User talk:Tcncv/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Contents

Request for adminship

I believe the time has come to make you a Wikipedia administrator. @harej 03:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I accepted the nomination. We'll see where it leads. -= Tcncv (talk) 04:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, it appears your RFA is ready to be transcluded on the main WP:RFA page (be sure to put it at the top of the section for current RFAs). @harej 15:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Due to an upcoming vacation and preparations for the same, I think it bast to postpone the RFA. I will update the end date and transclude when I return in about two weeks. -- Tcncv (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Have fun! @harej 01:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm back now. I'll transclude the nomination and see what happens. I'll take no offense if the nomination is declined. -- Tcncv (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Your RFA

All the best for your RFA. -- Tinu Cherian - 06:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Tcncv (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

And Then There Were None

I know "nigger" is an inflammatory word, but it is the correct original title of And Then There Were None. I'm not vandalizing the page. -- 24.218.51.224 (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I see you have a point. I saw the change but admit I did not look at the article as a whole. I'll investigate further and undo my action if appropriate. -- Tom (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Follow-up notes on User talk:24.218.51.224. -- Tom (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much. :) 24.218.51.224 (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

CONGRATULATIONS!!!!

AN ADMIN IS YOU! @harej 02:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You are now an admin

I am pleased to inform you that I have closed your RFA as successful, and that you are now an admin. The community has seen it fit to entrust you with several new tools; I trust you will serve us well with them. You can test them out at New Admin School. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me or any of our colleagues. Cheers, bibliomaniac15 02:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you and all of the others who took the time to review and consider my nomination. I also appreciate the comments from both supporters and skeptics (caution is good). I'll start cautiously with a broom, taking the time to make sure I follow the operating guidelines. Eventually, I expect I'll move up to a mop and maybe even a floor polisher. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 03:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
That's an RFA you can frame and hang on your wall. Welcome! - Dank (push to talk) 03:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations Tcncv! Im really happy for you, you really deserve it!...:)...cheers!--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 05:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on passing, and in such flying style :) --Saalstin (talk) 10:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

sorry to be the first one

But now that you are an admin, you might as well get used to being questioned about your actions. I think you should reconsider your block of User:Mccollm04. This user has only three edits, and seemed to have stopped vandalizing after being warned. They have 3 warnings, one for each edit they made, and you gave them an indefinite vandalism block. You may want to re-read the blocking policy and take it a little slower. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I was just about to post a request for someone to review my actions, but you have beat me to it. (more in a moment)... -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 23:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look. I would also appreciate you (or someone) critiquing the other block applied to Blarre (talk · contribs). I will unblock that one also if you (or another admin) judges that to be too harsh. For prior observation, I was under the impression that there was less tolerance of a newly created user that immediately begins unproductive work, and that a full range of warnings was not necessary. I do see that in this case, the edits were clustered together and not spread out over time. (In contrast, I judged two IP users as not worthy of a block.) I'll be sure to take it easy, as you suggest. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Blocking is one of our most powerful and dangerous tools, and should always be used with caution. WP:BLOCK has lots more information. An indefinite hardblock for a user with only three edits is indeed overly harsh. The purpose is not to punish the user, but to prevent them from continuing to damage Wikiepdia. Usually first time offenders are given a short block in the hopes that they will understand what that such behavior is not tolerated, but it is nrmally not appropriate to block a user who has not edited since being warned. I'll take a look at the other one now... Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Same deal here. Again, no edits since the warning=no block. In both of these cases, they never should have been reported to AIV in the first place, it might be a good idea to mention this to the reporting users. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks for the guidance. Out of interest, in the recent past (prior to receiving admin privileges) I had reported several named accounts to AIAV including The Truthinator (talk · contribs), Adampantha (talk · contribs), For græt justice (talk · contribs), Jmcgregor01 (talk · contribs), and BeriohKnee (talk · contribs). Would these reports be considered premature? -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Those are a bit of a "mixed bag." One of them is almost certainly a User:Grawp sock doing pagemove vandalism, and those are instablocked as soon as they are detected. Another turned out to be a returning sockpupeteer, and those should always be indef blocked. Several of the others were on obvious vandalism sprees, although I'm not sure I agree with indef blocking them. There is often a bit of a disconnect between what policy says and actual blocking practice, a lot of admins prefer to indef block vandals and see if they ever bother to appeal the block, and sometimes there is a subtext that is not clear to the casual observer, as with the Grawp sock. The general feeling with any type of long-term-abuse cases is to revert, block, and ignore them in order to deny recognition. Generally though, if there is a dialogue on their talk page and they are not involved in vandalizing at the moment the request comes in, it's better not to block. It is even possible to "turn" abusive users into competent and helpful Wikipedians with enough good faith and patience. That should be an admin's goal in my opinion, but sometimes during a long bout of vandal fighting it is easy to loose sight of that and just try to bash as many vandals as you can. Ok now I feel like I'm rambling so I just finish by saying congratulations on your stellar RFA, and we'll be seeing you out there. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to have a look. I was also looking at the block logs in general, and there does seem to be a strong trend towards swift indef blocking of new vandalism-only accounts. Some with only a couple of edits. However, being new and not withing to raise any concerns with others who may be monitoring my activities, I'll steer clear of the questionable cases and limit my activities to the clear unambiguous cases. I have lots to learn in other areas too. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Just so we're clear, I wasn't deliberately monitoring you, in fact I didn't realize till I saw the block that your RFA was over, I just had Mccollom's talk page on my watchlist because of the warning I had left there. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply anything. I actually think it would be a good thing for new admins to be the subject of some increased scrutiny. In any case, comments and constructive criticism are always welcome. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 03:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

AIV

Saw your recent report, thought I'd drop by and wish you congratulations on your adminship, and my admiration for your caution in using buttons early on -- Samir 02:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Fur Die Lulz

We did it for the lulz.

