been checking our friend's contribs, instead of replying - apologies to you and Fastily. TFOWR00:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, no worries. Redlinks spark my interest and off I go :) They got blocked, that is all that matters. :) I would recommend that the page be placed under temporary semi-protection, but I will leave that up to you if you want to do that....but watchlisting will probably do just as good. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised to see that, after I'd spent 90 minutes finding and assessing evidence and history in this case, you replaced my judgment with yours six minutes later; I wasn't aware that that was permissible. Ordinarily when I substitute my judgment for that of another user, particularly an experienced administrator, I make some effort to explain that. If you have any comments, I would be interested to hear them. Accounting4Taste:talk15:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for that, it wasn't intentional. I'll check and see what idiotic thing I did. (Incidentally, do always feel free to revert me). Checking now... TFOWR15:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, entirely understandable. I suspect the problem arose from precisely that - I'd also been looking at it for a while, and I suspect I started editing before you hit save, etc etc. No idea why I didn't pick it up on preview, though. I'll blame it on being my first unblock review (which I'm now considering a "dry run"!) Thanks for being so understanding. TFOWR15:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That exact same thing has happened to me, where someone has "beat me to the punch". I've only started considering unblock reviews recently myself; my feeling was that blocked users deserve prompt attention. Welcome aboard! Accounting4Taste:talk15:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{editnotice
| header =
| headerstyle =
| text = Per the [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] at [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)]], the city is known as [[Derry]]. This should not be changed without broad consensus.
| textstyle =
| image =
}}
{{editnotice
| header =
| headerstyle =
| text = This article is written in '''[[British English]]''', which differs from [[American English]] in some ways. See [[American and British English differences]]. According to the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English|relevant style guide]], this should not be changed without broad consensus.
| textstyle =
| image =
}}
No problem with either, doing now. Though if it turns out that Bloody Sunday (1972) makes copious references to the county, as well as the city, I may have to whinge about the bag o' nonsense you've drawn me into! TFOWR15:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does not mention the county at all. I tend to find that giving Derry/Londonderry editors the full instructions including the county only encourages repeated occurences of "Derry, County Londonderry". Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being ignorant of the subtleties between them that apply to the article, I went for the safest option. I did lose the Butchers' Apron that is present on the example for that particular edit notice though ;) O Fenian (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough! I sometimes find myself getting annoyed at the use of "Australian English" here ("Wikipedia caters for all kinds of English: US, British, Canadian and Australian") because us kiwis speak a different kind of English, eh, bro? and then I remember - it really isn't very important ;-) TFOWR15:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's the one! "Six pack" becomes "Sx pack" (sounds like "sex pack"). In New Zealand English "six pack" becomes "sux pack", so I don't know if it's necessarily any better - it's just righter. TFOWR15:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Templates, don't know. (If there are that would be very handy) Protected edit requests? Fair cop. I thought these would be reasonably uncontentious (naive, possibly, in this area...) If you steer me toward the templates, I can fix...? TFOWR16:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can I delete the web address for deleted pages? My pages were deleted, but the deleted page now comes up up as the first search result in google. (And if I type in the address manually, the deleted page comes up.) Is it possible to remove the URL altogether?
OK, the pages have all been deleted from Wikipedia- the fact they were showing up after they were deleted is probably just server lag. Parts of them are showing up in Google, but next time Google updates its cache (roughly every half an hour) they should be gone. Is that what you wanted? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blimey, that's the kind of question I like! The ones where they're already answered by friendly talk page stalkers ;-) For my archives, and because my memory is shockingly poor, I'll note that this conversation started earlier. Thanks, HJ Mitchell and Chzz, for your help! And 2010philosopher: good to see you again! Happy editing! TFOWR08:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bubba hotep(talk·contribs·count) beat me to it. FWIW, I'd have applied a shortish block (I had 24 hours in mind, so absolutely no complaints with Bubba hotep's 24 hour solution). Some edits seem OK, and the others are, I suspect, borne out of frustration (this is a strange and mysterious website for newcomers...) I've left a comment, basically agreeing with Bubba hotep and linking to two diffs of an attack and removing "useful stuff" from an article. I strongly suspect that JohnCD(talk·contribs·count) can roll with the punches: my concern is that other editors may not necessarily be as resilient. A comment like that on a newbie editor's talk page would, I suspect, result in a very different kind of block... Thanks for bring this matter up. TFOWR08:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the most civil of editors but I don't recall attacking anyone on a personal level like fatso. It does appear to be dealt with so thanks anyways. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I try to be as civil as possible, but I've got a pretty high personal tolerance (flame retardant clothes...!) When it comes to other editors being the victims, though, my personal tolerance gets replaced with WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, with some variation depending on context (the victim's experience here, whether the victim had provoked it, etc). In this case JohnCD is an old and bold editor, and I suspect will likely ignore the remark as bizarre (I assume we have no idea how much JohnCD weighs?! None of our business, but it's entirely possible that "chubbie" is completely wrong, and JohnCD is a thin as a rake!) TFOWR08:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, people. Not as thin as a rake, perhaps, but my wife confirms that she has never thought of calling me Fatso. (Interesting question whether it is more offensive to call a fat man "Fatso" or a thin man?) But you're right, I have been called much worse, and I planned on ignoring this guy. It's funny, most hoaxers once confronted with the evidence just fade away, but even after I showed this one that we know where he copied his band article from he still doesn't give up. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, you know, I just re-read what I said and I can't see the part where I said JohnCD was "a rake". it's entirely possible that ... JohnCD is a thin as a rake! is as close as it comes, and I acknowledged that I know absolutely nothing about JohnCD. The only definitive thing I said about JohnCD was that they were an "old and bold editor". For that I humbly apologise. TFOWR09:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a waste of time. I have been called much worse than that, and survived it; in fact I would take "thin as a rake" as a compliment, if anything. Just drop it. JohnCD (talk) 10:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It did occur to me as I was doing it that a diff would have been really handy ;-) I'll see if Tobyc75 is up for humouring an idiot admin by creating a sandbox version I could grab a diff from... TFOWR18:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK that works now. The template still doesn't like null or none number values, but that's something I'll work on later. Thanks Tobyc75 (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you working on it in the template sandbox? Reason I ask is that that would make applying changes a great deal easier (the admin applying it can simply grab everything in the sandbox and dump it into the template). Makes comparing diffs easier, too, so idiots like me can avoid causing unnecessary problems ;-) TFOWR18:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding templates, actually I'm pretty much a kludger myself with these more complex templates. I use this Metawiki guide to templates for some of the stuff. I mostly used the Parser functions and Magic Words (links given in the guide) and just try stuff. The 2-3 braces used around every IF statement can really create an unholy mess on the template, so it gets confusing pretty quick. Let me know if that helps you with templates. Tobyc75 (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see there's no change, you're right: for the first week WP:PCQ is the place to go. Dammit, I was enjoying that. I'll remove PCP from the one's I've done, and - if appropriate - add them at WP:PCQ. Thanks for the info. TFOWR14:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to come here to say the same thing as Joe Chill, however I did notice there was something in the AFD about a possible copy-vio. So while it may not have fallen under A7, if a G12 would have applied then there's no point in undeletion for this article. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The editor said that there was no proof that it was a copyvio. The editor only said that it might be a copyvio of the Facebook page (which is private). Joe Chill (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind keeping an eye and Ernest Hemingway for a little while. It's an FA, and I'm trying to keep out information that I really am not certain about, and have reverted twice, so to revert the most recent edit will put me in violation of 3R. Here's the talk page discussion, such as it is. Will be logged out for a little while. Not a problem, if you're busy elsewhere. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at it now. I'd tend to agree that most of the ghits are reaching ("careful reading", "speculation"). The first ghit, though, looks like it could be OK. I've not yet looked at the cite used for the latest revert, but I'm concerned about the suggestion that "it is widely believed". Looking into it. TFOWR18:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I bailed on you there, got caught up offline. It looks like things are in hand, and other editors are weighing in with good comments. TFOWR22:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we are allowed some sort of real life occasionally, I suppose. I was reported for edit warring. Nicely, someone declined, and now others are involved. This is a situation of looking at the best sources, and being very careful. I probably shouldn't have reverted, but intended to rewrite with a better source and wasn't given the chance. Sorry to drag you in - but, well, needed a friend to be honest. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries - back in the day I started with WP:3O because these sorts of disputes - two editors - are some of the worst to experience. Even if a third editor is sitting in the middle it's still better than two diametrically opposed editors in isolation.
I got the impression here that the other editor was enthusiastically reading too much into sources: I could see how the Google search appeared to support their thesis, but it didn't really seem to stand up to close scrutiny. It's difficult, though, when Google hides the best bits from us ;-)
Oh, and real life - ain't what it's cracked up to be ;-) Unexpected problems (now sorted) rather than planned social life... :-(
Hi TFOWR, User:Tyalav is back to his old form on Shayetet 13, making the same exact edit for the umpteenth time. He will be reverted by one of the countless editors who have already noted his disruptive behaviour. Is there some speedy way of handling this? Poliocretes (talk) 06:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed there is. I've warned the editor that their edit appears to me to be two reverts, which to my mind takes them into the sanctionable area. Regardless, if they were to revert anything in the article within 24 hours of their latest edit, they would clearly be in breach of the 1RR restriction on the article. I've assumed that Tyalav was unaware that their latest two edits would count as two reverts (I'm stretching my good faith here...) A further revert would clearly and unambiguously take Tyalav over the 1RR restriction, and I will block them.
You could also consider WP:ANI or WP:AE right now - stricter admins then me would likely see Tyalav's two edits as two reverts, and block now.