68.177.237.194 (talk) 05:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of productive ways to contribute ti Wikipedia. Take a look at our Welcome Page to find out more about us. Find a topic that interests you. Start reading articles, and if you find mistakes or sections that could be improved, be WP:BOLD and make a contribution. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 06:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

User: Germsburn

Hi Tom! I read your reasons for not blocking Germsburn. I have to say, I’m glad it was you who had to make that decision and not me. My first inclination since this whole thing started just after midnight (EDT), was not to bite the newbie. If you look at the history, another editor tried to help him on his talk page, but Germsburn did not respond to the offer either on his own talk page or on that of the editor making the gesture. I tried to help him out by placing the speedy delete notice on his talk page, which the originating editor had accidentally forgotten to do. Also, when Germsburn did place a hangon tag on the page, he put in the wrong spot, and I moved it for him to where it should go. Also, he placed talk page material in response to the speedy delete on the article page, and I moved that to the talk page for him as well. So, we did try to help the newbie as best we could. Nonetheless, instead of letting the hangon work its magic while he worked on improving the article, he took to deleting the speedy delete tag again. Also, he appeared to possibly be anonymously puppeting, making the same edits to the same article under an IP. (Because the history of the deleted article is not available to me, I cannot state the IP address for CheckUser verification.) So, not wanting to bite the newbie, we tried to help him, by fixing his errors to make the hangon work and by direct offers of help. He did not respond to the direct offer and returned to deleting the tags, including his own hangon. Still, I am glad it was your decision. It canot have been an easy one to make. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 01:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw your note on Germsburn’s talk page. It was very informative! I only wish when we were dealing with him/her earlier we had thought to suggest userfying the article. That was a good call. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 02:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm hoping this can be resolved in an agreeable manner. This new editor may have potential for significant future contributions. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Enigmas

Hi Tcncv -- first of all, congratulations on being a new admin; I just noticed that from the messages on this page. It's ... not always fun. After four and a half years of being one, I just have to say that; indeed it can get right thankless at times. Thank you for your help on the Enigma Variations situation. It's a rather unusual one, not just because the editor refuses to acknowledge our concerns, but because he's got a genuinely good idea (and needs to publish it in a peer-reviewed journal!) I don't like blocking people but it does seem to be heading in that direction. I wouldn't be averse to allowing a link to his blog, because it's well-written and on topic. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 03:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Hopefully, the editor (User:Sir Padgett will eventually get the message. If not a brief block may be needed to get the editor's attention. Hopefully (again), it will not come to that. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 03:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
FYI. Maybe I shouldn't bend over backwards like this, but I want to try to get him to engage with us, talk to us. I don't see this kind of disruptive editor all that often; they're usually straight-up vandals, POV-pushers, trolls, or other readily identifiable species. This guy is enamored of his brilliant idea -- for in my opinion, it is -- but just ignores us. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the notification. A short block is precisely what I would have put in place, and as you noted, an indefinite block may be the ultimate resolution. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I have a suggestion, and I apologize if it is out of line, but I notice that Sir Padgett can be contacted by e-mail. Do you think one might have better luck contacting him that way? I was thinking that every time he sees the you-have-new-messages banner, surely he is not ignoring it. But, perhaps when he goes to his talk page he just keeps seeing the big welcome message, {{Welcomeg}}. So I relocated his TOC to the top of the page so he can see the new sections you have both added below the welcome. Again, I apologize if this e-mail suggestion and the TOC move are out of line. — SpikeToronto 01:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
P.S. The reason I saw this originally was that I forgot to unwatchlist this page after the Germsburn discussion above was complete. — SpikeToronto 02:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
You are not out of line. Any ideas that might improve the situation and avoid having to block the user are welcome, and you are free to give an email a try. I think we've been more than patient though, and I've given the situation my best shot. Eventually, the editor needs to learn to use the communication mechanisms available to him, especially given the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
"Sir Padgett" is no dummy. Go to his blog profile (in the external links in the section he's adding that we keep removing). He sees the messages, and he can't possibly miss the huge link on the block reason (I deliberately blocked him while he was editing, so the "you have been blocked" message, with link to his own talk page, would be in his face). Please do try to e-mail him though if you are willing. A lot of admins just block these people out of hand; I'd at least like some evidence we're getting the message through first. Antandrus (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Bandwagon Music

The only music publishing co-operative in existance! Quite important and worth noting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.64.114 (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser

Would you please check Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage#Users? Thank you. -- Btilm  00:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

AIV / Denny Chin

Hi Tcncv

With respect to this close, have you reviewed the logs for the user and for the page? One user is using multiple IPs to repeatedly vandalize the page using identical language. The specific IP you declined edited today, and the editor used another soon thereafter. Please reconsider and review in the context of the history of Denny Chin.

Bongomatic 00:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no {{talkback}} or other comment on my talk page is required.

I am re-examining the situation now. If a user is moving between IPs editing a few times each, blocking the IP afterward does not achieve anything. A request to semi-protect the page may be a more effective solution. However, this may be a case of a user repeatedly using three or four IPs. In that case, IP blocks may be in order. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Should probably have explained that in my initial AIV report. Will do next time. Bongomatic 00:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Another admin has semi-protected the page against anonymous editing. Blocking the IPs is under consideration, but I am waiting on a second opinion. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of The Tariq Nasheed page

I'm a representative for best selling author Tariq Nasheed.The wikipedia page for Tariq Nasheed was deleted and we cannot understand why.Here are several (of many more) links from outside sources that should validate the inclusion of Mr. Nasheed on wikipedia.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wennradio (talkcontribs) 23:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The Tariq Nasheed article was deleted back in August after the deletion was nominated and discussed here. When the article was recreated, it was substantially identical to the deleted version. For that reason the article was nominated for speedy deletion and later deleted without further debate.
If you would like to have the deletion reviewed, you can submit a request to the Wikipedia:Deletion review page, and other editors will review the case. I would have submitted a case on your behalf, but I have since discovered that the article is a copy of the contents of this IMDB page, which makes it an apparent copyright violation. That would generally preclude restoring the article in its current form. Also as a representative of the author, you have an inherent conflict of interest in creating and editing this article. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If only all Admins were like you

Your posting at AIV, specifically your follow-up post, shows a lot of maturity and that you not only understand, but more importantly,, respect the powers that have been given you. Thank you for being able to admit when you're not sure about something. I hope that when I finally do an RfA, that if I am successful, I will be as worthy of the position as you are. Thanks. Frmatt (talk) 03:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 03:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Raleigh Population

The correct Census department Numbers for Raleigh Metro was there, there is no numbers for Urban yet: see talk page) Why are the wrong Metro numbers allow in on Raleigh Metro, there is no numbers for Urban numbers yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.197.178.141 (talk) 05:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Falls in Karnataka

I have nominated Falls in Karnataka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Doctor muthu's muthu wanna talk ? 07:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleting my articles and contributions