For unsourced information, I'd recommend using an edit summary like this: [[WP:CITE|Uncited]]. I'd also recommend avoiding terms like "libel": while it may be correct, it's (a) a legal term (and should be avoided), and (b) it's redundant if you describe the edit as "Uncited". Note that I have no problem with you reverting the edit (once! Remember that the article is subject to 1RR restrictions), my only issue is with Tyalav's edits being described as vandalism. TFOWR09:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TFOWR. This user has created three further articles, all containing misinformation to the levels that now blatantly break WP:HOAX. I know WP:AGF, but the guy's had numerous warnings and promptings. I've put a report at WP:AVI, but thought you might be able to deal with it if you wanted. --Pretty Green (talk) 09:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See both sides of [3] :) Peter 11:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Aha! So that's how it's done! Thanks, I'll remember that next time (damn bot, that tag had been annoying me for ages!) Thanks again, TFOWR12:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it can be tricky to set the add and remove limits correctly. The main problem is when a lot of reports are sitting there with notes under them, so it's not really a backlog, but the bot still thinks it is. To get around that I normally just remove reports with a descriptive edit summary (and a note to re-report if continues if applicable and/or a personal note on reporters talk page if follow up is needed). Peter 12:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi TFOWR. Edit war has started afresh by a single editor against consensus to add the "Kudos" section. Whenever you find the time please add full protection to the article. Thank you. Dr.K.λogosπraxis16:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was too late - beaten to the punch by SlimVirgin. I've watchlisted the article; if problems recur when protection ends I'd be inclined to block the editor responsible (it appears to be just one editor, without consensus). I would encourage you to take this opportunity to try and engage with the editor concerned, however. TFOWR10:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just an FYI... I deleted the article you changed into a redirect. The name is somebody's personal character within the game, not a non-player character created by the game publisher. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great. It's there now. It wasn't there when I checked the block log immediately before and immediately after my block. Thank you for your consideration. — Arthur Rubin(talk)20:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm a sock-puppet?
Is this why my opinions are being dismissed in Talk:Amy_Pond? I'm not being confrontational or anything, I'm just curious to know what is meant by the legitimate use of that {{spa}} tag. Is it assumed I'm sock-puppeting because I followed the link and read about WP:BITE, or was something else intended? I assure you I'm not an experienced wiki-an, just a rare person who actually reads the links posted by others before I respond. That's why I was off-put by the signature tag; the policy articles led me to believe that was discouraged. Again, not being disingenuous at all, I'd simply like to know about the community norms here. Any comments you have for me are very welcome, be it here or at my (empty) talk page. Daburow (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The SPA tag may be used to visually highlight that a participant in a multi-user discussion has made few or no other types of contribution. However a user who edits appropriately and makes good points that clearly align with Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines will usually find their comment given full weight regardless of any tag.
Deletion nomination of Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/3rd/Log
blanked page
Hi TFOWR, this is a message from an automated bot, regarding Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/3rd/Log. You blanked the page and, since you are its sole author, FrescoBot has interpreted it as a request for deletion of the page and asked administrators to satisfy the requests per speedy deletion criterion G7. Next time you want a page that you've created deleted, you can explicitly request the deletion by inserting the text {{db-author}}. If you didn't want the page deleted, please remove the {{db-author}} tag from the page and undo your blanking or put some content in the page. Admins are able to recover deleted pages. Please do not contact the bot operator for issues not related with bot's behaviour. To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=FrescoBot}} somewhere on your talk page. -- FrescoBot (msg) 23:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, FrescoBot! If I'd been more diligent, I would have deleted it myself instead of creating work for other editors (or bots). Apologies for that. TFOWR10:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
Hi TFOWR
Thank you for monitoring the Guy Sebastian article. There would not be any friction between editors on the article if things were done properly on the part of Ozurbanmusic [[5]] such as:
Filling in the edit summary field - this is regularly not done so that when this editor makes numerous changes one after the other to existing content for no good reason or deletes content with citations/references also getting messed up, it is hard for other editors like me to track what changes have been made and why and whether the deleted or altered content is a correct thing to happen for the greater good of the article.
Whilst Ozurbanmusic has made a few good contributions to the page they have also made counter-productive and disruptive edits to the article that have been reverted back. I have noted that Ozurbandmusic [Ozurbanmusic talk page] deletes all messages left on his/her talk page to discuss ways of doing things the correct way - but viewing the history of the talk page you can see there have been numerous editors who have tried to help in different issues but the comments are just deleted by him without a response.
Anyways, the article has a number of editors that regularly update or watch out for vandalism so that damage is not done - It is good that editors that are not involved in editing on this article such as yourself are keeping an eye out as well.
Thanks for your reply to me TFOWR - hopefully things will settle down.
No worries. I'll continue to keep an eye on things, but if you could let me know if there are any issues I miss, I'd appreciate that. In general, I get concerned when editors don't engage with other editors, and I'd hope that Ozurbanmusic does start to engage soon. TFOWR10:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Archive 2
Done Thanks! TFOWRpropaganda 16:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
--220.101 (talk) \Contribs 16:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