Hi, why are my contributions conserning "Wetlabs" or "Wet-laboratories" being deleted soon after i make contributions? I also started a new article as WETLAB which is the term used for practical medical training, mostly cardiac surgery training, i thought i would start an article up because a wet-laboratory is a room where wetlabs might happen, a wetlab is the procedure *Like saying football and a football pitch-two different things-although linked, if you catch my drift :) So i started Wetlab up as an article but it got deleted, I have quite alot of expereince in this area because my father set up the organisation of WETLAB which brought the practice to a lot of medical practitioners attention, im not trying to spam, vandalise or anything...im just passionate about the subject at hand. I put a link to the website under 'see also' because as you can see there is alot of information found there, like videos and online classes on the subject, it isnt just mindless spamming! (wetlab.com) Thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Designer1001 (talkcontribs) 20:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the first time you created the article, you added an {underconstruction}} tag, but no other content. It was deleted after several hours of inactivity. After you recreated the article, another editor judged that it was partly a promotion of a company whose notability was not demonstrated (see WP:Notability). Since we already have a Wet laboratory article, that editor judged that it would be better to redirect the name to the existing article. I would suggest for general information on wet labs, that you focus your efforts on improving the existing Wet laboratory article, making note of differences in usage there. Please be sure to include references showing sources that others can consult to verify the information you add.
As for "WETLAB (company)", please be aware that Wikipedia notability guidelines generally requires significant media coverage of a company beyond ordinary press releases or profiles. If you decide to recreate WETLAB as an article on you company, be prepared to justify the notability of the company early-on with references to the previously referenced media coverage. Lacking such references, the article will very likely be deleted or reverted to a redirect on the grounds of "notability not demonstrated". -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 20:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

hogenakkal falls .

hi ! saw tht u r much interested in working in the article , it would be nice if the entire talk page discussions ( including those in the archives ) are considered before editing the article . thanks .--Doctor muthu's muthu wanna talk ? 00:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have responded on that article's discussion page. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Allied Artists International

Wow, that was fast! Thank you for your help. I hate to see it come to this, but I couldn't see any other way to make them stop. Rees11 (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I was just passing by at the right time. With 200 edits in two days with little or nothing to show from it, this was a pretty clear case for protection. Let me know if I can be of any further assistance, although it looks like you've already have TheFeds (talk · contribs) looking into the matter. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a good call locking that article down. The sad part is, after going through the allegations, I think that ChinaUpdater was partly factually correct about Richards' history, but painfully idiotic about the way he edited. (Notice that Warriorboy85 was blocked for legal threats...and ChinaUpdater is well on his way to getting blocked as well.) TheFeds 02:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Your time and effort to dig into the details of this case is much appreciated. Wikipedia need more like you. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
What a mess! I wanted to open up an AfD for the article but cannot add the appropriate tags. It looks like a couple of editors have looked for sources establishing notability and have failed.Cptnono (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry Accusation, Major Fraud at Wikipedia, just like in the Federal Conviciotns using the same methods

Sockpuppetry Accusation, Major Fraud at Wikipedia, just like in the Federal Conviciotns using the same methods

  • I have seen enough, as of this, - [1] –, which when coupled with the massive other edits by WarriorBoy85, all overtly NN ADVERTs, all NRS, and all COI and POV, to make the following accusations.
  • I accuse WP:WarriorBoy85 and WP:TechnicalExpertise of being Sockpuppets for Kimball Dean Rechards. I dont care about his overt legal threats, or his history of Solicitation for Murder here [2].

Kim Richards, CEO of Allied Artists International, by WarriorBoy85’s own original edit of his side bar, is one and the same as Kimball Dean Richards, who was named, indicted, and convicted of Major Fraud using these names and associated names.

  • ALL of the HUNDREDS of Wikipedia entries are nothing more than ADVERTising for Allied Artists International and its "artists" should be deleted on NN, and NRS, COI, POV, as well as SP.
  • All of the HUNDREDS of entries, such as “artists” web sites, and redirects, done by WarriorBoy85 and TechnicalExpert should be undone by high ranking Admins, and let the rest of us low level folks get back to our far more simple editing work.ChinaUpdater (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

OVERT ADVERT

  • UserWarriorBoy85 is trying to advertise his company, and its artists, by doing things like this - HERE[7]. This is clearly an ADVERTisment of Kimberly Dean Richars companies, all using names associated with Allied Artists Records.
  • I have been legally threatened by WarriorBoy85, who admits to being able to contact Richards' attorneys at will, on a Sudnay.
  • Who do I go to in order to look carefully at ALL articles created by, and edited by, WarriorBoy85 and TechnicalExpertise? ChinaUpdater (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Kimball Dean Richards' [[Allied Artists Records}} and Potential Fraud on Wikipedia

I wrote an article on Kimball Dean Richards and his huge frauds he pulled by getting pieces of Allied Artists Pictures Corporation name and misleading people into giving him tens of millions of dollars. Now he is doing the same on Wikipedia.

Look HERE [11]. You will see Allied Artists Pictures Corporation, the REAL movie company STILL EXISTS.

  • Kimbal Dean Richards is trying to pull the same fraud using WIkipedia, that he pulled in the federal case, where The (real) Feds got him, by trying to make people think he is Allied Artists Pictures Corporation, [12], when he is not, by using musleadingly similar names, and finding freed up trademarks and things that enter the public domain.
  • I had never heard of any of this before a few days ago. In fact, I thought the name was Allied Artists MOTION Picture Company, a different name entirely, and I cretainly never heard of this RIchards guy.
  • I Suspect that he is trying to sell stock in his company, using the HUGE number of Wikipedia pages he created, based on NOTABILITY, all linked to a company he does not own, Allied Artists Pictures Corporation, [13].
  • The Feds, please reconsider that there may be a plot to buy similar names to Allied Artists Pictures Corporation in order to use Wikipedia to mislead people into thinking Kimball Dean Richards' companies, all with similar names, are the same as the EXISTING company. Please reconsider your vote to keep. If anything, Allied Artists International, which WarriorBoy wrote is a name change from Kimball Dean Richards' Allied Artists Records, and is linked as the same by WarriorBoy, should have mention in an article on Kimball Dean Richards, who his biggest notariety by being convicted of doing exactly the same thing on WIkipedia, as Richards did in the federal fraud case, misleading people into thinking he was the movie company, which still exists. ChinaUpdater (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Reading is FUN

Did you bother reading my edit summaries before you reverted? or examine the edit history? or the talk page archives? blundering editors like you are a real problem for wikipedia. Next time before blindly reverting a page in a knee jerk reaction try looking into it first! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.38.135 (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That was perhaps a tad harsh, but it gets somewhat frustrating, anyway thank you for taking the time to consider your actions before implementing a decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.38.135 (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I missed the edit summary at first, but if you notice, I immediately reverted myself and am reviewing the article history now. I realize it is frustrating to be reverted and I apologize for that. Based on what I am seeing in the edit history, this appears to a a snails-pace edit war that has been going on for months. I am inclined to protect the page and open up an RFC in an attempt to establish consensus. Still reviewing for now. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 23:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnard College protection

Hi Tcncv,

You removed the protection from Barnard College, but I am not sure how to proceed. May I change the version now? I am concerned that we will restart the editing war with user Wkiwoman. Best, Matan (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I had protected the article for one week, and the protection ended automatically at the end of that period. (Note that the version of the article that was retained was the one that happened to be in place at the time page protection was put in place. It does not imply that I or anyone else supports or endorses that version.)
I would suggest that you attempt to summarize, in a neutral manner (recognizing and respecting for opposing points-of-view), the principal positions and opinions of the key participants in the discussion. If there appears to substantial support for a particular position, you can propose a statement of consensus and ask for a poll for or against that statement. If a significant majority can agree (for stated reasons - consensus is not simply a vote), you can declare a result and implement the decision. In some cases, it may be wise to propose a compromise - wording that simply states that the facts are unclear and to present the reader with references that they can follow to make their own assessment. It might be best to not edit the article until you've documented the consensus on the talk page. However, it would be acceptable to add a {{Disputed}} tag to the relevant section(s) of the article until this is resolved.
Note that although I have recently been granted administrator rights, my voice an opinion is no different than any other editor. It's like Dilbert asking the garbage man for advice – you might get lucky and get some great insightful advise, but I'm not an authority on matters of dispute resolution. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 23:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Your Jian Ghomeshi Edits

Just so that I might improve my edits to articles, I'm a bit confused regarding why you removed my edits to the Jian Ghomeshi page. Particularly how they were listed as 'unsourced'. I did indeed provide actual dates of actual podcasts for verification of the quotes I provided. So to improve my edits, what exactly was missing? What would have made it a better edit? Is noting the irony always going to be a 'biased' statement? If I could have cited that 'irony' to a more reliable source who noted the 'irony', would that have helped it avoid the bias claim?

Thanks. If I haven't made it clear enough here, I'm not upset, just confused and sincerely want to see what I might have been missing in my edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dysonberea (talkcontribs) 19:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I assume that you are referring to these edits, which are the only ones that I have reverted in that article. I reverted those edits because they appeared to be in violation of Wikipedia editing policies for Biographies of living persons. In particular, the changes appeared to include inflammatory statements and heavily opinionated statements that were (in my initial assessment) not backed by references to reliable sources (i.e. "unsourced"). In contrast to other articles, where questionable material might simple be flagged with a "citation needed" tag, biographies of living persons are held to a much higher standard and and Wikipedia has a policy to immediately "remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material". Please take a closer look at WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS for more information. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 23:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Why?

Why did you delete my page? I don't mean to come across as extremely angry but, seriously? No one takes wikipedia seriously but unfortunatley people like me write random things as practical jokes. I was going to delete it but I wanted to show the person I wrote it about how much we cared. 12 seconds after i published it!!! Damn you are good at finding spam!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle f m. (talkcontribs) 00:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Allied Artists International

Namaste, Tom. I wonder if you would consider unprotecting this article now that one of the parties responsible for the edit war has been indefinitely blocked? It is rather undesirable that an article be protected while at AfD, as it prevents editors from bringing it up to a salvagable quality. Mahalo,  Skomorokh, barbarian  12:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 13:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much, I'll keep the article and AfD watchlisted in case of further disruption. Cheers,  Skomorokh, barbarian  13:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Questioning your labelling my edit as vandalism

I fail to see how reverting edits of the George R. R. Martin article where the previous edits by 81.109.90.16, inserted opinion, not fact, into the article is vandalism. The edit I was reverting, that the author is 'extremely slow' is not fact but unsourced opinion. Thankfully another has made the correction again.Caidh (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

My appologes. I've already undone self. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 23:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
No worries - I just saw that. Thanks!Caidh (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-10-21/History of terrorism

Hello Tom, I've decided to take on this case now that my months-long LaRouche mediation attempt went down in flames. If you have any suggestions, ideas, or questions feel free to leave them at my talk page. My plan on looking this over is to first figure out exactly who will be involved in the dispute (there are many editors listed on the case page, some of whom are blocked and/or inactive). I'll then try to summarize and organize the disputed points, and attempt to engage the involved parties in a dialog, with some rules (focus on the content, not contributors, etc.). Hopefully a compromise can be reached at the article. I'm planning on having the debate itself take place on the talk page of the article. Thank you. -- Atama 01:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking this on. I have no personal interest in the article, but saw that it seemed in need of a moderator. It may just be a matter of getting someone to propose a consensus statement that (hopefully) most of the involved and interested editors can support. Having that consensus clearly documented should resolve the problem. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

More vandalism

Our blocked friebnd has renewed the IP> Can someone just do the intelligent thing and do a semi protect to stop the shit? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If you are referring to Chaco Culture National Historical Park, that is a featured article for the day. Those are only protected in cases of very extreme vandalism, but I do not think it has reached that level yet. For now, we just watch and revert. Your efforts are appreciated though. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 04:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I count at least 12 vanalisms today only. How long until an admin takes a finger from their ass or leaves the circle jerk to take care of the problem? It wastes eveyones time who has to revert and go back and continue changing it. 12 times in one day is extreme.

wp:Ignore seems to be a self explanatory thing but no one seems to remember it when they plead policy...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Please be WP:CIVIL and cut the insults. If it was up to me, I'd take the easy way out and protect, but long standing consensus is to leave it open. Perhaps to attract new editors. As for wp:Ignore, today's page isn't being hit much more than past featured articles, so there in not presently a justification to ignore the rules at this time. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 04:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Now if I had said take your finger out your ass and leave the circle jerk civil might apply. As it is I didn't direct it at any specific person so if you feel guilty by that sorry. I do however maintain someone neds to do it, It's a complete waste of time to continue the shit when you can stop it at anytime. Unfortunately you as an admin are contributing to the problem by not doing something about it, especially when you do have authority to do it through policy. Sure seems like you're taking the easy way out by not doing it... Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

64.228.129.62

64.228.129.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) should be blocked for at least a month and you should disable talk page editing. It never turns out well with this vandal.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If this is a recurring incident but the IP has no prior history, this likely means that the IP is dynamic and a longer block will have little long-term effect. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 05:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
It will prevent him from returning on the same IP. Blocks of a week or less in length, he will wait it out and edit from the IP again. Blocking him on this IP will force him to change IPs and allow me to get more evidence to get his subscription removed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
And at least disable talk page editing. He may realize the string that is preventing him from putting a screed on articles that is blocked by edit filter #213.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I increased the block scope and duration. I did see come repeat use of at least one other IP address. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 05:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnard College

Just curious why you protected Barnard College instead of blocking the one editor that has reverted the article 7+ times today in clear violation of the consensus established among the other editors. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd likewise throw my $0.02 in that the article would be better served by blocking the offending editor and taking advantage of other experienced editors' attention to allow them to improve it in light of the many relevant and important sources brought to light during discussion. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Database query

I am interested in working to align date formats within articles, but I currently have no way of finding these without clicking on random articles, and even so, they are easily missed if the page is large. Would it be possible to extract a database dump of all articles with a mixture of mdy and dmy date formats (excluding yyyy-mm-dd) for me, please? Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It is possible, but it will take me a while. Ping me in a week if you don't hear back by then. I assume you just need a list of articles. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 22:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, 'just' a list will do. I say just because I know it will amount to a huge file size. ;-) Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I've completed my scan and identified 50,000+ articles with an apparent mix of day-month and month-day dates. Let me know how you would like me to transfer the list. I can upload it to user space, but will likely need to do so in chunks due to its size. 1.4MB text, 455KB zipped, 396KB rar'ed. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 04:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Tom. could I ask you to post them at Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/List of articles with potential issues post Dynamic Dates, please? Maybe 5 thousand per article? I have created new links at the bottom. Or if you're too busy, then just email to me at Ohconfucius at hotmail. BTW, how's the work on recoding the bot going? Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
BTW, I trust the list is unicode. Otherwise, some of the foreign language characters will look a mess. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
51876 article names have been uploaded and yes unicode has been preserved. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 05:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
To clarify, this scan was not limited to linked dates and did not require the presence of a year part. Any month name or abbreviation adjacent to a one or two digit integer or ordinal was considered a month & day pair. The presence of both a month-day pair and a day-month pair qualified the article. I updated the lead-in in WP:Date formatting and linking poll/List of articles with potential issues post Dynamic Dates to reflect this. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 05:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Great work! I didn't think it could be done (unlinked dates, that is). That will keep me out of mischief for a while ;-) Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
FYI - The regular expression used for the AWB database scan was essentially "month day.*day month|day month.*month day", where "day" is one or two digits plus an optional ordinal suffix. More specifically,
\b(?:Jan(?:uary)?|Feb(?:ruary)?|Mar(?:ch)?|Apr(?:il)?|May|June?|July?|Aug(?:ust)?|Sep(?:tember)?|Oct(?:ober)?|Nov(?:ember)?|Dec(?:ember)?)[ _]\d{1,2}(?:st|nd|rd|th|)\b.*\b\d{1,2}(?:st|nd|rd|th|)[ _](?:Jan(?:uary)?|Feb(?:ruary)?|Mar(?:ch)?|Apr(?:il)?|May|June?|July?|Aug(?:ust)?|Sep(?:tember)?|Oct(?:ober)?|Nov(?:ember)?|Dec(?:ember)?)\b|\b\d{1,2}(?:st|nd|rd|th|)[ _](?:Jan(?:uary)?|Feb(?:ruary)?|Mar(?:ch)?|Apr(?:il)?|May|June?|July?|Aug(?:ust)?|Sep(?:tember)?|Oct(?:ober)?|Nov(?:ember)?|Dec(?:ember)?)\b.*\b(?:Jan(?:uary)?|Feb(?:ruary)?|Mar(?:ch)?|Apr(?:il)?|May|June?|July?|Aug(?:ust)?|Sep(?:tember)?|Oct(?:ober)?|Nov(?:ember)?|Dec(?:ember)?)[ _]\d{1,2}(?:st|nd|rd|th|)\b
To more closely examine the dates of a particular article, you can paste the edit window contents into the AWB regex tester (or equivalent) and use the following expression to identify all likely day-month or month-day pairs.
\b(?:Jan(?:uary)?|Feb(?:ruary)?|Mar(?:ch)?|Apr(?:il)?|May|June?|July?|Aug(?:ust)?|Sep(?:tember)?|Oct(?:ober)?|Nov(?:ember)?|Dec(?:ember)?)[ _]\d{1,2}(?:st|nd|rd|th|)\b|\b\d{1,2}(?:st|nd|rd|th|)[ _](?:Jan(?:uary)?|Feb(?:ruary)?|Mar(?:ch)?|Apr(?:il)?|May|June?|July?|Aug(?:ust)?|Sep(?:tember)?|Oct(?:ober)?|Nov(?:ember)?|Dec(?:ember)?)\b
The above expressions are best copied from edit window, and the ignore-case option should be used for both. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 05:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, what's the code to 'Mark edit as minor' for such a script? also to insert some text automatically to the bottom? Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to the full date unlinking bot or to AWB or some other tool? AWB has a menu option to "mark all as minor. Wikipedia user account preferences have a similar option under the Editing preferences. I'm not sure what it takes to automatically append text to a page. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib
Sorry I wasn't clear. I have a few lines of code in my monobook (from a script by Lightmouse) which I use to automatically insert an edit summary: 'function edit_summary()' or somesuch. To save me typing {{use dmy dates}} or {{use mdy dates}} each time, and so as not to annoy people by having the template at the top, I would like to build that into the relevant function to write it as the very last line of the file because it's usually part of the same edit. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Although I've taken a look at Lightmouse's code in the past, I don't have a sufficient knowledge in the techniques used to offer an answer to you're question. If I recall correctly, some of the scripts added menu or sidebar items that could be clicked to trigger a semi-automated edit action. I'm sure that the same techniques could be used to do what you are asking, but I'm not yet at the point where I could write such a script. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 06:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, never mind. Thanks anyhow. Perhaps someone at AWB can help. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

FDUB code

If you have plans to make changes to the unlinking bot before the third trial run, let me know on my talk page. @harej 14:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

work on James's script

Tom, thanks—your work is not going unnoticed! Tony (talk) 05:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the bot has treated articles such as Labour Day. Could be easy to exclude by searching for calendar terms in titles ("day", "week", "month", "year", etc.). But I notice such articles have not been "excluded" here. Thanks. Tony (talk) 14:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Since I'm not handling the article selection logic directly, I moved the above item to User talk:Full-date unlinking bot#Articles such as Labour Day for further discussion. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 20:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

24.1.111.19

Greetings. First of all, thanks for blocking this IP. This editor keeps making the same edits each and every time it's able to do so, adding in speculative movies based on video game properties (many of which haven't been critical successes as games, let alone creating enough buzz to tempt someone to buy the movie rights in a genre that has produced very few hits). During the blocks, the user appears to be prepping for more disruption by adding items to their talk page.

My question to you is this. Is it your opinion that an attempt should be made to try and dissuade the user from making these edits, or should we simply let them disrupt, then revert and block again? Let me know what you think, and thanks again.

--McDoobAU93 (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I see that the user has posted similar information to their talk page, which leads me to suspect that they are working from a list of undetermined origin. I think it would be a good idea to contact that user on their talk page and ask where the information is coming from. That may lead to some coaching on WP:verifiability, WP:Reliable sources, or WP:Crystal. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 21:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello

You might find this interesting. NW (Talk) 14:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I'll take a look. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 16:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
It seems that I have been snared and my imperfection has been revealed by the CSD police. "Captain, your logic was impeccable. We are in grave danger." I shall now carry out my prime directive and exterminate all imperfection. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 07:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Re [16] your opinion matters, at least to me (and perhaps to several others, including at least one other admin, who have also had the displeasure of discovering NEWT the hard way). I'm considering an MfD, particularly given that ArbCom has not specifically sanctioned this project. Thoughts? Opinons? Advice? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 07:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I doubt that an MfD would succeed since I expect the project members would object. I'm thinking about dropping a note on the pump for general discussion though, but will give myself some cool-down time first. It seems to me that it would be more productive if those involved were to focus their energy on sampling the active CSD tags for potential problems and dropping a note to individual editors as needed. Much preferable to creating bait pages and building up a public "look who we caught today" project. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 07:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that your idea would be much better and probably more effective. This very suggestion was made at the project page or perhaps at my AN/I discussion earlier today, can't remember which. Please let me know if you do initiate a pump discussion, I'd like to participate in that. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 07:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NEWT

I just want to let you know, I sincerely regret the distress my actions with NEWT have caused to you. I was wrong to so publicly single you out like I did. I hope we can put this matter behind us and look forward to working together some time in the future. NW (Talk) 02:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Your comments are appreciated, as are you actions to remove references to individual editors from the NEWT project page. Unfortunately, there still appear to be some on the project that do not share your views. I suspect I would have been much more receptive to constructive criticism had I been notified of the situation in a more personal manner on my talk page, and given a chance to review and respond before the issue was posted to a public forum.
Being a new participant in the CSD process I was consciously attempting to limit my actions to what I considered clear and non-controversial cases. I've reviewed my deletion history for the past month and did not see any cases that stood out as being problems. Of the deleted articles that are currently blue links, it appears that all were either article moves (the deletion making way for the move) or cases where the original article was eventually replaced with a redirect (as is now the case for Matrena balk).
In the case of the Matrena balk article, I am still not convinced that the article "clearly asserted notability". What I saw was an article that asserted that the subject was a relative of an associate of a notable person, which I did not consider to qualify as an assertion of notability by Wikipedia standards. However, I realize that reasonable people can disagree and there may be a subtle but important difference between the concept of notability and an assertion of notability. I suspect that such a question posed to a dozen people outside of the NEWT project might fail to produce a clear consensus answer. At least three other editors agreed with my assessment to delete, but what is unknown is how many other admins examined the CSD nominations and took no action during the time periods between the tagging and deletion actions.
In any case, one thing is clear – it would have been better had I personally contacted the new editor given the question posted on the article's test page, regardless of my opinion on the CSD issue. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Traded Life Policies

Hello. You nominated my entry for Traded Life Policies for speedy deletion due to copywright infringement. I just wanted to check whetherI would be able to repost the article if I removed the offending paragraph? Thanks, AtomicMonarch 14:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomic Monarch (talkcontribs)

Yes, you can recreate the article, but copyright problems in the original version were not limited to a single paragraph. Although the article seems to have been compiled from multiple sources (which is a good thing), nearly all of the excepts I examined each appeared to be verbatim copies of sentences and paragraphs from those sources. When you restart the article, please be sure the content is original writing. Copyright is an area Wikipedia takes very seriously.
We welcome new editors and your contributions are much appreciated, and we hope you will continue to participate in expanding the Wikipedia knowledge base. Good editors are a valuable asset. If you have any further questions or problems, feel free to ask them here, or for a quicker response at the Wikipedia:Help desk. You can also find much useful information on the Wikipedia:Help pages. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Correction on de Clare article

Thank you, Thank you, thank you! Mugginsx (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

As to the defending of the new contributor who might get unduly bitten by the Wikipedia establishmen, I only wished I had seen your page earlier. I would have called upon you help. Mugginsx (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, another major problem seems to be the "Fitz _________". They should always be in lower case, such as fitz Gilbert. Mugginsx (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I changed your comment title to a new section header by surrounding it with "==", as is customary when starting a new topic on a talk page. See Wikipedia:Cheatsheet for other commaon Wikipedia formatting syntax.
As for changing the "Fitz ..." articles, you can be WP:BOLD and do this yourself where you see the need – just add "{{lowercase}}" at the top of the article, as I did here on the de Clare article.. You can serach for articles that start with "Fitz" by clicking on "Special pages" in the left column, then click on "All pages with prefix", type in "fitz" and click the "go" button to get a list of articles. I'd suggest you limit the changes to articles where the lower case "fitz" is clearly present in the article lede, since many names have been Anglicized and are now properly spelled with an upper case "f". Feel free to ask additional questions of on the Wikipedia Help Desk, which may give you a quicker response.. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 22:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your help and all of the important information contained in your response. I will copy to my talk page to memorialize and I will use Wiki Help Desk as well. Once again, thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 10:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NEWT

Thanks very much for your comment and return to NPP. It honestly was never my intention that WP:NEWT involve "marginal situations specifically designed to trip up good-faith volunteers", and I hope you don't regard either of my own articles in that way. In any event, regardless of how we collected that data, there have been a number of WP:NEWT#proposals inspired by these tests and your input on them would be very welcome. ϢereSpielChequers 19:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Avocent protection

Thanks for Protecting Avocent from that guy, but if you track back, he has been doing it to this page for nearly 4 months, i dont think 1 week lockdown will stop him. Perhaps it may be easier to simply just lock the page indefinitely? Since it doesnt see that much in the way of updates, that shouldn't be too much of a problem i suppose - 121.44.244.88 (talk) 09:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Our normal operating procedure is to protect a page in increments of increasing duration if and when vandalism resumes as earlier protections expire. Hopefully at some point the user will lose interest and move on, and the page can return to an open editing state. I realize this can be frustrating, but if everybody had their way, half of Wikipedia would be under indefinite page protection, which would be contrary to the mw:Founding principles. Unfortunately, this means we have to accept and deal with some degree of vandalism. For now, if vandalism resumes after protection expires, just request protection again and the administrator who handles the request should implement a longer duration protect. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 03:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Row/colspan bug

What ever happened to this proposal? Also, have you any idea about possibilities to align text by column (rather than manually setting the align in each field? e.g. here) - aka bugzilla 986 Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)Join WikiProject Athletics! 14:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the table sorting code is part of the wikibits.js (javascript) module which is part of the Mediawiki distribution,so this needs to go through the Mediawiki development team to get implemented. Instructions on in Mediawiki site direct new developers to contact one of the lead developers. I posted a note, but never received a response. At the time, there were some other proposed changes to the table generating code to support THEAD, TBODY, and TFOOT elements which would likely impact what I wrote, so I figured I'd wait to see what changed. I later got sidetracked and didn't follow up. I'll revisit the state of things and make another attempt at contacting the development group.
Aligning text by columns sounds like a great idea, but would probably need to be implemented as part of the core Mediawiki table processing, with some enhancements to the table syntax. A javascript solution would break the page for devices that do not implement javascript. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Negative integer sorting

Hi Tcncv. I remember reading somewhere that you had managed to make negative numbers sort correctly in tables. If possible, could you to apply your fix to the negative number at List of Minnesota Vikings starting quarterbacks#Statistics (bottom row, fourth column from the right)? Thanks in advance, Dabomb87 (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I see. So there's no way to sort using the minus sign? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Hello Dabomb87. In this case, the fix was straightforward. Changing the minus-3 to a hyphen-3 fixed the sort. Although the minus sign (&minus;) is typographically more correct, the javascript used to implement table sorting only recognizes the hyphen. I had done some work in the past on a possible upgrade to the {{nts}} template to allow negative numbers, but that does not apply here. Recognizing the minus sign might be worth including in a future table sorting enhancement though. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, thank you. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Babylonia

Hi there! I just want to say thanks for semi-protecting this article. It's been the scene of growing amounts of IP vandalism for a while now, so a semi-protection certainly was necessary. Happy editing! Laurinavicius (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 03:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Budd BB-1 Pioneer

I just added a Link because the Guy that designed the Budd BB-1 Pioneer was italian american as it is easily demonstrable if you read about him —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altes2009 (talkcontribs) 00:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added a follow-up comment on your talk page. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Mario Biaggi

Rrburke seems to have an obsession with this user and undoing all of his edits, including the ones that are documented. If you want to ask for additional sourcing, that's fine, but undoing everything in one great swoop and then threatening him to have him blocked is over the line.

The user makes a great point. What does RrBurke know about NYC politics, which the user (and I) know a lot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackJackMulligan (talkcontribs) 21:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I suspect that RrBurke may not know NYC politics, but is familiar with Wikipedia policies on reliable sources which are especially important in cases of WP:biographies of living persons, which qualifies him to make judgments in such matters. I might disagree with some of the actions, but reasonable people can disagree. If you also disagree, I suggest opening a calm dialog on RrBurke's talk page of the talk pages for the articles in question asking for clarification and possibly asking for advice. A polite tone is much more likely to receive a positive response than one that starts with an accusation. One of the problems with this recent note by 69.126.242.217 was the tone and name calling ("thugs"). That is likely why RrBurke simply deleted it and the previous post without responding. (Personally, I would have preferred to see a more positive response.)
If you find that you are not making progress resolving this on the talk pages, to can take the topic to the Administrators' noticeboard and ask that the the situation be independently reviewed. Again, you will have the best chance of receiving a helpful response if you state you case in a calm and polite manner, and avoid name calling. (You might also review the policy on WP:Wikihounding, which discusses the topic of tracking another editor's history.)
On a separate topic: Based on the WP:DUCK test, I would assume that you and 69.126.242.217 (talk) are one in the same. If you are not the same, you can ignore this note. However, if you are the same, I should caution you that you are on thin ice. It is okay to switch from editing anonymously to editing as a registered user, but to edit using multiple identities in a deceptive manner is considered sock puppetry and can lead to permanent suspension of editing privileges.

Unlinking bot

I am aware that writing code for Maxlag, as well as gaining approval from BAG both take time. However, it seems that pleas on the talk page to apply for maxlag are falling on deaf ears. I am slightly concerned because, whilst not complaining about the current work-rate, the action of letting two bots run at a collective 10/12 edits per minute may be in breach of the authorisation by BAG, and may be seized by opponents of delinking (I note they have not disappeared) to "spanner" the progress. As it seems that the main concern of BAG is not to affect server load, applying to uncap the bot speed whilst subjecting it to 'MAXLAG' is a more sensible way to go. What do you think? Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that the bot is now processing steadily at roughly 600 edit per hour or 15,000 per day. I don't know if the 10,000-per-day limit was mandated or was just a target. I could not find a specific reference. As to implementing Maxlag, that's not my area of expertise. I contributed the regular expression search and replace logic, but harej (talk · contribs) maintains and operates the overall bot. I suspect that he might need help implementing Maxlag, if he has not done so before. If you know of someone familiar with other bots that implement Maxlag, I suggest you pass that information on to harej. As for running two bots simultaneously, I don't understand the advantage over tweaking the timing for a single bot. I probably would have recommended against it, but it was implemented before I even knew about it. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The 6-7 epm instruction probably came from here. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Googling wikipedia gives these. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: your message

Hi, Tom. Thanks for your note. Um, Quack indeed.

I agree that Huggle sometimes has the unfortunate effect of blasting a whole series of edits when only a one is problematic. That's why I have returned to this editor's contributions in order to disentangle which material is backed up by reliable sources and which is not. For example, in this instance I left intact the assertion that Governor Carey had kept the growth of government spending below the rate of inflation because that information is explicitly contained in the source. But I removed the rest because it greatly exceeded what what claimed in this (single) source. Specifically:

a) the source itself did not say the Governor Carey was "widely credited" with controlling state spending
b) being praised in a single article in a publication with a decided political slant does not constitute being "widely credited"

Another passage contained the ludicrous claim that this article, published the year before Pataki became Governor, contrasted Governor Carey's thrift with Governor Pataki's extravagance. Clearly, this is a comparison the editor himself would like to draw, but it doesn't occur anywhere in the source. (It couldn't). I left what was justified by the source and took out what wasn't. The editor or his alter ego restored the balance of the material with a knee-jerk reversion without adding any sources that would justify it.

I have also revisited this editor's other contributions, not as harassment, but because I have found that when an editor reacts defensively to being asked to observe a core policy, reviewing the editor's other contributions nearly always reveals repeated violations of the policy he or she so resents being reminded of. Such, in fact, turned out to be the case with this user, who has repeatedly added (and later re-added, even after being cautioned) material -- on some occasions, negative material about a living person -- without citing a reliable source, citing sources as the basis for claims not actually occurring in the source cited, or, frequently, without citing any source at all: [17][18][19][20][21][22]. I removed the material not accompanied by a reference to a reliable source[23]. The user and his alter ego restored most of it without improving the sourcing.

Please see Talk:Roy M. Goodman for a sample of the kind of material I removed and for my rationale for doing so.

--Rrburke(talk) 17:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Rrburke's changes

The purpose of Wikipedia is to allow users to gradually expand articles, especially short or stub ones. All the additions have been made in good faith. Even when citations are supplied, Rrburke still isn't satisfied.

He also shown himself to be hypocritical. The Roy M. Goodman STILL article contains unsourced material such as that he is considered "the statesman of the Senate" and that he is a liberal Rockefeller Republican. Why didn't he take this out? The section about his role as NY County GOP Chairman contains links to other Wikipedia entries. Two NYT articles were cited that prove the Rolodex story, but he still isn't satisfied.

The Hugh L. Carey still has unsourced material about him opposing the death penalty. Why didn't he take out more material?

Since Rrburke lives in Canada and has no knowledge of local NYC politics, why is he preventing the good faith expansion of articles in those areas?

The entry for "The Legend of Billie Jean" (1985) contains NO citations at all. So shouldn't the whole article be scrapped?

What he is doing is harrassing other users and discouraging ordinary people from making contributions especially the minor ones which millions of people do everyday. BlackJackMulligan (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

From WP:Verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". The fact that Wikipedia has accumulated (and continues to accumulate) much information that lacks proper sources is actually a problem and should not be considered the accepted norm. Ideally, everything added should be supported by a verifiable reliable source, but the reality is that we have many more contributing editors than recent-changes patrollers, so not everything that is added satisfies that standard. That editors like Rrburke take the time to review the sources to pick out what is verifiable and what is not should be applauded, not criticized.
Although the initial reverts of your material may have removed a mix of sourced and unsourced information, I believe Rrburke has exercised due diligence to take a closer look at the content and sources to pick out information that is backed by the cited references. If you disagree and believe other facts are supported and should be included, I suggest you start one or more discussion items on the article's talk page that clearly identifies the fact in question and its source. This is part of the Wikipedia bold, revert, and discuss cycle.
As for the other examples that you cite – yes, they slipped through the net. However, since the information has been present and unchallenged for extended period, out policy is to preserve that content, to find sources if possible, and to mark it with a "citation needed" tag if no source is immediately found. The information in question may later be removed if the "citation needed" condition remains unresolved. (The key difference between old and new content is that the editor contributing new content is immediately available and should be able to provide a proper source when asked.) Wikipedia has a number of editors who focus their efforts on improving existing articles by finding sources, removing unverifiable claims and opinions, and make numerous other improvements with the goal of raising the article to a good article status. In the case of biographies of living persons, the standard of inclusion is much more strict. Any unsourced-controversial or disputed information should be immediately removed and may only be added back in when it can be backed by a reliable source.
Your efforts to contribute are appreciated, and I hope you will continue keeping the above guidelines in mind. And yes, you will likely find other cases where you disagree with other editors. The key is to respect other's opinions and use the various forms of dispute resolution to seek common ground. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Thank you for protecting those user pages. My rollback finger was getting sore and that IP hopping vandal seems to be very bored. Wperdue (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 05:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

I believe a thank you is in order for protecting my talk page. I had no idea that was happening until I looked at wp:rpp and the history! :| Insane trolling o.O Well thanks Tom (you too?) lol --Tom A8UDI 16:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

PS- have you considered archiving this soon? ;) A8UDI 17:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

no thanks

Ah no ur grand actually!! brian moore (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident

This looks like a 3-day edit protection although you report it here as a 7-day protection at WP:RFPP.

Speaking from past experience, I think a week might be better, but of course it's up to you. Thanks for protecting it. Things were getting messy. --TS 02:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the discrepancy. I was on the fence between a three or seven day protect on this and apparently came down on both sides. I have bumped up the full-protection to seven days. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 03:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of word 'refutation' in climategate page

Hi

You have locked this page for editing.

Could you please correct the error in the use of the word 'refutation'.

The text states that 'prompt refutations were issued'.

To refute means to disprove.

In point of fact the questions of what is alleged in Climategate are still under investigation and therefore cannot be said to be refuted.

The use of the word 'refute' is frequently used when a person accused of something wishes to deny the charge, but also wishes to seem more authoritative than would be the case with a simple denial.

I believe that to be the case in this instance which in addition to being an error of fact makes it an error of NPOV.

Please adjust the wording to be:

'prompt denials were issued'

Which is both correct and NPOV.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.79.176 (talk) 06:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the requested change has already been addressed in Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident#Denial is not refutation, which is the proper forum for such a request. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 23:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

protect Macbeth?

Hi

(Please reply here, I prefer a conversation be all on one page. Thanks.)

I just noticed you protected Charles Dickens.

Macbeth has been see a lot of vandalism lately too. Several attacks a day for at least the last week. Could you protect it as well? Thanks either way Lentower (talk) 00:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The normal channel for such request is via Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I have documented the request there and have semi-protected the page for three days. Although this seems like a short time, our policy is to add protection incrementally if vandalism resumes. If you see aditional valdalism activity after the current protection expires, you may submit another request at the above linked page, and another administrator will likely institute a longer block. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for both the protection, and the info on how to ask in the future. Lentower (talk) 03:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Dates

Thanks for the note, the bureaucracy always takes a while to catch up.

The AWB settings are available at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Settings. They are not perfect. Rich Farmbrough, 06:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC).

No it is just (hastily assembled) regex. You can do a lot with regex if you are determined, in the past I implemented a limited integer arithmetic to calculate ISBN checksums, that code is sadly lost. Rich Farmbrough, 06:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC).

Delinking code

I don't know what you're after specifically in terms of AWB code, but I trust you are aware of the code written by Lightmouse (here). In the meantime, have an excellent Christmas! Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

"SonicFan" block

Hi! I blocked it because of the possibility of compromise. The last edit was an "article" which merely echoed the title. I can unblock it in the hopes that everything's OK with the account. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 21:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that last (now deleted) edit did seem questionable. I suspect that earlier edit was a prank by someone else than the registered user (roommate, amily, or friend(?)) who had access to the computer. It's up to you. The user can always appeal. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 21:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

MrSkaloon block

Could you leave a standard block template on user talk:MrSkaloon. I was actually looking through his contribs when he was blocked and suspect hijacking. Off course, the block was justified, but I would give a chance for unblock. Materialscientist (talk) 02:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Just did. I was investigating the discrepancy between past and present behavior an came to the same conclusion. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

SBS Troll

If they're not vandalism, are they sockpuppetry? This guy has been doing this garbage since October (hell, since 2008 if the others in the image's revision history are the same person). He has persistently refused to listen to how he has to go about dealing with copyright issues, instead choosing to blank the image dozens of times. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 19:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. I looked further into the history and see that there was some earlier discussion here that the user participated in. Since the user has been informed of policy and continues their edits, I will add the protection. I will also link that discussion for the copyright review. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 19:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. This guy gets more on my nerves than any other user I've yet encountered. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 19:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Understand. I've protected the image page for two weeks. I know this might be insufficient. If the user resumes the disruptive editing after the protection expires, please re-report it and another admin will likely protect it for a longer period. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 19:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, I will. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 19:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)